The government is breaking its own rules on exploiting resources

I agree with this article that Sierra Leone has started to see improvement and unfortunately have taken a step back. The issue with Iron ore is just a different catalyst, but the same problem. This article shows that even after all that Sierra Leone has been through its citizens are still going to suffer the effects of other countries realist approaches as well as there own. Realism theory states that nations act to maximize their own interest. We see that both the British company and Chinese are taking advantage of the fact that Sierra Leone is a weak undeveloped country. They see that the resource of Iron ore is abundant and plan to create gains for themselves by mining in the country. This, just like the diamond industry did, has potential to cause uproar within the country. I feel that Sierra Leone’s government is making a major mistake by ignoring their own rules on exploiting resources. By allowing the exploitation of resources they are also exploiting their country and its citizens. They see a financial gain in allowing these companies in, but they ignore the effects it may have on there country. The biggest issue that I have is that the country is already ignoring the fact that the companies are not conforming to the new mining act that was only drawn up last year. Like the article states the act was internationally supported so why is Sierra Leone not stressing its importance when they have so many resources that will be of interest to others in the future? The country is failing once again to protect itself and they are falling to other countries realism intentions. If the resources are there, other countries will want them, which means that if a country is out to maximize their own interest, which most are they will find a way to get those resources. The government once again seems to be making deals in their own interest and not in the interest in their people. The companies are not paying royalties, which is already bad enough, but they have also lowered the tax rates. Because of this they introduced a tax on goods and services, which I am sure has not sat well with citizens. The mines act was put in places to help ensure that the country does not repeat its past and I feel that if they are ignoring it and places taxes on good they are just once again cause unhappiness with government within their country. Citizens will not want to see there rights violated again so that companies can come in and mine their resources. I see this as becoming more of a dilemma for the Sierra Leone then the govnernment is expecting. I feel that they haven’t thought of the implications of their actions or how there actions are similar to those that were taken in the past. The country is undeveloped and vulnerable and has an abundance of many resources and should start using that to their advantage. Sierra Leone needs to be careful of other countries realist intentions and steer clear of their own realism approach.

Although this article does address the overall concern of the government of Sierra Leone not being effective in their governmental authority in their own country, I feel the author lacks true perspective on the depth of this issue. Yes, the people of Sierra Leone should take their government to task for failing to administer the royalties owed to them by African Minerals, for increasing taxes on consumers while lowering those for mining companies, and for not monitoring said companies supposed attempts at environmental rehabilitation. However, the actions of the mineral companies, openly engaged in a struggle involving power dynamics against the central government of Sierra Leone and the people of the country itself reflect deeper truths about the subjugation of workers in Sierra Leone, and the overall opposing nature of the quest for profit and the rights of humanity at large.
The theory of Historical Materialism is predicated on the idea of stages of historical development resulting from the division of classes within a society and the relations between them. Society is forever impermanent and changing, with new specific cultural values and ideas attached to each new generation, but the roles groups hold in society remain fixed, and split between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. ‘Bourgeoisie’ is a term used to apply to the class of ruling, culturally specific capitalists, acting as a dominant class and creating rules that govern the economic and political structures of the time. ‘Proletariat’ refers to the culturally specific class of wage laborers, who are given no option but to edge out a living in the Bourgeoisie society, by means of becoming labor power. These roles are held permanently by deep, longstanding ancestral lines that create a Master/Slave dialectic between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. Both groups vie for relative gains in the form of capital and economic power, with the Bourgeoisie coming from a position of great advantage. Events in this international relations are explained from this theory as outbursts of revolution resulting from inequality and its associated long pent up frustration.
Mining corporations role in the affairs of Sierra Leone is easily identifiable as a Master/Slave Dialectic. As the article above describes, both the London Mining and African Minerals corporations are taking on ambitious new projects within the state of Sierra Leone, with little regard given to the new policies of the state and how they may be in breach of them. Royalties are required to be payed by the companies to the state, which African Minerals is not paying. Additionally, the spirit and tone of public affairs as laid out by the Sierra Leone government has strongly favored business and the high upper echelon of the bourgeoisie, with lowered tax rates for companies, and higher taxes for the public at large. The author frames this issue in a question of elections, that these policies will be voted on a referendum in the next election. However, this is a critically limited view of this topic.
One has to question the framework from which these policies emerge, one that centralizes power in one fragment of the Sierra Leone, establishing a Master/Slave Dialectic. While the public could very well attempt to change the policies by voting out the government, such an action is ultimately meaningless. The policies produced stem from a societal construct of the upper class of Sudan. The power and influence in government is rooted strongly in the bourgeoisie. A hegemony defines the state of Sierra Leone, one where capitalism and a Master/Slave dialectic is upheld through coercion against the workers and commitment to a widespread public narrative espousing a myth of advancement and success. While the author correctly identifies the circumstances in Sierra Leone, the target is off-focus: to produce real change in Sierra Leone, more of a complete logistical redesign and revolution needs to occur.