Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFears for the World's Poor Countries as the Rich Grab Land to Grow Food
• UN sounds warning after 30m hectares bought up • G8 leaders to discuss 'neo-colonialism'
The acquisition of farmland from the world's poor by rich countries and international corporations is accelerating at an alarming rate, with an area half the size of Europe's farmland targeted in the last six months, reports from UN officials and agriculture experts say.
![[Farms in Kenya have been subcontracted for foreign produce. Photograph: Tony Karumba/AFP/Getty]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/landgrabbing.jpg "landgrabbing.jpg")
New reports from the UN and analysts in India, Washington and London estimate that at least 30m hectares is being acquired to grow food for countries such as China and the Gulf states who cannot produce enough for their populations. According to the UN, the trend is accelerating and could severely impair the ability of poor countries to feed themselves.
Today it emerged that world leaders are to discuss what is being described as "land grabbing" or "neo-colonialism" at the G8 meeting next week. A spokesman for Japan's ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it would raise the issue: "We feel there should be a code of conduct for investment in farmland that will be a win-win situation for both producing and consuming countries," he said.
Olivier De Schutter, special envoy for food at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: "[The trend] is accelerating quickly. All countries observe each other and when one sees others buying land it does the same."
The UN's food and agricultural organization and other analysts estimate that nearly 20m hectares (50m acres) of farmland - an area roughly half the size of all arable land in Europe - has been sold or has been negotiated for sale or lease in the last six months. Around 10m hectares was bought last year. The land grab is being blamed on wealthy countries with concerns about food security.
Some of the largest deals include South Korea's acquisition of 700,000ha in Sudan, and Saudi Arabia's purchase of 500,000ha in Tanzania. The Democratic Republic of the Congo expects to shortly conclude an 8m-hectare deal with a group of South African businesses to grow maize and soya beans as well as poultry and dairy farming.
India has lent money to 80 companies to buy 350,000ha in Africa. At least six countries are known to have bought large landholdings in Sudan, one of the least food-secure countries in the world.
Other countries that have acquired land in the last year include the Gulf states, Sweden, China and Libya. Those targeted include not only fertile countries such as Brazil, Russia and Ukraine, but also poor countries like Cameroon, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Zambia.
De Schutter said that after the food crisis of 2008, many countries found food imports hit their balance of payments, "so now they want to insure themselves".
"This is speculation, betting on future prices. What we see now is that countries have lost trust in the international market. We know volatility will increase in the next few years. Land prices will continue to rise. Many deals are even now being negotiated. Not all are complete yet."
He said that about one-fifth of the land deals were expected to grow biofuel crops. "But it is impossible to know with certainty because declarations are not made as to what crops will be grown," he said.
Some of the world's largest food, financial and car companies have invested in land.
Alpcot Agro of Sweden bought 120,000ha in Russia, South Korea's Hyundai has paid $6.5m (£4m) for a majority stake in Khorol Zerno, which owns 10,000ha in Eastern Siberia, while Morgan Stanley has bought 40,000ha in Ukraine. Last year South Korea's Daewoo signed a 99-year lease for 1.3m hectares of agricultural land in Madagascar.
Devinder Sharma, analyst with the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in India, predicted civil unrest.
"Outsourcing food production will ensure food security for investing countries but would leave behind a trail of hunger, starvation and food scarcities for local populations," he said. "The environmental tab of highly intensive farming - devastated soils, dry aquifer, and ruined ecology from chemical infestation - will be left for the host country to pick up."
In Madagascar, the Daewoo agreement was seen as a factor in the subsequent uprising that led to the ousting of the president, Marc Ravalomanana. His replacement, Andry Rajoelina, immediately moved to repeal the deal.
Concern is mounting because much of the land has been targeted for its good water supplies and proximity to ports. According to a report last month by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development, the land deals "create risks and opportunities".
"Increased investment may bring benefits such as GDP growth and improved government revenues, and may create opportunities for economic development and livelihood improvement. But they may result in local people losing access to the resources on which they depend for their food security - particularly as some key recipient countries are themselves faced with food security challenges", said the authors.
According to a US-based thinktank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, nearly $20bn to $30bn a year is being spent by rich countries on land in developing countries.
