Rosia Montana, an omen for TTIP

[n2doc]

Romanians decided two years ago not to host Europe's largest gold mine. Now the Canadian mining company is seeking massive compensation from Bucharest, in a case that foreshadows what TTIP could bring, writes Claudia Ciobanu.

Claudia Ciobanu is a Romanian freelance reporter based in Warsaw.

The biggest citizen mobilisation in Romania since the anti-communist battles of the early 1990s opposed in 2013 Gabriel Resources' plan to build a cyanide-based gold and silver mine in the Romanian Apuseni Mountains at Rosia Montana. Following the massive street protests, the Romanian parliament decided not to pass legislation that would have allowed the company to go ahead with the mine.

The exploration would have involved digging up Rosia Montana and two nearby villages, destroying four mountains and placing a giant cyanide pool in the area.

This week, Gabriel Resources officially announced that it filed a request for arbitration against Romania before the World Bank's investment dispute settlement centre. According to the company, “through its actions and inactions, Romania has blocked and prevented implementation of the project, effectively depriving Gabriel entirely of the value of its investments”.

more

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/rosia-montana-omen-ttip-316594

[rurallib]

1. hope this gets lots of recs and responses

cause people need to understand what's coming

[Katashi_itto]

2. K&R!

[Hotler]

3. Kicking....

[G_j]

4. K&R

[nenagh]

5. K&R

[Hoyt]

6. Sounds to me, the "will of the people" won. Gabriel won't get its mine.

Now, the arbitrators will decide if Romania violated a treaty with Canada, and whether Romania owes Gabriel any money for facilities already built in Romania. Romania actually was a partner with Gabriel in this venture. It's not like Gabriel swooped in and tried to start the mining operation without Romanian endorsement.

If you think Gabriel will win, buy some stock at the currently depressed level.

[magical thyme]

22. under TTIP and TTP, corporations can sue for anticipated potential profits, not just actual

investment they may (or many not) have made. That is not the same thing.

If they invested $1m anticipating $1B profits over x years, they sue for $1m investment PLUS $1B anticipated profits.

The arbitration board, made up of corporate attorneys who, in similar cases my represent the suing corporations, decide the case and award the damages. And can seize public assets to pay the damages.

There is no appeal by the targets of the suit.

So no, the people do not win.

[Hoyt]

26. They won't get it, they can do that now under 2500 agreements that have been

in place since 1959. This is not something new, except to you and others who don't do any research on the issue.

You don't even know who makes up the tribunal. One arbiter picked by the company, one by the country, one by mutual agreement between the two. It can be a professor, legal expert, environmental experts, the "rent is too high" guy, etc. Look it up.

It takes years to go through these, and the companies don't win very often.

The fact that countries -- including Romania, Britian, Germany, rest of the EU, Bernie's favorite Scandinavian countries, Canada, Mexico, etc., beg to be in these agreements to attract the investments and jobs, ought to tell you something.

[magical thyme]

30. like hell they don't.

And no, not just "anybody" can sit on a tribunal. They are, specifically, corporate attorneys.

Plus the numbers of suits countries have been forced to defend themselves against have skyrocketed in recent years. Defending yourself against a lawsuit is expensive.

So governments that are afraid of the lawsuits are encouraged to roll over and change laws that were enacted to protect people and the environment in order to prevent expensive, ruinous lawsuits.

You're the one who doesn't do research and needs to "look it up."

http://www.citizen.org/documents/egregious-investor-state-attacks-case-studies.pdf
The tribunals deciding these cases are composed of three private attorneys, unaccountable to any electorate. Some attorneys rotate between serving as “judges” and bringing cases for corporations against governments – such dual roles would be deemed unethical in most legal systems. Tribunals are not bound by precedent or the opinions of States, and their rulings cannot be appealed on the merits.

