posted
Sub-Saharan African countries have of late become the target of a new form of investment that is strongly reminiscent of colonialism: investors from both industrialised and emerging economies buy or lease large tracts of farm land across the continent, either to guarantee their own food provisions or simply as yet another business.
A Zimbabwean collects a harvest of maize at Domboshawa in April 2008. (AFP/File/Alexander Joe)In doing so, investors even deal with warlords who claim property rights, as in Sudan.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and activists in Europe are denouncing this land grab in Egypt, Sudan, Cameroon, Senegal, Mozambique and elsewhere in Africa as a new form of colonialism.
Uwe Hoering, a German researcher on development policy for several European NGOs, including the news letter Weltwirtschaft und Entwicklung (World Economy and Development), called these investments ‘‘a new form of agrarian colonialism''.
In an interview with IPS, Hoering said that the land grab in Africa became evident in 2008 as a consequence of the recent run to so-called bio fuels and the price inflation and scarcity of food.
Although the investments are also targeting fertile land in other areas of the world, sub-Saharan Africa appears to be these investors' main destination. The reasons are multiple.
On the one hand, ‘‘Africa possesses enormous land reserves,'' Hoering stated. ‘‘According to the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organisation, only about 14 percent of the suited land in the continent is presently cultivated.''
In addition, he said, many African governments are willing to allow this land grab to happen in their territories.
A list of the land grab investments of 2008 have been put together by the Barcelona-based NGO GRAIN, based on corporate reports.
It confirms that several industrialised countries, like Japan and Sweden, rapidly growing developing nations, like China and India, and oil-rich countries, especially from the Arab Gulf, and even Libya, are buying large estates in Africa.
GRAIN is an international NGO committed to promoting sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge.
GRAIN also lists multinational private investors, like the Blackstone Group, Deutsche Bank, Goldman & Sachs and Dexion Capital, as participating in the creation of these new agrarian enclaves in the heartlands of Africa.
Even private industrial conglomerates, such as the South Korean Daewoo, are also investing in land in Africa.
‘‘In July 2008, Daewoo leased 1.3 million hectare in Madagascar, about the half of the island's territory, to cultivate maize and palm oil,'' Hoering said. ‘‘Daewoo paid a symbolic price for the land. Allegedly, as compensation for the land lease, it is going to invest in public infrastructure.''
Unsurprisingly, the investors include the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the commercial investment arm of the World Bank.
In Sept 2008, the IFC announced that it would greatly increase investments in ‘‘agribusiness development'' in Africa, and South American states and in Russia because of new private sector interest in generating profits from the food crisis.
Part of its spending will be to bring ‘‘under-utilised'' lands into production. In 2008, the IFC spent 1.4 billion dollars in the agribusiness supply chain, of which 900 million dollars went directly to agribusiness firms.
GRAIN also reports that the Blackstone Group, one of the world's largest private equity firms in which China has recently bought a stake, ‘‘has already invested several hundred million dollars in the agricultural sector, mainly in buying farmland in areas like south of the Sahara''.
For Hoering, the land grab in Africa by countries such as Japan, South Korea, China, and Libya serve to guarantee their own national food security. ‘‘After the recent speculation on the cereal and other food markets and the spectacular price hikes, these countries have lost confidence in the world market,'' Hoering explained.
‘‘They now want to be independent from speculators and be able tot control production and secure food imports.''
The recent spike in global commodity food prices has also encouraged foreign investors to scramble for control of arable land in Africa.
Obviously, private investors see in the land grab a business with likely high returns. For instance, the Cru Investment Management, a British, Cardiff-based private investor, forecasts earnings of 30 percent for its agricultural fund investing in Malawi.
Duncan Parker, a Cru spokesperson, has said that Africa offers many incentives to investments, such as a strong workforce and the potential to be a top world food producer thanks to its fertile soil and abundant water and sunshine.
