How do you feed 1.3 Billion people? Read this article and tell me what you think.
1) Is there bias in the article?
2) Is it opinion or fact?
3) What can we do to help countries that need land for food like China or India?
4) Should a country be able to buy land from another country that is in-dept to them?
Explain these and other questions in more detail.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/25/countries-like-china-want-foreign-farm-land/
This is my weekly post
ReplyDeleteFirst off it did not strike me until taking this course how limited amount of fresh drinking water there is available to the world. It is frightening to think that the next world war, which could have catastrophic consequences could, and likely will be over natural resources. I do not believe there is bias in this article as even the author justifies china's issues due to their rapidly growing population and subsequently increased industrialization of what used to be farmlands. There are alot of facts in this article however some opinions are present, one example is when the author says that when countries buy land from each other it is never a win-win situation. One thing Canada in particular could do to help china is lower the cost of goods that we have in Canada in large numbers in exchange for lowered cost vice versa on non food items, for example plastic. I beleive a country should absolutley have the option to buy or sell land if they are in debt or they are owed debt. This could possibly resolve many means of conflict before it even starts. It also has some political and economical upside seeing as there would be more diverse growing regions and voters. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/feeding-the-dragon-china-seeks-safe-food-2013-06-02 This is an article that explains some of the desperate and unsafe measures china are doing to try and produce a sufficient amount of food.
This is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteThis past fall it was announced that a Chinese company has agreed to rent 7.5 million acres of land in the Ukraine by the end of their 50 year agreement. China is to begin with 270 000 acres (5% of the Ukraine’s land. China is rapidly growing and due to their recent industrialisation they are in search of a mode to provide their citizens with more food, for less. The new farmland will be used for crops as well as pigs.
A major conflict that arose as I researched the issue was the potential for neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism is a term for the international economic operations “that governments have aimed to control other nations through indirect means; that in lieu of direct military-political control, neocolonialist powers employ economic, financial and trade policies to dominate less powerful countries.”
This idea was presented in the national post article below. Madagascar was forced to close an agreement with South Korea in 2009 due to accusations pointing to neo-colonialism. Mr. Lahaie’s article also mentions the “debt” that Ukraine might hold to China in political situations. The lease may very well influence them to vote a certain way in China’s favor. This to me is something that the other nations should be watchful for. But, at the same time, if the other countries such as Canada or the US have a problem with the agreement then the best solution would be to offer another option like lower trade tax. The idea of neo-colonialism was presented highly because the articles were not from either china or Ukraine, and presented bias due to the source. However, I can see the legitimate concern in the situation.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/china-land-grab-sees-it-given-control-of-5-of-ukraine-accused-of-neo-colonialism/
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/neocolonialism.html
This is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteTo begin, the fact that China consumes 20% of the world's food, yet only has roughly 9% of the world's farmland is astonishing. It's hard to believe that they have been able to support their entire country with that amount of farmland for such a long period of time. It really shows how advanced the Chinese are, because they found ways to maximize their domestic food supply that extensively with such minimal farmland. Something that a majority of countries could not do. I don't believe that there is bias in this article, because it gives the pros and cons of the land deal from both countries perspectives. It just so happens that there are more pros for China and more cons for the Ukraine. In that article that I linked to the bottom of this post, it puts the amount of land China is attempting to buy from the Ukraine into perspective. The area of land that is currently up in the air is larger than countries such as Belgium and Armenia, larger than the state of Massachusetts and is about 526 times the size of Manhattan. This isn't some minor piece of land. I agree with what Nick said in his weekly post, Canada could help China buy lowering the costs of goods and resources that we exchange with China if we got the same reduced prices in return. There is not much else to do other than allowing them to purchase Canadian land, which is in nobodies best interest. If a country is in debt, and does not have the means to pay the debt back, then yes a country should have the option to try and make an agreement on land in order to pay back the debt. But, the agreement should not be forced upon a country just because they can't immediately pay off a debt. It should be with full discretion of the country and a mutual agreement in order to keep both parties happy. A possible problem that could occur with these land deals is corruption. A country's government could only be looking at the money factor of a deal, rather than what is best for their country in the long run. For many countries, having a foreign country own 10% of their land would be far less than ideal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-disputed-deal-to-farm-5-of-the-ukraine-2013-9
Ry I agree with you completely. China has shown to be very innovative in it's methods of feeding so many people with such limits means. I also agree that just because they have debt doesn't mean they should be denied land, especially if the well being and value of life for the people are at stake. Perhaps if china has the opportunity to do more agriculture, they can make more money in the trades therefore allowing them to pay back their debt. Not allowing them to buy land is only making the situation worse over all
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is my week's post:
ReplyDeleteThis article, as others have mentioned, was an eye opener as to how precious natural resources truly are. The fact that countries are being forced to lease land from others simply because their land cannot sustain the appetites of their own population is shocking to say the least.
