The resource grab continues. . .

While pledges abound at the APEC Summit for non protectionist measures, and the pious affirmation of free trade, we are left with the classic example of: "Don't listen to what a politician says, watch what he does.

South Korea's Daewoo Logistics has just leased 50% of the arable land on the island of Madagascar in the name of "food security." To wit:

"South Korea's Daewoo Logistics this week announced it had negotiated a 99-year lease on some 3.2 million acres of farmland on the dirt-poor tropical island of Madagascar, off southern Africa's Indian Ocean coast. That's nearly half of Madagascar's arable land, according to the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization, and Daewoo plans to put about three quarters of it under corn. The remainder will be used to produce palm oil - a key commodity for the global biofuels market."

Alarm bells have already gone off at the FAO regarding this development, however, little if anything will happen amid the international hand wringing. Simply because this is straight up corporate/nationalist land grab to secure resources for the home country. The United States pioneered this type of arrangement in the 1920's in Honduras when the United Fruit company turned Honduras into a literal banana republic so America could have its Chiquita bananas.

So what will the new Obama administration do? Well, with no foreign policy team in place, nothing. It will prove interesting to see how much change will really come into U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Obama are you listening?

Again. . .stay tuned.

Africa the overlooked. . .

The NY Times is running a series of articles on Africa, kicking off with the sorry state of the Congo to wit:

"This is Africa’s resource curse: The wealth is unearthed by the poor, controlled by the strong, then sold to a world largely oblivious of its origins."

The article goes on to describe the situation as Darwinian. . .however, I think Thomas Hobbes is closer to the mark. The problem for the U.S. is since we have largely ignored this continent other rising powers (i.e. China) have been moving in. The current administration's response has been to set up a new military command to cover Africa, rather than a coordinated approach which might have included its "faith based" foreign aid (however misguided), as well as the contacts that were established through the Africa AIDS initiatives during its early years.

So what will the new Obama Administration do?, A lot depends on who is running the State Department, as well as the White House foreign policy apparatus. . .So far, there has been speculation of the dynamic foreign policy duo of Hilary Clinton (Foreign Policy?), and keeping Robert Gates at Defense.(his focus is certainly not going to be on the new Africa command).

If current speculation turns into reality, I am not hopeful, simply because the foreign policy framework would remain (dare I say it?) unchanged. So, I guess it is a step in the right direction at least the partisan direction of foreign policy would not change from one to the other. . .so that is progress of a sort.

Sarcasm aside, we need to look at Africa as an important component of America's strategic and economic interest. Not only because it has sources of oil (Sao Tome, and Angola) that lie outside of OPEC, but also because its population needs a large infusion of manufactured goods and services the U.S. can provide. We are behind the Chinese, and the Europeans in this area of policy, and the failure of the last round of global trade talks are setting off a mad scramble to secure preferential access to regional markets. So will the Obama Administration get serious about Africa?

Stay tuned.

Foreign Policy based on interest and not partisanship

I am dedicated to the proposition that Democrats and Republicans need to hammer out a new foreign policy based on a shared view of America’s interests. Simply put, we are Americans first, and partisans second. To think otherwise is sheer foolishness, and gives comfort to those who mean America harm.

We need to debate foreign policy by all means, however, we have lost the consensus which emerged in the wake of the Second World War, which, in part, was formed by a shared recognition of the repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and the Second World War, might have been prevented had the U.S. remained involved in world affairs after the Great War.

In what form will the debate over U.S. foreign policy take place? Who will participate? Will this debate only be limited to U.S. citizens? These and other questions need to be explored, and acted upon.


That is the purpose of this Blog.