However, whether Africans will profit from these investments is another matter altogether. The wave of investments in foreign agricultural enclaves has led to new abuses.
‘‘The most scandalous case yet is that of the U.S. investment banker Philippe Heilberg, who closed a deal with Paulino Matip, a warlord in South Sudan, to lease 4,000 square kilometres,'' Hoering argued.
Matip is a notorious warlord who fought on both sides in Sudan's lengthy civil war. He is one of the profiteers of a dubious 2005 peace agreement, after which he became deputy commander of the army in the autonomous southern region.
Heilberg, now CEO of the New York-based investment fund Jarch Capital, previously worked for the now battered insurance company American International Group (AIG).
Heilberg has been quoted as saying that, in his view, several African states are likely to break apart in the coming years, and that the political and legal risks he is taking will be amply rewarded.
‘‘If you bet right on the shifting of sovereignty then you are on the ground floor. I am constantly looking at the map and looking if there is any value,'' he told U.S. media.
While denouncing the scramble for land, human rights groups have called attention to the vagueness and imprecision of laws on land ownership in south Sudan. They cast doubt on foreign investors such as Heilberg being able to claim legal rights over such estates.
The deal, which became public last January but was closed last July, has prompted human rights groups to denounce Heilberg's venture in South Sudan as a cynical, neocolonial enterprise.
‘‘This is a case that recalls the worse colonial land grabs in Africa,'' Hoering added.
posted
Always chasing after some white euro's article. Africans start and run businesses too. And they do so in other countries as well. You do know that don't you?
I'll bet your an AA. Because this is standard thinking for that ilk. Sorry suckers need to believe in Africans being a bunch of helpless victim losers in order to escape how sorry their own situation is.
JMT, Get up off of your dead ass and do something for your own worthless hide.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for Doug (aka sheMale Jenkins) to start caterwauling?
You know its just a matter of time before he stops filing his corns and slaps his houseshoes on and makes a beeline for the computer while wearing a housedress.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for Doug (aka sheMale Jenkins) to start caterwauling?
You know its just a matter of time before he stops filing his corns and slaps his houseshoes on and makes a beeline for the computer while wearing a housedress.
Why not do everyone here a favor and STFU.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I have posted on this already from a few months ago.
The point is that ALL forms of industry are colonial in nature throughout Africa as ALL forms of industry in Africa are designed PRIMARILY to benefit foreigners. It is true for mining, manufacturing, farming, horticulture, skinning and everything else. This is no different.
The only reason this raises more of a stink than stealing coltan and copper is that food is a BASIC requirement for human life and without it people die. But people can live without steel, copper, tin and coltan, albeit in a much less developed state.
But this has been the plan for Africa all along and nobody should really be shocked by it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact still remains though that the interlopers can be chased off the land if it becomes necessary. It's a very risky business for the agribusiness people. Once they would have invested enough in the land so that it is brought up to snuff it would take only a few men to seize the land--Zimbabwe style.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agribusiness is big business in Africa. And most of the Agribusiness is run by foreigners. The whites chased from Zimbabwe only moved into Zambia, Nigeria and other neighboring African states.
The only risk is for Africans after thousands of years of being self sufficient to now be dependent on whites and foreigners to develop large scale agriculture, which almost always is geared towards export and almost always only uses Africans as cheap labor and really does not help Africa become more self sufficient in terms of being able to feed itself and weather droughts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for Doug (aka sheMale Jenkins) to start caterwauling?
You know its just a matter of time before he stops filing his corns and slaps his houseshoes on and makes a beeline for the computer while wearing a housedress.
Hahahaha, you make me laugh sometimes, even though you are the resident herpes boy you still occasionally have good points Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually I have posted on this already from a few months ago.
The point is that ALL forms of industry are colonial in nature throughout Africa as ALL forms of industry in Africa are designed PRIMARILY to benefit foreigners. It is true for mining, manufacturing, farming, horticulture, skinning and everything else. This is no different.
