"Abandoned" hectare: Why is it better to give land to Russians, not Uzbeks

One of the most important topics of recent days can rightfully be considered the information that Russia is ready to lease 1 million hectares of agricultural land to Uzbekistan on a long-term basis. Unfortunately, the domestic press did not pay enough attention to it, so now we will try to correct this omission.

The Russian Ministry of Agriculture is reportedly discussing a possible agreement to lease 35 hectares of arable land to Uzbekistan for subsequent export. In the future, the area of ​​leased land may increase to 1 million hectares. For comparison, in 2015, the PRC wanted to lease 49 thousand hectares of agricultural land in the Russian Far East for 115 years. It turns out that Tashkent can bypass even Beijing with its famous appetites.



In the domestic media, this information is presented with restrained optimism. There are some expert opinions that Uzbekistan is not dangerous to Russia, unlike China, our federal budget will receive "huge revenues" from land lease, and these lands themselves will be saved by the Uzbeks from desolation. Reading this, one is inevitably amazed at the flight of imagination. It's amazing how you can turn everything upside down. Let's take a look at all these extremely dubious arguments and try to find a grain of truth, if it is, of course, possible.

Agricultural outsourcing

As you know, the agriculture of this independent Central Asian republic is critically dependent on irrigation. The hot dry climate and water scarcity leave it possible to grow something in the flat part of the country only by irrigation. Due to the growing population, Tashkent is forced to reduce the area occupied by cotton in favor of arable land. Uzbekistan is in dire need of grain, vegetables and other agricultural products in large quantities. Instead of investing in irrigation infrastructure and switching to growing new crops that require less irrigation, the republic's authorities want to take the simpler route and move production to Russia, so to speak, to outsourcing.

In general, they can be understood. Now tell me, dear readers, what do you see in this whole situation?

That's right, we have a guaranteed market for agricultural products. A natural question arises, why, in fact, it is necessary to give Russian lands to Uzbeks so that they grow grain and other crops in our country, exporting them for their own consumption, if these same lands can be cultivated by Russian farmers, supplying food for export to Uzbekistan? Why is it necessary to transfer some abandoned land to a foreign state on a long-term lease?

Is this "our" land?

The second question that I would like to discuss will be even more delicate. It is customary for us to be terribly afraid of Chinese expansion and the gradual absorption of Russia by the Celestial Empire. In neighboring Kazakhstan, people threw themselves out into the streets en masse when they learned that the country's authorities intend to lease their agricultural lands to the PRC on a long-term basis. Ordinary people expressed concern that the Chinese would settle down and would not leave after the lease expired. But why are such concerns not expressed about immigrants from Central Asia?

Let's just say that the author of the lines is a supporter of the idea of ​​friendship of peoples and has nothing against citizens of other countries. Moreover, he sympathizes with the difficult conditions in which the so-called migrant workers from Tajikistan or Uzbekistan are forced to work in Russia. In the context of globalization, labor migration is the norm, whether someone likes it or not. But it's one thing when people arrived, worked and left home with the money. It's another matter when they decide to stay, and even bring all their numerous relatives with them. By and large, this is also their right, but then the local population and regional authorities may have a problem with the socialization of people from a completely different cultural environment. Everyone has heard of what excesses sometimes happen. In the USSR there was at one time the Ministry of Nationalities, in the Russian Federation for some reason it does not exist, which means that everything was left to chance.

Reportedly, land in the Chelyabinsk, Orenburg and Omsk regions may be transferred to Uzbekistan for a long-term lease, and in total 23 Russian regions have shown interest. The question arises, who will work on these lands? Will Tashkent create new jobs for Russians? Or will the Uzbeks themselves grow the crops? The latter assumption is probably true. It turns out that by their decision to surrender 1 million hectares to Uzbekistan for 49 years, our authorities, so to speak, will secure labor migrants on the ground, on Russian soil. Why spend money and leave if you can stay, and even for an indefinitely long time?

Is it really incomprehensible that the Ministry of Agriculture, with its own hands, is planting a “time bomb” under interethnic relations in regions bordering, by the way, with Kazakhstan?

"Abandoned" hectare

The suggestions that foreign farmers will save the so-called abandoned lands are also striking in their cynicism. What is this, by the way? No man's land? Are there still such people? Or is it the land that someone once "grabbed", and now does not use for their intended purpose? In the latter case, then the state must return them to its property through the courts. However, back to the main topic. By the way, where did you get such confidence that the newcomers would turn out to be zealous owners? Wouldn't it turn out in practice that Uzbek farmers will do Chinese-style farming, filling the land with pesticides and other active chemicals? Experts are crying about unused lands, but why not give them to the Chinese and Uzbeks, but to the Russians?

The program of the "Far Eastern hectare" is causing some irritation with its regular absurdity. For some reason, it is believed that people should break away from their homes, move to the other end of the country and start building and farming in an open field. By the way, how profitable is it in general - to invest in 1 hectare? Much more sensible is the idea of ​​distributing land to everyone in the regions where they live.

Do you live, for example, in the Chelyabinsk region and are you ready to try your hand at being a farmer? So let the state provide free land, and not 1 hectare, but a much larger plot, for free use for several years with the condition of its intended use. So, you see, the land will not be abandoned, and new farms will appear, possibly, in the future, they will be enlarged due to the merger into agricultural cooperatives. And Uzbekistan will have something to sell, and Russian people will treat their land with respect.

And we have turned everything upside down!