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.