The only reason this raises more of a stink than stealing coltan and copper is that food is a BASIC requirement for human life and without it people die. But people can live without steel, copper, tin and coltan, albeit in a much less developed state.
But this has been the plan for Africa all along and nobody should really be shocked by it.
posted
Order 81 making Iraqi farmers dependent on US firms
"Order 81 prohibits Iraqi farmers from reusing seeds harvested from new varieties introduced in Iraq and registered under the law. According to the law, farmers are banned from saving such seeds and required to pay royalties to the holder of the patent on the seed -- an American corporation."
"Order 81 has made farmers in Iraq -- who have planted since 7000 BCE -- dependent on companies like Monsanto."
"Monsanto has a record of selling pest-resistant seeds that have been genetically engineered for sterility to farmers around the world, rendering the farmers permanently dependent."
It's no coincidence what they want to do in Iraq is the same thing they're doing in Africa.
It should be abundantly clear there is a racist war of aggression going on - a war between white western nations and people of color. Monopolizing the agribusiness and using food as a weapon and odious debts to polarize Africa's upward mobility in order to keep people who look like me at their mercy is an act of war. White supremacy and imperialism simply reinvented itself. Western nations and multinational corporations are at the center of these environmental and human rights abuses occurring around the world, particularly Africa. People forget or don't give a hoot that a significant portion of the raw materials in Amerikkka still come from Africa. Of course, corporations would never be able to rape and pillage Africa without the funding of dictatorships and provision of military arms by the US government. I have always said people are docile to the inhumane crimes being committed around them as long as they can enjoy the privilege of their creature comforts i.e. Ipods, windscreen TV and mindless consumerism. Negotiating for change isn't going solve this problem. Nothing short of a civil revolution will reverse this tide. These are some of the racist policies I would hope are being discussed at the Global Racism Conference.
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Agribusiness is big business in Africa. And most of the Agribusiness is run by foreigners. The whites chased from Zimbabwe only moved into Zambia, Nigeria and other neighboring African states.
Whats sickening is that as proud a nation as Nigeria is (least amount of uncle toms), it was the Nigerian government that brought the white farmers from Zimbabwe to Nigeria, keeping in mind that Nigeria is no where near Zimbabwe. Complete with a nice house with a pool and satellite.
Then in Zimbabwe, you have the shoe shine boy running in a party financed by white farmers (MDC).
People talk noise about AAs, but the vast number of uncle toms, ruckus, and aunt jamimas tend to be on the continent. Not outside of it.
As much hell as black american farmers have been through, you think places like Nigeria and Zimbabwe would reach out their hands to seek their assistance to work with the native folk in food production.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that the settler farmers chased from Zimbabwe ended up in places like Zambia and Nigeria is just proof of how weak-kneed and servile most African governments.
If the ex-Zimbabwe settler farmers have been able to settle in various parts of Africa to farm-- note that the labour done on these farms would not be performed by white hands but black hands--toiling in the hot sun--the question is where did they get the capital? Which banks financed such risky ventures? And what kind of education did such farmers receive, and where, for them to decide to go into farming? Did Africans in Zimbabwe receive the same kind of education? If so, what is it that prevents them from getting the same kinds of credit lines that the white farmers who were invited to Zambia and Nigeria got and are getting?
Again, I emphasise that the real farming and harvesting is done by Africans with the Euro settlers just simply supervising until sunset--when they just settle down for beer drinking and barbecuing. A really nice life--that's why they just don't want to quit Africa.
THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL In Africa, thousands of African study agriculture and agronomy, so the question is how come they don't end up running farms like the Euro settlers do in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The answer is simple: they just don't have access to bank capital.The biggest banks in Africa are European banks and they generally don't lend to Africans. There are local banks--Nigerian banks, for exmaple, that are found in some West African countries--but they are not too heavily capitalised and they loan for the retail market. There are government banks in most African countries, but agin they are very weakly capitalised. The African Development Bank that could be a serious player in all this is also relatively weak in capital and has allowed the U.S. to penetrate in terms of affording capital.
