Bolivia: Gov't, indigenous communities agree to nationalise mining company

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Green Left

Bolivia: Gov't, indigenous communities agree to nationalise mining company
Monday, August 6, 2012

Bolivian President Evo Morales applauded on July 10 the agreement struck with indigenous peoples from the mining town of Mallku Khota, in the north of Potosi, to nationalise a Canadian-owned mining company.

Morales said the agreement ensures the state can continue recuperating natural resources to benefit the Bolivian people.

The head of state met with leaders from the ayllus (indigenous communities) in this region that were demanding the concession granting to the Canadian company South American Silver (SAS) be annulled.

The agreement says the mine will be nationalised via a Supreme Decree.

Morales said: “These natural resources belong to the state, and therefore to the Bolivian people, which is why the national government should carry out the process of exploitation and exploration, with the participation of the indigenous communities in this zone; that is what we have agreed upon.”

Read more: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51802

[mountain grammy]

1. There's still hope

Power to the people! So simple and it works. Thanks, great story!

[amyrose2712]

2. So glad to see you still here and posting....

it was getting a little stressful for me, I needed a break. Thanks for always posting such great information.

[Octafish]

3. Too bad for SAS. Great for Bolivia.

I'd bet most Americans would favor something similar for the extraction industries operating in the Lower 48 and Hawai'i. Alaska has something similar going for the oil biz.

[COLGATE4]

4. Bolivia - marching proudly backward towards

expropriation of all foreign investment. Should work wonders for the Bolivian economy.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. Yep, a country's natural resources should always be made available to the highest bidder.

And if the local inhabitants get screwed in the process, that's just collateral damage.

[COLGATE4]

6. Sure - it helps everyone when the resources are either

left to rot, are exploited in an inefficient and over-costly manner and provide a great pot of wealth to be spread around among government insiders. Works like a charm, every time.

[Vincardog]

7. Are those the only choices? Either leave them rot, or exploit them to advantage the few?

[COLGATE4]

9. No. The best choice is to let companies which

have the technical know-how in to begin exploiting the resources, train and bring along local talent and finances until you've got a partnership. Works in lots of third world countries. Not politically correct.

[Vincardog]

11. In your mind the best use of everything is to benefit CORPORATIONS? The interests of the people are

only to considered when they enrich the corporate enterprise?

Please tell me I misunderstood this.

[bitchkitty]

12. You did not misunderstand. n/t

[bitchkitty]

13. And of course the corporations have done such a stellar job so far.

I mean, it's not like they're killing anti-mining activists or anything...oh, wait...never mind...

[COLGATE4]

15. You can't approach complicated economic problems

such as those in developing nations by painting with such a broad-brush, feel-good ideological approach, as satisfying as that may be. Corporations are like everything else - some are good, some bad, most neither good nor bad, just OK. The central point remains that in countries that are desperately poor and lack resources to provide their citizens with the most basic services natural resources should serve as a source for funding these. In many instances there is neither the technical expertise nor the funding available locally to do so. In reality, if a nation wants to develop its natural resources it can choose to do so (as many successfully have) in partnership with a foreign corporation. This provides the funding and expertise necessary while at the same time training local talent which can then begin running the operation themselves. The proof of this is the Petroleum industry where almost all successful third-world companies began as exploitation by foreign corporations.

What IS the kiss of death to this mutually beneficial relationship is expropriation. Once that begins, capital flees (both foreign and national), and the company is left to generally unprepared host-country nationals to run and government-connected insiders to pillage. Hardly a satisfactory solution.

[LiberalAndProud]

8. In general, I can say that I don't share your worldview

or your fondness for profit-taking enterprises as the best way to use the resources we have. In my view to exploit is rarely to use to best advantage.

We could talk about resources left to rot because they can't be exploited by big business, but that's a different conversation.

[COLGATE4]

10. Resources untapped in poor countries that are

desparate for funds to help solve overwhelming social problems is a crime, in my view. Exploitation is a loaded word - in this context it does not mean 'to take advantage of' but to 'use to advantage'.

[Bradical79]

14. It's rarely used to advantage.

"to take advantage of" seems more appropriate when it comes to foreign mega corporations getting involved in natural resource exploitation. Now if there is a company that gets paid a nice fee to train and help set up a modern mining operations without taking ownership of the resources, then I would be ok with that.

[COLGATE4]

16. The problem what that approach is that

it doesn't resolve the other prong of the problem - lack of capital. No point in training people about better ways of running the business unless you can provide the tools that they need to do so.