ISDS-enforced pacts provide foreign corporations broad substantive “rights” that even surpass the strong property rights afforded to domestic firms in nations such as the United States. This includes the “right” to a regulatory framework that conforms to foreign investors’ “expectations,” which ISDS tribunals have interpreted to mean that governments should not change regulatory policies once a foreign investment has been established.1

Claiming such expansive rights, foreign corporations have used ISDS to attack an increasingly wide array of tobacco, climate, financial, mining, medicine, energy, pollution, water, labor, toxins, development and other non-trade domestic policies. The number of such cases has been soaring. While treaties with ISDS provisions have existed since the 1960s, just 50 known ISDS cases were launched in the regime’s first three decades combined.2 In contrast, corporations launched at least 50 cases each year from 2011-2013 (and 42 in 2014).3

http://www.citizen.org/documents/egregious-investor-state-attacks-case-studies.pdf

Environment: Climate Change
Vattenfall v. Germany I (coal-fired electric plant/climate change), settled (environmental conditions rolled back)Vattenfall, a Swedish energy firm, launched a $1.9 billion investor-state claim against Germany in 2009 under the Energy Charter Treaty over permits delays for a coal-fired power plant in Hamburg.33 According to Vattenfall, delays of required government permits started when the state’s environmental ministry established “very clear requirements” for the plant, due to “the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change having alerted the public to the impending climate change.”34 Public opposition to the proposed plant focused on prospective carbon emissions and water pollution. Further delays, according to Vattenfall, occurred when the Green Party – which opposed the plant on environmental grounds – formed a coalition with the Christian Democrats after state elections in 2008. After Vattenfall litigated in domestic courts, the coalition government issued the permits to Vattenfall, but with additional requirements to protect the Elbe River.35
Rather than comply with these requirements, Vattenfall launched its investor-state claim against Germany, arguing that Hamburg’s environmental rules amounted to an expropriation and a violation of Germany’s obligation to afford foreign investors “fair and equitable treatment.”36

Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador (oil concession), investor win (awarded $2.3 billion)
In 2006, Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) launched a claim against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT after the government terminated an oil concession due to the U.S. oil corporation’s breach of the contract and Ecuadorian law.48 Oxy illegally sold 40 percent of its production rights to another firm without government approval, despite a provision in the concession contract stating that sale of Oxy’s production rights without government pre-approval would terminate the contract.49 The contract explicitly enforced Ecuador’s hydrocarbons law, which protects the government’s prerogative to vet companies seeking to produce oil in its territory – a particular concern in the environmentally sensitive Amazon region where Oxy was operating.50 Oxy launched its BIT claim two days after the Ecuadorian government terminated the oil concession, claiming that the government’s enforcement of the contract terms and hydrocarbons law violated its BIT commitments, including the obligation to provide the firm “fair and equitable treatment.”51

Metalclad v. Mexico (toxic waste), investor win (awarded $16.2 million)
In 1997 Metalclad Corporation, a U.S. waste management firm, launched a NAFTA investor-state dispute against Mexico over the decision of Guadalcazar,84 a Mexican municipality, not to grant a construction permit for expansion of a toxic waste facility amid concerns of water contamination and other environmental and health hazards.85 Studies indicated that the site’s soils were very unstable, which could permit toxic waste to infiltrate the subsoil and carry contamination via deeper water sources.86 The local government had already denied similar permits to the Mexican firm from which Metalclad acquired the facility.87 Metalclad argued that the decision to deny a permit to it, as a foreign investor operating under NAFTA’s investor rights, amounted to expropriation without compensation, and a denial of NAFTA’s guarantee of “fair and equitable treatment.”88

S.D. Myers v. Canada (toxic waste), investor win (awarded $5.6 million)
In 1998 S.D. Myers, a U.S. waste treatment company, launched a NAFTA investor-state challenge against a temporary Canadian ban on the export of a hazardous waste called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).95 Canada banned exports of toxic waste to the United States absent explicit permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And, as a signatory to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Canadian policy generally limited exports of toxic waste.96 Meanwhile, the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act banned imports of hazardous waste, with limited exceptions such as waste from U.S. military bases.97 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that PCBs are harmful to humans and toxic to the environment.98 However, in 1995 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided to allow S.D. Myers and nine other companies to import PCBs into the United States for processing and disposal.99 Canada issued a temporary ban on PCB shipment, seeking to review the conflicting laws and regulations and its obligations under the Basel Convention.100 S.D. Myers argued that the Canadian ban constituted “disguised discrimination,” was “tantamount to an expropriation” and violated NAFTA’s prohibition of performance requirements and obligation to afford a “minimum standard of treatment.”101

