Re: CRA: the empire strikes back; Freeport/West Papua

["Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Gerard Goggin wrote:

>=20
> Also in today's _Sydney Morning Herald_, Australia has one of the most=20
> concentrated press in the world, an article on Freeport mine in Irian=20
> Jaya. It seems that a previous Labor party environment minister Ros=20
> Kelly (resigned after a scandal involving bribes to voters) has been=20
> working with leading environmental survey company Dames & Moore and has=
=20
> just presented an environmental report to the Indonesian Minister for=20
> the Environment, which goes to Soeharto.  The report cleared Freeport of=
=20
> the charges that the mine was responsible for melting a nearby glacier.=
=20
> Also the report found that Freeport had "adopted the correct procedures=
=20
> in tailings management". Ros said that "we've found a fabulous attitude=
=20
> on Freeport's part to actually implement what we've=20
> recommended..Basically we agree that what they're doing is the best=20
> way".
>=20
> Anyway social and labour protesters gets dismissed & Ros gets a=20
> promotion to Group Executive Offcer for Dames & Moore subsidiaries in=20
> South-East Asia & Australia.
>=20
> And Australia's three mines uranium policy is over, in a welter of=20
> yellowcake.
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Gerard
>=20
> --=20
Gerard: Any more dirt that you could provide on Kelly, Dames & Moore=20
would be appreciated. We are involved in an on-going struggle over=20
Freeport here in Texas and I am sure this report will be used by Freeport=
=20
for PR here in Austin. The story of Freeport here is a long one but the=20
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 fo=
r=20
human rights violations in West Papua* "appear to be no longer an issue" se=
ems=20
to be based on an argument which is subject to several objections and a=20
troubling, unstated assumption whose explicit consideration may lead our=20
thoughtful editor to revise his judgment.

The argument is that the issue has faded away because: 1) the Australian Co=
uncil=20
for Overseas Aid based its charges on reports by "unidentified purported=20
witnesses", 2) the US Embassy says it has found 'no credible evidence'", 3)=
=20
reports by a Catholic Bishop and the National Human Rights Commission of=20
Indonesia blamed the Indonesian military for human rights violations and 4)=
=20
Bishop Munninghoff "said Freeport employees did not participate in such=20
abuses." =20

The problems with the argument parallel its elements.  First, charges of hu=
man=20
rights violations in countries dominated by repressive dictatorial regimes =
are=20
often anonymous because of fear of violent reprisals against those who make=
 the=20
charges and their families. Such reprisals have been documented in West Pap=
ua. =20
Without the kinds of protection which no entity capable of providing them h=
as=20
offered, it would be foolhardy for witnesses to such violations to come for=
ward=20
and identify themselves.  Second, given the US role in the bloody coming to=
=20
power of the current Indonesian government and the support it has provided =
over=20
the last 30 years,  I'm afraid it is the Embassy's statements which lack=20
credibility.  Third, Catholic and Indonesian Human Rights reports identifyi=
ng the=20
culpability of the Indonesian military do not let Freeport off the hook --f=
or=20
reasons spelled out below.  Fourth, the good Bishop's carefully worded stat=
ement=20
does NOT say that "Freeport employees did not participate in human rights=
=20
abuses."  He only says that the military DID engage in such abuses.  Here a=
gain,=20
this in no way constitutes an exoneration of Freeport (see below).

The troubling unstated assumption is that Freeport and its subsidiary Freep=
ort=20
Indonesia can be disassociated from the Indonesian military whom everyone=
=20
(including Freeport) recognizes as having grossly violated the human rights=
 of=20
the West Papuan people, including those living in proximity to Freeport's=
=20
mining operation.  What is bothersome about this assumption is its failure =
to=20
recognize the strong and multiple ties between the company and the military=
. =20
They are by no means two entities operating independently of each other. Th=
eir=20
ties can be sketched in a number of points.

First, according to all reports the Indonesian government owns some 10 perc=
ent=20
of Freeport Indonesia.  The American owners, such as Jim Bob Moffett, and t=
he=20
Indonesian government are thus business partners.  In consequence of this=
=20
partnership, the Indonesian government receives as its share of the profits=
=20
hundreds of millions of dollars from Freeport.  It is hardly surprising, un=
der the=20
circumstances, that it is the governmental partner in this business arrange=
ment=20
which provides the military force necessary to defend their joint investmen=
t from=20
elements of the local population who challenge the legitimacy of both=20
Indonesian rule and Freeport's operations.