45 Comments so far
Show AllThe photo shows the hand of an African farmer tending to a plant. It's nice to see that some of the ex-colonial masters have evolved from a time where men, women and children had their hands chopped off if they didn't meet their quota of work for their masters or soldiers would chop off the hands of people as proof that they had indeed killed the 'rebels'. Though the case of Leopold II of Belgium in Congo might be an extreme case of colonial barbarity, other colonial masters were different only in degree. All in all, it seems that people do change...?
As someone who has grown increasingly suspicious of the motives behind such stories, here's my take:
This is nothing more than an alarmist view and shedding of crocodile tears for the poor (!) by the 'traditionally' rich countries - all of whom experienced their growth due to colonial acquisition and plunder.
First of all, what these countries that are blamed for "land grab" (!) are doing is perfectly legal, whichever way you look at it. How is a British company acquiring oil drilling or other mining rights in Africa, or an American or a European company doing the same in Canada different from a Korea or an India leasing land for their food requirements in other countries? Oh wait! The former countries are all white, and respectable. And now these wannabe countries want to do the same? Some nerve they have!
The article says, "Concern is mounting because much of the land has been targeted for its good water supplies and proximity to ports." Ah ha! When the 'traditional' biggies have all multinational corporations that are on their way to controlling every square inch of the planet one way or the other, these uppity group of countries think they can buy up (or, more like lease) land that should rightfully belong to the colonial masters? How dare they!
And, in the process of leasing these lands, they are also getting rid of some of their US dollar reserves. And their future purchases on the international market will probably use less of the dollar, if they are allowed to continue.
The last time around, when the western bankers gambled on food grain prices and ran up the prices, it was blamed on the Indians and Chinese eating more (how dare they, once again!)
The basic fact is that western companies cannot compete on a level-playing field where the rules are the same for everyone. Once they see their advantage go down, they would want to change the rules. Wait till you see a proper carbon tax or cap-and-trade legislation pass in the U.S - there will be 'carbon tariffs' imposed on imports the next day (which, from an environmental and local jobs points of view, I support, while still pointing out the historical hypocrisy).
That said, I still feel that it is not good for countries to acquire land in other countries without reducing their own consumption first. That's an avoidable increase of a nation's ecological footprint. At least in the case of India (which used to be self-sufficient in food production until less than a decade ago), I would say that the people must go back to their socialist beginnings (post-independence), address inequalities in land distribution, remove corruption from public life, and most of all, stick to a vegetarian or a vegan diet - they might be able to manage with what they have, despite a population of a billion people.
What's legal got to do with ethics? And legal where, according to whom? The slave trade was legal to the slavers.
"it is not good for countries to acquire land in other countries without reducing their own consumption first."
But of course they're investing to increase their own consumption, not decrease it.
>>>bardamu wrote: But of course they're investing to increase their own consumption, not decrease it.
That was my point too. I was arguing on two fronts - on the one side, pointing out the hypocrisy of westerners suddenly concerned about the "ethics" of acquiring land in foreign countries - especially by non-white countries. Nobody talked about western corporations holding vast areas of land for various plantations in other countries for decades now. This is the same as pointing to developing nations contributing to global warming - which they do, but their share historically has been much smaller. On the other hand, though I didn't elaborate, I did say that countries must first reduce their consumption and not increase their footprint - something that the European conquerors and settlers never did.
This underscores the value of permaculture.
We need to learn, do and teach permaculture. The more people involved in permaculture, the better our food security and the less food will need to be imported.
If enough people in rich countries are doing backyard and balcony permaculture, then there won't be nearly the pressure to keep the supermarkets stocked with food grown in far away lands.
This land grab is demand driven. Lessen the demand and less people in the 3rd world will have to starve as their farmlands are taken away from them.
Which leads to taking permaculture to the 3rd world...
(to be continued)
ezeflyer:
He or she was responding to a post by JenniferBedingfield, btw.
Quoting ezeflyer: "P.S. Let's see some links on where you got that "This planet is capable of feeding up to 9 billion people properly""
The high number is not the problem. It's our destructive, ... ways that are cause harm, environment, social, socio-economic, ... harm.
That's not to say that we should reproduce like armies of ants, or rabbits, for we shouldn't. But Earth can suppport 9bn people. I'd recommend that we try not to increase this number, negligently, hastily, ..., but Earth can support 9bn.
