One can almost admire the way in which the Financial Times manages to get under Korea’s skin. Today, the Korea Herald went after the FT for its recent articles on Daewoo Logistic’s acquisition of half of Madagascar’s arable land:
Regarding the editorial criticism by British newspaper of a Korean firm’s long-term land lease in Madagascar for agricultural development as “neo-colonialism,” one is struck by the historical irony. One is led to question how writers from a newspaper in a nation that ruled and exploited much of the African continent for centuries have become so prone to amnesia as to sermonize on the morality of the development project.
Take that, FT! The Korea Herald even accuses its salmon-colored brother of inciting violence:
The editorial even incited violence in an affront to the good people of the African nation, saying that “Madagascans would hardly stand by and watch as food is shipped from their ports” in times of food scarcity. One just wonders why so much vehemence is injected into this piece of criticism, distorting facts and introducing dangerous hypotheses. If it is just another installment in the British paper’s continuing Korea-bashing series, it is sacrificing the journalistic integrity it has long strived to establish.
How’s this for a conclusion.
Calling these business pursuits as “neo-colonialism” is inappropriate. Nations that were once exploited by colonialists can better make win-win deals with less developed countries, as they know well what colonialism really is.
Translation: Shut up, whitey. I believe this is called the Aso Taro School of Foreign Relations.
As the Korea Herald points out, this mess is pregnant with irony — the irony of a British newspaper lecturing the Koreans about imperialism, Korean newspapers printing editorials seemingly plucked from turn-of-the-century Japanese newspapers, and Korean newspapers lecturing foreign ones of the danger of inciting anti-foreign sentiment.
Mind you, looking at the deal, it doesn’t seem that bad, and the KH is right — if the deal is bad, it will be the Madagascar government that pays the price. But Jesus, economic nationalism, anyone? How long do you think things like this will go on before you see hostile articles in the Korean press?
For much on the deal, including some Malagasy reactions, check out Lova Rakotomalala’s excellent post at Global Voices.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Thing is, about the irony of a British newspaper criticising colonialism, the implication is that no newspaper can criticise someone for doing something thier country has done in the past. So Americans can’t criticise slavery, Britons can’t criticise colonialism and Koreans can’t criticise undemocratic practices. Worse, the FT didn’t actually do the invading and pillaging thing. The British government did. So the paper is being held to account for something it didn’t do. Follow this through and you get that the American (British, Korean) media can’t crticize the war in Iraq because their governments support it. That’s not a good idea.
The best point made, I feel, is that the FT waving the finger at the Korean deal, when plenty of other countries are doing the same or worse elsewhere, and the article doesn’t even mention it.
Well, the FT is accused of distorting the facts of the deal, too. Will need to review the FT pieces in order to pass judgment.
Won’t help. Much of the problem is that the two original pieces from the FT were among the worst examples of reporting/commentary I’ve ever seen from that paper.
1 – How about Mitsui striking the same plantation business deal with North Korea. A large chunk of the arable land is left unexploited and by the way the local population has mimimum nutrition needs. May be that would be a smart way for Japan and N-K to reach some peace agreement?
2 – Private plantation business is also widely known to provide some sustainable growth model benefitting local population and with little effect on the environment. Corn and palmtree are the most eco-friendly crops preserving the original land qualities and require minimum fertilizing and phytosanitary products. cf. Indonesia
so why is it ironic? did the financial times colonize other countries, or did the the british government? and isn’t the article critical of daewoo? why must every criticism of anything korean be taken as an attack on the country and its people?
As long as it doesn’t speed up the destruction of the rain forest.
Are the Koreans aware of the huge influence the Japanese have on the British media when it comes to issues regarding Asia?
Back during the 2002 world cup they started the whole fiasco about dog eating and exporting. To this day they still get British newspapers to write anti-Korean articles, yet here we are the Koreans wholly unaware.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }