Next week David Cameron will host the G8 conference, the stated aim of which is to save the people of Africa from starvation. To discharge this grave responsibility, the global powers have discovered, to their undoubted distress, that their corporations must extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa. As a result, they will find themselves in astonished possession of Africa’s land, seed and markets. David Cameron’s purpose at the G8, as he put it last month, is to advance “the good of people around the world”(1). Or, as Rudyard Kipling expressed it during the previous scramble for Africa, “To seek another’s profit, / And work another’s gain … / Fill full the mouth of Famine / And bid the sickness cease”(2). Who could doubt that the best means of doing this is to cajole African countries into a new set of agreements, which allow foreign companies to grab their land, patent their seeds and monopolise their food markets? The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which bears only a passing relationship to the agreements arising from the Conference of Berlin, will, according to the US agency promoting it, “lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years through inclusive and sustained agricultural growth.”(3) This “inclusive and sustained agricultural growth” will no longer be in the hands of the people who are meant to be lifted out of poverty. How you can have one without the other is a mystery that has yet to be decoded. But I’m sure the alliance’s corporate partners – Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta, Nestlé, Unilever, Itochu, Yara International and others – could produce some interesting explanations(4). The New Alliance offers African countries public and private money (the UK has pledged £395m of foreign aid(5)) if they strike agreements with G8 countries and the private sector (which means, in many cases, multinational companies). Six countries have signed up so far. That African farming needs investment and support is indisputable. But does it need land grabbing? Yes, according to the deals these countries have signed. Mozambique, where local farmers have already been evicted from large tracts of land, is now obliged to write new laws promoting what its agreement calls “partnerships” of this kind(6). Cote d’Ivoire must “facilitate access to land for smallholder farmers and private enterprises”(7). Which, in practice, means evicting smallholder farmers for the benefit of private enterprises. Already French, Algerian, Swiss and Singaporean companies have lined up deals across 600,000 hectares or more of this country’s prime arable land. These deals, according to the development group GRAIN, “will displace tens of thousands of peasant rice farmers and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small traders.”( Ethiopia, where land grabbing has been accompanied by appalling human rights abuses, must assist “agriculture investors (domestic and foreign; small, medium and larger enterprises) to … secure access to land”(9). And how about seed grabbing? Yes, that too is essential to the well-being of Africa’s people. Mozambique is now obliged to “systematically cease distribution of free and unimproved seeds”, while drawing up new laws granting intellectual property rights in seeds which will “promote private sector investment”(10). Similar regulations must also be approved in Ghana, Tanzania and Cote d’Ivoire. The countries which have joined the New Alliance will have to remove any market barriers which favour their own farmers. Where farmers comprise between 50 and 90% of the population(11), and where their livelihoods are dependent on the non-cash economy, these policies – which make perfect sense in the air-conditioned lecture rooms of the Chicago Business School – can be lethal. Strangely missing from the New Alliance agreements is any commitment on the part of the G8 nations to change their own domestic policies. These could have included farm subsidies in Europe and the US, which undermine the markets for African produce, or biofuel quotas, which promote world hunger by turning food into fuel. Any constraints on the behaviour of corporate investors in Africa (such as the Committee on World Food Security’s guidelines on land tenure(12)) remain voluntary, while the constraints on their host nations become compulsory. As in 1884, the powerful nations make the rules and the weak ones abide by them. For their own good, of course. The West, as usual, is able to find leaders in Africa who have more in common with the global elite than they do with their own people. In some of the countries which have joined the New Alliance, there were wide-ranging consultations on land and farming, whose results have been now ignored in the agreements with the G8. The deals between African governments and private companies were facilitated by the World Economic Forum, and took place behind closed doors(13). But that’s what you have to do when you’re dealing with “new-caught, sullen peoples, / Half-devil and half-child”(14), who perversely try to hang on to their own land, their own seeds and their own markets. Even though David Cameron, Barack Obama and the other G8 leaders know it isn’t good for them. References: 1. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...g-trade-fairer-taxes-and-greater-transparency 2. Rudyard Kipling, 1899. The White Man’s Burden. 3. http://www.usaid.gov/unga/new-alliance 4. You can see which corporations have made agreements with particular countries by reading the Cooperation Framework documents accessible here: http://www.feedthefuture.gov/article/food-security-and-g8-summit 5. http://www.waronwant.org/overseas-w...p-uks-multimillion-giveaway-to-multinationals 6. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/defa... Coop Framework ENG FINAL w.cover REVISED.pdf 7. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/defa...y Coast Coop Framework ENG_Final w. cover.pdf 8. GRAIN, 11th March 2013. The G8 and Land Grabs in Africa. http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4663-the-g8-and-land-grabs-in-africa 9. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Ethiopia_web.pdf 10. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/defa... Coop Framework ENG FINAL w.cover REVISED.pdf 11. World Bank, “World Databank”, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx, cited by African Centre for Biosafety and others, 15th May 2013. STATEMENT BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN AFRICA. http://www.acbio.org.za/activist/index.php?m=u&f=dsp&petitionID=3 12. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf 13. Through its Grow Africa Partnership. 14. Rudyard Kipling, as above. www.monbiot.com In essence then, it's the intention of Cameron, under the pretext of preventing hunger, to engineer a new scramble for Africa akin to that in the late 19th century. The stated intention at that time was to save the people of Africa from the slave trade. The reality, then as now, is to control and own large parts of it. The language may of been different but the intentions of the ruling elites is the same. A few days ago, demonstrators in Soho, London, many of whom were aware of the issues above, were subject to a new ephemism for police brutality - pre-emptive policing, or arresting and beating people to a pulp who had done nothing wrong. Ludicrously, the BBC claimed that intelligence indicated these anti-G8 protestors had weapons, despite the fact that no weapons had actually been discovered. The rounding up, arresting and beating of groups of protestors before they had even begun to protest is so taken for granted in London now that I can find no reflection in the media of the outrage I feel. There seems a terrible divide between the corporate-political elite surrounded by their massive Praetorian guard at Bilderberg, and everybody else. Society is not stable and something has to give.. In London the beating by police of protestors was presented by the BBC as protecting innocent shoppers on Oxford Street. This immediately followed very similar scenes of police beating protestors on the streets of Istanbul, which was portrayed as a terrible act of anti-Western suppression. Irony is dead.
Actually, they could use some help building a tourist trade in some areas. But they do need to be sure that they retain title to the land on which the resorts sit, of course. Kenya is a good example of what they could become. Mali was off to a good start, too, before the recent troubles. It will be a good day for all of Africa when the concerts at Tombouctou resume.