How we manage Nature, how we live with and exploit Nature, makes a huge difference, but if it wasn't for our destructively exploitative ways, then Earth could certainly support 9bn people, and more. How many more? I don't know, but if it wasn't for our bad and greedy agri. and other industries, then Earth could support 9bn people.
Before asking how Earth could do or provide for this, try asking how the hell we're going to get the rich pigs to stop f*cking our world. You'll arrive at a real answer neither way, but should start with the latter question, nevertheless. By the time you get that question answered, the rest of us will have already determined that Earth can support 9bn people, and how. But you'll be like Einstein; only learning the critical truth [after the fact].
Einstein would've been better off for humanity if he hadn't lived. "Big names" mean nothing. What people did and do means a whole lot more. Einstein realised the truth too late, but not too late to acknowledge this fact.
Maluchitonians, whatever you call those people? I don't have anything against Maluchs, per se, not having a clue who they are, what they believe, worship, ..... But these people you speak of seem ... strange. If they don't think Earth can support 9bn people, then the Maluchs are damn screwed up.
If you're a materialist, then hey, eze flyer, fly off, make like a fly and buzz out. Cold weather should get ya. If not, then maybe a can of hellbent toxic RAID might. No. Yeah, I hate that stuff too, but you're accustomed to human pesticides, right? After all, you're all for the Big Corp. goons.
No? Okay, how about highly concentrated peppermint? That'll get rid of all bugs; many, anyway.
Don't tell me that peppermint dosn't work. Okay, it doesn't work with you? Then how about cedar or pine oil? Can you stand these wonderful elements? I hope not. You can. Oh, shit.
Can't get on the Huffpost, eh Mike?
"ezeflyer July 4th, 2009 4:21 pm
What? A Malthoosian is today's communist? What's funny about wealthy elites grabbing land?"
NOTHING is funny about that, and I don't think it's what JenniferBedingfield said.
ezeflyer:
"And what people am I blaming."
Why are you asking us? Try asking yourself.
ezeflyer:
"I guess you think that wealthy elites are not people."
I DON'T THINK that's what JenniferBedingfield said.
ezeflyer:
"I may be a Malthusian, but I am in good company."
GOOD FOR YOU, while evidently not for the rest of us.
ezeflyer:
"Many evolutionary biologists read him,[11]notably Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, for each of whom Malthusianism became an intellectual stepping-stone to the idea of natural selection.[12][13"
You should stop this bs worship. I don't know who Wallace was, but Charles Darwin was no great scientist and neither was Einstein. If Einstein, f.e., had been a truly great scientist, then he would have realised [beforehand] that he should not complete the R&D on the atomic theory that was initially established or begun by some woman in the, I believe, 19th century; either 19th or 18th, but think to recall it was 19th. By not completing that R&D, he could have saved the world from a whole hell of a lot of troubles, but he didn't realise this until [after the fact], which helps to illustrate that he wasn't a fast thinker.
Darwin, basically, only came up with a common sense theory. After all, it was either his theory, or that of the Raellians, who didn't exist back then, but that's besides the point, say. Darwin's claim makes more sense; and being compared to the Raellians isn't a complimentary analogy, but Darwin still made more sense. And he and the guy who wrote about Creation in Genesis pretty much align; after all, the latter said Adam was formed from clay or some other Earth elements, while mysoginously claiming that Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs, which was bogus nonsense. Both "scientists" got the Earth elements right, though. The Genesis writer just got the origin of Eve wrong.
Nonetheless, it was common sense. After all, how or where else would we have derived from. We depended on Earth like we were integrated with it, which we are; although we're awfully alienating ourselves, as if we can really do this. We needed water and food, like all other animals. We breathed and walked or crawled and climbed, like other animals. We were very much like other animals, in many ways. There were obvious similarities between us and other animals. Common sense would see this, and other than for fanciful notions like those of the Raellians, we'd naturally come to think that we were formed of the Earth, somehow.
Neither Darwin nor the Genecis guy proposed an exact science, while both pretended much enough in terms of what they thought or deemed, or pretended, was science. They stated much, but not perfect or absolute science. But they both got the Earth elements evidently right and we know this from bio-chemical analysis. We know that our bodies are composed of Earth's elements. Our minds? That's a different matter; but physically, we are composed of Earth's elements. The mind is a "whole other world", and strange they often are.