Abengoa v. Mexico (toxic waste), investor win (awarded $40 million plus interest)In December 2009, Abengoa, a Spanish technology firm, filed a claim against Mexico under the Spain-Mexico BIT for preventing the company from operating a waste management facility that the local community of Zimapan strongly opposed on environmental grounds.104 The plant was to be built on a geological fault line across from a dam and the Sierra Gorda biosphere reserve – an UNESCO World Heritage site and home to Nanhu and Otomi indigenous communities. The region was already contaminated with arsenic from previous mining operations. The community contended that building a waste facility on a fault line, by a dam, in an area contaminated with arsenic, near indigenous communities and an environmental reserve posed a significant environmental threat.105

Bilcon v. Canada (quarry mining), investor win (award amount pending)In May 2008, members of the U.S.-based Clayton family – the owners of a concrete company – and their U.S. subsidiary, Bilcon of Delaware, launched a NAFTA challenge against Canadian environmental requirements affecting their plans to open a basalt quarry and a marine terminal in Nova Scotia.110 The investors planned to blast, extract and ship out large quantities of basalt from the proposed 152-hectare project,111 located in a key habitat for several endangered species, including oneof the world’s most endangered large whale species.112 Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans determined that blasting and shipping activity in this sensitive area required a rigorous assessment given environmental risks and socioeconomic concerns raised by many members of the local communities.113 A government-convened expert review panel concluded that the project would threaten the local communities’ “core values that reflect their sense of place, their desire for self-reliance, and the need to respect and sustain their surrounding environment.”114 On the recommendation of the panel, the government of Canada rejected the project.115

Financial Stability
Saluka v. Czech Republic (bank bailout), investor win (awarded $236 million)Saluka Investments, a Netherlands investment company, filed an investor-state claim in 2001 under the Netherlands-Czech Republic BIT against the Czech government for not bailing out a private bank, in which the company had a stake, in the same way that the government bailed out banks in which the government had a major stake.129 The bailouts came in response to a widespread bank debt crisis.130 Investicni a Postovni Banka (IPB), the first large bank to be fully privatized in the Czech Republic,131 along with three large banks in which the government retained significant ownership, had been suffering from significant debt and borderline insolvency, threatening the Czech banking sector.132 Consequently, the government placed IPB into forced administration in 2000 and then sold the bank for one crown to another bank.133

CMS Gas v. Argentina (emergency stability measures), investor win (awarded $133 million plus interest)
In July 2001, CMS Gas Transmission Company, a U.S. energy firm, filed a claim against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for financial rebalancing policies enacted in response to a 2001 economic meltdown spurring social and political unrest.139 The case particularly targeted the government’s limitations on gas utility rate increases – an effort, as part of Argentina’s Economic Emergency Law, to stem runaway inflation.140

Eureko v. Poland (insurance privatization), settled (investor obtained $1.6 billion)In 2003, Eureko, a Netherlands-based company, filed a claim against Poland under the Netherlands-Poland BIT for prohibiting it from taking a controlling stake in PZU, Poland’s first and largest insurance company.151 Facing significant public and political opposition to a previous administration’s decision to sell a controlling share of Poland’s public insurance firm to a foreign corporation, the Polish government reversed its privatization plans.152

Essential Services
Azurix v. Argentina (water), investor win (awarded $165 million plus interest)
U.S. water company Azurix Corp. (an Enron subsidiary) filed a claim against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT in 2001 over a dispute related to its controversial water services contract in the province of Buenos Aires.158 During a 1999 water privatization deal, the company won a 30-year concession to provide water and sewage treatment to 2.5 million people.159 Within a few months, residents complained of foul odors coming from the water. Local governments advised against drinking or paying for tap water and street protests against the water service were held.160 After the problem was identified as algae contamination of a reservoir, Azurix alleged the algae was the government’s responsibility and demanded compensation for associated costs.161 The government argued that Azurix had a contractual responsibility to ensure clean drinking water.162 In the following year, residents experienced a series of water outages and were repeatedly over-billed by Azurix for water, resulting in government fines.163 Azurix withdrew from its contract in 2001.164

a lot more at the link...

