It is reasonable for a region to decide its natural resources should benefit the people who live there above people who do not live there.

That's a strawman. No one is arguing against that.

How a resource is being used by foreign corporations is an important input to policy decisions.

We're at a point in today's society where the mere suggestion that nationality might be relevant is met with accusations of xenophobia. It's the same way with race or sex.

Race exists due to nature and we use it to denote distinctions in our collective race.

We should celebrate our differences, not pretend they don't exist, or are merely humans being derogatory to each other.

How is the nationality relevant? Would this behavior be acceptable if the farms were owned by an Australian company? What about a publicly traded American company? What about an Arizonan billionaire? I don’t see how that would change anything.

Monopolizing natural resources is bad regardless of the nationality or residency of the people profiting.

In geopolitics (especially as applied to critical resources) -- and that's what this comes down to, really; not simply greed -- this never the case, of course.

It's always relevant who the owners of are - and what kinds of influence led them to being able to put down stakes where they have.

You might say it's the name of the game, in fact.