by Daryl Slusher
After I’d been up for
about
half an hour last Sunday morning, I began to fear that I had passed on to some
other world. It was an Austin parallel universe where the front page of the
Sunday Austin American-Statesman featured: A ground-breaking interview
with the Bishop of Jayapura on human rights violations around
Freeport-McMoRan’s operations in Indonesia; a serious look at the effects of
urban sprawl; and an informative, behind-the-scenes report on budget
negotiations from the paper’s Washington bureau. Inside, editor Richard Oppel
took the chancellor of the University of Texas to task for refusing to be
interviewed by Statesman editors, urged faculty at the university to
stand up for their beliefs, reported on human rights abuses around Freeport’s
operations in Indonesia, and urged readers to tune in to Freeport’s 30-minute
infomercial on their mine – not to hear the gospel, but “for a good chuckle.” It all had me reeling.
The Sunday front page featured a Freeport story by Ralph K.M. Haurwitz, who
interviewed Catholic Bishop Hermann Munninghoff of Jayapura, which is near
Freeport’s Indonesian gold and copper mine. Munninghoff has been in the news
because of his report on human rights violations, and because Freeport
officials quoted him last week to refute charges by some human rights groups
that their personnel were directly involved in atrocities. Haurwitz, who
reached the bishop by telephone, reported that Munninghoff “contradicted
accounts by Freeport officials that the company operates in harmony with the
indigenous people of the province, which occupies the western half of New
Guinea island in the Pacific.”
Munninghoff commented that Freeport has been “only indirectly” involved in
human-rights abuses. Explained the bishop, “The army has to safeguard the
Freeport facilities. By safeguarding that, they violate human rights… There
are a lot of people here who are not content with Freeport. People say, `It’s
our gold and silver and we don’t get payment for it.'” This is not standard
Statesman fare.
Meanwhile, in the Insight section, Oppel gave more detail than I have
seen so far on how it came to pass that UT is naming the molecular biology
building after Freeport Chairman Jim Bob Moffett. He reported that Chancellor
Cunningham “solicited the $3 million contribution from Freeport and Moffett”
and “made the deal.” He noted that Cunningham is “a $40,000-a-year Freeport
director,” and wrote that Cunningham “has declined to sit down for a lengthy
interview with American-Statesman editors.” Continued Oppel, “He should
sit for the interview. He’s the boss. He made the deal. His silence is
deafening.” That kind of blunt talk is unprecedented for a Statesman editor to level at such an influential citizen.
After saying his piece on Cunningham, Oppel went on to describe a short
interview he had with Moffett, who delivered a new twist on an old threat he
made against the City of Austin. If UT refuses to do things his way, Moffett
warned, they will lose the donations of other Fortune 500 companies. “If they
don’t get this straight right now, they’re going to have an absolute
nightmare,” he added.
Next Oppel bluntly discussed human rights violations by the Indonesian
military while in the mine area to protect Freeport operations. In commenting
on this, Moffett asked, “How do you fight a guerilla war?” This was another of
those peeks inside Moffett’s mind. (A guerilla war is quite different from
previous descriptions of Indonesia that Moffett has offered up to now.) Oppel
closed with a one-word review of at least part of the Freeport infomercial:
“Gag.”
Yes, all this and more actually did appear in the Austin
American-Statesman. It sure would be nice to see more of this sort of thing
in the daily. The news stories were fair, informative, balanced reporting. They
laid a lot of facts on the table, and people can form their own opinions.
Oppel’s column did the same with some opinion and analysis thrown in, too. If
the Statesman would perform this well consistently on local issues, they
would truly be a better paper, and Austin would be a better city.
Now, I can’t help but notice that this amazing issue of the daily was the
first Sunday edition since publisher Roger Kintzel was called upstairs to
Atlanta, where he will be publisher of Cox Enterprises’ flagship newspaper, the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Kintzel’s replacement is Michael Laosa,
who grew up in Austin, and whose newspaper experience is exclusively on the
business side of operations. If he will stick to that, as Kintzel did not, then
maybe, just maybe, there’s hope for the Statesman.
