JETHRO TULIN @ UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues NY

Speech by Jethro Tulin, Executive Officer,in Akali Tange Association, Highlands of Papua Nuigini on the environmentally destructive impacts of Barrick Gold Porgera Gold Mine, the human rights abuses, and extra judical killings.

Why Indigenous People of the World Are Losing Out

By Terence Gomez

2008/10/05

LAST month, members of the Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia (JOAS) tried unsuccessfully to submit a memorandum to the king urging, among other things, that the government honour its commitment to abide by the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People (Undrip). The incident, on the first anniversary of Undrip, raised an urgent question: why is it that, despite the burgeoning number of international charters and national laws across the world that assert and protect their rights, the majority of indigenous peoples find themselves increasingly subjected to discrimination, exploitation and dispossession?

And, as the Malaysian protest suggests, why is it likely that in spite of charters such as the Undrip, we will continue to see numerous conflicts of mismatched proportions between unempowered indigenous peoples and governments, multinational companies (MNCs) and international financial institutions (IFIs) worldwide?

Most of these clashes between indigenous peoples, governments and IFIs have arisen due to differing interpretations of the term "development". For indigenous peoples, the key issues include not just the right to protect and preserve their ancestral lands, but also often their very survival as a community.

Governments, meanwhile, argue that they are trying to eradicate poverty and offer citizens, including indigenous peoples, a better standard of living.

IFIs contend that they are providing funds to support the goals of national governments, while MNCs publicise that they have been commissioned to implement projects to attain these objectives.

Yet the scale and scope of the problems confronting indigenous peoples as a result of developmental plans implemented by IFIs and governments is monumental, even baffling.

The primary cause for the numerous discrepancies between the rhetoric and reality of these charters and legislation is the support of governments and IFIs for large-scale exploitation of natural resources, including oil and mineral deposits, extensive privatisation programmes and the construction of huge infrastructure projects, specifically dams.

The issue of the rights of indigenous peoples to their natural resources, particularly sub-soil resources, also continues to be controversial, as a majority of governments retain ownership and control over resources.

With little or no institutional support, the enforcement of indigenous peoples' rights has often proven to be extremely weak.

One key factor for understanding this paradox is the way in which power is exercised within governments and international institutions, and between governments and indigenous groups.

Following the major ideological shifts introduced in the 1980s by the conservative but extremely influential Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, and the United States' President, Ronald Reagan, institutions like the World Bank began adopting and espousing neoliberal ideas, which were reflected in their lending conditions.

The primary contention of neo-liberalism is that the way to achieve sustained economic growth is through the retreat of the government from the economy and the liberalisation of the private sector, an issue that became the basis for the approval of loans by IFIs.

Neoliberals further argue that economic growth in developing countries can only be achieved through a combination of market deregulation, fiscal discipline, reduction of public expenditure involving also privatisation to encourage competition, promotion of foreign direct investment and trade liberalisation.

Privatisation of government agencies, assets and services, as well as major new infrastructure projects, constituted a key component of the IFI loan conditionality framework.

That has resulted in numerous serious problems, including the creation of private monopolies in sectors previously under public control.

Privatising public services tended to concentrate control over utilities, services and resources in developing countries in the hands of MNCs, at the same time that government oversight in these sectors was also reduced considerably.

Privatisation of public services such as water and energy supply was especially contentious as it involved major dam projects and further marginalised the poorer and more vulnerable sections of the population in the developing world.

While privatisation was supposed to have reduced the cost of water and electricity, in a number of countries, new tariffs were imposed to improve the viability of private firms in these sectors.

The increased cost of utilities now supplied by private firms brought into question the main justification for privatisation: government capacity to deliver utility services efficiently, cheaply and universally.

Governments, even in the developing world, have shown the capacity to provide water and electricity at low rates. By undermining the government's capacity to deliver key public services, IFIs have facilitated the control by MNCs of these important resources.

Governments and MNCs have, however, been most publicly discredited for human rights violations and environmental degradation in the implementation of large-scale privatised dam-building projects which, instead of providing the promised benefits of increased economic activity and more widely available electricity, have displaced large numbers of indigenous communities.

The construction of dams in the Philippines (such as the San Roque Dam), Malaysia (the Bakun Dam) and India (the Sardar Sarovar Project along the Narmada River) illustrates this, leading to the relocation of settlements and significant degradation of the land.

Meanwhile, the active promotion of resource extraction, a common condition in IFI loan conditions, has resulted in increasingly unsustainable levels of extraction and environmental damage, often perpetuated by MNCs.

The outcome of large-scale resource extraction projects by MNCs in Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, India, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, ostensibly implemented to help finance development and reduce poverty, illustrates the far-reaching effects of such activities.

As resource extraction increased, environmental and social crises became increasingly pronounced as a result of the displacement of peoples, deterioration in general health due to pollutants and severe environmental degradation.

In the Philippines, IFI-type recommendations were adopted following complaints by the United States, Australia and New Zealand -- all three reluctant to endorse the Undrip -- that local legislation prohibited foreign entities from owning mining companies.

In 1995, the Philippine government introduced the Mining Act, which allowed for 100 per cent foreign ownership of mining firms. The introduction of this legislation led to huge interest from leading foreign firms in this sector.

Antonio Tujan, Jr, a political analyst from the Philippines, would later argue that "the Mining Act is a clear example of how the neoliberal economic paradigm is translated into the wholesale opening up of Third World natural resources to corporate exploitation".

Despite increasing international awareness of the situation of indigenous peoples, protective charters and legislation remain theoretically-orientated rather than practical.