[Hoyt]

32. And everyone of those countries are ready to sign another agreement because it attracts needed

investment. And, in every case, the country's laws were not overridden.

The arbiters can be almost anyone. Most are professors. The country essentially gets to pick 1.5, and the company 1.5.

Do you work for a corporation?

[magical thyme]

34. you clearly didn't read the excerpts from citizen.org that I posted.

No, arbiters cannot be "almost anyone."

Yes, environmental laws have been rolled back. They were in one of the cases I cited, which you would have noticed if you'd taken the time to read it.

And no, every one of those countries is not ready to sign another agreement.

France and Germany to form united front against ISDS
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/france-and-germany-form-united-front-against-isds-311267
France and Germany are both outspoken in their criticisms of the inclusion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism in the ongoing trade talks with the US. The two countries are discussing throwing their combined weight behind a common position onthe matter. EurActiv France reports.
Paris and Berlin want the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS) removed from in the transatlantic trade treaty currently being negotiated with Washington.

Australia’s rejection of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Four potential contributing factors
http://www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/australias-rejection-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-four-potential-contributing-factors/
In April of this year, as a part of a broader rethink of Australia’s approach to international trade negotiations, the Gillard Government vowed that it will no longer include provisions on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in bilateral and regional trade agreements.[1] The new policy is justified by reference to the principles of ‘no greater rights’ for foreign investors and the government’s ‘right to regulate’ to protect the public interest. These principles have long been advocated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) but have generally only been paid lip service by governments.

Multiple Countries Rejecting Investor State Dispute Settlement
http://justinvestment.org/2012/04/multiple-countries-rejecting-investor-state-dispute-settlement/
Following on the heels of Australia, Korea appeared poised to go the same route with polls showing the opposition, which rejected ISD, favoured to win the upcoming election; however, in the election held yesterday, the governing Conservatives managed to hold on to a slender majority so the jury is still out as regards South Korea. [2] [3] However one clue might be found in a recent April 6th claim by India that it plans to abolish the investor-state dispute system and renegotiate FTAs with South Korea, Singapore, and other countries. According to the English language newspaper, Indian Express, New Delhi´s decision to abandon the ISD system is based on its first-hand experience with the potential threat foreign companies pose to public policy on the grounds of investment agreement violations. [4]

Other countries that have concerns with, are opposed to, or have rejected, ISD, include the South African government which is re- examining the ISD system after a policy of affirmative action for blacks, aimed at reducing economic disparities between white and black people, was targeted in 2007 by a multinational corporation; the Brazilian parliament which has refused to ratify a number of investment agreements on the grounds that they infringe on legislative sovereignty and Ecuador and Bolivia that have pulled out of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes convention. [4]

[truedelphi]

56. Thank you for your patience in dealing this pro-Multi-International

Corporatist apologist.

They also happen to be Big Fans of Monsanto.

Magical Thyme, it is folks like you that keep me posting on DU.

