Sounds like Uganda, as a better bread basket than Sudan (too much Sahara) but that is only a guess. Tragic though.

I just read that African countries still have the highest AIDS numbers and South Africa the highest of all, despite having 1st world medicine available. The attitude of the previous administration in South Africa, that AIDS didn’t really exist and similar ills could be treated with herbs has created a problem, or more of a problem where there shouldn’t be.

Done correctly this agro-business could benefit all, but I guess that is the caveat. Unfortunately it does seem that local corruption in Africa is the worst enemy of its people.

Sending surplus wheat (from Canada) or tied food aid is not as effective as building up local growing capacity and infrastructure. However the mistakes of the post WWII USA agro-industry shouldn’t be repeated.

As the article noted, it is most assuredly not just the Saudis… Japan, Korea, and India are also among the investors.

Food Security implies that the general population has Availablity, Accessibility, and Proper usage for their food resources.

The problem with Africa is more of Food Accessibility and Usage. As of now it is very costly to transport, store, and distribute food in Africa because of the lack of infrastructure.

What Africa needs today is significant investment in agro-based industries and infrastructure, which it never gets for some reasons from the donors. And yes Return on Investment is very low so no corporates would be interested in investing in Africa at least for now.

But as Saudi Arabia forays in a large billion dollar scale in Africa it would significantly help establish agro-based industries, infrastructure and revive the agricultural economy for sure. Which in turn would solve the problems of Accessibility of Food for Africans. So this is a win-win solution for both Africans and Middle East.

But however with corruption rampant this could also dampen some of the cash flows as well.

BTW Saudi Arabia is not alone in this, even other GCC countries like UAE are doing the same, also apart from Africa even South American countries are also being used. Recently the Brazilian President Lula was in Saudi Arabia a few months back to discuss the agricultural investments in Brazil

john, if a foreign entity buys land, isn’t that pretty close to an outright province of the entity?

No it isn’t, unless that entity is protecting its land with an army. The state in which the land is found ultimately controls it. It can expropriate the land–as several African states, including Libya, have done–or it can take it over, as the Indian gov’t did to Portuguese-controlled Goa in the 1960s. As long as the land is held through contract, a state can over-ride the contract. That even happens within the US, through the doctrine of ‘eminent domain’.

You’re right, though, that $0.75/day is not to be sneezed at in much of the world. Sure, it’s nothing for someone in the West, but it can and does make the difference between eating and hunger, between life and death in many countries. I’ve no desire to be hired at the wages and benefits (hah!) that would go to a Bangladeshi, for example, day-laborer, but that’s not the lot I was born into.

@2
john, if a foreign entity buys land, isn’t that pretty close to an outright province of the entity?

There is not a global democracy in existence. Instead, the only way law works is to grant local governments the autonomy and sovereignty to make those decisions, good or bad. Those not involved in the actual contracting have limited means to affect them. Public denunciation, were it loud enough, might dissuade some, but certainly not all.

One cannot blame the Saudis for trying to make a good deal for themselves, but for a country whose law is supposed to be based on religion, I can only ask them, is this justice?

Is this argo-imperialism? Yes!