As of Today, August 30th, 2011, Huang Nubo is reported to have offered a billion krona (£5.4m: $8.8m) for the 300sq km (155 sq mile) Grimsstadir a Fjollum region. However, there is fear that China, known for its "long term thinking alongside buying up the world", is using this investiment to gain hold of Iceland.
Note that Iceland has suffered a dramatic crash in 2008 with three of its major banks collapsing and is in urgent need of growth and foreign investment. Therefore, the rising debate is whether offering "Iceland up for sale" is the right thing to do. According to Katrin Juliusdottir, the minister of industry, "Foreigners already own quite a bit of land here and I don't think there is anything to fear from that."
Is the debate over Huang Nubo buying a region of Iceland really about colonising and terrtorising? If so, is it ethically acceptable? Or perhaps our emotions over the topic has allowed us to perceive in different ways? In other words, the controversy over selling a part of Iceland covers certain areas and ways of knowledge: economy, ethics, reason/logic, emotion, and history.
BBC defines ethics as "a system of moral principles…[that] affect how people make decisions and lead their lives". Is a man buying a foreign land immoral? It certainly depends on what one classifies as moral: Interior Minister Ogmundur Jonasson urged Iceland to fully consider selling its land to Huang Nubo, saying the land "needed to learn its lesson from the banking crisis and listen to those people cautioning against accepting any investment offered." In this case, Huang Nubo's offer was unethical. The offer was given at a time that was unfavourable for the Iceland economy, a few years after their major economic crisis, and it is possible that the country has not had enough time to get their act together. This, however, is very opinionated, as Katrin Juliusdottir points out, last have been previously sold to foreigners, and therefore, selling 300sq km to Huang Nubo should not cause an unexpected controversy. Ethics can often be moved by emotion, and that itself is subjective. Whether Huang Nubo's buying is good or bad really depends on how strongly you feel about giving land to a foreigner.
Emotivism, a type of ethics, is based upon emotion. BBC quotes, "like subjectivism, it teaches that there are no objective moral facts, and that therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true". An emotivist would express their feelings about issues with an influence of their own or others' thoughts and conduct. In this article, and supposedly for almost any situation, moral ethics cannot be objective, and are at times biased. In the Huang Nubo article, a person may be offended that someone other than a native buys his homeland, simply because the person who bought it is a foreigner, someone of a different identity. Perhaps someone would be grateful, appreciating that a man, any man, has bought land where he lives, and helped his country in their financial crisis.
The same could be said for Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American industrialist, businessman, and entrepreneur who led the enormous expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century. At his death, he donated a significant amount of money to charity. Ethically, and emotionally, it can come across as two paths: First, in the perspective of his wife, he can be a man who cared more about his work than family. Second, in the perspective of the charity organisation, he was a selfless man who thought more of the others than himself. This goes to show how at times, ethics can tie into emotions, perception, and can sometimes be hard to differentiate.
Although the particular issue at hand raises ethical concerned of whether or not a country should be allowed to sell their land for private owners to purchase, the main concern in my opinion is not one of great ethical concern. The minister of the industry had reported the foreigners already do own quite a bit of land. The fact that concerns are only being raised now after a Chinese business man had decided to purchase the land signals that the issue perhaps originates from fear of the rising power of China. This particular case more than anything else signals a political issue. Although some people argue that Huang Nubo's offer was unethical since the offer was given at an unfavorable time for Iceland's economy, Huang Nubo merely made an offer, he did not force his the proposition on his buyer. Therefore It is ultimately the government's decision to preserve or sell their land. A country will not sell their land unless it has exhausted of all other options, if view from this perspective, perhaps Huang Nubo was doing the Icelandic government a favor.
ReplyDeleteIf viewed from a more narrow scale, this issue is similar to any private owners selling their land. An individual, like the government theoretically has the same right over the land they own. The house too defines an individual just like how a country's land physically defines the country. For example, Rumer Godden Dumfriesshire, an accomplished novel of biographies and children's book is forced to put the house that she has spent the last 20 years of her life in up for sale, this raises the same ethical considerations. Despite the unfortunate circumstance, it is still an individual's decision to sell their property, therefore emotional attachments should not dictate whether or not it is ethical for a new buyer to purchase the property. This is the same situation as Iceland putting their land for sale, it is ultimately the seller's responsibility to remove emotional attachment when he has made the decision to sell his land. This again raises another concern in the knowledge issue of what does it mean to 'own' anything at all. How can an individual own any property, and what defines a property?
As pointed out by Vickie, I don't completely agree that Huang Nubo's offer was unethical simply because he made that offer at a time when Iceland has basically defaulted. If that were the case, then it would also be arguable that anybody who buys stocks during times of recession are also unethical, as they are basically seeking to make profits off of some company's downfall. The factor of the Western paranoia about the "Chinese Dragon" is also not uncommon, and if Iceland has opened itself up to foreign buyers of its land, there is no legitimate reason for a Chinese investor to be denied that same right, especially since there is no evidence that Huang Nubo is doing this according to direct orders from the Chinese government. Not that there are compelling reasons for China to buy land from Iceland as part of their alleged 'takeover'in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do feel that Huang Nubo's proposition brings to light the question of Iceland selling off its land. While it is probably a good way to stimulate the economy, how much sovereignty will Iceland be left with if it sells too much? And how much would be too much? 10%? 20%? And if, for example, 25% of a country is owned by foreigners, how is the government going to establish its own legitimacy in the eyes of its people? When the government is selling its own land to make up for its financial inadequacies, it is clear that they are in trouble, but a decision of this magnitude should be made not by the government officials themselves, but by the people as well, as they too, deserve to have a voice in having their homeland sold off.