by Steffan Browning
The decision by the Court of Appeal regarding the Crafar farms is disappointing.
The Court of Appeal has concluded that Shanghai Pengxin has sufficient business experience and acumen to run the farming business.
In reality New Zealand state owned enterprise Landcorp will be running the Crafar farms on behalf of Shanghai Pengxin.
Prime Minister John Key stated in 2010 he‘[didn’t] want New Zealanders to become tenants in their own country as foreign companies seek to buy up farms’. Well that is exactly what is happening with the Crafar farms.
The Overseas Investment Office allowed Shanghai Pengxin’s bid because it considers that this investment would bring substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand.
This fails to take into account that a New Zealand farmer would have been able to bring the currently bankrupt and rundown farms back to life and profitability.
In reality an overseas firm has been able to buy up the Crafar farms because the New Zealand Government has a free trade deal with China and doesn’t want to rock the boat.
Decisions such as that made by the Court of Appeal will ultimately mean that any foreign investor that can outbid New Zealand farmers will be able to buy up land in New Zealand. And that can only be bad for the long term future of New Zealand agriculture.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Steffan Browning on Thu, August 9th, 2012
Tags: Court of Appeal, Crafar Farms, Overseas Investment Office, Shanghai pengxin
More posts by Steffan Browning | more about Steffan Browning
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Which is what could easily happen here – buy the farms for $50m less than the going price, then split them into individual farms and flog them off.
No wonder he can afford to send a helicopter to Auckland just to pick up fresh flowers for the house in Coromandel.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
I thought it was government policy to flog off our power assets to New Zealanders “at below market price” so we can flog off their shares for an untaxed CG – probably to foreigners. Why else would people buy them?
Policy you support photonz.
Whereas in the Crafar Farms case you prefer the Oz banks sell direct to a foreigner to lower their bad debt risk/maximise their return. How does that benefit New Zealand? Selling farms to foreigners bids up the price of farmland and increases the indebtedness of farming. In reality it is the current generation of farmers (landed gentry) making life tough for new farmers (landless poor) via support for this government policy of maximising land value.
You deliberately misrepresent the local bid for the Crafar Farms – Fay is only bidding for one of the farm units, the consortium has other buyers for the rest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
You really believe that Michael Fay only wanted to buy the Crafar farms for the good of NZL?
The man has form for buying cheap and selling high. He is the king for realising capital gains.
To think otherwise is naive.
He is no knight in shining armour. Case study the railways methodology in his modus operandi.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
The only way to make it really clear is to make it illegal to sell parts of NZ to any foreigner at all.
Then it’s our money that has to be used to buy stuff and there isn’t enough of that by half, to support the prices that the foreign dosh has driven us through.
Which brings the prices down eventually, as even the most reluctant speculator is going to have to sell, or his estate will have to sell, and realize the loss.
People who buy things at stupid prices have to be PUNISHED for that error. It is mal-investment. A working market system would have punished them long ago, but it is quite clear that the market here is too broke to pay attention to reality.
I do not care if Michael Fay is the biggest NZ crook there is, if the effect is to keep the assets in NZ. If that effect is held in abeyance by the absence of effective laws and policies then it really does not matter if he serves as the middleman or not.
You go on about his character. I am not concerned with it. I am concerned with the ownership of the assets staying in NZ, and being paid for with NZ dollars.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
So Michael Fay is a New Zealander but is his banking and profit repatriation here in NZL? Does he pay ALL his earning taxes here?
Just because he carries a NZL passport does not make him a local trader. For all intents and purposes he may as well be a foreign buyer.
The positive side will be his ability to finance the purchases from overseas funds so repatriating part of his overseas profits back to NZL.
Avoiding tax in one country while claiming tax benefits on his investment here (GST on the purchase price repaid up front for example) such as running losses to avoid paying taxes here and overseas.
But if the NZL passport is the be all and end all for property puchase rights, then expect many NZL people with overseas earnings to “invest” locally and reduce their tax liabilities into refunds even further.
You bemoan international financiers, while supporting this deal. A deal the reeks of tax write downs and minimisation both here and overseas.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Gerrit
I made my position clear didn’t I?