[magical thyme]

31. excerpts from analysis of leaked text of ISDS chapter of TPP

http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf

 Foreign investors alone would be granted access to extrajudicial tribunals staffed by private sector lawyers who rotate between acting as “judges” and representing corporations in cases against governments, posing major conflicts of interest. The leaked text includes provisions that submit TPP signatory countries to the jurisdiction of World Bank and United Nations investor-state arbitral tribunals. These tribunals, staffed by private sector attorneys (Article II.18.4), would be empowered to order governments to pay investors compensation for what the attorneys deem to be violations of the TPP’s investor rights. The tribunals lack public accountability, requirements to follow precedent, or standard judicial ethics rules. The leaked TPP text itself has no requirement for tribunalists to be independent or impartial. Rather, it relies on weak impartiality rules set by the arbitration venues themselves. In the 48-year history of the World Bank arbitration regime, which is most commonly used, tribunalists have only been disqualified in four of 41 challenges of exhibited bias or conflicts of interest. Rulings by tribunalists with specific conflicts of interest have been allowed to stand. A tribunalist ruling that Argentina had to pay Vivendi Universal $105 million for reversing a failed water privatization served on the board of a bank that was a major investor in Vivendi.

Foreign tribunals would be empowered to order governments to pay unlimited cash compensation out of national treasuries. The leaked text provides tribunals with discretion to determine the amount of compensation governments must pay investors (Article II.28.1) and also the allocation of costs (Article II.28.3), such as the tribunalists’ fees. Even when governments win ISDS cases, they waste scarce budgetary resources defending national policies against these corporate attacks, as $8 million in taxpayer funds must be used in an average ISDS case to pay large hourly fees for the tribunals and legal costs.

An overreaching definition of “investment” has been agreed by all parties that would extend the coverage of the TPP’s expansive substantive investor rights far beyond “real property,” permitting ISDS attacks over government actions and policies related to financial instruments, intellectual property, regulatory permits and more. The definition of “investment” in the leaked text is: “every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or profit, or the assumption of risk” (Article II.1). The text goes on to enumerate as examples: regulatory permits; intellectual property rights; financial instruments such as stocks and derivatives; “construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing, and other similar contracts;” and “licenses, authorizations, permits, and similar rights conferred pursuant to domestic law.” The chapter’s new rights and protections would extend to investments already existing before the TPP. It would permit compensation claims even over failed attempts to make an investment, with the low standard to qualify for attempting to invest being “concrete action or actions to make an investment, such as channeling resources or capital in order to set up a business, or applying for permits or licenses.” The expansive definitions would allow attacks on a vast array of non-discriminatory domestic policies and government actions from health and land use policies to construction permits and financial regulation.

U.S. negotiators in particular are pushing to expand the scope of coverage to also subject government contracts to ISDS enforcement. U.S. negotiators are pushing for foreign investors to have greater rights than domestic investors with respect to disputes relating to procurement contracts with the signatory governments, contracts for natural resource concessions on land controlled by the national government and contracts to operate utilities (Articles II.1 and II.18(1)(a)(i)(C)).

[Hoyt]

33. You are reading an analysis by someone like Sen Warren, who has not proven her willingness

to lie to gain support among those not inclined to look anything up for themselves.

[magical thyme]

36. I have provided 3rd party, legal expert sources. Still waiting for a single source for your empty

claims.

Considering your "source," I'm not going to hold my breath and this "discussion" is over. Other readers will avail themselves of links to verified information that I've provided. I don't have the time or energy for your pathetic games.

[Fairgo]

44. Yeoman's work, my friend

Kudos

[Divernan]

52. Excellent rebuttal!

[Mbrow]

54. good job

[dixiegrrrrl]

59. Thank you for all your efforts to put info like this for us to read!

[appalachiablue]

7. K & R. Fast Track, TPP, TTIP.

Conclusion: "Unfortunately, as the Greek crisis is proving, in today's Europe the will of the CITIZENS can be easily crushed by technocratic opaque mechanisms that serve the interests of BIG FINANCE and BIG BUSINESS without GOVERNMENTS being willing or able to intervene. TTIP looks set to bring more of the same.
The recent cases opened by Gabriel Resources against Romania serves as an omen of what Europe's future may look like if CITIZEN POWER is not restored."

[tclambert]

8. Oh, that poor, poor mining company. That tyrannical democracy is depriving them of profit.

All they want is to wreck the local environment in return for making lots of money. How can the "will of the people" dare to deprive a hard working corporation of its gold? It's about time governments get put in their place and people recognize the sovereignty of corporations. The world will be so much better off when all important decisions get made in secret by C-level executives guided only by the profit motive.

