By
Timothy King
A
decade long war in Papua New Guinea has left deep scars on Bougainville and its
people. Some will never be erased, others may fade with time.
Many
of the horrors experienced are unimaginable. Speaking from her hospital bed in
December 1999, Cecillia recalls her treatment at the hands of the Papua New
Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF):
A military policeman
named Robin Monai raped me. He buggered me and he raped me wearing a coffee mug
handle on his penis — he called it a bearing. This caused me internal damage.
This man is still here in Buka and nothing has been done to correct this
injustice. This is a man who used to cut the ears off and then kill our men. He
is still here. Nothing has been done; there is no justice.
In
the deceptively beautiful surrounds of Bougainville – a mineral rich island which
lies on Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) eastern border – painful memories such as this
are replayed every day.
Sadly
political leaders on Bougainville charged with responsibility for
peace-building have largely abrogated their domestic and international obligation
to challenge impunity and seek redress for victims of gross human rights
violations. Indeed, in perhaps the most gutting blow for victims,
Bougainville’s President has aligned his government with Rio Tinto, a company
he once accused of ordering and facilitating the atrocities.
The
conflict which sparked this ongoing injustice began in November 1988. For two
decades (1972-1988) prior, the island played host to one of the world’s largest
copper-gold mines, run by Rio Tinto subsidiary Bougainville Copper Limited
(BCL).
Most
of the profits drifted abroad, or were funnelled to the PNG state. The small
portion reserved for Bougainville gradually drove a significant wedge through
local communities, as a cabal of pro-mine landowners commandeered landowner trusts,
companies and compensation payments. As the environmental damage and inequality
mounted, people in the mine area amassed behind a vibrant new generation of
young leaders, led by Perpetua Serero and Francis Ona. Serero and Ona vocally
challenged the elite cabal, and voiced opposition to the mine and its corrosive
impact on their island, culture and land.
This
emergence of local resistance culminated in a campaign of industrial sabotage
directed against the mine. The response of the PNG state was swift and brutal.
Villages around the mine were torched, and those displaced were thrown into
crudely constructed detention camps. When this violence was met with resistance
by independence fighters from the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) – a
guerrilla group set up in response to the attacks – the bodies began piling up.
There
are many tragic stories from Bougainville’s crisis days, far too many to
recount here – young men tortured and executed, pregnant women disembowelled,
children blown apart by PNGDF mortars while attending Sunday School. By the
war’s end between 10,000 and 20,000 people lay dead; no armed faction had clean
hands.
Now
a new generation of Bougainvilleans who grew up among the violence and
animosity, are attempting to excise the island’s demons by recording their
memories, and the memories of elders, in simple blogs, poems and images.
For
example, university student and poet Leonard Fong Roka, has curated a powerful
series of oral histories on his blog, which offer a dignified record of the
suffering people endured during the crisis. From the perspective of the
powerful, these are subversive pieces which weave together the themes of abuse,
complicity and injustice.
For
instance, Roka recounts the story of Hellman Angkanu, whose village was raided
by the PNGDF in 1989. Arriving in BCL trucks, Hellman remembers being
“gun-butted, punched, kicked and swore at”. Through a crack in his blindfold,
Hellman then witnessed “the muscular body of Karebu, [PNGDF soldiers were]
holding him by the legs and some supporting the hands”, his “body was mutilated
with fresh bullet wounds … Flies hovered around the body and ants climbed to
feed on the solidified blood”.
These
victims, of which there are many, and the contemporary chroniclers who attempt
to give them voice, have been abruptly cast aside by Bougainvillean politicians
– some of who formed part of the cabal opposed by Ona and Serero – whose eyes
are now focused on reopening the controversial Rio Tinto mine.
But
it has not always been this way. In 2001, John Momis, the current Autonomous
Bougainville Government (ABG) President, composed a remarkable five page
statement. It was firm, principled and uncompromising in its willingness to
speak truth to power.
As
a Minister in the PNG government during the conflict’s most bloody years
(1988-1992), Momis was privy to the secret dealings that engineered brutal
military reprisals against innocent villagers around the mine and well beyond.
This
2001 document – composed for a US-based class action launched by Bougainvillean
litigants against Rio Tinto – could easily be forgotten, but it shouldn’t be,
few more courageous statements have been made with respect to the war. This
important statement is now public for the first time.
Momis
begins his searing indictment: “It is important to understand the significance
of holding Rio Tinto responsible for its actions and the actions of the PNG
government. At all times, Rio Tinto, through BCL, controlled the government’s
actions on Bougainville ... whenever government action was called for on
Bougainville, BCL was the one that requested it”.
