Revisiting the Newmont case

Revisiting the Newmont case

Tony Hotland, Jakarta

An out-of-court settlement that the government plans to seek with
gold miner PT Newmont Minahasa Raya proves to be another example
of a failure to serve the people, in this case the residents of
Buyat Bay in Minahasa, North Sulawesi, who have long been waiting
to see the light at the end of a long tunnel.

The government would apparently also like to drop the criminal
suit filed by the police against the U.S-controlled company in
the Manado District Court, the trial of which is currently
stalled pending what we can only guess at given that the case
files were submitted nearly four months ago.

Coordinating Minister for the Economy Aburizal Bakrie has
incessantly talked about securing more foreign investment for our
investment-hungry nation.

Does this justify everything? Does it justify the previous
administration's decision to once again allow 13 giant mining
firms, partially or fully-owned by foreign companies, to operate
in protected forests?

A recently-issued presidential decree allowing the government
to unilaterally bulldoze people's land and set the compensation
terms in the overrated name of the development of public
infrastructure is another thing to ponder upon.

Let's also talk about State Minister for the Environment
Rachmat Witoelar.

During hearings with the House of Representatives, he
impressed them with his unshakable resolve to go all the way with
the suit, as he proudly cited a report concluding that Buyat Bay,
the main source for drinking water and food for the locals, is
highly contaminated with toxic materials.

The hearing of the civil suit kicked off early last month in
the South Jakarta District Court. Later, despite protests,
Rachmat extended the license for Newmont's operation in West Nusa
Tenggara province to continue disposing of its tailings in the
ocean.

More recently, Newmont cofinanced an international seminar in
which the speakers concluded that the bay was not polluted. It is
this conclusion that the economic ministers are using as a base
to drop the civil suit.

This is not about seeing who wins or loses a trial. This is
about keeping promises to the public and seeing that justice is
served. This trial is an historical event that is too valuable to
let slip away and so important for sustainable development in our
environmentally fragile nation.

A trial serves to determine who has the strongest case. What
an out-of-court settlement does, especially in a case of such an
immense scale and involving so many interests, is simply to give
rise to suspicions.

A trial could also be helpful to Newmont, which has said that
it is being unfairly vilified, as its reputation would be
restored if it won. But then again, Newmont has never shown much
inclination to go to court even as it continued proclaiming its
innocence.

The company tried for almost five years to keep an alleged
mercury spill in the Peruvian town of Choropampa at the talks
level. These collapsed recently after the residents gained a
renewed determination to fight.

Perhaps the government wants Newmont to carry out complete
environmental rehabilitation at its mines.

Wait a minute, though, isn't that already Newmont's duty, and
that of all mining firms, as stated in their contracts.

Or perhaps the government wants to get Newmont to pay the
medical bills of those Buyat people suffering from various
diseases, high levels of metals in their blood, and even
deformities?

Err, remember Newmont saying it would not pay any compensation
as that would be the equivalent of admitting wrongdoing?

Or, is it all really about the money? With so much hype from
the government that its determined to take on Newmont, is it
really maneuvering for deal for the interests of the state or
just for individual gain?

It's clear that Newmont has a lot at stake if it loses. The
company operates two vast mines in West Nusa Tenggara and in
North Sumatra that have millions of tons in gold and copper
reserves.

With the prices of these two minerals forecast to remain high,
a slice of the big cake promised by the business sure is enough
to secure a well-off future.

So, what's really going on here? Aburizal argued that the
government was setting up a team -- gee, more teams and teams and
teams -- to draw up a settlement proposal.

Hmm, so you decide to drop the case first, then discuss what
to propose later on? One short question: who do you think you're
fooling here?

The writer is a journalist with The Jakarta Post.