“I do not care if Michael Fay is the biggest NZ crook there is, if the effect is to keep the assets in NZ. ”
It that is not the effect, then we might as well sell out to the highest bidder, but it would be premature to sell farmland right now in any case.
http://grist.org/article/rising-temperature-raising-food-prices/
http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/revolutionary-conditions.html
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-hunger-wars-in-our-future-heat-drought-rising-food-costs-and-global-unrest/
…and any sale to foreigners will give them an excuse to send nasty people with big guns to make sure we ship them “their” food at “their” prices. Not to mention selling at a discount from the actual value.
It is so incredibly short sighted and stupid to be doing this that I can only characterize it as high treason against the people of New Zealand.
It is shockingly stupid behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
You have blind faith the Michael Fay would sell production from the farms to New Zealanders.
He (and any number of NZL farmers) can and do sell the production overseas (witness milk and lamb prices here in NZL).
Naive to think that just because the producer of the production has a NZL passport that they will sell locally.
That is my point.
You really think that the Chinese will come down here and place troops around a few farms, secure the transport network to the dock, control the docks and loading of primary produce onto naval vessels?
All without resistance while hungry New Zelanders look on?
Tiu billboard with that one.
That is the ultimate deterent for even the Chinese peoples army cannot sustain such a supplyline for more then a few years (USA tried any number of times from Veitnam to Afghanistan – so have the Russians).
Still a nice conspiracy theory.
Food shortages a caused by peoples inability to change. For example the corn crop fails due to drought conditions. Well the smart farmer would have been looking for alternative crops more suited to the changing conditions.
Fodder crop variaties to replace corn are plentiful.
And we havent even looked at alternative crops grown in or under the 3/4 of the planet not inhabited by humans.
There is no food shortages, what we have is a shortage of willpower and mind set to look for alternatives.
This inability to change will lead to war, not food shortages.
PS – Over population will also lead to war.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
BJ says ” if the effect is to keep the assets in NZ.”
And the Chinese are going to put the farms on a ship and take them away?
The Chinese might reinvest the profits in NZ and Faye might spend them overseas.
It is simplistic and naive to label investment as bad because it is foreign and good because it is NZ
(even going to the extreme of saying investment by NZ crooks is better than overseas investment)
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Gerrit
IF Fay sells produce overseas, that’s profit/income to NZ, and what I have faith in is his ability and propensity to gouge the living hell out of whoever he sells to. No problem at all with “blind” faith, you-all have already provided plenty of evidence of his abilities in this regard.
The only thing I am stipulating is that the proceeds stay in and are taxed in NZ. Which can I think, be accomplished by a sufficiently aggressive government oversight of our trade. Not by THIS government to be sure, but that part is … adjusted every three years.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Photonz… whether a New Zealander invests overseas or not is an entirely separate issue to whether some foreigners own a chunk of productive NZ farmland.
If THEY own it profits from it flow overseas, not to NZ.
If WE own it the profits flow to NZ, from overseas.
With the aforementioned issues rising in the global food supply this is a remarkably stupid thing to be doing NOW… and it was never anything but stupid even without the droughts and heat in the US, Ukraine and elsewhere.
I called it treason against the NZ people because I think it is. Short-sighted money-grabbing treason. I do not dislike our “smiling assassin” PM, I regard him instead as the purest example of evil in NZ. One cannot dislike that… something less personal and more thorough is required.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Are both photonz and gerrit ignorant of the facts – the Crafar Farms bid is for Fay to hold onto to only one farm – other New Zealanders will own the rest.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Weirdly, Fay is attacked by them for this and Oz banks allowed to maximise their value in on-selling to foreigners.
The same people probably support asset sales to enable private investors to make untaxed CG – and oppose a CGT.
The idea that we can be richer with higher value land (higher cost of farm production) with profits extraced offshore (including untaxed CG on-selling to other foreigners) is risible.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
That’s simplistic.
Faye might spend his profits overseas – whereever the greatest profit is – and the Chinese might reinvest their profits in NZ.
BJ – Your reasoned arguement of the past has become more and more extremist and detached from reality with comments like “the purest example of evil in NZ”
We are living in New Zealand – not some Hollywood vampire movie.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Sorry Photonz, it is simplistic because it is too effing simple to spin it.
If Faye spends is profits here or elsewhere is a matter for him and whatever economic incentives to invest here we’ve managed to come up with.