Unless these vast asymmetries of power, presented by conflicting conceptions of development, are reformed, indigenous peoples will continue to be marginalised.

At the Undrip event last month, JOAS member Mark Bujang stressed that the Orang Asal are not anti-development. But, he said: "We want to be included in the decision-making process."

The need now is urgent for international agencies and governments to devolve power to indigenous peoples. They must create inclusive consultative platforms that will provide them with an avenue to participate in decisions that could impinge on their way of life and to determine their own development path.

The writer is associate professor of political economy at Universiti Malaya. He can be contacted at terencegomez@hotmail.com

BHP plan controversial West Papua nickel mine

Video

Windows Media	Broadband	Dial-up
Real Player	Broadband	Dial-up

Broadcast: 29/09/2008

Reporter: Geoff Thompson and Tony Jones

BHP Billiton is on the verge of starting one of the most sensitive mining operations it has ever planned.

Transcript

TONY JONES: In West Papua, and after evading questions about the project for years, BHP Billiton is on the verge of starting one of the most sensitive mining operations it has ever planned. Gag Island in West Papua holds one of the world's richest nickel deposits. But it, and the islands around it, are ringed by what UNESCO and many marine scientists believe is the richest and most diverse coral reef system in the world.

Conservationists say BHP's disastrous environmental record at Papua New Guinea’s Ol Tedi mine should rule out any gamble with Gag Island's riches. And it's not just the potential for environmental damage that makes the gag project controversial. The island lies in West Papua, formerly Irian Jaya. The disputed Indonesian province where previous mining concessions like Freeport have become the focus for pro-independence guerrilla attacks and Indonesian human rights abuses.

Indonesia correspondent Geoff Thompson made the difficult journey to Gag Island to file this exclusive report for Lateline.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Off the remote coast of West Papua in eastern Indonesia sprawls the Raja Ampat archipelago. 610 islands spread across 50,000 square kilometres, covering an area 10 times the size of Bali. But its surface beauty simply cannot compete with the untold treasures below.

CHARLIE VERON, MARINE BIOLOGIST: There was once a time when all scientists in fact it was general knowledge, thought that the Great Barrier Reef was the centre of marine diversity. It was a very special place, but it is not the centre of marine diversity. The Raja Ampat islands of eastern Indonesia are.

JAN STEFFEN, UNESCO, JAKARTA OFFICE: If you look at it from the point of view of marine biodiversity it is what people call the bullseye on the planet. There's no richer person in terms of marine biodiversity.

GEOFF THOMPSON: The Raja Ampat archipelago sits atop the planetary short list of marine sites most deserving of World Heritage listing.

JAN STEFFEN: I think now it is basically a technical matter to get everything sorted out and to fulfil all the requirements but personally, I am quite optimistic that will happen.

GEOFF THOMPSON: But marine life isn't the only resource rich in abundance here. The other is nickel. In fact, one of the world's biggest deposits of that crucial stainless steel ingredient is locked inside Gag Island. A 56-square-kilometre land mass smack in the middle of the Raja Ampat archipelago.

And it's here that BHP Billiton has set up base, and is preparing to mine, after signing a 50-50 joint venture agreement in June with the Indonesian-owned company. For years BHP Billiton has been sitting on the controversial concession. Environmental protests saw the island reclassified as protected forest in 1999. Temporarily shelving BHP's mining plans. A regulatory shift in 2004 again cleared the way for Gag's exploitation. BHP's board has not yet approved the deal, but the company is already the best employer in Gag's only village, Gambia.

WAJU HUSEIN, COMMUNITY LEADER (translated): With the company here, even though they're still exploring, there's a huge difference in income already. When the producing starts, the company promises there'll be some sort of share of the production they get out of Gag Island, like in Freeport and such. There'll be money for the village, as well. They promised us that.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Nearly all of Gambia's point are migrants from nearby ma Luku and welcome the economic benefits they think the mine will bring. But Johanes Goram is an activist and among the Papuans disputing traditional ownership of Gag Island. He used to walk for Freeport's giant gold and copper mine, which for decades has been the flashpoint of conflict between pro-independence guerrillas and Indonesia's military.

Johanes Goram thinks stirring up of jealosies will haunt Gag Island, too.

JOHANES GORAM, NAZARETH FOUNDATION PAPUA: I do believe it is a human rights issue, because when the migrant and the local Papuan will fight or will conflict because of the issue, we are afraid that military intervention can be used to stop, to protect the company, to protect the land, to support the government.

GEOFF THOMPSON: It's extremely unlikely that BHP's nickel mine here will somehow sidestep the minefield of Papuan politics. Loud voices on the Papuan Traditional Council are already saying they are happy for the operation to proceed, but only in a Papua independent of Indonesia. But BHP can count on Indonesian Government support says the head of the country's investment board.

MUHAMMAD LUTFI, INVESTMENT BOARD CHIEF: We want to do it responsibly, but my board at least will make sure that it will happen in the near future.

GEOFF THOMPSON: BHP has refused to discuss which options are being considered to minimise the mine's impact on the surrounding reefs. The company first considered pumping hundred of thousands of tonnes of tailings onto the ocean floor, but BHP now says that option has been ruled out.

Indigenous groups hold protest over loss of lands to mining

By Abigail Kwok
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 14:45:00 08/13/2008

MANILA, Philippines -- Indigenous groups in the country are in decline because of the government's alleged “militarist and aggressive economic policies,” a coalition of indigenous groups said on Wednesday.