While they are at it, they should sue Romania for not allowing the corporation to sell all their daughters into sex slavery. I hear there's good money in that, too.







( If you thought it was serious, there's something wrong with you.)

[Octafish]

9. Mineral extraction is so profitable.

Why not just skip the middleman who lives on top of Gabriel Resource's gold?

[raouldukelives]

10. Gabriel Resources thirsting for gold and silver? Seems familiar.

"Betwixt these rocky pillars Gabriel sat."

[Hoyt]

13. Well, Romanian government partnered with Gabriel for jobs and profit.

It's not like Gabriel set up shop in the country without the welcome of the Romanian government (which is known for its corruption).

My bet is, Romania will have to give up a lot to get foreign countries to investment in the future. That means Romania will have to risk arbitration in the future to get badly needed investment.

BTW, I'm not for that kind of mining, but the Romanian government was at the time they brought Gabriel in.

[AzDar]

11. K & R

[Jack Rabbit]

12. K/R

Now that's real corporate fascism.

No, guys, you don't have a right to make a profit, you don't have a right to destroy the environment and We, the People of the World, have every right to stop you.

Go cry to your corporate shysters at the World Bank. They have no jurisdiction over us.

[Hoyt]

14. Romanian government brought them in and even partnered with Gabriel.

So the government is guilty too. And, no, I'm not for that kind of mining, but Romanian government was at the time. Unfortunately, the government and people will pay a price for future investment in the country.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. You're right

The government is guilty, too. Corrupt politicians, with no regard for those they putatively represented, let Gabriel in after receiving bribes re-election campaign contributions from hucksters and shysters.

That should be a warning to us People not to allow -- or recognize as legitimate -- "legal" entities like ISDS panels meant to bypass our will. ISDS panels should be opposed and eliminated, and greedy, rapacious corporations should be made to bow before us by any means necessary. Artificial persons and those real ones who hide behind corporate logos in order to commit crimes in the names of corporations are the ones who shall pay a price for greed and rapaciousness, and pay it by being denied a return on their investments.

Stop talking like the cosmos is in proper order when these scumbuckets lord it over the Earth and the people who live on it. There is no God in Heaven, Mr. Browning, and all is foul on Earth.

[Hoyt]

27. The ISDS doesn't bypass peoples' will. Gabriel/Romania will not get their mine.

Romanians were laid off. The country will have to find other ways to generate revenues for its people. That's probably good in this particular case, not so good for the next partnership Romania wants.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Incorrect, my good sir

From the article:

This week, Gabriel Resources officially announced that it filed a request for arbitration against Romania before the World Bank's investment dispute settlement centre. According to the company, “through its actions and inactions, Romania has blocked and prevented implementation of the project, effectively depriving Gabriel entirely of the value of its investments”.

Gabriel is able to bring Romania in front of an arbitration tribunal because of bilateral trade treaties Romania signed with Canada (where the company is listed on the stock exchange) and the UK (it is not yet clear whether the company is able to use the treaty with the UK because it has a subsidiary in infamous tax haven Jersey or for another reason).

According to information publicised by Gabriel Resources in Romania, the company has up until now invested half a billion US dollars in the country. Yet in an interview given in 2013, Jonathan Henry, the president and CEO of Gabriel said the company would seek as much as $4 billion in damages from Romania if the project does not go ahead.

Today, Henry does not give out any information about the total amount sought by the company. But if his old threat is true, this would be one of the biggest amounts ever claimed by a corporation from a state in arbitration. As of 2012, the biggest amount awarded under the World Bank's dispute settlement instrument was the $1.77 billion that Ecuador was asked to pay to Occidental Petroleum Corporation.

Romania's total healthcare budget is usually around $1.5 billion annually, meaning that losing the arbitration case could potentially cost Romania the equivalent of three years of state health services. An enormous price to pay for the sake of Gabriel's shareholders, the beneficiaries of an eventual arbitration victory by Gabriel. Almost half of the cases settled via the World Bank's instrument are won by corporations.

Gabriel simply should not have this recourse. No corporation should. To have such a recourse is an end run around government by and for the people. The Romanian government partnered with Gabriel, but the corporation demonstrated that it could not perform its end of the bargain in responsible way (unless you think there's anything responsible about making people sick from cyanide poisoning).

My point is that there should be no ISDS panel of any kind. The government should have the authority to halt any private project that harms the environment or the health of the population. If the investors have a recourse, then they should replace the dodgy corporate officers who misled the Romanian government into thinking nothing could go wrong, or were upfront about it and $weetened the pot so that bureaucrats would approve a deal they knew was bad for the people of Romania. In that case, the investors have an obligation to make sure that the corporation is run by more ethical officers, and the people, in this case the Romanian people, have an obligation to make sure the government is also administrated by people of a higher ethical character as well.

In no case should the corporation, i.e., the corporate officers, be allowed to even think about recovering lost profits because they were not allowed to continue a project that was a menace to public health. Those people created the problem, and they are the one who should pay for it. The people of the nation, whether Romanians or Greeks, should not have to suffer for deals made in their name by corrupt politicians and crooked businessmen. If the people are susceptible to cyanide poisoning or malnourishment as a result of austerity imposed by the powerful, they cannot be held responsible for that. It is a consequence of being made of flesh and blood, unlike a corporation, which exists only on paper.

[Hoyt]

37. Like I saif Gabriel will not get its mine, at best it will get some compensation for the facility it

leaves behind.

Worse, the next company Romania tries to attract will make sure it has agreements to protect it from corrupt government officials.

[Jack Rabbit]

39. I stand on what I said

Gabriel is not entitled to compensation. The World Bank's ISDS panel, or any other ISDS panel, should not exist and the people of Romania, like the people of Greece, should resist attempts to collect from them for the crimes of the the rich and powerful.

It isn't that Gabriel won't get it's mine that bothers me. It's that the corporate officers of Gabriel such as Mr. Henry think that the corporation is entitled to compensation for being prevented from further damaging public health as a byproduct of operating the mine.

[Hoyt]

40. Then, Romania and Greece will rot trading among themselves. Our jobs would plummet too

without foreign companies investing here.

I guarantee, Greece will sign every agreement they can get, because they will never prosper on their own. I'm not happy about that, but it's reality.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. If that's a reality, perhaps we need a new paradigm of producing goods and services

Your reality is one corrupt place. Do we have to depend on crooked businessmen for prosperity? Do common people only make money so that powerful gangsters can steal it from us?

I would be willing to go back to a system we had before Phil Gramm and Robert Rubin fixed something that wasn't broken and created this reality based on a hodgepodge of unsustainable economic models, unworkable theories and outright lies supplied by people like the Koch brothers such as climate change denial. But if that's too much trouble for the rich and powerful, we'll proceed to produce what we need without them.

The difference between us, Hoyt, is that you accept as immutable a reality that makes you unhappy; I don't.

[Hoyt]

47. Well, are we supposed to depend on you to raise the capital to build roads, houses, rapid rail, etc.

I don't like crooked businesspeople, but I don't like having to walk outside to use an outhouse, either. That's what you'd have without big businesses and the jobs they provide.

If there's another way, I'm all for it.

But, I spent enough time on my granddad's dirt farm to know most folks would gripe to high heaven if that's what we had.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Good grief, Hoyt, you're more of a pessimist than I am

and I take meds for depression.

Do you really think crooked businesspeople are the only ones who can raise capital?

I know it seems that way nowadays, but there is nothing says a person who can raise capital must also be someone who needs to be kept away from human society for the public's safety. In fact, that doesn't even make sense.

Can't we just put Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd in cages where they belong and turn JPMorganChase and Goldman Sachs over to honest men and women? Is that too difficult to conceive of?

My dad was a businessman. He never cheated anyone in his life. Such people do exist.

[Hoyt]

55. Sorry, I thought you were one of those that thought all business people are crooked.

That was my point, they all aren't. Yeah, they do some things most of us don't like. But without big corporations, we'd have a lot less of what people seem to want. Of course, that's a different discussion. I'd rather pay more in taxes for health care, education, a better safety net, etc. But I'm not convinced most folks feel that way.

[ybbor]

15. K & R

[Babel_17]

16. From Bloomberg ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/gabriel-rises-after-filing-arbitration-case-over-romanian-mine

The Rosia Montana project stalled after a series of protests in cities across the country in 2013 demanded Gabriel’s plan to be dropped. Local communities opposed the use of cyanide in Romania after the country suffered one of Europe’s worst environmental disasters in 2000 when cyanide-rich mine waste in northwestern Romania contaminated tributaries of the Tisza river and spread to the Danube.

[Enthusiast]

18. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

This is corporate rule. You have to be a fool to invite corporate rule.

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. K&R

Greedy bastages won't be satisfied
until we are all poisoned and die
in our own industrial waste.

Enough is enough!
End the Oligarch's greed

[99th_Monkey]

20. Let us destroy your towns and nature and poison you, OR we'll sue your pants off. GOT IT.

How can corporations get any more evil than this.

BTW - what's up with the TPP in the US? I haven't heard boo about it for awhile.

[jwirr]

23. Well you know that our congress handed it over to our president so he could continue in

secret to con the other partners into accepting anything the corporate people want. I imagine he is working to get them all signed on so he can bring it back for our congress to betray us once again.

[99th_Monkey]

24. At some point back there, several weeks ago

the coverage on TPP seemed to go dark, or else I missed it somehow.

I guess that's how secret laws get on the books, huh.

Thanks for your mini-update.

[JEB]

21. Fascism writ into the laws of the world.

Corporations are coming for your gold, your oil, your wages, your water, your national treasures.

[d_legendary1]

25. I'm getting tired of corporations legislating their way

into our lives. How come we have to pay for their damages and they don't have to pay for ours? They can literally shit in our drinking water so then they can charge us to drink theirs (which can also kill you). Somethings gotta give!

[november3rd]

28. BOD

Can't the Board of Directors of Gabriel Resources be hunted down, harassed, and made a public spectacle until they become so embarrassed by the public exposure of their greed, depravity and inhumanity that they just wither away and are borne off upon on the breezes of time and public opinion, away to Never Never Land?

[n2doc]

29. I'm sure that would be called "terrorism"

And they are probably well protected. Only corporations are legally allowed to extort money. The mob didn't take the legal approach (although they may now)

[CharlotteVale]

38. K&R

[emsimon33]

42. K&R

[Flying Squirrel]

43. Romania is just the ttip of the iceberg.

[Armstead]

45. "Free Tade" enslaves the rest of us.

[saidsimplesimon]

46. Indeed, Armstead, I'll stand with Romania. n/t

[loudsue]

48. This is a very important article.

We are all slaves, now, to our corporate masters. Every dime we make will be going to pay off these lawsuits by way of our taxes.

[JDPriestly]

49. OK. Guys.

This is what the TPP and the other trade agreements are really about.

Disenfranchising voters in all the countries of the world in which people are stupid enough to allow their oligarchs to enter into these trade agreements.

No to the TPP and no to all the other trade agreements that establish these courts and arbitration panels. No. No. No.

A corporation should only have the right to sue a country in the court of the defendant country and only pursuant to the procedures and laws of the defendant country.

[Cleita]

51. +1000

[SusanCalvin]

53. ^THIS^

[LeftOfWest]

57. yes, right on JDPriestly.

READ THIS WORLD.

[Recursion]

58. Sounds like everything worked out pretty well

Romanian government invites Gabriel in to do the mine. Gabriel builds stuff. Romanian people don't like the mine idea. Romanian people pressure Romanian government. Romanian government backs out. Gabriel sues to get the money it spent building stuff back.

No mine will be built, and Gabriel has an arduous but at least possible method to recover some of the money they spent.

Which part of that would you want to be different?