The one thing that is guaranteed however, is that the profits flow into NZ FIRST as distinct from having an offshore entity owning and profits from our produce going directly overseas.
You can’t spin a fact like that.
I am sure you understand the engineering principle of a black box analysis. Key does bad things to us repeatedly, and certain people profit – repeatedly. There are very few theories that explain that result. If I thought he was naive or stupid he could still be well intentioned and misled but he is quite bright.
He wears a smile mask.. and he knows what he does.. and what he does hurts NZ and that makes it clear what he is, even if I were not aware of the name his banking buddies bestowed on him. I would not trust him to feed my dog.
You think it is extreme to think him a traitor to the country, and perhaps it is, but it IS the country he is selling out. To foreign banks and bankers and the one percenters he is helping to pwn us.
I was never greatly different from what you see now Photonz, but Key has been too long where I can see him at work. His actions are visible. I HAVE become more aware of the banking community and how it relates to the rest of us. So when Key’s actions put bankers and “investors” first it is only natural to believe that he has never left their service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Your naive to think that Fay (or any other national or international investor) will spend his profits here. There is a widely used mechanism to minimise taxation here and elsewhere.
It is called Intercompany Transfer Pricing, where goods produced by a company say in New Zealand are “sold” to the parent company based in say the Cayman Islands, Jersey, Isle of Man, etc.
The goods produced in NZL are sold at the “manufactured cost price” and as such have minimal taxation liability compared if those products where sold directly to retail.
Google “Intercompany Transfer Rates” and every country in the world battles with this taxation minimisation.
Guess where the Apple computer profits end up? Not in the manufacturing countries, not in the purchasing countries but safely in low tax paying countries such as Ireland and Holland.
All through Transfer Pricing Agreements.
Now Google Intercompany Loans and see another method to launder “profits” from one country back to the parent.
Any “profits” made are simply “loaned” (at minimal interest) back to the parent company. Those loans come out above the tax paying bottom line so again tax minimisation.
Naturally enough when the loans fall due the parent company cannot repay them and the local company “writes off” the loans.
Much work is going on between countries tax departments to minimise this, but back in my corporate days it was very common.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Ah yes, the international fraud of international corporate entities, an office rented in a tax haven to serve as the corporate “tax” base. I have never addressed that, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be possible through the monetary system I proposed, to make that sort of cheating far more expensive to the company than paying its taxes would be.
Money wouldn’t move through our borders at the speed of light any more. Not sure that is enough – but the value of someone else’s dollars in NZ would depend on their shipping energy resources to NZ and getting them converted. So he’d have to live THERE to profit by such a scheme, and he’d find it difficult to support operations in NZ without bulk money flowing into the country. I believe it could be made very uncomfortable for people who play this game.
Still, you have a point with the CURRENT set up. Much as NZ works at BEING one of the tax havens, clearly the National led government still has a way to go before we are simply bought and sold along with the land we work on.
No I hadn’t even begun to consider that aspect of corporate sociopathy. It is good that you reminded me of its existence. It is a symptom of how sick the existing system is though, and I make no bones about being in the game to change the current system.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Gerrit
In the extreme event, the Chinese wouldn’t send a few soldiers. They would take New Zealand and the US would be too busy with its own civil insurrections to do a thing about it.
They’d probably take Oz as well. Nobody to stop them and we were trying to steal THEIR resources so they’d have a fig leaf of justification… enough to give others an excuse to let them…
… and overpopulation causes war by first creating hunger.
I don’t think that’s so likely as lawsuits courts that punish us for holding on to what is ours/taking back what ought not have been sold overseas in the first place.
However, I don’t think giving them even a fig leaf is a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
BJ,
History from Ghengis Khan to Japanese expansion in the 1930s shows that winning a territory and than gaining a resource return from the conquest is pretty well near impossible.
China does not have the naval air resources to conduct large scale sea born landings to come down to New Zealand through the Philipine and Indonesian acrhipelagoes.
The biggest change since WW2 is that those previously colonised territories are now independent and with their own standing armed forces.
Land based the Chinese can hold Tibet becasue it is isolated, small and of no significance to anyone but India (who dont really care anyway).
If China wanted to expand and control resources they need to follow the WW2 Japanese route through Vietnam. In 1979 they tried but failed totally.