Initially, I didn't believe that there was any bias in this article, and that it was more fact than opinion, but that's always the initial belief when an article is your only source. Upon reading the comments that were left underneath the article (a convenient way to see other points of view) I noticed that many went against the article saying that it was "poor reporting". Readers claimed that it was unfair that the article concluded that it was China as a country making these decisions instead of Chinese companies, and others claimed that many of the "facts" in the article weren't even true. After some research I still am unable to determine exactly what the truth of the situation is, but I am able to determine without a doubt that there is bias in this article (as there is in most).
As for what we, Canada, can do to help countries struggling to produce as much as they consume: I agree with the direction I believe Nick Bal was going. Canada has a lot of land and an ability to produce many different food products that China may need. China has many factories and the ability to produce manufactured products that we may need. Hypothetically, this could allow us to negotiate a deal where prices are lowered proportionally, or go back to a barebones goods and services trade system. Whether or not this could actually work I don't know. Many large scale ideas look good on paper but don't translate to the real world (communism as the biggest example).
In order to see different points of view I would suggest that anyone interested in whether or not this is bias to go back and read the comments and Google some of the commenter's points.
I think what you said Trevor about going back to the past where we produce goods and China manufactures them is a good idea but also has many cons for both sides. As China not only suffers from food shortages and no farm land, the air quality of the cities due to air pollution from manufacturing plants is also a huge issue. Although an agreement will need to be met at some degree, I think that China doing any more manufacturing than it already is may be detrimental to the respiratory health and wellness of the Chinese peoples.
DeleteTrevor you have great opinions here now try to source it to back up what you think.
DeleteThis is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteAfter getting a bit of context, I can see how this article could potentially be demonstrating a bias because of the author's Westernized thinking and wary disapproval of the transaction and its "neocolonialist" aspects (though the author is careful about his wording and does not slant the story with his views). Personally, I agree that this deal may not be a positive event, for both parties.
As Ruth said, the Ukrainian government could feel forced to side with China for important global decisions, giving the already-powerful a great deal more sway. For a country that's already facing public outrage because of political and financial ties with Russia, it doesn't seem ideal to be selling 5% of the country to a foreign investor. All this "outside help" Ukraine is getting may lead to trouble in the future.
Also, returning to the basic geographical topic, there is still the matter of producing the food that China plans to use this land for. What happens if the Chinese rice-growing methods don't working in Eastern Europe the same way they do back home? Money will be lost, people will be hungry and investors will no doubt be upset.
I do see that this land lease is a good way to get past the spacial restrictions that China is facing, but it sounds too much like colonialism to me, with the rich guys getting all the land, and it seems far too drastic a move by a Ukrainian government that's already drowning in public contempt and political tension.
Interestingly enough, a Russian news outlet is one of the only sources I came across that so much as mentioned the fact that Ukraine is denying the transaction's existence, which makes the whole ordeal far shadier:
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_09_24/Peking-canard-Ukraine-denies-rumors-about-China-renting-its-land-1926/
I agree with Maggie; this land lease is quite reminiscent of colonialism.
DeleteAlso, the Ukraine being in the midst of a revolution/uprising, I think that the government should focus on the needs of their own people before leasing out land to China.
This is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteIf Canada was to sell a vast majority of the prairies to another country in order to pay off a debt I would hope that the majority of Canadians would be outraged. As this is not in the best interest of Canada in the long run. A country is valuable due thanks to its exports and its possibility for growth in the future. How can you expect a country to grow after a deal like this where you are taking away its possibility for future growth and development. Although I feel that if a country and its citizens are content with a deal it should be allowed to go through, I would start to question why the citizens agree with the deal. Are they being fed propaganda about the deal, are the even being informed at all about the deal. If they are being misinformed about a deal like this I personally feel that the UN should intervene and make sure that the deal is in the best interests for both of the countries involved.
I do think that with the current state in Ukraine, the citizens there are not being informed on the deal or more so do not have a say in what is to be determined. This is the part that concerns me, as how can such a significant decision be made by a select few people in a fairly large country in an unbiased way.
Dale you raise an interesting point? What if Canada had to sell some land? Try to back up your opinion with a source.
DeleteIt is shocking to see how fast China has developed to a point where they have essentially over-developed. They are running into a lot of problems with their resources. I wasn't aware of their lack of land until reading this article. They are also having trouble with their air pollution and water supplies. last year, the smog was so bad in Harbin, China that people weren't able to see 50 ft ahead of them. The number of cases of lung disease and lung cancer have risen drastically as a result of the air pollution. When my grandparents visited from Japan last November, they were telling me that they are lacking in fresh water supplies and have been buying water from Japan. It's sad that becoming a more developed country has put them in such a situation.
ReplyDelete