Darwin was not so dumb as to not recognise that we lived on Earth, that there were other living organisms, that there were similarities between us, and so on. He saw, realised these things, but it's really common sense.
Being capable of writing up an intelligent explanation, however, is probably beyond common sense; well, based on what's evidenced in the "west", anyway. However, being able to recognise the above is common sense. It's just a question of whether we can explain this. He could and that put him a little above mere common sense, but not much above.
Where do we "draw the line"? Darwin explained something very simple, common sense, but most people wouldn't explain or even be capable. What this illustrates is not a man who could see things other people didn't; it illustrates a man being able to see what many other people see, but while also being capable of explaining what's observered and/or believed, or understood, of the observations.
He was "sharp", but not really surprising.
One "sharp" philosopher once said, after pragmatic observation, "Politics is full of hypocrisy", and he was right, an accurate observer, but I'm the only person I know of repeating his words; having learned of them during a year as a seminarian. I don't know what philosopher this was, but he was just an oridinary human being with wits. He was right then, but like I've said often enough, humans haven't really changed; and he remains right ever since. He was right with his observation thousands of years ago and the situation hasn't improved, since.
It'd be great if a good observer wasn't right in a prolonged manner, but he was speaking of human nature. After all, governments, politics, this is all people. Yuck.
The only people who pretend that Earth can't support 9bn humans are with the hypocrites, and they should, ideally, sacrifice selves, to free the rest of us from this plague these other people are.
There ya go, eze'flyer; a quick ticket out.
"JenniferBedingfield July 4th, 2009 3:17 pm
I can see that Malthusians .... This planet is capable of feeding up to 9 billion people properly ..."
I DON'T know anything about Malthusians, but the planet is certainly capable of sustaining 9bn people. We have problems, but being able to sustain 9bn people is certainly something the planet can provide for. We just have to know how to work with Nature, instead of expecting it to always do our bidding.
The Earth can support 9bn people, but can't sustain our destructive greed much longer.
The concept of "too many people" is relative. When you are taking a dump, more than one person in the bathroom is too many. This applies also to the second person who is not engaged in bodily functions but, thanks to their olfactory glands, exits quite rapidly. But all kidding aside, Jennifer is right. I will add that if you want a multimillion dollar life style, one billion people is way too many. With tongue thoroughly in cheek, I propose a solution. Since millionaires have gigantic carbon footprints forcing us to weather intense environmental degradation, we need to find a recipe for eating rich people. They pamper themselves so much, they must be good to eat. I read somewhere that in the cannibals of the south pacific, human flesh was referred to as "long pig" so the rich might make good pork chops.
MENU: WE THE RICH PEOPLE.
You quite literally kill two birds with one stone. We make better use of "exotic" culinary delicacies and, since the average carbon footprint is massively reduced by the elimination of the human plague of "homo richus greedus", we simultaneously vastly improve the environment so it can support a greater population.
You know, Jesus Christ once said that the meek would inherit the earth. Now if that's true, there won't be any rich people around. Have you ever met a meek or humble rich person? Me neither. Maybe, since they have always made us cannon fodder, we will end up making another kind of fodder (tacos) out of them. Now that's real satisfying fodder! Be careful, though. Eating "rich" foods raises your cholesteral level. Perhaps Sara Palim can teach us how to field dress them. Some of them look a lot like moose anyway.
Hey rich folks! Keep up that land grab. We poor folks will be glad to work it and when the time comes, we'll even "have" you (rare, medium or well done) for dinner.
AGG, my dietary preferences are clearly different (I've been practically a vegan for over 20 years now) - so I'll pass on the 'exotic' pork chops. But I agree with the gist of what you say. If you haven't already, do check out the book "How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth" by Hervé Kempf. The scary thing is the elite in developing countries aping the west - in their consumption and lifestyle, and cornering resources within their own countries to supply their lifestyle.