So what exactly is the mystery of capital. African governments behave as if the unholy trio of the dollar-euro-pound are like real gold. That's wrong thinking because the gold standard was abandoned decades ago. Dollars, pounds are euros are just paper, backed by nothing except blood-shot pink faces.
The West just promised the IMF one trillion of U.S. dollars--but it's all paper created out of thin air--like Puff!
African governments are just to worshipful of the unholy trio of dollars, pounds and euros. They are just mesmerised by that kind of paper. When such governments export to the West, instead of demanding payment in their own currencies they are grateful to get paid in Euro-money. it's only fear and ignorance that prevents countries like Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, etc. from demanding payment for their petroleum exports in an African currency. That would certainly get the West scrambling to get those currencies. The result would be an appreciation in the value of those currencies.
So, in short, there is no mystery about capital. If you want it just create it out of thin air as the Euro nations do. In a world where gold has been relegated to the side lines, there is nothing that backs Euro paper. It's just paper. But African governments believe that Euro paper has magical qualities. Not true.
So creating your own capital--easy to do--would solve all those problems of farming and infrastructural development.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The fact that the settler farmers chased from Zimbabwe ended up in places like Zambia and Nigeria is just proof of how weak-kneed and servile most African governments.
If the ex-Zimbabwe settler farmers have been able to settle in various parts of Africa to farm-- note that the labour done on these farms would not be performed by white hands but black hands--toiling in the hot sun--the question is where did they get the capital? Which banks financed such risky ventures? And what kind of education did such farmers receive, and where, for them to decide to go into farming? Did Africans in Zimbabwe receive the same kind of education? If so, what is it that prevents them from getting the same kinds of credit lines that the white farmers who were invited to Zambia and Nigeria got and are getting?
Again, I emphasise that the real farming and harvesting is done by Africans with the Euro settlers just simply supervising until sunset--when they just settle down for beer drinking and barbecuing. A really nice life--that's why they just don't want to quit Africa.
THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL In Africa, thousands of African study agriculture and agronomy, so the question is how come they don't end up running farms like the Euro settlers do in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The answer is simple: they just don't have access to bank capital.The biggest banks in Africa are European banks and they generally don't lend to Africans. There are local banks--Nigerian banks, for exmaple, that are found in some West African countries--but they are not too heavily capitalised and they loan for the retail market. There are government banks in most African countries, but agin they are very weakly capitalised. The African Development Bank that could be a serious player in all this is also relatively weak in capital and has allowed the U.S. to penetrate in terms of affording capital.
So what exactly is the mystery of capital. African governments behave as if the unholy trio of the dollar-euro-pound are like real gold. That's wrong thinking because the gold standard was abandoned decades ago. Dollars, pounds are euros are just paper, backed by nothing except blood-shot pink faces.
The West just promised the IMF one trillion of U.S. dollars--but it's all paper created out of thin air--like Puff!
African governments are just to worshipful of the unholy trio of dollars, pounds and euros. They are just mesmerised by that kind of paper. When such governments export to the West, instead of demanding payment in their own currencies they are grateful to get paid in Euro-money. it's only fear and ignorance that prevents countries like Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, etc. from demanding payment for their petroleum exports in an African currency. That would certainly get the West scrambling to get those currencies. The result would be an appreciation in the value of those currencies.
So, in short, there is no mystery about capital. If you want it just create it out of thin air as the Euro nations do. In a world where gold has been relegated to the side lines, there is nothing that backs Euro paper. It's just paper. But African governments believe that Euro paper has magical qualities. Not true.
So creating your own capital--easy to do--would solve all those problems of farming and infrastructural development.
