Daewoo's "uniquely Korean dream" of neocolonialism.

Here's an, um, interesting column in the Korea Times about Daewoo's misadventures in Madagascar, where the firm had planned to lease one million of acres for 99 years to plant corn in order to feed Korea's appetite for the crop. Do be sure to read Robert Koehler's reaction to it on The Marmot's Hole. In short the author of the KT piece, the assistant managing editor of the paper, tried to cast the basic, rather universal economic motivations not as neocolonialism but rather as "Korean psychology." An excerpt:

My conclusion is that whether one calls the Daewoo project an act of neocolonialism or not starts with ``Korean psychology,'' an amalgamation of several elements. One such element, as Shin indicated, is food insecurity. Some say Korea's grain self-sufficiency rate is about 50 percent but this figure can be deceiving, considering much of it accounts for rice and virtually all stock feed, which is imported.

A large number of cattle and pig farmers went under during a food crisis last year. With the situation being as it is, Korea is not safe from ``food riots'' that took place in Mexico and Thailand. Besides, it was less than a half century ago that Koreans had to eat unripe barley, porridge made from it or forage for anything in the forest to eat and survive the spring when their staple food, rice, ran out, and nothing else was available.

Korean mountains are another element. Korea is a small country with one of the highest population densities in the world, and 70 percent of its land is mountainous. And some wonder why Koreans appreciate the vast flatlands in Texas or undulating green pasture in Australia so much.

Daewoo's Madagascar project started with a similar set of psychological elements.

Is this another time for us to "understand Korea's unique situation"? His conclusion:

I feel more convinced than before that Korea needs Daewoo's success in Madagascar, not only to prove that its model is different from the models of Britain, the United States, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Japan during their colonial pasts, but also that it is setting a new precedent for both African states and outside investors to benefit from.

According to a Financial Times article from November, Daewoo's deal would have locked up half of Madagascar's arable land for use by South Korea. From the same article:

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation warned this year that the race by some countries to secure farmland overseas risked creating a “neo-colonial” system.

Daewoo's plan goes hand-in-hand with the recent political turmoil in Madagascar.

For what it's worth, domestic newspapers here have criticized foreign media outlets (here, too) like the FT for focusing on Daewoo while ignoring similar programs by other nations, and by ignoring the benefits to Madagascar, the country that encouraged such investment in the first place. From the Joongang Ilbo:

One wonders if cultivating nonarable land and planting maize is really neocolonialism, which would imply forcibly taking food from Madagascar’s people.

What’s more, Madagascar’s government will take 30 percent of the profits made by the maize farm in the form of corporate taxes and tariffs.

It is entirely for Madagascar’s government and people to decide whether to leave this land undeveloped or to sign a 99-year lease with Korea and in return get investment and farming infrastructure.

In any case, Britain’s D1 Oils is already running a large-scale jatropha oil farm in Madagascar for the production of biodiesel. Many French companies own plantations there as well. One wonders why the U.K. newspaper criticizes the Korean company while averting its gaze from European firms involved in the same business.

Solid points.

Korea has been dependent on imported grain for a long time and Daewoo Logistics is simply trying to secure farmland overseas for our survival.

Could have been phrased better I think. Perhaps a country, and a media, that so often bemoans its history of colonialism and exploitation at the hands of foreign powers should be more sympathetic of its actions overseas.