Multi-national corporations don't pay reparations, they collect them---consider the farmer who had to pay an agribusiness reparations when their genetically modified pollen contaminated his field.

I believe he was accused of stealing private property.

The fact that the corporation may have suffered little or no harm while doing irreparable harm to others seems to not matter.

Who but the mighty corporation has a legal department with an unlimited budget?

Lawmakers, like the justice system and governmental officials are for sale to the highest bidder.

Hidden, un-applied health costs to US society from petrochemical products go un-allocated to the cost of a gallon of fuel. When are governments going to start allocating the REAL cost for products in our OWN society?

This is the same Nigeria that executed Nobel Laureate poet Ken Sarowiwa in collusion with Royal Dutch Shell for being a voice for the people who were being harmed by oil extraction and land appropriation.

This is the same Nigeria that uses oil company kick-backs to arm para-military goon squads to 'protect' oil wells and shipping infrastructure from their fellow Nigerians.

So, for Nigeria to ask for reparations for the damage caused by colonial era mining is like a whore who has been raped asking for her usual fee.

I am waiting for the day when Nigeria (just like Venezuela) will have an upright leader who will stop the looting of its resources by nationalizing or renegotiating Oil contracts with Multinationals. The present contracts even without the recurrent graft by its leaders constitute outright theft by the oil companies from the people of the delta region and Nigerians at large.

Biggy

You may have to wait a long, long, time.

"Galen July 7th, 2008 2:02 pm

This is the same Nigeria that executed Nobel Laureate poet Ken Sarowiwa in collusion with Royal Dutch Shell for ....

This is the same Nigeria that uses oil company kick-backs to ...."

I WONDER IF THAT IS speaking of the national govt of Nigeria, or the govt of the Nigerian 'Plateau State'? Or is that just another name for all of Nigeria? If they're not the same, then perhaps that state also isn't a producer of OIL.

I know some countries are referred to as also 'states', but guess these are cases in which the countries have no state divisions, as in the U.S. and other countries, while there are also those with 'provinces' instead of being called 'states', and I think some other examples.

But I don't know about Nigeria and the above kind of questioning seems fitting to remind people of, so that we're careful before condemning states within countries, except when they entirely merit being equally (very, anyway) criticized or condemned in terms of govt, politics, corporatocracy, ....

I would do a Web search, but am [very] time-limited for daytime use of the Internet due to the phone line being [shared] by four people. So the search likely won't be done until tonight.

YET, WHAT I HAD in mind when reading the opening paragraph of this article is that the criminal, act-of-war coup d'etat against the Haitian presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Haitians' [democratically] (and strongly) elected govt has been purported, according to some analysts, to have been committed particularly due to President Aristide having demanded not $100bn, but only $20BN in reparations from France and due to the centuries of very harsh slavery, oppression, ... imposed against Haitians under French colonialism.

AND, another comment with respect to Galen's post is that the RADIOLOGICAL WASTE should be cleaned up, safely removed and stored, the iron contamination of waters, and other toxic contaminations due to mining should also be safely cleaned up; and regardless of past crimes of the govt(s?) of Nigeria.

F.e., just because the U.S. govt, Coast Guard, DoJ, ... have been extremely criminally negligent, to say the least, in the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 and the continuous related crimes of Exxon, BP (British Petrol.), Alyeska, the U.S. govt, ... are treated by pretty much and extremely criminally letting Exxon and BP totally off the hook, free, ...; well, this doesn't mean we should at all support, in any way, criminal U.S. govt(s) and their activities with regards to other toxic pollution, and radiological poisoning of the environment.

Stephen Lendman has very valuable article on the Exxon, BP, ... oil spill and continuous crimes.

"Supreme Court, Inc.: Supremely Pro-Business", July 7 2008,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9525

That provides some historical overview, or examples, of 'Supremely Pro-Business' is no overstatement or exaggeration. That's then followed by most the article and on Exxon, etcetera; including important highlights from four volumes of evidence that Greg Palast's investigation uncovered. The latter info. covers the real truth on the 1989 oil spill, as well as Exxon's continued related crimes of very high order up to 1999, or more recently. I don't recall if it's also from Palast's info., but the article provides continued criminal complicity of the U.S. Supremely Pro-Business Court of "law" through 2008 or 2007, after a good Supreme Court rulling was made in favour of the plaintiffs and victims who are owed ... tremendous reparations.

ANYWAY, the British and other European mining cies that are guilty in the Nigerian Plateau State surely will never be made to pay more than maybe some dimes in reparations. The govts of the countries these cies are based in most likely wouldn't lift a finger to help the Nigerian state collect any serious reparations of any kind.

Maybe the mining cies aren't BIG like BIG OIL corporations are, but surely rich enough to buy off politicians, judges, police state forces, ...; racket protection. And I suppose this is particularly more definite when it's multiple mining cies that are guilty. They sure are not going to be willing to pay any billions of dollars when politicians, govt is so easily, readily, regularly (so nearly always that we might justly say 'always') bought, and many members of govt are shareholders in natural resource corporations, too.

Another article posted not long ago at also GR reports:

"War profits taint the greedy hands of more than 25% of members of the US House and Senate!",
by Rev. Richard Skaff, author of 'The Human Manifesto', May 7 2008,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8920

I would've guessed considerably higher than 25%, but even that's still many; and includes members of both Dems and Repubs.

What about members of the Supreme Court and/or DoJ, are they also allowed to be shareholders, or are they specially denied this privilege or "right" of high offices of govt in the U.S.? If they were denied the same privilege, then there's also more than one way to profit by indirectly being investors; in certain categories of economic investments anyway.

I prefer to call it a privilege, for the conflicts of interest that too easily are related to economic investments for people in high govt offices or positions should mean that it can't justly be treated as a right for them to make such investments. So this view would apply to also high offices in the military, all law enforcement, .... To treat it as a 'right' or legal and ethical right is to be complicit with covering up very serious conflicts of interest that have high potential for criminally profiteering from business crimes.

And I expect that they all have that privilege.