Groups from Central Luzon, led by the Central Luzon Aeta Association (CLAA), marched to the Don Chino Roces Bridge (formerly Mendiola) to protest the alleged destruction of their ancestral lands due to mining.

“The urgent and critical situation of the indigenous people’s sector has brought us here,” said Nelson Mallari, secretary general of CLAA.

He added that members of the military allegedly harass, intimidate, and threaten locals in the area.

The group also criticized the agreement between Nihao Mineral Resources International and Geograce Philippines, headed by former Malacañang chief of staff Michael Defensor, and China’s Jiangxi Rare Earth and Rare Metals Tungsten Group Co. to conduct mining explorations in more than 30,000 hectares of land in Zambales.

Himpad Mangumalas, spokesman for the Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP), said the mining explorations would displace Aeta communities in the area.

“The Arroyo government is wiping out indigenous communities all over the country through its militarist and aggressive economic policies. Another reason is that the President does not intend to cease these injustices,” he said.

Groups urged the government to stop mining, where priority mining areas of the government have now reached to 63, or more than 108,000 hectares.

“The realization of the rights of national minorities to ancestral lands and self-determination will only be fully realized when the government is no longer bound by capitalist interests. Until then, the indigenous and Moro peoples’ rights is only second to the interests of companies interested in the resources found in ancestral domains,” Mangumalas said.

FMG seeking to move into Aotearoa- there goes the seabed for sure

Posted 1 hour 9 minutes ago

FMG is seeking permission to explore for minerals in New Zealand. (ABC TV)

The Fortescue Metals Group, headed by Andrew Forrest, is making its first foray into international mining by applying to test for minerals in a vast area in New Zealand.

Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) has made several applications to test for iron ore sands on the west coast of the South Island in an area covering 4,000 kilometres.

The venture has upset a group of miners who claim their century old gold mining business could be jeopardised.

Bluescope Steel is already dredging iron ore sands along the North Island.

It is understood other miners including Rio Tinto and China's Sinosteel also have interests in the region.

FMG's Graeme Rowley says if its applications for permits are approved it will consult with concerned groups.

"At this stage it is so early in the process that we are not aware of some of the challenges that obviously through the consultation we will be involved in all of the issues that are raised by local community," he said.

"Obviously through the consultation we will be involved in all of the issues that are raised by local community and obviously if certain things become prohibitive then obviously the tenders will not be granted.

Too large

Keith Brodie from New Zealand's mining lobby Minerals West says FMG's application is too large and the governing body needs to scrutinise it closely.

"[To] make sure it complies with the minerals program that covers the whole of New Zealand," he said.

"Also to make sure that they're not sacrificing one part of the minerals industry for another so it has to be carefully considered."

Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and the Battle Over Northern Development in Canada

By Todd Gordon, March, 26 2008, Z Net.

The recent jailing of six activists from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI), a fly-in Cree community 600 Km. north of Thunder Bay, is an unambiguous warning to northern First Nation communities who dare stand in the way of governments’ and resource companies’ plans to develop the north.

On March 17, the six KI members were handed six month jail sentences for contempt of court by the Ontario Superior Court in Thunder Bay. The contempt of court ruling was made after the court ruled in the fall 2007 that junior mining exploration company, Platinex, can legally drill for Platinum deposits on traditional KI territory, despite the First Nation community’s long-standing opposition to Platinex’s plans. KI activists ignored the ruling, and physically stopped Platinex workers from commencing drilling on their land. Activists, including a KI Ontario Provincial Police Officer (OPP), threatened to arrest the Platinex workers if they didn’t back off (no doubt presenting to political and OPP leaders a potentially serious loophole in their aboriginal self-policing policy).

Unable to fund a legal challenge to the contempt ruling, KI activists were left at the mercy of the court, which took the opportunity to send a clear message to indigenous activists. In his decision, Justice George Smith declared: “If two systems of law are allowed to exist – one for the aboriginals and one for the non-aboriginals – the rule of law will disappear and be replaced by chaos.” Ontario’s Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Michael Bryant, commented that the government had tried hard to reason with KI and come to a just compromise around mining development on their land, but the First Nation community was simply too intransigent. Thus he washed his hands of matter, asserting that “the government did its best to avoid incarceration.”

Judge Smith’s and Bryant’s comments are designed to make it appear as if everyone, including KI, is equal before the law and can therefore get a fair shake if they’re willing to play by the rules – rules, for good measure, that keep us from descending into chaos. The reality, however, is that the one system of law that exists, rooted in colonialist history and imposed on sovereign nations by force, is designed to deny equality to indigenous nations and facilitate the ongoing appropriation of indigenous land. Equality before the law can never exist in a colonial context, and was never intended to. For the “chaos” the law is protecting us from is really only chaos in the eyes of big business and government: the assertion of indigenous self-determination, which stands as a major obstacle to corporate profits.

Unfortunately, the KI incident is not an isolated event. In April, Ardoch Algonquin First Nation leader, Robert Lovelace, was given a six month jail sentence for refusing to obey a judicial order to stop blockading Frontenac Ventures’ proposed uranium mine on his community’s land. The 550-person community, which has no government status and so receives no government funds, was also fined $10,000. Behind both of these events lies a major push to radically expand the frontiers of Canadian capitalism northwards.

