| 
The NI
feedback section provides an ongoing opportunity to
debate the content of New Internationalist magazine.
To respond to articles or letters you have read, simply
click the "have your say.." text above and fill
in the form, or email: letters@newint.org.
Your feedback may be published in the print and/or online
edition of New Internationalist magazine. If you
do not wish your feedback to be published, please mark
it clearly "NOT FOR PUBLICATION".
July
17th 2002
Dear
New Internationalist,
We write to respond to your April 2002 article entitled
"Way Beyond Petroleum." (NI
344). We appreciate your interest in the
Tangguh LNG Project, and the article contains several
points with which we agree, particularly regarding the
challenges of establishing a transparent "ethical framework"
between investors such as BP and other institutions.
However, the article also contained a number of important
factual errors that we would like to correct.
Might
I first clarify the role of Dennis Heffernan, who is
widely quoted in the article? Although a consultant
to BP, he is neither a spokesperson nor a representative
of the project, and has no authority to speak on our
behalf. If he has been quoted accurately, the New Internationalist
has been seriously misinformed on a number of fundamental
points.
Citing
information from Mr. Heffernan, the New Internationalist
concludes that BP is "helping to fund an emerging government,"
by, for instance, "helping to pay for the Papua Council's
running costs." We assure you that this is not the case.
Such activities would be completely outside the legitimate
scope of a foreign business entity, and would compromise
the integrity of both parties. BP maintains a policy
of strict political neutrality. We did provide modest
logistical support (hotel booking, assistance with travel)
for the 2000 Papua Congress, which was also supported
by then Indonesian President Wahid. We did the same
for a Conference earlier this year on traditional (adat)
rights, which is a high priority for the communities
in Bintuni Bay.
The
article questions whether BP will use Papua Council
Satgas members to provide security for its project;
the answer is that we shall not. We believe that the
most effective security is the support of the communities
who are our neighbours, and we are currently working
with the villages most directly affected by Tangguh
to help make this community-based approach a reality.
The
Tangguh project is committed to respecting the rule
of law, conducting our business with integrity, and
showing respect for human dignity and the rights of
the individuals and communities. Our goal is the creation
of an environment in which intimidation or coercion
has no place, and that disputes and disagreements are
resolved through dialogue, discussion and conciliation.
However, the New Internationalist has cited information
that BP will also "set up" or "fund international bodies
to investigate human-rights abuses." Along with many
other stakeholders in Papua, we believe this would be
wholly inappropriate, and BP has never contemplated
taking such actions.
The
article also refers to the Wasior case, and the potential
implications for Tangguh. In fact, the two locations
are 160 kilometers apart. There are no roads or waterways
linking the two, which are separated by a mountain range
and vast tracks of forest. We do not have any information
that the events in Wasior were connected with the Tangguh
project.
The
New Internationalist article asks, "how can 'transnationals'
be trusted?" We fully accept that trust has to be earned.
This we are striving to do, not least by integrating
the complex social, environmental, cultural and economic
dimensions into all phases of the project design. We
are committed to consultation and dialogue founded on
respect and good faith. Fostering community empowerment
through partnership and participation will be key to
avoiding a corrosive and unsustainable dependency on
the company as 'provider'. But we have no popular standing
or democratic legitimacy to interfere in fundamental
political issues, still less "wanting to fund an emerging
government". Or indeed to be a substitute government.
This is where we take the greatest issue with the article.
May
I conclude by emphasizing the importance we attach to
the views of those, like New Internationalist, who take
an interest in our operations and their impact on the
communities in Bintuni Bay in particular, and Papua
as a whole. An essential component for Tangguh's success
will be effective and accurate communications in which
questions and concerns from our many stakeholders are
openly discussed. In that spirit we appreciate the opportunity
to reply to the subjects raised in the article.
Yours
sincerely,
John
O'Reilly
Vice President,
External Affairs,
BP Indonesia, Jakarta.
