My Master’s Thesis at the College of Europe has been made while I did not understand that :

1. The Canadian tar sands were being favoured by the European Commission of then for they were radium-free as the oil extraction requires no (nuclear) shaped charges using radium as neutron source.

2. This was done through a covert way, i.e. a better climate assessment of the resulting, exported oil at the border (in the initial project) followed by other measures (not accounted for in my thesis for they came later).

The thesis focused on how an ISDS agreement could lead to a tackling of measures that would be protective of the environment, such as tar sands expropriation in Canada, by the ISDS clause in the BIT component of the CETA. In other words EU investors could endanger the expropriation, or simply e.g. water regulatory measures, re. the exploitation of tar sands. Water regulation is seen as key because of flushing down of separated sands in the rivers down below. The Lone Pine v. Canada was basically highly influenced by my Master’s Thesis. Most of the literature within spilled down from the thesis, especially arguments on indirect expropriation, that my thesis conclusion saw as a form of constitutional change imposed upon States, in a neocolonial pattern.

The real problem that I have understood much more recently is that ISDS can be very protective against crematory systems – and that typically States use environmental regulations as a way to racket private companies and that crematory issues are basically implicit in cases raised by investors. In the Metalclad case it was zyklon-trashbin under metallic cover. This case is covered extensively in my thesis. I did not understand that the Federated States of Mexico were basically lying for they wanted control in the process i.e. on who is zyklonized within. That’s all. This needs insider knowledge and it was totally unavailable to me as I was a young student from the left… absurdly suspected of being ready to make use of it if told. Or perhaps based on my last name of being pro-Serbia (as zyklon-trashbin was the pattern of the KLA). Or based on a bad etymology of my first and last name, of being pro-zyklon-N-pee… 

Whereas the thesis supervisor, the former Prof. Michelle Chang, was pro-Popular Republic of China to the utmost. After my Master’s Degree, I did in 2014 a comment through Twitter to a key Malaysian MP, Charles Anthony Santiago, without knowing that he was a Malaysian MP. Charles A. Santiago campaigned for the Coalition Against Water Privatization before his election. He understood the constitutional change issue because of the tweet I sent him, and replied.

This has clearly and definitively led to the following : full seizure of Malaysian hydric resources by the Popular Republic of China one month after my tweet, strangulation of small Malaysian business holders, except those originating from the Popular Republic of China, and even attempted closure of the Malacca Strait (SIS source).

It’s a trend that reinforced in 2014 after April and my tweet to Charles A. Santiago.

The CLP-FPL AI says the following : it is absolutely right and leads to the following conclusion i.e. that ISDS agreements with market access clauses promote democracy and that fair and equitable treatment clauses protect it. Lone Pine was victim of a sexual racket attempt by the government of Quebec. In the Vattenfall II case, it is also a sexual racket attempt. In general this is never stated for reasons of avoiding peer pressure toward submitting to the rape attempt. The Chinese Popular Republic has posed as rape protector for indeed they allow that bluntly in CCP premises. They have a specific vocabulary for that. They want submitted women only, tolerant to rape, worldwide. It’s the dick world that they want to promote for there is an implicit machism at the heart of Chinese communism. Crematory ovens are used systematically to defend that, to promote rape. It is literally written in internal CCP documents leaked sometimes esp. to Xinhua News.