Neoliberalism, Northern Development and First Nations

The emergence of neoliberalism in Canada has brought with it an intensification of the state’s and corporations’ focus on indigenous lands. Neoliberalism involves sharp cuts to social programs, privatization of public assets and workplace restructuring – all aimed at dramatically increasing corporate profitability by strengthening the hand of business vis-à-vis the public. But just as central to the neoliberal agenda in Canada, though less discussed, is indigenous land and labour. Because of their resistance to the Canadian state project, large layers of the indigenous population have not been fully integrated into market relations, and considerable portions of their land, much of it resource rich, have not been subject to capitalist development. The frontier of capitalist expansion, in the eyes of the state and business leaders, still has significantly further to go in Canada.

It’s worth noting here, too, that the creation of a larger indigenous working class, and indigenous peoples’ resistance to this project, is a key concern of the state’s policy towards them. It is expressed clearly in the policy documents of the Ministries of Indian Affairs, Industry and Natural Resources. Reserves were organized in part, and are still viewed by government, as a pool of cheap labour to be drawn upon when needed. Labour force issues relating to indigenous people, including their consistently lower participation rates than non-indigenous Canadians, has become a very consistent theme in Indian Affairs’ studies since the 1980s. These studies commonly note the significant growth rates of the indigenous working-age population, while observing with frustration indigenous peoples’ reluctance to join the capitalist labour force.

The mining, oil and gas, and pipeline industries are central to the agenda of northern expansion. Over the last decade, for instance, mining companies have been expanding their activities into regions of the country where capitalist development has hitherto been limited. Exploration has been increasing significantly in northern and interior British Columbia; the northern prairies, Ontario and Quebec; the Yukon; Nunavut; and the Northwest Territories, particularly since diamond deposits were discovered there in the early 1990s. Major finds of diamonds, gold and other subsurface minerals are expected in the artic in the next two decades.

As mining expands geographically in Canada, indigenous land and labour has become absolutely central to the success of the industry. The Mining Association of Canada notes that, “[m]ost mining activity occurs in northern and remote areas of the country, the principal areas of Aboriginal populations.” Natural Resources Canada reports, meanwhile, that approximately 1200 indigenous communities are located within 200 kilometers of an active mine. This figure will only increase as exploration intensifies. The Prospectors and Developers Association’s recent memorandum of understanding with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), is aimed at drawing young First Nation members and their lands into the mining industry via the government-funded mainstream aboriginal political organization.

Meanwhile, much of the oil-rich regions of Alberta, fuelling that province’s booming economy over the last decade, are on unceded Cree territory. Alberta’s oil boom, in other words, is predicated on stolen land.

Perhaps the largest single infrastructural project planned in Canadian history, the much-vaunted (for political and business leaders anyways) $16.2 billion Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, can only proceed by cutting through several Dene communities in the Northwest Territories. While some communities have come on board the project in the desperate hope that it will, unlike so many resource projects that have come before it, provide real sustainable benefits to First Nation people without completely destroying their lands, other indigenous people are far more skeptical about such a possibility. Moreover, once it’s online, exploration for oil and mineral deposits along the pipeline’s 1,350 Km. route from Inuvik near the Arctic Ocean to the oil fields of Alberta is expected to increase.

These projects are the large, visible tip of the iceberg. Many more are being planned, including new hydro-electric dammning schemes in Manitoba. The location of the major resource development projects brings Canadian (and foreign) corporations squarely into conflict with indigenous land rights. But not only do First Nations claim much of the land resource companies seek to exploit, even if not directly on their lands such massive projects involve infrastructural inputs (access roads, river diversion, power lines etc.) that will undoubtedly wreak havoc on the surrounding environment, which indigenous people rely on to sustain traditional subsistence and cultural practices.

KI’s battle with Platinex highlights the tension between northern resource development and indigenous rights. Until recently, resource development in Ontario above the 51st parallel had been limited, and governments hadn’t aggressively sought to open the region up to multinational corporate predators. But corporations have been eyeing the region for some time, and now with government support are ready to move in. They see the Platinex situation as a test case for corporate rights in the area. KI signed a treaty with the government in 1929, in which it was granted 8,800 hectares of land. KI claims, however, that the calculation of the area of its reserve was improper, and in May 2000 filed a specific land claim with the federal government for 51,000 more hectares of its traditional land for its reserve – land that Platinex has mining claims on thanks to Ontario’s corporate-friendly mining code, which allows free claim staking on Crown land.

Given the glacial pace of the government’s official land claims process (in which First Nation claims to legal entitlement to traditional lands can take up to two decades, and with no guarantee of success), KI felt it had no choice but to take matters into its own hands. Much to the frustration of the Ontario government and Platinex, KI activists physically blocked Platinex operations and the community declared a moratorium on mining development on its land. KI Chief, Donny Morris, asserted: “We have said it before and we will say it again. No exploration means no exploration. Which part of NO doesn’t the Ontario government understand?” Of course, the government and Platinex were not to be deterred so easily, and turned to the legal system, with its rank air of justice and impartiality, to help them out.

Legal Cover for Colonialism

While Canada has certainly not been above the use of military or paramilitary force in its efforts to subdue First Nations (Oka, Gustafson Lake, Ipperwash and Six Nations spring to mind), the legal system is its preferred choice. It has the appearance of neutrality, is less sensational than armed conflict and can demobilize activists by channeling their energy into lengthy and costly court processes. The formal land claims process mentioned above is one example of this stratagem. The so-called “duty to consult”, which was invoked in the KI case, is another.

