Now it’s a question of sovereignty and you eat that!

Open pit It is not an option for any country, much less can it be an imposition. This type of mining is destructive, overwhelming, corrosive.

Everything in its path remains helpless, abandoned, total destruction. Its unsuitability for Panama is the subject of thousands of arguments by experts in the field and they have said it to all four winds. All ecosystems are visible destroyed, flora and fauna, rivers, lakesstreams, groundwater, riverbeds, air pollution, in short.

As for the population, although the mining sector is supposedly happy, because it has a source work, ch who follow this apparent happiness tell the same fate, the same story that will follow the land where metals are exploited: gold, copper, molybdenum, silver, etc. Destruction, hunger and unrest, death and hopelessness.

Whoever read it Open Veins of Latin America, Eduardo Galeano, among its chapters you will find, with a unique literary presentation, a terrible description of the cities and communities in Bolivia, especially in those places where the mining companies are located. Once the natural resources of the mining activity are removed or taken out, cities are left with only a funereal apocalypse from which they are unlikely to rise or rebuild.

In Panama, I repeat, the debate about the advantages or disadvantages of mining exploitation is an issue that has already surpassed all theorizing about the mere convenience or disadvantage of mining exploitation. The arguments mostly ended by giving clear, high-profile statements that this contract, which, apparently, against all odds, the executive power wants to approve in the National Assembly of Deputies, with the prior consent or approval of Cabinet Councilit’s a big nerve.

It appears to be The government assumed irrevocable obligations towards the mining companywith the aim of approving the above-mentioned treaty which they now cover up, like candy or piñata sweets, with changes which, although the government may describe them as good, are essentially insignificant, imbued with formalisms that do not entail the true fundamental issue in said treaty.

It wasn’t, on the side The executive or any government spokespersonany defense of territorial integrity, the right of Panama to manage and exploit its own resources in a reasonable manner and in pursuit of the best interests of the great national majority.

In that order, The national government publishes or reveals a statement trying to convince us that there are differences between the contract presented to the Parliament on August 3, 2023 (Law No. 1043) and the changes approved in Cabinet Council October 10 of this same year. And the original contract is called “Text withdrawn from the National Assembly”, which is not true that it was withdrawn, but that it was returned to him, the same Parliamentary Committee for Trade and Economic Affairs, under the trivial argument that “They recommend the Executive to withdraw the project” which evades the constitutional provision, according to which the contract is approved or not (Art. 159, paragraph 15 of the CC), because there was no other option, but everything was resolved. very skillfully, regardless Constitution. It’s the same syringe with a different nozzle.

And this is how they want to deceive us:

1. To abolish the clauses on the expropriation of land for mining exploitation, which have fallen under their own weight because it is unconstitutional, because companies cannot expropriate, that is the matter. solely and exclusively from the state.

2. That is mining company I can only explore extract and exploit within the area concessions (Tacit and understandable or could they do it in the rest of the country as well?)

3. A mining company cannot do that establish or request airspace restrictions, whether temporary or permanent flights (There is no need to even mention them, because constitutionally they would never be able to do that);

4. That the contract can no longer be used as a framework for a reference for the future mining concessions? It was not and could not be a framework law, because they are two different things: a framework law and a mining contract. Contracts have the force of law only between the parties who signed them, no one else;

5. Limited access to the identity of end users. They say it has been eliminated. However, such limitations They are considered not to be installed, and this is because they are illegal and malicious.

6. It disappears if it can the mining company extracts gold, silver and molybdenum, and that now the state will not allow any other mining exploitation. Well, apparently it’s already exploiting all those metals. And nothing happens. And who says it won’t? Special office inside the mine? Not possible since The state retains its supervisory role and the governing body and no contract can say otherwise.

7. Sovereignty and limitations her?. This cannot be limited by any contract, absolutely none (Art. 1 of the Civil Code) So, we don’t understand where the big conquest or change is? And all this without mentioning more than fifty points that disfavor, in theirs in its entirety, in Panama and its population and who remain survivors of the mining contract. V.gr., Arbitration sui generis prescribed there to the clear prejudice or detriment of Panama. That’s not arbitration, that’s vassalage.

However, from all of the above, the central axis of the situation goes beyond the mere discussion of the contract that is to be implemented as a matter of life or death for the Panamanians. The discussion now focuses on In my opinion, on the nuclear issue and concept: Sovereignty of the Panamanian state. The interlocutors of outdated mining do not deny that other countries, foreigners, own shares of mining companies, and this is serious and dangerous.

This is a matter of life or death. And as the Latin aphorism says: Confession from the side, presentation of evidence. “When a politician says he will eradicate poverty, he means his own” – Paulo Coehlo. God bless the country!