[danharaj]

A contract alone does not make it ethical, especially when virtually every government has a track record of exploiting the natural resources of indigenous peoples without allowing them to negotiate terms for themselves. It might be legal, but a great deal of violence and injustice against indigenous peoples has been legal.

[dep_b]

Of course when a country needs dollars to pay off crushing external debts selling it's natural resources to foreign companies is a very important thing.

They do this everywhere in the country. Most parts of Argentina are dry because the Andes block most of the humidity. Large mines use a lot of water. Indigenous people and farmers (lots of wines grow in deserts, but also olives etc.) no longer get the water they need.

This is why we have the IMF. To make financial crack junkies out of countries that are controlling the resources. Thank god there's a republican government now and the ban on lending money has been lifted now they've paid off the vulture funds.

What could go wrong?

[exstudent2]

The article states the indigenous people _did_ negotiate for themselves:

"Yolanda Cruz, one of the leaders of the village of Catua, said she signed the contract with Minera Exar but now regrets it. At the time, she valued the opportunity to create jobs for her village. But she now worries “we are going to be left with nothing,” she said."

[danharaj]

That's fair, it's better than the usual business that surrounds resource extraction in indigenous communities. I'll concede that. But I won't concede that "a contract was signed" => "it was ethical". The asymmetry of information, the inadequate accounting of externalities, and the duress of poverty all can make something legal unethical.

In any case, I think you're wrong saying that the article is biased. One of the quotes in the article is even a remark that there is a good and bad side to mining. It's not incorrect for the article to say that "Native people are left poor as..." because resource extraction doesn't create lasting wealth. Once the lithium is gone, the communities will still be poor while the West benefits far more from the resource inputs into its industries on a long term scale.

It is not hard to construct an argument that resource extraction is fundamentally unethical on grounds like this. Whether or not one agrees with it is another matter. I don't think making this argument is more biased than the presumption that companies negotiating with communities with far fewer resources than them is ethical until proven otherwise because there's plenty of historical evidence that it's rarely the case.

[aantix]

>The asymmetry of information, the inadequate accounting of externalities, and the duress of poverty all can make something legal unethical.

Under that criteria, it'd be impossible to do business with any group that has lesser legal funding. Neighborhood organizations, common families, local businesses. All probably have inadequate legal representation when interpreting and signing these agreements.

[danharaj]

It would only be impossible if business had to be strictly ethical. It doesn't have to be, as evidenced by how much business is done.

[adrienne]

No, it would only be impossible to do business ethically under those circumstances. Which, in fact, it is.