Hailed by government and some indigenous leaders as a legal victory for First Nations, the “duty to consult” has been developed in a number of Supreme Court decisions, including Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Haida-Takhu River and Mikisew Cree. The duty arises from the principle of the “honour of the crown” with respect to its relationship to indigenous communities, as stipulated by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, this means that in historically recognizing some form of aboriginal rights (to hunt or fish on traditional territories, for instance) deriving from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 through to section 35 of the constitution, the state has a responsibility to accommodate indigenous interests in cases where things like development projects (establishing a mine, for instance) could negatively impact those aboriginal rights. The duty can be invoked in instances where development is to proceed either on territory that indigenous communities assert a right to but which right has not yet been formally recognized by Canada, or on territory in close proximity to treaty land. Canada, the Supreme Court argues, must commit to “a meaningful process of consultation in good faith.”

But what’s “good faith”, and why should a colonial government, with connections to the resource industry, ever be expected to meaningfully act in such a manner? The Court never makes clear what “good faith” entails. Further, the Supreme Court also placed clear limitations on the obligations of governments in following the duty. According to the Haida decision, “there is no duty to agree; rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation. As for Aboriginal claimants, they must not frustrate the Crown’s reasonable and good faith attempts, nor should they take unreasonable positions to thwart government from making decisions or acting in cases where, despite meaningful consultation, agreement is not reached.” So governments can undertake consultations that, as noted above, may not meaningfully exhibit real “good faith,” and if agreement is not reached by the indigenous party, then … too bad, and do not interfere further. Put more sharply, the Court asserts in the Haida decision, “This process does not give Aboriginal groups a veto over what can be done with land pending final proof of a claim.”

The KI case suggests skepticism towards the “duty to consult” is well warranted. When KI’s battle against Platinex first made it into the courts, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Platinex had a “duty to consult” with KI before it proceeded further with its exploration plans, and imposed a nine month injunction on the company’s activities. In May 2007, when the nine months were up, and KI still had not reached an agreement with the Crown over the use of the land, it sought to extend the injunction. This time, however, the judge refused, stating that the consultation was a “reasonable and responsible beginning of accommodating KI’s interest and, at this point in time, is sufficient to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult.” In other words, the government can claim it fulfilled its legal obligations to consult with the First Nation, and any KI activists taking action to stop Platinex would now be in contempt of court. The balance sheet of the “duty to consult” here is clear: Platinex suffered a brief delay in its plans but can ultimately proceed, while six KI activists are now in jail.

Open For Business

It’s not just Platinex that wins here, of course. The message for resource companies, and the governments in their pockets, is that constitutionally-defined aboriginal rights may have to be considered, but they ultimately will not interfere with plans develop the north. And should indigenous activists be stubborn enough to take matters into their own hands, the full coercive power of the state will be brought to bear on them.

This is a crucial time for the north and its indigenous inhabitants. Corporations and political leaders have clear designs for it, in which indigenous interests are of little importance. However, some indigenous organizations like the AFN and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), which represents forty-nine communities in northern Ontario, have grabbed at the carrots industry and government dangle in front of them, in hopes that if they can’t stop corporate development, then at least they can get a piece of the pie. It’s a risky move, though, as traditional lands risk destruction while development benefits rarely trickle down too far past the indigenous leaders.

In the wake of the court’s heavy-handed treatment of the KI activists, NAN has suspended its talks with the province. While a step in the right direction, this ultimately will do little to stop the development agenda. The reality is that it is well-organized, collective and militant defiance – and the genuine solidarity of non-indigenous activists – that has been the most successful check on Canadian colonialism. Just ask the Six Nations members at the land reclamation in Caledonia.

Todd Gordon is the author of Cops, Crime and Capitalism: The Law-and-Order Agenda in Canada and numerous articles in New Socialist magazine. He is an assistant professor of Canadian Studies at the University of Toronto, and can be reached at ts.gordon@utoronto.ca.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16977

TONGA: New deep sea-bed mining exploration approved

A Canadian firm has won approval to begin exploring the deep sea-bedoff Tonga for high grade copper, gold, zinc and silver deposits -- inwhat could become one of Tonga's biggest mining operations. NautilusMinerals Tonga, which has been registered locally, will begin surveyingthe sea beginning in May.

Presenter - Adam Connors Speaker - Paula Taumoepeau, Country manager for Tonga's new arm of Natilus Minerals,

listen windows media >

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/s2154151.htm

Nautilus Minerals Inc ("Nautilus") is following the lead by the petroleum industry to tap vast offshore resources and is planning to mine high grade seafloor massive sulphide ("SMS") deposits of copper, zinc gold and silver.

Mine planning is well underway for the world's first seafloor copper gold mine in 1,500 metres of water at the Solwara 1 project in Bismarck Sea in PNG, 50kms north of Rabaul township.

The Company holds more than 370,000 km2 of tenement licences and exploration applications in the territorial waters of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and New Zealand along the western Pacific Ocean's Rim of Fire.

Listed on the Toronto (TSX) and London (AIM) exchanges, Nautilus has among its cornerstone shareholders three of the world's largest resource companies and its alliances and technical partnerships position it as the world leader in underwater exploration of SMS deposits.

Corporate Directory (as at Aug 10, 2007)

Directors
Geoffrey Loudon (Chairman)
David Heydon (President and CEO)
David De Witt
Russell Debney
Ardavan Farhad Moshiri

Company Secretary
Shontel Norgate

Registered Office
Nautilus Minerals Inc
Suite 1050
625 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6C 2T6
T: +1 (416) 551-1100
F: +1 (416) 792-0871 Email: office@NautilusMinerals.com Australia Project Office
Nautilus Minerals Inc
Level 7, 303 Coronation Drive
Milton Queensland, Australia 4064
PO Box 1213, Milton Queensland, Australia 4064
T: +61 7 3318 5555
F: +61 7 3318 5500
Nominated Adviser and Broker
Numis Securities Limited
10 Paternoster Square
London EC4M 7LT
Switchboard +44 20 7260 1000
www.numiscorp.com Auditors & Reporting Accountants
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
700 - 250 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6C 3B9

Rainforest Warriors

tahi


This is an excellent and rare TV documentary about West Papua. A year on from its original UK screening it still has not been broadcast in any other country.

