April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

To add insult to injury none of the produce from these farms will be
available to local markets. However, there is talk of selling some of the
produce to aid agencies. The World Food Program intends to buy some of
this grain in order to assist hungry people. Ironically, this group of
intended food aid recipients will include those working to produce it in the
first place. Ethiopia’s government is calling this sustainable development.
In an effort to rush through this controversial issue unimpeded, the
government has sought to bypass all transparency. It is fully aware that an
open discussion on the issue would expose the absurdities of its claim.
Deals with foreign investors were approved backhandedly for this reason.
The government expects a few scattered utterances here and there by its
officials to be accepted as a national discussion on the matter. The
government also knows it has no chance of convincing people because
further evaluation of the agreements reveals gaping holes. The people of
Ethiopia are being asked to believe absurdities such as ‘we export food in
order to import food’ as a viable economic option to guarantee national
food security. However, the most basic comprehension of economics tells
us this is nearly impossible. Given Ethiopia’s dwindling currency exchange,
what sense is there in purchasing grain from the international market,
while exporting domestic grain? Can exported grain used as a cash-crop
generate enough capital to be able to import food affordably and
sustainably? Muddying the waters and diverting the issue under the guise of
food security is certainly a cruel way of hoodwinking a hungry population.
It is not clear what the benefit will be to Ethiopia. In most instances the
harm done is much greater than the gain.
Perhaps the EPRDF government views these deals as solidifiers of its
international connections, especially with emerging markets. Gifting land
can guarantee political support. As a beleaguered party, EPRDF knows its
survival depends on bringing some particularly heavy hitters into the fold.
What better way to bring them on board than to give them what they most
require and what Ethiopia has to offer, namely land and water?
It is important to point out that some of these excited shoppers include
states with dreadful human rights records. One of these, among several, is
Saudi Arabia. Surely if the going gets tough for Ethiopia’s ruling party, the
Saudi’s can be counted upon to prop up their friend in need, no matter
how badly democracy and human rights are trampled. It seems these two
are a match made in heaven. Generally, although the loss is great for
Ethiopia, the gain has been significant for the ruling party. Is the EPRDF
trying to garner vested interest in the country for its own political
existence and at the cost of the nation?
Politics aside, there are other alternatives for agricultural development in
Ethiopia. If the government was truly interested, Ethiopia’s agricultural
output can be developed in a way that is much more sustainable and
equitable. For instance, although small, there is a significant amount of
capital within the country to boost farming capacity in hitherto unexplored
areas of the country.
Perhaps a genuinely interested government can enhance and facilitate the
efforts of investors within Ethiopia’s borders to import technology and to
train domestically run agro-business interests. The aim here is not to blow
the bank, but to increase investment in a sustainable way. After all, isn’t
this how major agri-businesses got their start in their country of birth?
Another option to boost domestic farm output would have been to invite
wealthy Ethiopians living abroad, especially those with interest and