Why not renegotiate?

Why not renegotiate?

I would like to thank Freeport's Mr. Bruce E. Marsh for his
candid reply to my complaint about Henry Kissinger. If I may
summarize my understanding of his rebuttal: Freeport has indeed
dug up a mountain and dumped it (minus the minerals) into a
river, because an impressive array of experts has concluded that
"in-river" tailings management is the best way to proceed. Mr.
Marsh does not consider this an environmental catastrophe, I do:
so be it. Catastrophe means different things to different people.

But let me return to the main point of my letter, which is
broader than the environmental issues, and which Mr. Marsh did
not address.

Simply put, Freeport should allow the government of Indonesia
to renegotiate their contract of work because there are at least
three strong indications that it is unfair to Indonesia. First,
the contract is the product of a cozy relationship between
Freeport and an utterly corrupt past regime and its cronies, who
ran Indonesia as a vehicle for personal gain, usually at the
expense of the general public.

Secondly, the people of West Papua feel the current
arrangement is deeply and hurtfully unfair. Only a token amount
of the wealth coming out of the mine reaches them, and this is a
major factor in their secessionist sentiments.

Thirdly, there are serious and recurring concerns about the
environmental impact of the mine's concerns that have not gone
away despite Mr. Marsh's attempts to minimize environmental
damage and the firm's public relations campaigns to appease the
public.

Any one of these problems would be fair grounds for
reappraisal of a contract. Taken together, they constitute a very
strong case indeed.

To have Henry Kissinger warn against renegotiation by raising
the specter of spooking investors is not the solution. It is
simply a scare-tactic attempt to avoid discussion of what is
fair. One can only speculate why. Perhaps Freeport realizes that
the current contract is indeed loaded in their favor -- that the
terms that they won from the New Order regime are untenable in
this more democratic era. Or perhaps they are so used to having
their way in Indonesia that they are unable to appreciate that
the country has changed fundamentally and that fairness,
distribution of wealth to the regions, transparency and
accountability to the general public are now major issues that
will not go away.

By renegotiating an equitable agreement that clears up the
above concerns once and for all, Freeport could secure its long-
term business interests and perhaps begin to gain respect from
the Indonesian public. It might not make quite as much money as
before, but then again it would not have to face a constant
barrage of criticism that may one day lead to the mine's closure.

Kissinger's scare tactics only reinforce Freeport's image as a
company accustomed to using political might to get its way,
regardless of the merits of its case. And this is very much
against Freeport's long-term interests in Indonesia.

ANDREW TRIGG

Jakarta