In 2006 reporter Evan Williams gained access, on a tourist visa, to West Papua - a country to which journalists and foreign observers are flatly refused entry by the Indonesian government. After three weeks dodging Indonesian officials and police to gather interviews and information, he filed this report for Channel 4's "Unreported World" series.

• We meet a group of tribal elders, some of whom have travelled for days, who congregate especially to tell the world media about widespread incidents of Indonesian killing and brutality in their native villages.

• The pretext for Evan Williams' visit to West Papua is the Wamena Festival, at which the local governor's speech proclaims Indonesia as "the ultimate in diversity". But for the locals, overrun by Indonesian oppression and largely outnumbered by subsidised Indonesian immigrants, is it diversity or occupation?

• Williams meets a man whose parents and friends were killed by the Indonesians and who has been fleeing the army, hiding out, for five years. He is led to a village in which the locals are mourning the deaths of relatives killed or missing since the March 2006 protests.

Channel 4
Original broadcast - October 20 2006

rua


toru

Rio Tinto rape the Tai Tokerau

I've been putting off putting this stuff up. I have been gutted to know that Rio Tino are surveying for mining some of our families ancestral lands. Some elders from the NT are talking in Melbourne tonight. (7pm Old Council Chambers Trades Hall)we will be sure to welcome and support their struggles against earth raping Mining companies.



Rio Tinto to acquire Iron Ore NZ interest in Prospecting Permit
The renewal documents for the prospecting permit #39287 include the
immediate acqisition of a 60% interest the the permit previously held
by John Rutherford owned Iron Ore NZ Ltd. The permit renewal also
indicates a future total transfer of the interest to Rio Tinto Mining
and Exploration Ltd - a newly formed company #1918541 reg 16 March 2007

Rio Tinto (parent and subsiduary companies) have the attention of
environmental watchdogs in Indonesia WALHI ,in Madagascar Friends of
the Earthand the Jabiluka Uranium Friends of the Earth lease in the
Northern Territory of Australia

While still raising the ire of the conservation and environmental
lobby, Rio Tinto has developed policy to address the environmental
effects of their mining operations. Rio Tinto Environmental Policy.
The proof of the adequacy will be in the historical audit of the
mining operations when compared with the policy.

Let us hope there is no white wash.

http://www.blacksands.org.nz/new/home.htm

Closeup looks at the issues of the anti seabed mining lobby KASM and
questions representitives from Iron Ore NZ, Crown Minerals and
Taranaki Regional Council

http://www.blacksands.org.nz/new/media/sandmining_241105_128k.wmv

Northland region may have valuable untapped mineral resources.

> 5:00AM Thursday June 14, 2007
> By Wayne Thompson
>
> One of the world's largest mining companies has begun an airborne
> survey of 1200sq km of mineral-rich ironsand deposits along the west
> coast of the North Island.
>
> The Rio Tinto company is managing the hunt for iron and other metals
> in a joint-venture with Iron Ore New Zealand, which won the
> prospecting permit from the Crown Minerals Group in the Ministry of
> Energy.
>
> As the survey aircraft yesterday flew low and slow over the permit
> area - at Mokau, north Taranaki and the west coast of south Auckland -
> iwi and environmental groups and the Auckland Regional Council
> scrambled for more information about the venture.
>
> Fears were expressed for the impact of any dredging on the maui's
> dolphin, a species considered critically endangered, found only off
> the west coast from Northland to New Plymouth.
>
> Ngati Te Ata environment manager Karl Flavell said he had scant
> information about the prospecting.
>
> "We have not been consulted although we are the tribal authority for
> the area from Manukau Heads to Maioro, the north side of Port Waikato
> Heads."
>
>
> ARC environment chairman Dianne Glenn said she raised three chief
> concerns about the prospecting at this week's council meeting. "As a
> result the ARC will write to the Government's conservation, economic
> development and fisheries ministers.
>
> "One of our concerns is that the maui's dolphin has a particularly
> strong presence in the permit area - the Waikato River mouth to
> Manukau Harbour.
>
> "We are also concerned at extra erosion of the coast if there is
> extraction of sand."
>
> Mrs Glenn said another concern was any mining interference with the
> build up of the Auckland construction industry's future sand supplies
> in the Kaipara Harbour. A further concern was the effect of sand
> extraction on Franklin's surf beaches - Sunset Beach, at Port Waikato
> and Karioitahi.
>
> Kiwis Against Sand Mining spokesman (Kasm) Bill McNatty said he felt
> the Rio Tinto joint venture was more "ominous" than previous seabed
> prospecting bids on the west coast because of the powerful company's
> environmental record in its operations internationally.
>
> Kasm raised 15,000 signatures for a petition calling for a blanket ban
> on ironsand mining of the seabed. The petition was presented to
> Parliament in February and is being considered by the Local Government
> and Environment Committee.
>
> Mr McNatty said Kasm had sought information from Rio Tinto and it
> would make strong representations to Crown Minerals if the prospecting
> advanced to the next stage - applying for an exploration permit.
>
> ARC coastal project leader Andrew Benson said the site within the
> Auckland Coastal Marine Area was about 480sq km, extending from the
> northern side of the Waikato River mouth along the Awhitu Peninsula to
> the South Head of Manukau Harbour.
>
> The landward boundary of the prospecting area was the line of mean
> high-water mark. The offshore boundary was a line more or less
> parallel to the Awhitu Peninsula, 15km off shore.
>
> Mr Benson said that the Auckland Regional Coastal Plan allowed
> prospecting that involved the taking of a small quantity of material,
> subject to conditions.
>
> Coastal permits - a resource consent allowing prospecting activity -
> had not been sought.
>
> However, the company advised they might take physical samples early
> next year and would then assess their need for coastal permits to
> provide for prospecting.
>
> A spokeswoman for Rio Tinto Iron ore, Joanna McKenzie, said last night
> from Perth that the aircraft was conducting aeromagnetic surveys over
> sites in the permit area.
>
> The company owns Comalco, which has the aluminium smelter at Bluff, in
> the South Island.
>
> The survey conducted by Auckland-based Kiwi Air and Perth-based UTS
> Geophysics will take a fortnight and the survey plane will fly at a
> minimum of 20m above the sea and follows grid lines 200m apart