The
actions Momis references here – conducted by the PNG state, at the alleged
behest of Rio Tinto – collectively constitute crimes against humanity. And
Rio’s subsidiary, BCL, was a pivotal actor in this regrettable historical
episode.
After
villages were torched and their inhabitants brutalised, troops would hop into
BCL trucks, and return to base – which was BCL’s headquarters – where they
could enjoy a hot meal and a comfortable bed, all supplied by the company. A
senior BCL manager recalls, “We did everything they asked of us to make their
life more comfortable, and better able to manage through, with transport,
communications, provisions, whatever, fuel. You know we gave them everything”.
This continued even after military atrocities became common knowledge.
Accordingly,
Momis places responsibility for the criminal military operations unreservedly
on the shoulders of Rio Tinto’s subsidiary BCL. He writes:
BCL needed PNG to open
the mine in the first place and keep it open because of the long-standing local
opposition to the mine. In fact, it was BCL that requested the aid of its
partner, PNG, to deploy defence forces to suppress the uprising and reopen the
mine. BCL requested that PNG reopen the mine by whatever means necessary, and
later assisted in planning and the imposition of the [military] blockade. I was
aware of one meeting where BCL management instructed PNG to ‘starve the
bastards out.’
These
are not the words of an outsider, Momis was there in Cabinet during 1988-1992,
acting as the PNG Prime Minister’s right hand man. Indeed, Momis arguably more
than anyone else knows exactly how things went down.
As
Bougainville emerges from the conflict, an enduring, albeit fragile, peace has
been forged. Yet significant lacunas remain. In his 2001 statement Momis
pinpoints one gap: “It is important to Bougainvilleans and the long-term
reconciliation process that Rio Tinto’s responsibility be addressed in an
impartial forum by an impartial judge”.
He
continues: “There are high levels of support for the litigation in
Bougainville. It is well understood if the Panguna mine did not happen the
Bougainville war and blockade would never have occurred. Everyone on
Bougainville is united in this feeling. If the court case can give
Bougainvilleans an opportunity to air their claims against Rio Tinto and obtain
justice, then it will strengthen the reconciliation process that is brining
[sic] PNG and Bougainvilleans closer together”.
What
the people of Bougainville demand, and what Momis articulates so clearly, is an
innate right to truth, justice and reparation enshrined in international law.
As the government that could lead Bougainville to full independence – pending a
referendum – the ABG is duty bound to defend the rights of victims in domestic
and international forums. And with president Momis at the helm one could very
easily imagine the ABG setting the global standard in defending the rights of
victims and bringing the powerful to account. Indeed, this small Melanesian
island has something of a reputation for taking principled stances and winning
against unspeakable odds.
However,
if victims were expecting a strong champion when Momis was finally elected ABG
President in 2010 – and they had every right to in light of Momis’ stand in
2001 – the last three years have proven an anti-climax. Having once stood
shoulder to shoulder with the victims of Rio Tinto’s actions, the ABG President
now presents the company as a saviour in a crisis of the ABG’s creation.
Lets
just put this profound u-turn in historical context. In 1987, when Bougainville
began to rumble with serious discontent, Momis lambasted BCL in a letter to the
company’s Managing Director. “You are invaders”, Momis wrote, with the
“ideology of a cancer cell”. He claimed, BCL had “colonized our people” and
eaten Bougainville’s “roots and leaves”. Momis implored the company to change
its way and offer the people of Bougainville a fairer deal.
Not
only did BCL reject his advice, they were complicit in a devastating series of
counterinsurgency operations, which aimed to silence some of the company’s
loudest critics. Momis’ metaphor of a “cancer cell” could not have been more
prescient. Accordingly, it is hard to believe that Momis could now ask his people
to forego truth, justice, and reparation and welcome back a corporate actor
which helped brutalise Bougainville.
That
said, the current position of Momis and the ABG would be at the very least
understandable if BCL was publicly contrite, and stood ready to make amends for
past wrongdoings. Yet to this day the company denies the accusations leveled
against it. The last phrase needs to be underlined. Despite rigorous
documentary evidence and damning oral testimony from its own executives, BCL
publicly denies complicity in defense force operations. To add injury to insult
their parent has bitterly fought Bougainville in the US courts.
The
crimes of the past cannot be laid to rest when the right to truth and
reparation is being blocked. That the ABG has become complicit in this
injustice is a blemish on a state which so many on the island fought and died
for.
