Moore decries buying up third world for food security
Rich nations are practising a modern form of colonialism by acquiring farmland in poorer countries, former New Zealand prime minister Mike Moore says.
"It is a new elephant in the room," Mr Moore who became director-general of the World Trade Organisation in the wake of his stint as PM in 1990.
"I think it is the wrong policy because I don't think food security will be guaranteed in the future because you own colonies overseas," he told the Gulf Times. "The English found that out with sugar".
Grain prices soared to record levels last year, causing riots and hoarding in some countries, and sparking a move for import-dependent rich countries to secure farmland in mainly poorer regions to ease food security.
Environmental analysts are worried that water shortages for irrigating crops caused by drained aquifers and melting glaciers could threaten wheat and rice harvests in China and India, and put pressure on global prices and the availability of food.
Fears of food shortages prompted moves to strike land deals in Africa and parts of Asia, with big investments offshore by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, China, India, South Korea and Egypt.
Some countries, such as Thailand moved to constrain foreign ownership of land.
"I am a free trader and what if someone comes in and says I want everything?" said Mr Moore. "At what point is there such a thing as sovereignty?
"You can argue that the land is one thing they can't take.
"It has not been tested but it is a hell of a thing to sell politically in free societies".
The newspaper said Mr Moore also sent a strong message to developed economies, such as his own country, where farmers are looking to aspiring middle classes in Asia to take their expanding exports of milk, meat and other produce.
"The poor have helped the rich by putting half a billion more consumers into the market in China and India," he said.
"The next test for world history is how we put another billion into the market so the poor can rescue America and Europe -- and New Zealand -- and maintain our living standards," he said. "This is a virtuous cycle".
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions4
All these other issues, ETS, global warming, land ownership, fade into obscurity beside the rocketing world population. You cannot doubt people numbers as the world has been doing, and not destroy absolutely all of the Plant in the end. More people consume more, no matter how poor they are. But you always get a slice more of middle class and rich as well. We will run out of oil, most minerals, good quality land, forests, and decent food long before the myth of global warming can be proved or disproved.
From a legal stand point, underdeveloped nations face the option of allowing such land purchases to go ahead or blocking foreign investment.
Blocking foreign investment, or even some types of foreign investment, sends the wrong message to wealthy nations, and often results in economic decline and collapse in the underdeveloped nation in question.
When rich nations like New Zealand talk of not allowing such investment, it sends the message to the underdeveloped world that we New Zealanders are not in support of investing in their nations and would rather they broke their reliance on investments from the developed world and became more reliant on the sorts of petty aid donations we make.
This is arrogance and unfortunately very typical of a naive NZ, not well versed in the harsh realities of life on Planet Earth where a majority of Human Beings live in poverty and are crying out for the types of investment and technological inputs that come with the land purchases.
Its ironic that farmers as producers of food face continuing declines in the real prices that they recieve for their production, in a world worried about food shortages. The world supermarkets and food retailers have a lot to answer for in distorting food production, by the near monopolies they create in food distribution.
Yes because the last thing Africa needs is more food
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below