> >
> > Qui Bono - Who Profits ?
> > by Corporate Plunder Watcher Saturday June 09, 2007 at 12:38 PM

> > Whoever gets elected at local Council, State Government or
> > Commonwealth Federal level they follow the profit hungry Corporations
> > like in theis case the world's largest mining/earth rape racketeers.
> > Like the Barrick Gold protests if you want to fight and even land a
> > few blows on these parasites then you have to
> > globalise/internationalise extend whatever you want to call the
> > campaign beyond Oz to bring in other indiegnous people and their
> > supporters...
> >
> > http://www.sea-us.org.au/corpfilez/riverofblood.html
> >
> > Rio Tinto PLC / Ltd - The Merger of CRA & RTZ
> >
> > The multinational mining giant, Rio Tinto, has grown out of the
> > former Australian and United Kingdom mining conglomerates, CRA and
> > RTZ, respectively. They have been actively involved in uranium mining
> > since the dawn of the nuclear industry for over 50 years. In the
> > 1950's, CRA managed the disastrous Rum Jungle uranium mine south of
> > Darwin, NT (although it was owned by the Commonwealth Government),
> > while RTZ controlled and operated the controversial Mary Kathleen
> > uranium mine in the Mt Isa region of Queensland. Both mines shut down
> > in the late and early 1960's, respectively, although Mary Kathleen was
> > re-opened in the late 1970's for a further 6 years.

"Marakita_Mehme wrote:
> > >
> > > Caution urged over mining potential
> > > The Bay Chronicle | Thursday, 7 June 2007
> > >
> > >
> > > The announcement of Northland's billion dollar mining potential has
> > > drawn a guarded response from Far North Environment Centre
coordinator
> > > John Kenderdine.
> > > He says extra economic activity is always welcome if it will add to
> > > the well-being of a community but he fears any movement toward
> > > weakening the Resource Management Act to accommodate exploration and
> > > mining companies.
> > > "The environment is the life support system for all life on this
> > > planet so we have to ensure that additions to our economy, on
which we
> > > base our welfare, is good for everyone in the long term."
> > > Mr Kenderdine said he spent three summers working for exploration
> > > companies in British Columbia, where he heard exaggerated reports on
> > > what had been found: "This was to jack up the share price to suck in
> > > more punters looking for a quick buck, but it was only ever the
> > > manipulators who made the money. While I have no doubt there are
many
> > > reputable exploration companies around, I doubt that our local
> > > councils have the expertise to recognise the cowboys before they do
> > > irreparable damage."
> > > Last week's announcement, based on a study by GNS Science and the NZ
> > > Institute of Economic Research, said $28 billion of non-metallic and
> > > $5.2 billion of metallic mineral deposits were potentially
present in
> > > Northland.
> > > The Foundation of Research Science and Technology funded the
> > > assessment, while the study of the economic effects was supported by
> > > the Crown Minerals Group of the Ministry of Economic Development and
> > > the Far North and Whangarei District Councils, with Enterprise
> > > Northland facilitating the process.
> > > GNS Science and NZIER identifies potential for aluminium, coal,
> > > copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, peat, phosphate and zinc
and says
> > > Northland?s mineral revenue could increase from about $100 million a
> > > year to $354 million.

APEC moves towards free trade mining

Asia Pacific mining ministers wound up a talkfest in Perth today vowing to explore a free trade agreement between Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) members that would dwarf all other FTAs.

AAP | February 14, 2007

APEC moves towards free trade mining

By Liza Kappelle

ASIA Pacific mining ministers wound up a talkfest in Perth today vowing to explore a free trade agreement between Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) members that would dwarf all other FTAs.

Australia’s Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane told reporters after the meeting that APEC mining ministers had agreed to examine the effects free trade in minerals and metals would have on the sector.

The study will also explore practical ways to increase trade and investment opportunities among the 21 APEC members, which represent 40 per cent of the world’s economies.

"We have taken the first step to achieving a long term vision of an APEC free trade agreement," Mr Macfarlane said.

"This would dwarf every other FTA ever written."

APEC members include some of the biggest mineral producers - Australia, Canada, Peru, Chile and the US as well as some of the most voracious consumers of commodities, such as China and Japan.

Mr Macfarlane said the mining ministers’ meeting also adopted a set of non-binding principles for the industry including pursuing policies that enhanced sustainable production, trade and consumption of minerals and metals.