I hope I’m not sounding foolishly na�ve, but let’s hold out some hope and
keep an eye on them.
In the meantime, here are a few suggestions. Oppel framed the issues on the UT
campus quite vividly. Why not do the same for what Freeport seeks from the
citizens of Austin: a city sewer and a development agreement? What about a
blunt analysis of whether the city should enter into a contractual agreement
with Freeport, now that a U.S. government agency, the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation (OPIC), cancelled Freeport’s insurance for contractural
“breaches” and for having “severely degraded” rainforests around the mine? And
how about finally doing a serious financial analysis of what a deal with
Freeport would mean for the city? Also, why not print the entire OPIC
cancellation letter? It paints a vivid and important picture that the people of
Austin should see if they are going to consider entering into a contract with
this company.
The Freeport Road Show
Meanwhile, Freeport flew some big guns into town last Tuesday, November 14, toattempt some damage control following the OPIC decision and hounding by the
media on the human rights allegations. A team of Freeport officials and two UT
professors held a press conference in Freeport lobbyist David Armbrust’s office
at One American Center. They denied that any Freeport employees have been
involved in human rights violations at the mines, and also denied any
environmental damage from their operations. They also maintained that all their
operations comply with Indonesian environmental standards, and announced that
the company will submit to an “independent audit” of both the environmental and
social aspects of its operations. The audit will be conducted by American firms
hired by the Indonesian government (a 10% partner in the mine).
Leading the way for Freeport were spokesperson Garland Robinette and Vice
President Thomas Egan. Guarding the door was former Statesman environmental reporter Bill Collier. Among other things, Robinette said the
company was comfortable being in business with Indonesian President Suharto
despite the fact that he is credited with the deaths of more than half a
million people. He added that the company had seen no human rights violations
by Suharto, even though they acknowledge that his military has committed abuses – including killings and torture – while stationed in Irian Jaya to protect Freeport’s mining operations.
Joining the Freeport clan on Tuesday were UT geology professors Mark Cloos and
Robert E. Boyer (not to be confused with Computer Science professor Robert
Boyer, a leader in calls to rescind naming the building after Moffett), both of
whom have visited the mine area as part of Freeport’s partnership with the
geology department. Cloos offered, “First of all, in this era when government
support of academic research has shrunk, Freeport-McMoRan has provided nearly
$2 million since 1989 to UT as pure research grants in direct support of basic
geologic studies of the New Guinea region.” Kloos said he has made 10 trips to
the area, and concluded that Freeport’s operation there “is one of the
engineering and sociological marvels of the world.”
Boyer termed the partnership between Freeport and the university “a model” and
reported these observations from a trip to the mine area this September: “I
encountered warm, friendly people who are apreciative of the employment
opportunities of the mining operation.”
Probably the highlight of the press conference came when Robinette and Egan
maintained that OPIC cancelled their insurance out of concern for future
environmental damage, and didn’t allege any current degradation. This reporter
pointed out that the letter from OPIC general counsel Robert O’Sullivan alleged
that Freeport operations “have severely degraded the rainforests” around the
mines. Egan cautioned that this was from a “lawyer’s letter,” and that a single
comma could completely change the meaning of a sentence. After several minutes
of jousting back and forth, both Egan and Robinette backed off and said
Freeport simply disagrees with OPIC and doesn’t think there has been
environmental degradation.
Just to clear up any confusion, here’s the entire sentence in question: “As
noted, OPIC has determined through its monitoring activities that Freeport’s
implementation of the Project, and especially its tailings management and
disposal practices, have severely degraded the rainforests surrounding the
Ajkwa and Minajeri Rivers.” It continues, “Additionally, the Project has
created and continues to pose unreasonable or major environmental, health or
safety hazards with respect to the rivers that are being impacted by the
tailings, the surrounding terrestrial ecosystem, and the local inhabitants.” In
another part of the letter, O’Sullivan wrote that the “project has caused
substantial adverse environmental impacts which compel OPIC to deny all further
coverage of the project.” I think I got all the commas in the right places.
This article appears in November 24 • 1995 and November 24 • 1995 (Cover).