——————————————–
No this will be China’s expansion programme.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-20/politics/30031154_1_territorial-dispute-asean-south-china-sea
However for China to take on South Korea, The Phillipines, India, Indonesia, USA, Australia, Malaysia, Taiwan and potentially Russia over territorial rights in the South and North China seas will be costly.
If they win the Chinese V Vietnam war, the Chinese may consider further expansion southwards. But not till after they have won the South China Sea war.
With Chinas limited naval air capacity, it wont be easy or cost effective.
Remember for every metre of territory you gain in occupation you need to station garrison troops to hold and exploit the gain.
Read Roman or German WW2 history on how much resources and manpower that requires.
As a very good defensive shield against a sea borne invasion from the Chinese after the South Seas war, we only need large numbers of low tech drone aircraft for one way kamikaze missions against chinese shipping.
And over the horizon radar guided mobile land based mobile anti shipping missiles as deterrent.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
China does not have the naval air resources to conduct large scale sea born landings to come down to New Zealand through the Philipine and Indonesian acrhipelagoes.
I don’t know that they’d need any. Who would be flying in opposition?
I don’t really expect nations to stay organized though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
BJ,
Your strong american bias is showing. If it is not USA it is not worth a dime seems to be your mentality. You really have a love/hate relationship going on there.
There is more to the world then the USA.
This might be of interest
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/philippine-air-force-warplanes-2014-182153418.html
Malaysia has a respectable arsenal of SU30, Mig29 and F18 attack aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force
So do the Veitnamese with SU30 and SU27 aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_People%27s_Air_Force
Remember that the Chinese will be operating away from home from a single carrier (as of today) though by 2020 she aims to deploy at least 20.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/how-will-china-use-her-new/
Read the comment attached to the article. Biggest concern (as it is for the USA) is the supply chain, especially in time of war, for a carrier battle group. You dont need to attack the carrier to make it venerable, just the supply line.
The USA never had to deploy a modern (postWW2) battle group through hostile waters.
The Chinese will have to.
If the Chinese are on a resource conquering strategy the use of nuclear weapons is useless. You simple lay to waste the resources you are trying to capture.
Then also remember that China’s biggest customers for its goods and services are the very people they will initiate into conflict.
We wont find the the green uniforms of Chinese soldiers guarding New Zealand farms, the produce or the supply lines back to mainland China.
Almost forgot but there is a huge Chinese stumbling block in the form of Taiwan. Even they have 160 odd F16′s plus are in potentially inline for the F35.
http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/05/23/war-of-wits-for-taiwan-air-force/
Now lest not forget Russia’s airforce and naval capacity to defend its eastern access route.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
BJ – that’s a giant leap you’ve made.
At first you said selling the Crafar Farms was treasonous and pure evil, but now you say it’s going to lead to China invading us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for giant leaps – that is nothing compared to lying about the Fay led bid. If successful he would only actually only own one of the farms – and he has said that he would have no intention of on-selling it.
It’s also some irony to be criticising Fay for making a CGT on-selling their shares in a once state owned asset and taking the profit offshore – when supporting a foreign/Chinese bid for local assets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for the issues between Japan and Russia, Korea and Japan and China and the rest – Japan and the others in the South China sea.
They reflect the difference between history (past imperial power) and the present. That can go in either of two ways – an international rules based process or bi-lateral power struggles. The latter reflecting the notion of ascencion – recognition of a changed balance of power.
The point at issue is the 200 mile economic zone and a re-evaluation of the region’s status in the world and the heirarchy in that region.
Confusing this further is the idea of Chinese hegemony that ends the USA guarantee of protection and ushers in an era of appeasement of China. War to realise that would be a failure, rather than a success for China. The strategy for change would be the same as that that brought the Cold war to end – effectively where the USA concedes it no longer has the capacity to contain China and coming to terms.
Small nations such as New Zealand, that claim to have a capacity to serve on the UNSC need to either demonstrate that by advocating a rules based approach to dispute resolution, or get out of the way and ask someone like the Norwegians to do it for us. The most reasonable course would be for all nations to give up 200 mile economic zone claims on unoccupied islands and rocks.
The Chinese strategy by the way is obvious – force on a bi-lateral basis that other nations send both their land and undersea resources to China via long term supply contracts (as a way to resolve the articially created conflicts). They are not intent on following Japan’s example, but instead posing a threat that can be pacified by ensuring they have controlled access to supplies and at below the world price. In this there is warning to us – we should respond that we would only guarantee supply on our terms, otherwise its the world market price at the time, like anyone else. But their ability to control supply lines via land ownership here (or use fronts to invest in Fonterra) undermines this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz
It is a small leap. It is a logical connection that you cannot make, being unable to imagine that the future is going to be vastly different from any past our civilization has endured to date.
Consider the case when we have food, they have starvation, and the rule of law among nations is breaking down under the pressures of drought, hunger and heat.
A piece of paper that says they have ownership of farming land that is still productive as an excuse, might be enough to get us invaded instead of paid for our produce. My expectation, at a minimum, is that we won’t get paid. We might stand that for one farm, but the precedent of a sale of one farm implies the ability to sell all of them AND the current Chinese surplus could make one generation of former farmer-owners VERY wealthy.
The next generation of New Zealanders could starve amidst plenty.
You don’t see how badly we are served? Fine. I’m explaining colors to a blind man.
My point is that this enables much worse than a single sale of a single farm. It is WRONG in fundamental ways. The owners of New Zealand must be New Zealanders. The owners of Canada must be Canadians. The owners of the US must be USians and so on. We can only influence our laws here, so we are talking about NZ, but-
The principle applies to all.
The excuse exists for any.
The critical period appears to be coming faster than even I expected.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ,
You keep harping on about being “invaded”.
Not going to happen, not by the Chinese, not by anyone.
Read my August 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM post and earlier ones as to reasons why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit – I am not harping on it, and I don’t think it likely, but it is MORE likely with the fig leaf of ownership and the property rights mantra being chanted loudly by the usual choir of fools.
The notion that the some other nation is going to step in to stop them at great cost and to no benefit for that nation, is not an optimism I share, PARTICULARLY when all nations are in trouble and the Chinese can point to the paper that says they own it and it is rightfully theirs.
Fig leaf. The concept is important in diplomacy and they would almost certainly not have to fight to get here and we would find few allies.
Once the sales get started they WILL buy up property as fast as they possibly can. They are not fools… Key & company are fools to sell. All National can see are the dollar signs, the warning signs are invisible to their ideology.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ,
Just to add to the conudrum in your strategic analysis of local ownership.
Those Kiwis that can only own NZL resources may well be fifth columnist in league with a foreign power. Your definition of rights to resource ownership is a passport. Not the most stringent requirement (Isreal will probably sell you a dinkum kiwi passport
)
Should we have a vetting system to say only “loyal” kiwis can own NZL resources?
With Michael Fay’s previous “form” would you consider him to be a loyal kiwi and to entrusted with NZL resources?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It may not be the most stringent requirement, but it is SOME requirement, and as a Nation we can hold our citizens accountable for what they do or fail to do.
You will not have that capability if the owner’s name is Smith and he hails from Wisconsin.
The true owner of the land is the nation itself, and that ownership cannot be diluted by adding foreigners to the pool without harming the nation.
I think that this is the logical issue. Consider if there were NO individual owners but that the land was held by the collective corporation of New Zealand.
Some guy who is a New Zealander sells his land to someone who is not and gets a big fee. What is the danger? WHAT DID HE SELL!!
What if more than half of us sell… what is NZ then? If we pass a law and they don’t respect it, what recourse do we have.
There is a word that described NZ before National took power.
“Ours”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Dont let your rose tinted glasses distort the truth.
Labour allowed massively more land sales to foreign entities then National ever did.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/13479780/labour-sold-660-000ha-of-land-williamson/
Please dont let the truth get in the way of blind ideology.
So will the Greens contest the next election on the state nationalising (with or without compensation) all privately owned land?
Looking forward to Russel’s press release and the billboards.
Your land is now our land
Even Maori have to give up title. Dont fit the treaty sorry but never mind.
