Comments on: Will bandages mend broken ties in the DRC?

By: donovanski

donovanski — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:59:35 +0000

Interesting how much interference goes on in the supposedly “free market”. Governments protect banks when they bring themselves to the edge of collapse. Banks and monetary funds protect corporations against sovereign states.

Why not just let the markets decide who is right?

If DRC has truly mistreated FQ, then other companies will be reluctant to risk investing into mining operations in the DRC, and eventually they will have to learn the hard way.

Free market my foot, constant intervention is how the world economy is run.

By: RobbC

RobbC — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:21:31 +0000

Blatant and heartless exploitation of the Congo by the west has been going on since the late 1800′s. Read up a bit; King Leopold’s Ghost, and Heart of Darkness are two great books to start with.

Nothing will change until people are put before $$, and history continually shows that has not been a strong point of the wealthy power elite.

That said, I do believe corporations should be allowed to make money, but I also believe they should have to be humane about it. Slash and burn, and take all you can, and give nothing back is not humane.

By: arsewipenomore

arsewipenomore — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:22:25 +0000

corporations,world bank included,have in one way or another ,brought resource-rich(or is it wealthy) Africa to it’s knees,with their take-no give back,profit driven policy, and austere measures..anyone in a corporation knows what i’m talking about ,so please no biz-ethic pretence here…So good on you and thank you DRC government, for taking a stance on a corporation..got to start somewhere..Africa

By: FierceInk

FierceInk — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:37:02 +0000

FQ has spat in the face of the DRC and is now attempting to wipe if off as if nothing ever happened. The people of the DRC that are in the mines everyday working their butts off to be able to feed their families should be taken care of better than they are now.

The money being made from the mine should be invested in the country ass a whole to make lives their better.

By: Alisdair

Alisdair — Mon, 16 May 2011 17:32:52 +0000

The ‘bleeding heart’ point of view may indeed be true that FQ had not paid an equitable price but then the DRC government would renegotiate before cutting of the project.

It seems pretty clear that this is theft. The DRC government sold it once and steady state production offers them smaller opportunities for graft. Better to make money by finding another investor for another round of bribes.

By: chriskazadi

chriskazadi — Sun, 08 May 2011 18:37:37 +0000

Before everyone is sure how to condemn the Congolese government perhaps they need to see what is happening. They are not fools and if this organization is doing so much for the country, building infrastructure and such they would not be having trouble. Congolese are hospitable and do not throw monkey wrenches at development so I would logically say that those who are so quick to condemn the DRC government probably do not have the whole story. Indeed if this company was so good then they might have had the health services in place. I have no idea what a container of band aids cost but I do know that mineral companies are making big money in the DRC. Logic my friends means keep an open mind, there is probably a lot more to the story than is printed here.

By: Pax369

Pax369 — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:37:21 +0000

So, just to be clear, Envestor88 feels there is no responsibility on the part of FQ to behave in a responsible way towards the environment or the human beings who live near the mine and work in it? No need to invest in that country in any way, just reap all the rewards for themselves and their investors?

I find it interesting that the world bank, indeed the world, is being encouraged by anyone to yet again cut off aid to the DRC because a corporation is not being allowed to do as they please with the humanity and the resources of yet another country.

How very laughable to say that it’s the countries responsibility to set human rights and environmental laws in place when the cases of corporations doing exactly the opposite if it furthers their bottom line.

By: Stevekabamba

Stevekabamba — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:07:30 +0000

I am just interested to find that people make analysis looking at one side of the story. Why should the US and European Union interfere on the matter between FQ and DRC? Why did they not interfere when FQ and DRC signed they contracts? Did they ever check to see if the contract could benefit he poor population? THE WORLD IS NOT FAIR

By: Envestor88

Envestor88 — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:32:35 +0000

The fact that the DRC allowed them to build the mine shifts the responsibility for the environment (through environment regulations) to the government. Profit’s aren’t “re-invested” because they were never “invested”. There’s a substance that the DRC lacked the ability to mine and refine, so they traded the mineral rights to a company in exchange for taxation revenues, possible royalties, etc. Also, mining tradionally pays far better than other job in an area.

Long story short: Why would FQ build a mine if they knew it would be nationalized? They were lured there under false pretences and DRC is trying to steal their property, infrastructure and investments.

This is 2011, you can’t conduct your country like that.

I hope that they do get cut off.

..again.

By: halcyonmeadows

halcyonmeadows — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:04:52 +0000

There is the other side – that mining destroys environment, that workers are not adequately compensated, that profits are not re-invested in the country from which they are taken. Nationalization allows governments especially poorer countries, to protect the land base and ensure adequate compensation for any damage done.