Actually gold is still the basis of international currency exchange. It is no coincidence that the "West" has the largest reserves of gold and other precious metals that is used to buy and trade currency and provide backing for the currency, even though it is not direct. The point is that with gold you can convert it into any currency you need OR use it directly as currency. Yet Africa, with such a LARGE concentration of these precious metals has very LITTLE gold and other items in its reserves. The name of the game since the beginning of time is that a countries treasury is based around "treasure" which means primarily precious metals and other items. That is why everyone is scrambling to TAKE as much of Africa's mineral wealth as they can, because it is PURE PROFIT, both in terms of cash value earned from buying and trading such minerals in the commodities market, but also from being able to stockpile such resources as the basis of a nation's treasury (real net assets).
Bottom line, the U.S. does not hold foreign currency as the basis of its reserves, it holds gold, which provides a stable basis for its currency and economic system. Meanwhile, countries in Africa have most of their reserves in dollars, which therefore wreck havoc on currencies and ability to buy and sell in the world market. If they held most of their reserves in the abundant nickel, platinum, gold, diamonds and other precious minerals of Africa, they would not be subject to such crippling effects of the international paper money racket. They would always be able to buy and trade what they need and have the resources to support a strong stable economy and currency.
posted
Sorry, gold is not the basis for international currency valuation. If it were, then the U.S. dollar would be pegged to gold. In fact, The U.S. dollar was floated free from gold in 1971 when Nixon stiffed De Gaulle who was demanding gold to settle the big balance of payments deficit the U.S. ran up with France. The U.S. didn't have enough gold to pay up, so in typical fashion the U.S. just declared that the gold standard was finally dead and defunct.
Sure the U.S keeps gold in its vaults but its value is so small that it cannot be sent to China to settle the huge U.S. trade deficit with China. Gold is just an ornament now; a valuable metal but not really important in world business.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not used for currency valuation it is used as a basis for currency exchange. Meaning, you can always convert gold to any currency as gold itself is a form of currency and has a value and can be traded. Likewise it is the primary basis for the American reserves, meaning Americas bank vault. The point being that gold and other precious metals are stockpiled to be used as an absolute basis of wealth even as paper currency is allowed to fluctuate based on the whim of the international banking elite. And mostly paper money therefore becomes nothing more than a means of controlling the rest of the world who depend on "paper" which has no real value, while the major economies actually stockpile gold and other valuable minerals which DO have value. With such gold in the bank you can never go broke as you can always trade gold to get whatever you need.
Case in point, the IMF is selling some of ITS gold to finance the new "AID" that they want to give to Africa. The irony being that much of that gold CAME from Africa to begin with and if Africans HAD that gold they wouldn't need the aid to begin with. That is the bottom line point. They steal the gold and everything else of value from Africa and then give them worthless paper in return in the form of "AIDS" which does nothing but make African countries indebted to those who have been STEALING their wealth for hundreds of years.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Selling gold is like selling any store of value to generate income--such as land, art works, jewelry, etc. As I said the the West finally abandoned the gold standard when the U.S. unpegged the dollar from gold.
Since that time the word has operated on the so-called fixed and floating exchange rates.
What is gold used for these days: jewelry, adornment and industrial usage. It has become not much more than a real asset like land, expensive art, etc.
Because currencies are no longer backed by gold, African nations as a group can launch a new currency for contintal usage and simply demand payment for Africa's products in that currency. It has not been done because of fear and lack of serious will.
As long as there is the continuous hankering after Western currencies to purchase Western products cash starved governments will always be tempted to sell land and important resources to raise cash.
Note too that one of the reasons why new ideas about how the economies of Africa should be run is due to the fact that all of Africa's economists have either been trained in the West or trained in African universities that use the ideas in Western textbooks--which are obviously geared to defend and promote Western ideological interests. For example, the president of the African Development Bank was trained in Scotland. His views on economics/banking would would reflect, therefore, what he was taught in Scotland--unless he is one of those very rare scholars who are inclined to see things differently.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, the IMF, the United States and Europe have some of the biggest gold reserves in the world and those gold reserves are used to BACK their central bank. In other words, using gold is a more STABLE way to preserve wealth in your central bank as opposed to holding FOREIGN CURRENCY.