Will the theme song for the Green’s land nationalisation strategy be Woody Guthrie “This land is your land, this land is my land”?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
On BJs assertion that selling the Crafar Farms could lead to an invasion by China, BJ says “It is a small leap. ”
How can you think properly when you live day to day with such irrational levels of paranoia and fear that the Chinese are going to invade us because they bought some farms?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did I say I liked Labour? Did I? Did I ??? I have never approved of such sales and I recall sending e-mails to unresponsive ministers in the past. No traction. They were able to ignore Greens because we were in their hip pocket. Not true any more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess I must be nuts to think that a nation of starving people with a military that outnumbers ours 235 to 1, and operating in a relative power vacuum might have some notion that they ought to seize if they cannot buy.
The question revolves around the likely survival of China and the USA as organized states, what their respective military arms will do as their country disintegrates, and what order they collapse. One has to consider India as well in this sort of scenario.
The risk occurs when the USA fails first… the likely result of starvation in a country where every 3rd person you see has a gun.
How likely is starvation in “the land of plenty” ? Or in China? Or in Russia?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/hansen-et-al-2012/#more-
Notice that the “bad times” in 1936 were pretty localized, it was bad, but it wasn’t everywhere bad. Look what just happened though, and consider that we have really loaded the dice, and we ARE in a population overshoot… and the “rule” that “no country is more than 3 square meals away from revolution”.
Optimists don’t look at such extreme scenarios, they laugh at us. I asserted things were bad and they turned out worse than even I had expected… and sooner… and I am about as pessimistic as any human on the planet – by policy – so that is a really really rare event.
So I have to examine the ramifications of collapse. One such ramification is that if someone has a “right” to productive farmland and the ability to enforce it they are more likely to do so than if they had not started with that “right”.
It is equivalent to our Air Force insignia being a Kiwi in the bulls-eye of a target.
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/
Good luck with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If I was you BJ, with the Chinese invasion imminent, I’d start looking for a new country to live in, or start doing Mandarin classes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ,
You really do need to give this China invasion scenario a rest.
Suggest you look at an atlas and recognise that furtile lands are much closer to China then NZL.
Veitnam and all of South East Asia is accessable by land.
Would a starving nation waste resources to travel by sea along a very long supply line and a huge distance away from home base, when easier pickings are nearer at hand?
Your scarmongering is pointless.
Now if you lived in Veitnam, Laos, Burma, The Philipines, Taiwan, Russia, Mongolia, even India, you may have a concern.
New Zealand as a single target? No that is highly unlikely for the reasons outlined in earlier comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A country that is being bought is unlikely to ever be invaded – it is giving away its sovereignty without puting up any resistance. And for many reasons we are not an invasion target that needs to do this.
China seeks long term supply contracts (and the same ownership advantage of capital reserves as the USA has had – here they are allies) not old fashioned empire. We should only make them on our terms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You lot are not paying a lot of attention to what I ACTUALLY have said.
I would have dropped this long ago except you keep mistaking what I DID say for something entirely different. I wonder sometimes, if it is something that happens to people who live here long enough.
One More Time.
The context is the collapse of major powers based on food shortages brought on by climate change.
Got that part now? Things are NOT like now. People who were able to grow enough for themselves can’t do that any more. Productive export regions closer to the equator have become net importers. Our own output is impaired by patterns of drought and flood.
In that scenario the order in which the countries stop being organized COULD leave China – Russia as last-man-standing. They can do what they please…
1. Do they own chunks of other countries? No – The Philippines for instance, prohibit foreign ownership of land.
2. Do they have to fight anyone to get here? I just showed why they do not.
3. Is there a more easily accessible source of viable agricultural land? (Gerrit’s argument) – That is more difficult to predict exactly, but any closer resource will be closer to the Equator , except for the bit owned by one of the other Nuclear Powers.
No mistake, it is unlikely that they would mount any expedition here. Our entire agricultural output for a year would be gone in a week or three… so it isn’t really worth it. If they are in such extremes and still thinking clearly they’ll ask for as much as we can do and expect us to do that much, and I think we would and possibly more.
If they are still thinking clearly.
We can arrange long-term supply agreements with them. Keeping them can cause New Zealanders to go hungry. We may well do that, and I don’t EXPECT to be invaded – that was never the point I was making…
The point I was making is that we will have provided an excuse, ready made, that someone CAN turn into a cassus-belli, and wars have often been used to keep a populace united in the face of hardships, and justly or not we can be propagandized into the cause of those hardships…
… and that becomes a lot easier if they “own” us.