Hervé Kempf points out how whatever the rich do, manages to "trickle down" - so eventually every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to do that. But the rich move on to ever more exotic stuff. I think that is very true, and therefore, scary. These are my own examples: Meat was reserved for special occasions in the past - whereas it's become an item of daily consumption today. But the rich have their caviar and specialty wines. When cars became like an everyday thing, the rich have their yachts. And when anyone can fly in an airplane, the rich have their private jets and are now eying space tourism. It might sound like "progress" - but the losers in all this are the environment and the poor people driven off their lands.
Jonathan Swift proposed this in "A Modest Proposal" long ago.
From national experience, communist China with no rich people decided some years ago that the more people, the less there was to go around. That started their one-child policy.
How dare flat earthers take liberties with our biosphere and the quality of our lives by asserting there is no population problem?
AGG;There is only one problem here and that is that cannibals are known to lose it mentally.Heard about it some years back and the study was done in New Guinea; of course the answer to that is,since they revel in exotic foods it should be right for their facial orifice.The Marx Brothers routine in the potty was LOL funny.Tony
at least 2 more things so far not mentioned- well maybe i mised it- but anyway the world economy is now being run by g8, and mostly u.s. bankers- world, bank, imf, wto- all singing from the bretton woods/washington consensus "free trade" hymn book.this is why resources and money keep flowing South to North. Is this not a world turned upside down? the richest countries constantly extracting money from countries that don't get enough to eat? yes.
Also way too much land is now being used for agrofuels- meaning people in rich countries are in effect stuffing poor people's food into their gas tanks.
Finally, small farmers in the poor world could feed their people if big agra from up north would stop strangling them with "free" trade agreements.
to learn more go see Vandana Shiva
Jeevee
And birth control is a great part of our enormous challenge!!!
Jeevee
Who were the members of that secret, wealthy group, besides one of the Rockefellers who fled to Australia, who decided to aim to produce a world population of only one billion, in order to keep their way of living safe? Does anybody know? Is their wish in action now?If so, please tell the rest of us.
Our great guru tells us that only Truth and Right(eous) Action can bless us with the genuine Love that will reverse the world's spiral into ever greater darkness and which instead will lead us to a Golden Age. "Help ever, hurt never."
I can see that Malthusians laughing and blaming people and not the wealthy elites grabbing land and stuffing us all as the real culprit. I am sick and tired of people making Malthusian arguments of "too many people" as an excuse. This planet is capable of feeding up to 9 billion people properly but thanks to bad policies and religious fundamentalism regardless of religion, we're in a mess.
And why do progressives keep supporting the same UN who's defending Monsanto? How the hell am I and others in St Louis supposed to be able to reign in Monsanto when the UN crushes local rights?
What? A Malthoosian is today's communist? What's funny about wealthy elites grabbing land? And what people am I blaming. I guess you think that wealthy elites are not people. I may be a Malthusian, but I am in good company.
"Many evolutionary biologists read him,[11]notably Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, for each of whom Malthusianism became an intellectual stepping-stone to the idea of natural selection.[12][13"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
P.S. Let's see some links on where you got that "This planet is capable of feeding up to 9 billion people properly"
The Dharma of food in a capitalist global economy is truly revolutionary.Indigenous peoples rights to the means of local production involves decentralization of agriculture.Freedom to farm in sustainable ways with apropriate technology.Community support of local farmers requires providing access to land,water, local markets and necessary credit through micro-loans.The right to farm organicly ,to use the saved seeds of your ancestors sharing heirlooms with your neighbors.Gleaning rights for the landless farm laborer,and freedom from corporate oppression and legal threats.Nedlud I think what you mean is that we are suffering the Karmas which prevent the freedom to establish a global food self sufficiency due to the pressures of 5 decades of "green revolution" corporate agribusiness and the attempt to globalise the world economy by big money interests. As the article states ,rich states imposing as quickstepper mentions plantation colonialism on the developing world.
These rules for living in the way of upholding basic spiritual laws" Dharma",and of "Ahimsa"(right livlihood,non-injury)and consciousness of the source and means of production of what we choose to put in our bodies will make us Neh- Karma or without undue reaction.To encourage these positive changes in the world first we must eat consciously by gardening and supporting our small local farm.Then as a community we join with other conscious consumers to boycott food that oppresses other beings or the planet.Then communities join to form movements to affect nations and nations join to change the world.These steps can cause the revolution in consciousness we need to prevent violent revolutions which rarely result in a victory.
Nedlud can you find 50 subscribers to join with you in a C.S.A. dairy? Maybe you can deal directly with them and eliminate the headaches you have gone through,and the financing.I have friends with raw milk dairies here in the Northeast I can hook you up with .The first C.S.A. in the U.S.A. is a short ride from here in Great Barrington Mass.Anger can be transformed into a great motivator and can evolve into loving passion in time . peas in
Don't sell your country's land!
ducksawce, had it right, the governments nationalize the land and kill any incentive for their people to work it.
NAFTA dumps subsidized food on Mexico and puts farmers out of business.
If we are to do the right thing, we would help impoverished people get the most out of their land.
1 - To feed their country.
2 - To export surplus for profit.
The problem is world wide price fixing! The price varies according to supply and demand AND manipulation of the market by the agricultural giants.
In this day of global communications, I think we could get everybody on the same page and create a stable less wasteful market for food.
WE CAN DO THAT!
But, we would rather let the MSM lullaby us while their owners screw every poor country on earth. I think of the World Bank and the IMF! WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU!
If you had any questions about a good portion of the economic bailout - it is for acquisitions is it not?
This article does not mention REDD - which is also western corporations buying up millions of hectares for "carbon offset".
At the roots of our environmental problems is the spread of the human plague. As it spreads, supply decreases and demand increases with the rising populations. These compete for diminishing resources that concurrently rise in value, in turn bolstering demand and hastening resource disappearance.
As we invade habitats, species diversity diminishes but nature abhors a vacuum and kills off excess humans by way of the conservative animal.
Humane birth control is discouraged ($70/mo. for birth control pills) and bestiality is the accepted conservative method of population control.
Nature balances populations. We are not "man apart". The question is will liberal humanists control our populations or will conservatives continue to do so through blood and suffering?
>>>ezeflyer wrote: Humane birth control is discouraged ($70/mo. for birth control pills) and bestiality is the accepted conservative method of population control.
True. Condoms bad, bombs and starvation good. Sex education bad, abstinence (which doesn't work) good.
Also, the cost of birth control is MUCH LESS THAN $70 per month when a combination of generic drugs and at-cost condoms are used (as is being supplied by government health agencies in certain developing countries). The most effective of all - is educating the girl child. That is, assuming that the religious nuts are kept from interfering in people's choices.
odoco
You won't see the masses begin to move until enough of them have been negatively impacted by the policies now in place; when that does happen, you will see the powerbrokers 'buy off' selected segments of the population, keep them well fed and housed, give them special privileges, delude them into believing their interests are in sync with the system's interests, and then turn them against the rest of the population. It's the Nazi tactic of divide and conquer, use fear, mistrust and racism as emotional propellants that will provide the time and space necessary for the elite to reside in economic and physical safety.
E.G. - the NRA, the extreme Christian Right, some, but not all of the militias now in existence across the US.
Do you think it is by accident that some Christain ministers are actually advocating their brethren to bring firearms into their places of worship? Do you think it is an accident that the NRA is pushing to have concealed carry laws passed on college campuses across the US? It has nothing to do with immediate physical safety - it has everything to do with framing the future, both mentally and physically, to insure that those who now rule will never be seriously challenged.
Democracy is at its end point in this society. The real democracies are now occurring in Central and South America - and that scares the hell out of those who sense they may be losing external control. The only option for them: maintain internal control by any means necessary.
Happy 4th ya'all.
odoco, thank you and excellent analysis. I was very ambivalent when I went insane and opposed gun control after getting upset and angry in life. But after I recovered and am continuing to work on overcoming the hidden unhappy feelings in life, I once again don't feel as comfortable owning a firearm especially when the biggest corporate lobbyst, the NRA comes to mind. As for religion, I may be a Christian but there too I have often felt ashamed, upset, and angry that the truly peace loving Christians have been and continued to be persecuted most of all by the Christian Right far more than the atheists. I used to try to ask my parents, especially my father who used to be a die-hard conservative, why the Christian Right would soil its own religion with such cruelty only to get a loud and upsetting response in return as if they were trying to forbid me to never question the Christian Right. In the past five months, my parents have lost some faith in the Christian Right and are not as conservative as I was trying to help them out of their economic hardships and they were trying to pull me out of my lingering unhappiness and trauma. This might be also due to the fact that the Republicans are still in disarray and the Christian Right is trying to devise new ways of luring in younger members since most younger evangelicals are not like their older ones.
Democracy in this country is fake than real. We're told that because we can pick between two parties that this is a "democracy". Tell most people about 3rd parties and they'll say it's unnecessary despite the obvious. I have heard mixed reactions about South and Central America but democracy or none, at least their government is more responsive to its citizens unlike here in the USA where Washington is so out of touch with Main Street.
Happy 4th of July to you too. I wished I could proudly say Happy Independence Day but our country is too dependent on other nations thanks to wars and "free" trade that I would feel that I was lying if I did.
Where am I today? Will not kill for my life made that decision long ago in Vietnam but have had a deep melancholy about everything that is happening now here in my land of birth and also the rest of the world. There seems to be a crisis everywhere and greed has the upper hand in all of them BUT the environment which greed has so beat up is going to be the leveler. Just within the past week has my feeling been that mother nature, gaia and whatever other term you want to use has had enough; the tipping point has been passed and we are in for a ride; Innocent or no it does not matter and surely the Creator will sort them out. Tony
Just what we need - another fucking UN conference on land ownership - and another "economist" telling us that the sky is falling...
Small farmers in underdeveloped countries are unable to produce due to systemic problems.
Try being a farmer in any developed economy without title to land, without access to credit and without transport and market systems to get your food to market.
Tanzania,one of the countries mentioned in this article, nationalized all land in the country in the 1970s. Farmers and villages lost "title" to the land and no longer had any incentive to produce. Ujaama socialism destroyed Tanzania and destroyed the small farmer.
Now the government of Tanzania is selling 500,000 HA to Saudis. The money will go to corrupt government officials in Dar es Salaam, who spend most of their time drinking with UN experts.
Meanwhile, the family or village farmer has no land title or access to credit to buy seasonal inputs and even if they could produce a surplus - they could not get it to market.
And, even if they could get the food to market - they cannot compete with imported foreign food - lamb from New Zealand is cheaper than lamb from Iringa.
The government has done nothing since independence but fuck up the land - the Saudis can do no worse.
I am so fucking tired of studies from western experts who do not take the time to learn the reality of what they are writing about.
They are typically Fletcher School economists at Tufts who write definitive articles on food aid in Ethipia and who have never been outside of Addis Ababa to check the facts.
If land-selling countries had any integrity, they would institute land reform, provide title to land and provide access to small amounts of credit to small farmers.
Or they could invite the UN to host yet another conference on the horrors of land sale in underdeveloped countries.
"ducksawce July 4th, 2009 12:28 pm wrote.......I am so fucking tired of studies from western experts who do not take the time to learn the reality of what they are writing about."
The "studies are just a cover" the objective is to steal other peoples resources adn then draw demand and supply curves to fool the clueless. The idoitic studies have been around for years.
These "studies" are perfectly performing the functions they were designed to accomplish.
The trick is this, the economist and analyst of the prey countries understand clearly what is going on, you don’t know anything they do not already know. The problem is that these "studies" etc are tied into agreements and initiatives imposed by the IMF, World Bank and other so call international credit institutions. It is the perfect racket.
The problem with multiparty democracy(in reality 2 party democracy) in Africa is that both the ruling party and opposition serve at the pleasure of the west. Any party that meaningfully challenges the west's interest is quickly marginalized by losing valuable largess and funding from western organizations. It is important to note that in Africa both ruling and opposition parties are to differing but important degrees dependant on western funding. There indeed is good reason why "democracy" is promoted in Africa by the predatory west. Just like globalizations, "democracy" streamlines the exploitative process and more precisely identifies and manages the important players on both sides.
To be sure there have been governments/leaders who resisted such racket. A few that come to mind in Nkrumah of Ghana, Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Jean Betrand Aristide of Haiti, Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Samora Machel of Mozambique etc etc. Any halfway intelligent reader can easily discern what these leaders have in common regarding their narrative as peddled by the west.
odoco
ducksawce - you seem to have knowledge of this topic - suggestions? How should people protect their land rights in a system that is rapidly, and in my opinion, rabidly, turning toward control of the natural resource bases of the world by a well coordinated and financed minority? It is true that 'nations' seem to be purchasing land from other 'nations,' but who are really the shakers and movers of these purchases?
Would the answer be different in different societies? East? West? Multinationals for profit and control?
The indigenous tribes of the Peruvian forest last week stopped their government from further destroying their homes by defending their land base from the abusers in and outside of the country. They sought and won an injunction to the laws that loosened the restrictions on development of the forest areas.
They defended the land base at a great cost, their lives and the lives of many in the police state, for now they keep their homes from destruction. This act of self defense may bring only a temporary solution, but then all things are temporary.
odoco
Also - are there nations that prohibit the purchase of 'land' by foreigners or foreign interests? If so, what countries have this policy? I think I remember reading somewhere that Japan has such a policy, but I may be incorrect on that.
odoco July 4th, 2009 1:04 pm...I know that as an individual, you cannot buy land in the Philippines unless you are married to a native, in which case they maintain 51%.
I saw this 35 years ago and it is why I became a small family farmer and why I am SO GOD-DAMNED MAD!
People that think themselves intelligent should know better and act different and yet, they don't.
TAKE BACK THE LAND!
nedlud July 4th, 2009 11:46 am.............Take back the country...as if it was ever ours.
Hey! C'mon cynical, we can do it.
signed,
depressed
but
not
hopelessly
depressed
nedlud July 4th, 2009 12:10 pm.............Never said we could not....first step is to take back the MSM...any suggestions?
What we're doing here. I know you now (whoever you are, otherwise) as, cynical. And you come and make comments on CommonDreams. And you are now, my friend. And I am yours. Likewise, I know 'quickstepper' and I am his friend. And he is my friend. So this is how we do it. We make friends, we share commonalities, and we fight back. Okay??
nedlud
nedlud July 4th, 2009 12:18 pm.....We need numbers, my friend, and at this juncture, they control the numbers through control of the MSM. CD and ICH et al represent a very small minority. For instance, the ship and the passengers that were kidnapped by the Israeli's on the high sea in international waters. Have you heard about that on the MSM? ...only on the internet. We need at least 5% of the population to wake up and can only get that through TV and the press...mostly TV.
cynical; Maybe we can throw out a lifeline,so to speak and see how many are willing to even talk about it.With nedlud that is 3.Dont know what I can do but count me in.Vietvet,73 and hate to fly.Tony
How is this different from the plantation colonialism practiced by European nations in centuries past? Now, instead of simply enslaving the indigenous peoples, they're going to starve them as well.
In practically every issue, we see the same pattern. In healthcare, energy, and finance as well, the folks with money are wreaking havoc on the well being of the general population, not for their own survival but to maintain their lifestyles.
Violent revolution - not evolution - is inevitable.
q
quickstepper July 4th, 2009 11:05 am ...........Violent revolution MAY be what THEY are aiming for. If it is inevitable (that is if enough people start to wake up to bring us to critical mass), THEY will lose...WE have the numbers. Let us pray the virus can be stopped short of killing the host. It's rare, indeed, that sweeping, radical change (and that is what's needed) will take place without some loss of life. BUT, that will be the price we must pay to gain the freedom We the People never really had. Gandhi had a great strategy, but the times are different and the lines are being drawn darker by the day.
If the people revolt, there will be a great loss of life. If they don't revolt, there will be just as great a loss of life - if not greater.
If the choice comes down to watching your children die of malnutrition or risking a bullet, guess what most folks will do.
q
quickstepper July 4th, 2009 11:51 am...............Tell you the truth, I am afraid as hell to guess, since no one stirred when they released that info about the torturing of children in Afghanistan and Iraq in OUR name. Then again, it wasn't OUR children...I imagine that makes a differnce in some minds.
I know this is kinda corny and oh god, religious, but remember what God said: 'Whatsoever you do, to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.'
I don't think God is gonna let this corruption and evil just all wash.
KARMA is a son-of-a-bitch.
We, are KARMA!!
nedlud July 4th, 2009 12:14 pm..............Not corny in the least. I consider myself a spiritual person, not religious. What Christ said had little if nothing to do with religion per say. NO DOUBT, we are Karma...and letting these little ones suffer is just keeping us in the cycle.