Small donation for big payoff?<\/p>\n
By Bob Burton<\/p>\n
SYDNEY (JP): Should an Australian legal rights group in
\n\"partnership\" with one of the world's largest mining companies be
\ninvolved in helping draft Indonesian legislation on the
\nenvironment, human rights and corporate governance?<\/p>\n
The mining company, Rio Tinto, the human rights group,
\nAustralian Legal Resources International (ALRI) and the
\nAustralian government think so.<\/p>\n
The project developed by ALRI, with financial support from Rio
\nTinto and advice from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, aims to
\nprovide assistance for \"legislative drafting and comprehensive
\nlegal and judicial reform\".<\/p>\n
Part of the project will involve legislative drafting of
\n\"environmental law, human rights law, constitutional law,
\nbankruptcy and corporate law\".<\/p>\n
With A$50,000 from Rio Tinto, ALRI was able to gain matching
\nfunding from the Australian government aid agency, AUSAID, to
\ndevelop the first stage of the project: to provide assistance in
\njudicial training in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Rio Tinto has major mining interests, including in the
\nFreeport mine in West Papua, officially Irian Jaya, coal mines in
\nKalimantan and the Kelian gold mine, which have all been subject
\nto criticism over labor, environmental or human rights issues.<\/p>\n
For a small donation, the project has a potentially big
\npayoff. However, Rio Tinto is unashamed in acknowledging that its
\nmotivation is not altruistic. Rio Tinto's head of external
\naffairs, Tim Duncan, considers that it would be inappropriate for
\ncompanies to be involved in writing legislation only if they were
\ndoing so uninvited.<\/p>\n
\"If we think there is an opportunity and if we think there is
\na significant section of Indonesian opinion that thinks it is in
\ntheir national interest to do that, we can act as brokers\", he
\ntold this writer.<\/p>\n
The partnership enables Rio Tinto to gain access to legal
\nnetworks and a legislative development process by trading on the
\ncredibility of ALRI, which boasts an impressive list of well-
\nrespected human rights lawyers on the board and as patrons.<\/p>\n
For ALRI, the funding enables them to undertake a project they
\notherwise wouldn't be able to support. While Rio's funding would
\nbe troubling enough, its role is potentially much deeper than
\nproviding funding at arms length.<\/p>\n
In its public documents setting out what it expects from
\n\"partnerships\" Rio insists on a \"a high degree of involvement\" in
\nany project it funds. Rio Tinto insists that partnership projects
\nmust have \"strategic relevance\" to the company and \"the
\nopportunity for direct involvement of Rio Tinto people
\nand operations\".<\/p>\n
ALRI has acknowledged that legal staff from Rio may be
\nseconded to work with ALRI on the Indonesian law reform project,
\nthough, it insists, not in a major role. However, one Rio Tinto
\nperson working in a small organization like ALRI, which comprises
\nonly a handful of people, increases the possibility of one person
\nhaving a significant impact on the organizations work and
\nthinking irrespective of their formal role.<\/p>\n
Late last year, Rio Tinto seconded the then head of ALRI to
\nwork in its public relations section for six months, which has
\nrecently been converted to a permanent position. The secondment,
\napart from illustrating the closeness of the relationship, raises
\nother troubling questions.<\/p>\n
The person seconded to Rio was simultaneously serving as an
\nexecutive member of Australia's peak community aid and human
\nrights umbrella group, the Australian Council For Overseas Aid
\n(ACFOA). ACFOA has long taken a close interest in human rights
\nissues in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
In 1995 it was ACFOA that published a damning report on human
\nrights abuses at the Freeport mine in West Papua, a project in
\nwhich Rio Tinto subsequently became a major shareholder.<\/p>\n
While ALRI considered there was no potential conflict of
\ninterest with a seconded staff member working with Rio Tinto,
\nACFOA decided that it would be better if he stood aside for the
\nduration of the secondment (He has subsequently joined the
\ncompany full time).<\/p>\n
However, the whole project raises disturbing questions about
\nthe blurring roles of government, corporations and well-
\nintentioned nongovernmental organizations.<\/p>\n
Should corporations be involved in any way in a project likely
\nto involve the drafting of legislation which will directly affect
\ntheir own commercial interests?<\/p>\n
If it would be inappropriate for a company to be involved in
\ndirectly drafting legislation, why does partnership with an NGO,
\nespecially if company staff are in any way involved, make it acceptable?<\/p>\n
The community values NGOs for their independence in the belief
\nthat they will honestly and fearlessly advocate policies they
\nbelieve to be in the public interest.<\/p>\n
However, the emergence of some nongovernmental organizations
\nincreasingly reliant on corporate donations raises concerns
\nabout whether the projects they undertake and policies they advocate are
\ntruly independent or have been shaped by the interests of their sponsors.<\/p>\n
The writer is the editor of Mining Monitor, a quarterly
\nmagazine published by the Sydney based nongovernmental
\norganization, the Mineral Policy Institute (www.mpi.org.au).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/small-donation-for-big-payoff-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}