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

Third, it may be that within some legal framework, say that of the Indonesi=
an=20
government, the one business partner (Freeport) can not be held legally=20
accountable for the criminal actions of the other (the Indonesian military)=
.  But=20
such a legalistic argument is hardly persuasive under the circumstances.  N=
ot=20
only do many reject the legitimacy of Indonesian law in what they consider =
to be=20
a colony acquired through highly questionable means, but it is obviously in=
 the=20
interests of the one partner (the Indonesian government) to exonerate the o=
ther=20
(Freeport) who has proven to be such a lucrative source of enrichment.  We=
=20
might, of course, look for some other legal framework but that would certai=
nly=20
raise objections from the other side.  If we appealed to the traditional la=
ws and=20
customs of the indigenous people of West Papua, both business partners woul=
d=20
surely object.  If we appealed to the World Court, they would hardly be mor=
e=20
enthusiastic.  Despite the impossibility of reaching any kind of agreement =
over=20
legal frameworks, we could choose one and argue its merits.  But we can als=
o=20
look elsewhere for a basis of judgment about Freeport's actions in West Pap=
ua.

Fourth, economic history teaches that it has long been common practice for=
=20
corporations to avoid legal responsibility for acts of violence against tho=
se who=20
challenge their power and their profits by hiring others to do the job.  Am=
erican=20
labor history is replete with examples of such manoeuvers.  Where they had =
the=20
local government in their pocket, so to speak, American companies often use=
d=20
the police, sheriff deputies, state militias or national troops to crack do=
wn on=20
rebellious workers.  But often corporations preferred letting the hired goo=
ns of=20
notorious "security services" such as Baldwin-Felts or Pinkerton's do their=
 dirty=20
work for them.  Public or private, either arrangement allowed the company t=
o=20
deny any responsibility for the violence used to break strikes or smash uni=
ons. =20
But while they may have been legally absolved of any crime, history has jud=
ged=20
them to be very much responsible. =20

Let us examine one notorious example:  a mining company much like Freeport=
=20
that operated in a remote area, owned the entire community that worked for =
it,=20
employed its own guards but had recourse to outside force when needed.  The=
=20
company was the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Mining Company that=20
operated coal mines near Ludlow, Colorado.  In September 1913 miners struck=
=20
the mines in the whole area.  The miners and their families were evicted fr=
om=20
company housing but continued to struggle throughout a cold and hungry wint=
er=20
while living in a union constructed tent city on the edge of the coal field=
s. =20

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

This history would seem to provide a better framework of reference for thin=
king=20
about Freeport's responsibility for human rights violations in West Papua t=
han=20
any legal argument.  Neither Mr. Bowers nor Mr. Rockefeller pulled a trigge=
r in=20
Colorado, no more than Jim Bob Moffett or William Cunningham in West=20
Papua.  But just as Rockefeller money paid for the gun thugs that did the k=
illing=20
in Colorado, so has Freeport money financed the Indonesian government and i=
ts=20
military which has done the torturing and killing in West Papua.  In both c=
ases=20
violence was used and rights were violated to protect the power of the owne=
rs of=20
the company being challenged --in one case by its workers, in the other by=
=20
marginalized indigenous people.  Under the circumstances does it really mat=
ter=20
whether the violations were committed by the Indonesian soldiers who serve =
as=20
Freeport's security guards or by employees on its immediate payroll?

Fifth, it is not at all obvious that the environmental crimes with which Fr=
eeport=20
has been charged should be treated as an issue separable from that of human=
=20
rights.  If the corporation has damaged or ruined through massive pollution=
=20
(tailings runoff) either the health of the indigenous people of the area or=
 their=20
ability to live on their own lands, then one might well judge that their hu=
man=20
rights have been violated as surely as if they had been unjustly incarcerat=
ed and=20
tortured in one of Freeport's facilities by the Indonesian military. =20

Therefore, I conclude, there are many reasons why we should question any=20
disassociation of Freeport and its responsibilities from those of its busin=
ess=20
partner and protector.  The issue of Freeport's responsibility for the viol=
ations of=20
human rights in West Papua is very much alive.  It continues to trouble tho=
se=20
who are afraid that the reputation of the University of Texas will be perma=
nently=20
damaged by honoring a man and a corporation all too intimately linked to=20
behavior that deserves condemnation rather than praise.=20

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


* When it took over West Papua the Indonesian government=20
renamed the country Irian Jaya and now considers it a=20
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cleaver homepage:=20
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---