To
make matters worse the ABG has, with indecent haste, used high-pressure sales
tactics and deceit to win community support for Rio Tinto’s return. The sad
irony of this should not be overlooked. It has been the long held position of
the ABG President that the conflict emerged in large part from the rushed,
high-handed manner with which the mine was hoisted upon Bougainville during the
1960s by the Australian colonial administration.
When
introducing draft mining legislation earlier this year, that will pave the way
for Rio’s return, Momis informed parliament: “I believe that it is not really
the Panguna mine that caused the many problems and the conflict Bougainville
has experienced since the 1960s. No – the real problem was the fact that we
Bougainvilleans were ignored. The mine was imposed on us”.
Yet
in an a move that would have won the approval of Charles Barnes – the
controversial Australian Minister of Territories – ABG officials have gone to
communities claiming the ABG is broke, and the island’s shattered economy is
moribund. Only by reopening the mine under BCL auspices, the people are told,
will Bougainville attract the necessary injection of capital needed for
self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence. It has been added, Bougainville
must act fast; high copper prices may not be around forever, were they to drop,
the low-grade deposit would become uneconomical.
In
one fell swoop the ABG has – on the dubious threat of bankruptcy and political
dependency – asked the people of Bougainville to forego their right to justice.
In contrast to the ABG’s position, the international human rights standard is
clear, victims should not be forced to sell off their finite natural resources
to repair damage caused by state and non-state actors. A large share of the
responsibility for reparation and restoration lies with those responsible for
the human rights violations. According to Momis’ own sworn testimony that is
Rio Tinto.
Now
the ABG President appears to believe that reconciliation – and indeed the
mine’s reopening – can in fact be achieved through short-cuts. Such a belief
can only be held in defiance of the past.
It
was not the actions of colonial officials which so incensed those who would
spearhead the island rebellion in 1988 – white men were expected to act as
exploiters – it was rather the nefarious role that their own national,
provincial and traditional leaders played.
Indeed,
two of the movement’s most articulate leaders, Serero and Ona, reserved some of
their most pointed barbs for local leaders, many of whom are bulwarking the
efforts to reopen the mine today.
In
one letter Serero refers to them as “self centered traditional landlords
brainwashed by foreigners and minority elite nationals”. While in a later
speech – which surely rates among one of the most important in the island’s
history – Francis Ona censures provincial and national leaders:
We were forced to
become passive observes of our own exploitation, first by the racist colonial
administration and after independence by the black political leaders in
whitemen’s coats … We are the ‘sacrificial lamb’ for the few capitalists whose
hunger for wealth is quenchless and unceasing.
Ona
continues his political tract by identifying those individuals who he saw as
constitutive of this parasitic national class, one of whom is the current ABG
President:
The Parliament House in
Port Moresby is nothing more than a central market place where the indigenous
capitalists exchange large sums of money and make bargains for large foreign
loans and investments for personal benefits in the name of national development
… Neither Somare, Chan, Wingti, Namaliu, Momis nor their other counterparts are
nationalists. All our politicians from national to provincial level are puppets
for the foreign capitalists … Today frustrations and anger loom in all corners
of this country.
Francis
Ona succumbed to illness in 2005. It is hard to know how he would have reacted
to current events. Nevertheless, the ABG President now presumes to speak for
Ona, a man whose memory is sacred to many on the island. And his voice –
selectively channelled by Momis – sings a very different tune:
Francis was not trying
to end the mine for ever. No – his complaint was about the unfair treatment of
Bougainville. He wanted the rights of Bougainvilleans recognised. He wanted
fair distribution of the revenue ... We have continued that same struggle
throughout the peace process.
A
more self-serving revision of the past could hardly be imagined. Forgotten here
– or edited out – is Ona’s searing critique of Momis and many others who he
believed had traded the people’s right to land, environment and culture for
material wealth and personal prestige. Future generations will be forgiven for
reaching a similar conclusion once they learn that the ABG President sacrificed
the fundamental rights of Bougainvillean victims, for a company he once likened
to a “cancer cell”.
Back
in 2001 President Momis took a momentous stand against Rio Tinto, which if
pursued with strength and resolve through the ABG, could have secured
Bougainville the collective reparation needed to fund independence or autonomy.
With honey being dripping in their ear, the ABG has abandoned this fundamental
duty of statehood, in so doing it has also abandoned those whose who can no
longer speak because their voice was brutally silenced two decades ago.
--Timothy King is a freelance writer and
researcher with a focus on land and resource issues in the Pacific region.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment