Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 17:11:15 -0600 (CST)
From: "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave-AT-mundo.eco.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: CRA: the empire strikes back; Freeport/West Papua


On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Gerard Goggin wrote:

>
> Also in today's _Sydney Morning Herald_, Australia has one of the most
> concentrated press in the world, an article on Freeport mine in Irian
> Jaya. It seems that a previous Labor party environment minister Ros
> Kelly (resigned after a scandal involving bribes to voters) has been
> working with leading environmental survey company Dames & Moore and has
> just presented an environmental report to the Indonesian Minister for
> the Environment, which goes to Soeharto.  The report cleared Freeport of
> the charges that the mine was responsible for melting a nearby glacier.
> Also the report found that Freeport had "adopted the correct procedures
> in tailings management". Ros said that "we've found a fabulous attitude
> on Freeport's part to actually implement what we've
> recommended..Basically we agree that what they're doing is the best
> way".
>
> Anyway social and labour protesters gets dismissed & Ros gets a
> promotion to Group Executive Offcer for Dames & Moore subsidiaries in
> South-East Asia & Australia.
>
> And Australia's three mines uranium policy is over, in a welter of
> yellowcake.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gerard
>
> --
Gerard: Any more dirt that you could provide on Kelly, Dames & Moore
would be appreciated. We are involved in an on-going struggle over
Freeport here in Texas and I am sure this report will be used by Freeport
for PR here in Austin. The story of Freeport here is a long one but the
whole story can be found on the web at:
http://net.cs.utexas.edu/users/boyer/fp/index.html

One of my own contributions to the debate here was the following:

..........................................

Freeport McMoRan
And
Human Rights Violations In West Papua

Richard Oppel's view (AAS, 2.4.96) that charges against Freeport McMoRan for
human rights violations in West Papua* "appear to be no longer an issue" seems
to be based on an argument which is subject to several objections and a
troubling, unstated assumption whose explicit consideration may lead our
thoughtful editor to revise his judgment.

The argument is that the issue has faded away because: 1) the Australian Council
for Overseas Aid based its charges on reports by "unidentified purported
witnesses", 2) the US Embassy says it has found 'no credible evidence'", 3)
reports by a Catholic Bishop and the National Human Rights Commission of
Indonesia blamed the Indonesian military for human rights violations and 4)
Bishop Munninghoff "said Freeport employees did not participate in such
abuses." 

The problems with the argument parallel its elements.  First, charges of human
rights violations in countries dominated by repressive dictatorial regimes are
often anonymous because of fear of violent reprisals against those who make the
charges and their families. Such reprisals have been documented in West Papua. 
Without the kinds of protection which no entity capable of providing them has
offered, it would be foolhardy for witnesses to such violations to come forward
and identify themselves.  Second, given the US role in the bloody coming to
power of the current Indonesian government and the support it has provided over
the last 30 years,  I'm afraid it is the Embassy's statements which lack
credibility.  Third, Catholic and Indonesian Human Rights reports identifying the
culpability of the Indonesian military do not let Freeport off the hook --for
reasons spelled out below.  Fourth, the good Bishop's carefully worded statement
does NOT say that "Freeport employees did not participate in human rights
abuses."  He only says that the military DID engage in such abuses.  Here again,
this in no way constitutes an exoneration of Freeport (see below).

The troubling unstated assumption is that Freeport and its subsidiary Freeport
Indonesia can be disassociated from the Indonesian military whom everyone
(including Freeport) recognizes as having grossly violated the human rights of
the West Papuan people, including those living in proximity to Freeport's
mining operation.  What is bothersome about this assumption is its failure to
recognize the strong and multiple ties between the company and the military. 
They are by no means two entities operating independently of each other. Their
ties can be sketched in a number of points.

First, according to all reports the Indonesian government owns some 10 percent
of Freeport Indonesia.  The American owners, such as Jim Bob Moffett, and the
Indonesian government are thus business partners.  In consequence of this
partnership, the Indonesian government receives as its share of the profits
hundreds of millions of dollars from Freeport.  It is hardly surprising, under the
circumstances, that it is the governmental partner in this business arrangement
which provides the military force necessary to defend their joint investment from
elements of the local population who challenge the legitimacy of both
Indonesian rule and Freeport's operations.

Second, the Indonesian government was brought to power by the military in one
of the most horrifying bloodbaths of the 20th Century and continues to depend
on its armed might and violence to maintain its grip on power.  You can either
look at the Indonesian military as the mailed fist of the government, or view the
government as the civil fa=E7ade of the military.  In either case, Freeport's deep
association with the government links it, in turn, so closely to the military that
no assumption of "disassociation" can be tenable.