Chris
Richards replies:
28
August 2002
Dear
Mr O'Reilly
Many
thanks for your letter of 17 July this year. My apologies
that this reply comes to you later than I would have
liked. I'm afraid New Internationalist
(NI) magazine deadlines have taken
priority. As your letter arrived nearly three months
after the publication of NI's special
edition on West Papua,
I suspect that you will understand why other work
commitments have mitigated against a more speedy response.
Having
looked carefully at your objections, your assertion
that the article 'Way beyond petroleum' contains factual
inaccuracies is rejected. New Internationalist is
extremely concerned by the many challenges facing
West Papuan people as they strive for independence.
Your letter provides a welcomed opportunity to share
with you some of these concerns. Let me do this while
addressing each of the points you raise.
The
most pressing problem facing West Papuans is the torture,
rape and murder that they have experienced at the
hands of the Indonesian military. The widely accepted
death toll of West Papuans who have now been killed
by the Indonesian military is 100,000 and rising.
Unofficially, West Papuans will tell you that the
toll is much higher - that 800,000 of them have died.
In a country with an indigenous population of between
1.3 and 1.5 million, these figures are truly horrifying.
As
you will no doubt be aware, the operations of large
transnationals such as PT Freeport have exacerbated
this problem. West Papua is rich in natural resources.
It has the biggest gold mine in the world, rainforests
ripe for logging and an abundance of oil. Natural
resource extractors operating in West Papua have proved
lucrative sources of legal and illegal profit for
the military. Research done by Australian academic,
Lesley McCulloch from the University of Tasmania,
has shown that, from just one entity - PT Freeport's
Grasberg gold and copper mine - the military has successfully
demanded a one-off payment of $35 million, supplemented
by an agreement to pay an annual contribution of $11
million. To protect these lucrative income streams,
the Generals have stationed in West Papua at least
one member of the armed forces (soldiers and police)
for every 170 citizens (with that concentration of
troops being increased with the passage of each year).
Yet
there is no war in West Papua. To justify their presence,
it is a widely held belief inside the country that
the military inflames conflict that only they can
quell. Wasior may indeed be 160 kilometres away from
BP's Tangguh project, but West Papuans believe that
the military have been provoking conflict there in
order to entice your company into believing that you
need the protection of the Indonesian military at
your Bintuni Bay operations. This is not just idle
speculation, but a consistent pattern in the way the
military is conducting itself in West Papua. Many
people say so: West Papuan Presidium leaders, businesses,
and human rights organizations. Indeed, I see from
the notes of the BP Tangguh workshop in London this
March (at which you were given a copy of our magazine)
- this very issue was brought up by NGOs in attendance.
As Vice President for External Affairs for BP Indonesia,
your failure to acknowledge this indirect consequence
of your presence within West Papua - whilst understandable
in terms of public relations - is profoundly disturbing.
The
effect of this would have been partially redressed
if your company had been giving financial and practical
support to the establishment of international bodies
to investigate the type of human rights abuses that
are presently occurring in places like Wasior. Indeed,
in the article 'Way beyond petroleum', I say that
your company has been involved in this way. You, however,
deny it, saying it would be 'wholly inappropriate'.
There is widespread support within West Papua (though
not, of course, from the Indonesians) for mechanisms
to bring out the truth about what is happening in
the country onto the world stage. Corporate support
of this type doesn't have the same taint as, say,
political donations or indirect payments to political
organizations within a country. In your company's
case, it is an opportunity to walk towards, rather
than away from, a commitment to stop human rights
abuses that are occurring as a consequence of your
presence in the country. I would have thought that
- internationally - it was something that a responsible
corporation would not only have wanted to do, but
also be seen to do. Unless, of course, your company's
real interests now lie in an approach that aims to
appease the Indonesian government, which is intent
on crushing the separatist spirit of West Papua.
In
the article, I cite Willy Mandowen (one of the most
senior and influential people involved with the Papua
Council) as saying that BP is helping the Council
to set-up and fund international bodies to investigate
human rights abuses. I have checked my notes. He used
the military involvement in Wasior as an example of
where such an international body may be useful. I
believe that this was his understanding of your company's
commitment in this area. I urge you to offer them
support in this way.
You
say in your letter that 'The [BP] Tangguh project
is committed to . conducting our business with integrity,
and showing respect for human dignity and the rights
of the individuals and communities. Our goal is the
creation of an environment in which intimidation or
coercion has no place, and that disputes and disagreements
are resolved through dialogue, discussion and conciliation.'
It is too early to say whether or not you will be
successful in this truly laudable aim. But the reports
we are receiving at the moment suggest that your words
may not match your actions. The agreement that your
company attempted to negotiate with the landowners
around your proposed project seems to have been characterised
by a lack of respect for and consideration of the
issues being raised by landowners, with insufficient
feedback and action about issues of local concern.
This has caused confusion and mistrust, culminating
in a protest by local people dissatisfied about the
lack of progress being made in your negotiations with
them on 13 May at your Saengga base camp. More importantly,
I understand that in May there was a discrepancy about
the extent of land being contracted to BP, with the
Manokwari Land Agency and the Manokwari local government
giving two different accounts: 2,950 and 3,266 hectares
respectively. This is important: it is the basis upon
which compensation to the landowners will be calculated.
It will materially affect the amount of that compensation.
The
article entitled 'Way beyond petroleum' was written,
as an exploration of what we believe is an interesting
development. It examines why transnationals wishing
to operate in West Papua would be interested in building
a capacity to govern amongst West Papuan leaders.
PT Freeport has profited handsomely from West Papua.
However, it is generally acknowledged to have an appalling
record both on human rights abuses, environment protection,
and providing adequate compensation to local landholders.
Its share price has suffered when people overseas
have learnt the scale of its misdemeanours. It therefore
provides companies like yours that are seeking to
undertake large-scale extraction of West Papua's natural
resources, with a template of how not to go about
your business. 'Way beyond petroleum' cites Bruce
Marsh, former Vice-President of Environmental Affairs
with Freeport in Indonesia. It reports his view about
how PT Freeport failed to meet the legitimate expectations
of West Papuans around its site to share in the benefits
of Freeport's extremely lucrative activities. Part
of the reason, he explained, was that there was no
functioning civil government in West Papua. This meant
that, instead of handing the money over to government
to administer, they had to administer the funds themselves.
And they had insufficient experience to do this: after
all, this was not their core business. Many of the
resulting 154 community development programs it funded
are either not used or not supported by the local
community. There is an interesting lesson here for
transnationals seeking to do business in countries
like West Papua.
You
say in your letter that BP does not wish to function
as a substitute government (- this being, you said,
where you took the greatest issue with the article).
We never said you did. Indeed, the article clearly
explained why you wouldn't want to do that. You also
say that you have no desire to fund an emerging government.
In the next breath, however, you confirm what we did,
in fact, say - that you have helped the Papua Council
to hold some of their meetings by providing financial
support for accommodation and transport costs for
participants. The issue, then, is whether this payment
can be construed as funding to a fledgling government.
When I was in the country last November, almost all
groups I talked with said that (at that time) they
expected the Papua Council to emerge as a legislative
body and its Presidium to emerge as its Executive
body when West Papua gets independence. So, in essence,
it is an emerging government. I think that it is splitting
hairs in the extreme to say that payments directed
towards facilitating Papua Council meetings are not
funding.
In
the article, I write that the West Papuans need funding
to bring their people together: money that they do
not have at the moment. I also set out ways in which
this kind of support has the potential to hamper an
emerging government in the development of its later
social and economic policy. The tone of the article
is that - in assessing whether such funding will work
more for West Papuans or companies like yours - the
jury at the moment is very much out.
However,
I understand your sensitivity about being seen to
be funding an emerging government. In a speech in
London on 27 February this year, BP's chief executive
officer Sir John Browne is widely reported as saying
that 'from now on we will make no political contributions
from corporate funds anywhere in the world. We'll
engage in the policy debate, stating our views and
encouraging the development of ideas, but we won't
fund any political activity or any political party.'
The kind of financial support that has been offered
to the Papua Council may make your company's sentiments
about political donations appear disingenuous.
The
article does indeed question whether BP will use Papua
Council SATGAS members to provide security. Thank
you for providing the answer: you will not.
In
summary, therefore, there is nothing within what has
been written in 'Way beyond petroleum' from which
I would resile. Many transnationals have to date had
appalling reputations in countries within the Majority
World for putting their pursuit of profit way before
their consideration of the people in whose country
they are operating. Rather than operating in partnership,
they have plundered. Whilst I am pleased that your
company now wishes to reverse this trend, what is
now needed for magazines like New Internationalist
to accept your change of heart is not words, but a
solid record of action.
Finally,
a word about who should be quoted within BP. I have
referred in the article to my conversations with Dennis
Heffernan because he is a BP consultant and knows
his stuff. He has not been misquoted (- and I don't
think that your letter seriously alleges that he has).
I would have also liked to have quoted Arian Ardie
from the Tangguh Project team, and emailed him on
24 January and again on 30 January this year to start
a dialogue. I did not hear back from him. (Having
just reviewed my emails, the 'p' on BP went out in
lower case. This could perhaps mean that he may not
have got the email. Nevertheless, I assure you, the
intention was there.) Dennis Heffernan has an impressive
knowledge of West Papua and Indonesian politics and
an obvious love for the West Papuan people. Clearly,
he was working hard to assist the West Papuan people
in any way he could. He is highly regarded within
the Presidium, and was in West Papua working with
them on the ground. There was therefore nothing before
me to indicate that he was anything other than a very
credible player. Indeed, in the circumstances, why
wouldn't I refer to my conversations with him in my
report rather than ringing someone in a BP office
in far-away Jakarta? Dennis gave me a rare and open
insight into the difficulties companies like yours
face in countries like West Papua. Armed with these
insights, I can confidently say that the result is
a softer article about corporate activity in West
Papua than I would have done without access to his
interesting perspectives. I would be distressed to
think that Dennis will in any way suffer as a result
of our conversations. Could you please confirm that
his position will not be prejudiced in any way?
Once
again, thank you for your letter.
Yours
sincerely,
Chris
Richards
for the New Internationalist co-operative
UN
must act
With West Papua bullied by Indonesia
and large corporations (West Papua, NI
344), just what is the United Nations doing
to prevent yet more human-rights abuses?
My
heart went out to these brave and beleaguered people
in Chris Richards’ crucially important piece on
their struggle for independence.
The
UN decreed that 1994-2004 was to be set aside as the
‘Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples’.
So is it not now time that the world saw some action
from the UN, which must include preventing further human-rights
abuses against indigenous people, together with the
protection of their land from corporations ?
David
Harvey
Chippenham, England
Ends
and means
I know little of the Nepalese Maoists,
although I see the spam they post for some reason on
www.indymedia.org
But Urvashi Butalia writes (‘Mao’s
maids’, View
from the South, NI
344) that they model themselves on the Shining
Path of Peru, a disgusting movement which operates by
bombing and killing. ‘Maoist’ also makes me
think of the one-party state in China.
Would
the Nepalese Maoists, by shooting and killing to take
power, turn into an open government tolerant of multiparty
democracy and dissent? Gain power to give it up? Whether
women take part in this is irrelevant. The means of
change affects the people making the change.
Paul
Jeater
Bristol, England
  top
of the page
Want
to email us feedback or an attached document just to
go on the website? Email it to:
letters@newint.org
|