Zimbabwe's bank vault is full of American and foreign paper. Paper which does nothing but wreck havoc on the economy of Zimbabwe. If the bank of Zimbabwe had GOLD in their bank vault they wouldn't have this problem. The same thing goes for other African countries.
It isn't the paper money that you print for everyday use or exchange for everyday transactions, it is what is in the bank vault that is the key. If your vault is full of paper it is therefore prone to the international paper cartel and therefore you become enslaved to it. If your vault is full of gold and other precious minerals, you can trade some of it for any kind of paper you want for day to day transactions without EVER becoming enslaved by it. Not to mention there is TONS of gold in Africa and Africans have EVERY RIGHT to use it for their own development.
And like I said, the IMF is using that gold EXACTLY this way. That is also how the major economies use it. And since Africa has MOST of it, there is no reason THEY shouldn't be doing it, unless they LIKE being broke while watching everyone else steal all their precious minerals so THEY can use them to FINANCE their own economies and growth. I mean that is exactly why they have been stealing it for the last 500 years to begin with.
Not to mention the fact that the commodities trade in such minerals is a MAJOR source of wealth for many banks, which Africa is a bit player in, while all the thieves who rape Africa are the major players.
quote: South African Gross Reserves Rise to $34.1 Billion (Update1) Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Mike Cohen
April 7 (Bloomberg) -- South Africa’s gold and foreign currency reserves rose 1 percent in March as the central bank took advantage of a stronger rand to buy dollars.
Gross reserves increased to $34.1 billion at the end of last month, the Pretoria-based Reserve Bank said on its Web site today. Net reserves advanced to $33.5 billion from $33.2 billion in February.
“It was a positive month,” said Shireen Darmalingam, an economist at Standard Bank Group Ltd., Africa’s largest lender, in Johannesburg. “The sustainability of building reserves remains unclear because it’s uncertain whether the rand will hold onto its gains amid the global economic turmoil.”
The rand rose 10.8 percent against the dollar last month, making it cheaper for the central bank to buy dollars to add to reserves. The bank is under pressure to build reserves to cover import requirements, efforts that were undermined last year by the global financial crisis.
The rand was at 9.1151 against the dollar at 8:44 a.m. in Johannesburg, from 9.1129 before the data was released.
Gold reserves fell 0.3 percent as the bullion price declined to $923.30 an ounce at the end of March from $952.15 a month before, the central bank said.
The central bank has eased the pace of buying foreign currency since last year after the global financial crisis prompted a sell-off in riskier, emerging market assets.
posted
Sorry again, but you are not current with actual monetary policies of central banks. First, you have to recognise that the gold standard has long been abandoned by the West. That's why you have a number of unorthodox finance people who argue that the world--meaning the West--should return to the gold standard.
Central banks control their nations' money supply which is called variously M1 or M2 or even M3. That money consists of currency and deposits by the public. Underlying that is what economists call the "money base" which is currency plus reserves, which does not include gold.
During the post-Bretton Woods gold standard days those reserves included gold. Now they don't.
I don't deny that gold is still kept in vaults by governments--but it is not used in regular monetary transactions by central banks. Gold is just an asset now--potentially useful but only in some great emergency.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ The "promises" of the world's strongest economies have replaced gold...notably Bills and Bonds for large corporations and the little pieces of paper for the rest of us. The "gold standard" in America was largely abandoned in 1933.
However, Central banks do still make some profits off the MINTING of gold and silver, and other metals to a lesser exent. It's even now more available to regular Joe's in 1/20, 1/10, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 ounce denominations.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic