Myanmar burns confiscated drugs worth around $300 million
Officials in Myanmar's major cities destroyed about $300 million worth of confiscated illegal drugs Thursday.
The destroyed drugs included opium, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, ketamine and the stimulant known as ice, or crystal meth, Yangon Police Brig. Gen. Sein Lwin said in a speech at a drug-burning ceremony.
The drug burnings came nearly a month after UN experts warned of unprecedented levels of methamphetamine production and trafficking from Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle region, where the borders of Myanmar, Laos and Thailand meet, and Myanmar's eastern Shan State in particular.
The production of opium and heroin historically flourished there, largely because of the lawlessness in border areas where Myanmar's central government has been able to exercise only minimum control over various ethnic minority militias, some of them partners in the drug trade.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said in a May report that the political crisis across the country after the military takeover in 2021 — which led to a civil war — has turbocharged growth of the methamphetamine trade.
In the country's biggest city, Yangon, a massive pile of drugs worth more than $117 million went up in a blaze, Sein Lwin said.
Similar events to mark the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking also occurred in the country's second-largest city of Mandalay, and in Taunggyi, the capital of eastern Myanmar's Shan state, all areas close to where the drugs are produced.
A police official from the capital Naypyitaw told The Associated Press that the substances burned in three locations were worth $297.95 million. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not yet been publicly announced.
Myanmar has a long history of drug production linked to political and economic insecurity caused by decades of armed conflict. It has been a major source of illegal drugs destined for East and Southeast Asia, despite repeated efforts to crack down.
That has led the flow of drugs to surge 'across not only East and Southeast Asia, but also increasingly into South Asia, in particular Northeast India,' the UN said last month. Drugs are increasingly trafficked from Myanmar to Cambodia, mostly through Laos, as well as through maritime routes linking Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, with Sabah in Malaysia serving as a key transit hub, it added.
The UN agency labeled Myanmar in 2023 as the world's largest opium producer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Iran could again enrich uranium 'in matter of months': IAEA chief
UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi says Iran likely will be able to begin to produce enriched uranium "in a matter of months," despite damage to several nuclear facilities from U.S. and Israeli attacks, CBS News said Saturday (June 28, 2025). Israel launched a bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear and military sites on June 13, saying it was aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- an ambition the Islamic republic has consistently denied. The United States subsequently bombed three key facilities used for Tehran's atomic program. Also Read | What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran? | Explained Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the extent of the damage to the nuclear sites is "serious," but the details are unknown. U.S. President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear program had been set back "decades." But Mr. Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said "some is still standing." "They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that," Grossi said Friday, according to a transcript of the interview released Saturday. Another key question is whether Iran was able to relocate some or all of its estimated 408.6-kilo (900-pound) stockpile of highly enriched uranium before the attacks. The uranium in question is enriched to 60 percent -- above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs. Grossi admitted to CBS: "We don't know where this material could be." "So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification," he said in the interview. For now, Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA and Tehran rejected Grossi's request for a visit to the damaged sites, especially Fordo, the main uranium enrichment facility. "We need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened," Mr. Grossi said. In a separate interview with Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures" program, Mr. Trump said he did not think the stockpile had been moved. "It's a very hard thing to do plus we didn't give much notice," he said, according to excerpts of the interview. "They didn't move anything." U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday underscored Washington's support for "the IAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran," commending Mr. Grossi and his agency for their "dedication and professionalism."
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran could again enrich uranium 'in matter of months': IAEA chief
UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi says Iran likely will be able to begin to produce enriched uranium "in a matter of months," despite damage to several nuclear facilities from US and Israeli attacks, CBS News said Saturday. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said Iranian nuclear facilities might be "still standing" after US President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear program had been set back "decades."(File/Reuters) Israel launched a bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear and military sites on June 13, saying it was aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- an ambition the Islamic republic has consistently denied. The United States subsequently bombed three key facilities used for Tehran's atomic program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the extent of the damage to the nuclear sites is "serious," but the details are unknown. US President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear program had been set back "decades." But Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said "some is still standing." "They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that," Grossi said Friday, according to a transcript of the interview released Saturday. Another key question is whether Iran was able to relocate some or all of its estimated 408.6-kilo (900-pound) stockpile of highly enriched uranium before the attacks. The uranium in question is enriched to 60 percent -- above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs. Grossi admitted to CBS: "We don't know where this material could be." "So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification," he said in the interview. For now, Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA and Tehran rejected Grossi's request for a visit to the damaged sites, especially Fordo, the main uranium enrichment facility. "We need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened," Grossi said. In a separate interview with Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures" program, Trump said he did not think the stockpile had been moved. "It's a very hard thing to do plus we didn't give much notice," he said, according to excerpts of the interview. "They didn't move anything." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday underscored Washington's support for "the IAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran," commending Grossi and his agency for their "dedication and professionalism." The full Grossi interview will air on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Sunday.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