Third, it may be that within some legal framework, say that of the Indonesian
government, the one business partner (Freeport) can not be held legally
accountable for the criminal actions of the other (the Indonesian military).  But
such a legalistic argument is hardly persuasive under the circumstances.  Not
only do many reject the legitimacy of Indonesian law in what they consider to be
a colony acquired through highly questionable means, but it is obviously in the
interests of the one partner (the Indonesian government) to exonerate the other
(Freeport) who has proven to be such a lucrative source of enrichment.  We
might, of course, look for some other legal framework but that would certainly
raise objections from the other side.  If we appealed to the traditional laws and
customs of the indigenous people of West Papua, both business partners would
surely object.  If we appealed to the World Court, they would hardly be more
enthusiastic.  Despite the impossibility of reaching any kind of agreement over
legal frameworks, we could choose one and argue its merits.  But we can also
look elsewhere for a basis of judgment about Freeport's actions in West Papua.

Fourth, economic history teaches that it has long been common practice for
corporations to avoid legal responsibility for acts of violence against those who
challenge their power and their profits by hiring others to do the job.  American
labor history is replete with examples of such manoeuvers.  Where they had the
local government in their pocket, so to speak, American companies often used
the police, sheriff deputies, state militias or national troops to crack down on
rebellious workers.  But often corporations preferred letting the hired goons of
notorious "security services" such as Baldwin-Felts or Pinkerton's do their dirty
work for them.  Public or private, either arrangement allowed the company to
deny any responsibility for the violence used to break strikes or smash unions. 
But while they may have been legally absolved of any crime, history has judged
them to be very much responsible. 

Let us examine one notorious example:  a mining company much like Freeport
that operated in a remote area, owned the entire community that worked for it,
employed its own guards but had recourse to outside force when needed.  The
company was the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Mining Company that
operated coal mines near Ludlow, Colorado.  In September 1913 miners struck
the mines in the whole area.  The miners and their families were evicted from
company housing but continued to struggle throughout a cold and hungry winter
while living in a union constructed tent city on the edge of the coal fields. 

The company, acting through the Baldwin-Felts Agency, hired several hundred
gunmen most of whom were deputized or mustered into the state militia by
complaisant local public officials.  The company footed the bill for their wages
and arms as they escalated their violence against the striking miners.  On the
night of April 20, 1914 those hired guns attacked the miners encampment with
machine guns and coal oil, burning tents and murdering miners, women and
children.  Although the US Attorney General subsequently dismissed all
indictments against the company's management and local politicians, history has
judged the company Superintendent Lamont M. Bowers and its owner John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. ethically and morally guilty of the murders.

This history would seem to provide a better framework of reference for thinking
about Freeport's responsibility for human rights violations in West Papua than
any legal argument.  Neither Mr. Bowers nor Mr. Rockefeller pulled a trigger in
Colorado, no more than Jim Bob Moffett or William Cunningham in West
Papua.  But just as Rockefeller money paid for the gun thugs that did the killing
in Colorado, so has Freeport money financed the Indonesian government and its
military which has done the torturing and killing in West Papua.  In both cases
violence was used and rights were violated to protect the power of the owners of
the company being challenged --in one case by its workers, in the other by
marginalized indigenous people.  Under the circumstances does it really matter
whether the violations were committed by the Indonesian soldiers who serve as
Freeport's security guards or by employees on its immediate payroll?

Fifth, it is not at all obvious that the environmental crimes with which Freeport
has been charged should be treated as an issue separable from that of human
rights.  If the corporation has damaged or ruined through massive pollution
(tailings runoff) either the health of the indigenous people of the area or their
ability to live on their own lands, then one might well judge that their human
rights have been violated as surely as if they had been unjustly incarcerated and
tortured in one of Freeport's facilities by the Indonesian military. 

Therefore, I conclude, there are many reasons why we should question any
disassociation of Freeport and its responsibilities from those of its business
partner and protector.  The issue of Freeport's responsibility for the violations of
human rights in West Papua is very much alive.  It continues to trouble those
who are afraid that the reputation of the University of Texas will be permanently
damaged by honoring a man and a corporation all too intimately linked to
behavior that deserves condemnation rather than praise.

Harry Cleaver
Associate Professor of Economics
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin


* When it took over West Papua the Indonesian government
renamed the country Irian Jaya and now considers it a
province of Indonesia.




...........................................................................



............................................................................
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
Phone Numbers: (hm)  (512) 442-5036
               (off) (512) 475-8535   Fax:(512) 471-3510
E-mail: hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu
Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu:80/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/index.html
Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu:80/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
............................................................................




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---