China does not allow foreign ownership.
The Philippines do not allow foreign ownership.
Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos – nope.
India – no agricultural land for foreigners.
http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2011/06/perils-of-international-farmland.html
I was making a very basic point and it is something I am not alone in perceiving… and that is that
1. The policy of allowing sale and ownership of farmlands by foreigners is a dangerously bad idea.
2. It can, in the most extreme case, become a cause of war.
I think that allowing foreign ownership of our land is the close enough to treason to use the word… because there is NO situation, even the most benign, in which it actually benefits this country.
here are only a couple of people who benefit and that is only a one-shot deal.
It is not sustainable. You may have noticed I have a real aversion to such things.
I agree with SPC that we should work out long-term supply contracts with the Chinese.
They should not nor should anyone not a New Zealander, be given the deed to the farm.
Fools in any case… to sell such a valuable thing so cheap. In a year the price can more than double. Watch the price of food…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Your scenario is still faulty, or should I say, has other potential outcomes.
Lets say that Chinese interest own all arable land in NZL.
They ship produce out to mainland China.
Kiwis go hungry due to excess volume of produce being exported.
Guess what happens next.
The local produce will be stopped from being exported by the hungry locals and distributed to needy Kiwi’s.
What can the Chinese owners do about it?
Zip, Zero, Nada.
That is why it does not matter who owns the farms.
What matters is who controls the supply lines. And Kiwis control those.
To maintain control the Chinese would have to invade and garrison about 100.000 troops here.
Likely occurance?
No.
You may be interested in the ArchDruids latest essay.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/the-specter-of-military-defeat.html
If we extend his thinking we come to realise that no matter how powerful the enemy, they have weaknesses.
His example of how the latest and greatest bronze age warfare technology (the chariot and the compound bow) was outclassed by a simple weapon called a javelin.
We will do the same. No matter what weapon (or argument or force of arms) is bought to bear, the supply chain will be long and the simplicity of preventing shipment will over ride any strong arm compunction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, farm owners and companies that own farms have shares in Fonterra and can buy shares in the Fonterra. Fonterra decides who they sell milk to.
If not even our major export industry then returns profits onshore what then for NZ Inc? All the return from rising global food prices goes offshore?
Seems a really bad economic option.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
SPC
In BJ’s scenario of massive food shortages there will be no economy to worry about. Rising food prices are a misnomer for no economy will have the money to pay for it unless you run a printer. Even then the money you get for the food you will spend where and on what?
Nor will the food be made available for shipment if the local population is hungry, they simply wont allow it.
You are still thinking todays scenarios, not the future ones.
Hence the supply line control is the vital one.
Why is the USA so deperate to maintain influence in the Middle East?
The oil supply line is no longer controlled by the USA and they really want that control back. Fighting last years wars tomorrow and bound to loose.
This may be of interest in how it takes very little to maintain control of supply lines against a militairy power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=1
And this was but a war games simulation played by the US militiary where swarms of small vessels overwhelmed a hugely superior US navy force.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The scenario is unlikely – a more tenable hypothesis is where there are global shortages of resources in the production supply chain (as well as food – where states might impose rationing to prevent starvation of the poor), and China’s long term supply arrangements are to future shock proof their economy (at the expense of their competitors). These deals are its preferred form of tribute (earning client states like Sudan and Iran protection in the UNSC).
The collapse of money/the economy as we know it is unlikely – and oh the irony it would instead usher in monetary reform (along the lines that bj chip has proposed).
PS Game models move on – small vessels would be a turkey shoot for the right air attack planes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
In such a situation we become… expendable, and as the quote goes:
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.” – Runyon
I give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt as to their willingness to remain civilized, for now. A nation in extremis may far more easily find itself under different management.
I knew Admiral Mullen personally, and I am not exactly UN-aware of the various challenges the US faces at sea, but…
Given a fig leaf of an excuse, no sane leader of any of the island nations between here and there needs to even notice, and I really do not see our military being able to achieve anything at such odds.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/62111/chinas-first-carrier-starts-sea-trials/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Chinese_Navy_ships
So we aren’t going to “swarm” them with small fast boats or any other magic tricks. Our BEST defense is to keep them (or anyone else) from thinking of coming in the first place.
