Thanks for your efforts, ebear. This may not be as dire as thought, however. Afterall, if the state didn't own all this, there couldn't be state-levied mineral laws, concessions, royalties, etc. There has to be some legal basis, and this is probably it. The bottom line is the state's respect for law and property once the concession is let and the mining company begins operation. If that is viewed as positive by the current mining companies and potential foreign investors, then we are fine.

Also, didn't the govt just issue a new petroleum law? We should probably look at the sovereignty aspects of this new mining law in the context of that law.

You're probably right. It's just that I've come to expect the worst, so that's what I'm looking for. A self-fulfilling prophesy perhaps?

I know this "sovereignty" question has been much discussed in the assembly, and from my reading of it, they really don't grasp the full implications.

It boils down to a political interpretation that views international treaties as somehow being imposed by Imperialist elements - which is shorthand for Washington, the IMF and World Bank. Those are the bugbears that keep coming up in these ideologically driven discussions.

It's very disconcerting, as the language hearkens back to Soviet era rhetoric, which for some reason lives on in this part of the world: The "people" this. The "people that." It doesn't seem to have dawned on "the people" that they're fighting an enemy which has largely disappeared, and that the real obstacle to social and economic progress is their own lack of political vision, to say nothing of lack of regard for the individual, from which ALL sovereignty ultimately derives.

ebear