Not allowing ownership is no panacea, merely a small measure that makes it a bit harder to whip up patriotic fervor and diplomatic smokescreens about rights. It makes any aggression “naked” aggression, and less likely to be considered. It doesn’t prevent. It simply declines to provide an invitation.
“She was asking for it” is not a defense against rape. Yet a woman who relies on that and dresses to provoke is at greater risk.
When everyone is 3 sheets to the wind in the bar, the risk increases exponentially.
National is dressing New Zealand up as a slut just as we head into the bar…
… and there is NO advantage to New Zealand… just to their buddies.
How is it that none here understand this as approaching the threshold of treason?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“A really bad economic option”
EXACTLY
Thanks SPC
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The local produce will be stopped from being exported by the hungry locals and distributed to needy Kiwi’s.
What can the Chinese owners do about it?
Zip, Zero, Nada.”
They can send a fleet and an army to exterminate the criminal gangs who are STEALING their much needed food. Very easy to justify. They own it after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
blockquote>They can send a fleet and an army to exterminate the criminal gangs who are STEALING their much needed food. Very easy to justify. They own it after all.
And how much effort will that require and resources spent to secure?
Risk versus return?
Again the supply line to maintain the invading force is long and tenious.
Even the Chinese would not be able to maintain that link sustainably for long.
Not to mention fight a long term partisan uprising.
The power has shifted from the militairy to the people where arm such as IED, swarm attacks, etc. are hard to fight against.
If we look at the war in Afganistan we see the future. Garrison troops locked in static bases unable to safely leave the compounds to carry out their missions and tethred to a fragile supply line that is easily disrupted by simple devices.
Heck, even the potential future of drone warfare has been negated by hijacking the GPS controls and capturing drone aircraft.
http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/iran-hacked-gps-signals-to-capture-us-dr/232300666
So all that smart technology to guide missiles, bomb, drones, ships, planes, personel is basically redundant.
So it all comes back to the grunt on the ground. Who must be supported by a long supply chain, both materially and morally.
Again not going to happen.
But keep the invading scenario going BJ. At least the population can prepare for any invasion by building defences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit. BJ is right.
You are ignoring history here.
Both Britain and the USA have already given the Chinese lessons on the ruthless invasion of other countries to secure resources.
Long supply lines an hostile locals does not seem to have stopped them.
The USA have made an art form of supporting or installing repressive regimes who support their political and economic takeover.
You may not call it an invasion, but ask Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Grenada and many other countries what it felt like.
Do you really think Gaddafi suddenly became PNG because he was a dictator. Nationalising oil and offering cheap loans to other African states was the real reasons.
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/kia-ora-this-dictator-of-oil-rich.html
The USA are happy to support worse Dictatorships in Indonesia, Columbia and Saudi Arabia.
In NZ they did not even have to install the repressive regime by violence. We did it for them..
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Gerrit – Your logic is not apt to be persuasive to people looking for ANY way to keep their country together.
War is not a logical thing to enter into. It is ALWAYS destructive of wealth and resources, yet we humans do it all the time. You are appealing to logic as a reason not to have war, but I pointed out above, that such reasonableness is not expectable in extremis. It is not to be counted on as a defense.
As for fighting a long term uprising, no. Extermination would in such an instance, be a more likely outcome. I would not expect any effective resistance of ours to outlast them, if they were to come in the first place. Which I do not expect, and wish to keep as unlikely as possible.
A wish thwarted by the National tendency to treat the rest of the nation as their b*tch, to sell as possible, to whoever offers the best price.
Do WE have the ability to spoof GPS on that scale Gerrit? Oh wait… the Chinese have THEIR OWN nav systems. They after all, cannot rely on US based GPS in a conflict with the US. So can we spoof THEIR systems? I’t say not a chance in a thousand given our budget here and our relations with the two mobs that might have a shot at it (USA-Russia).
You are looking for a hope? Closet optimist – I see. The line from “The Fall-Guy” rings true though: “Its always darkest – just before it goes completely black”
The entire scenario is not one of logic, humanity and reason prevailing.
Consider instead chaos and desperation and the tail-wagging-the-dog. We would cease to inhabit, we would fertilize.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Our BEST defense is to keep them (or anyone else) from thinking of coming in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)