These agreements were the culmination of three days of talks behind closed doors by ministers and senior officials from 19 of the APEC nations.

Mr Macfarlane would not reveal details of discussions with nations or stakeholders, including non-government organisations, other than to say they were very positive.

The Perth meeting kicked off a series of APEC discussions in Australia that will culminate in a leaders’ summit in Sydney in September.

Mr Macfarlane said he expected to hear more about removing barriers to free trade among APEC members after each of these meetings.

World leaders including US President George W Bush, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Hu Jintao will head down under for the leaders’ meeting.

APEC was established in 1989 as an informal dialogue group.

Making a Stand at Desert Rock

On December 12th, 2006 community members in Burnham, New Mexico established a blockade to prevent preliminary work for the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant. More info:

www.desert-rock-blog.com

http://www.indigenousaction.org/

Chinese rivals grapple for Pacific

By Phil Mercer BBC News, Sydney

The rivalry sparked tensions in the Solomons' capital in 2006

China's Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan has completed a brief tour of the South Pacific, showing how important the region is to Beijing.

China is competing with Taiwan for diplomatic recognition as well as access to vast reserves of fish, minerals and timber.

But there are concerns that this fierce rivalry is unsettling and that bribes are making the region more corrupt and violent.

"The countries of the South Pacific are micro-states and many of them have weak governments, so the Taiwan-China competition often has quite destabilising effects on the small, often not-very-well-run governments," warned Dr Malcolm Cook from the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

Professor Stuart Harris, a former senior foreign affairs official in Canberra, said this diplomatic arm-wrestle between Taiwan and China was a big worry.

"It's making life very difficult," he said.

"You don't need to spend a lot of money to buy a government, and corruption is becoming even more endemic."

Fierce rivalry

Taiwan and China have been governed separately since the end of a civil war in 1949, and both still compete for diplomatic recognition.

Most countries recognise China, but Taiwan has the recognition of 24 nations, of which six - those in Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands - are in the South Pacific.

Beijing has more friends in the neighbourhood. It has formal ties with eight countries, including the largest island nations, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

China also has strong diplomatic relationships with Australia and New Zealand.

Loans and other investments, as well as the construction of roads and sporting facilities, are used by both sides to foster loyalty.

Given the importance of the region to Taiwan, analysts have detected desperation in its recent efforts.

There were claims that Taiwanese money was used to bribe politicians during an election in the Solomon Islands last year.

Riots broke out in the capital Honiara when Snyder Rini was appointed Prime Minister.

He later resigned amid allegations he used money from local Chinese businessmen and Taiwan to buy the support of MPs.

Mr Rini denied the allegations, and the Taiwanese government vehemently rejected accusations that it had tried to influence the political process.

Not everyone was convinced.

At the time Joses Tuhanuku, the President of the Solomon Islands Labour Party, told Australian television that the election had been tainted by kick-backs.

"It has been corrupted by Taiwan and business houses owned by Solomon Islanders of Chinese origin, and they knew there was a lot of money going around to bribe the new members and some of the old members to put up this prime minister," he said.

Changing ties

Australia has warned both China and Taiwan not to interfere in the politics of its regional neighbours.

Dr Cook says the rivalry is destabilising

"We don't want to see chequebook diplomacy entering the Pacific," said foreign minister Alexander Downer.

That is a forlorn hope, according to Dr Cook.

"Often even in one district (during the Solomon Islands election in 2006) more than one candidate claimed to have received funding from the Taiwan government, so if these stories are true the depth of the involvement in the Solomon Islands by Taiwan was something that's not seen in many other places," he said.

Allegiances can change - Kiribati turned its back on China in favour of representations from Taiwan.

But China's growing economic power makes it unlikely that others will follow.

Professor Stuart Harris said many countries were feeling a "strong gravitational pull towards China."

Andrew Tumbo, Papua New Guinea's Deputy High Commissioner in New Zealand, said trade was at the heart of his government's ties with Beijing.

"Papua New Guinea is rich with resources and China is talking resources from all parts of the world and we can all benefit," he said.

Mining Companies Strip Land from Indigenous Peoples

Multinational mining corporations are forcibly evicting indigenous populations
—By Bennett Gordon, Utne.com

April 5, 2007 Issue

In the 16th century, Spanish conquistadores ravaged much of Central and South America in search of gold and other precious metals. Today, history may be repeating itself. Indigenous populations are being kicked off their traditional lands by multinational mining corporations in Guatemala, Colombia, and elsewhere. The companies claim that mines will help the economy of developing nations. But as Maria Amuchastegui writes for Canada's This Magazine, "For the World Bank and the mining industry, development consists of the short-term exploitation of natural resources at the expense of the environment and the local community."

One of the latest victims of this economic strategy, according to Amuchastegui, is the Q'eqchi' Mayan village of Chichipate, located in eastern Guatemala atop a large deposit of nickel. At the urging of the Canadian mining company Skye Resources, the Guatemalan government has forcibly evicted many of the village's indigenous residents to start construction on a huge nickel mine. Some residents have tried to stop construction, and videos of their forced evictions have shown up on the video website YouTube. Despite such resistance, Amuchastegui reports, Skye Resources plans to open the mine by 2009.

Similar incidents have taken place throughout Latin America. As Avi Chomsky and Cindy Forster report for Cultural Survival Quarterly, the town of Tabaco, Colombia, was largely destroyed by the construction of a coal mine in 2001. The town was home to about 700 people, many of whom belong to the indigenous Wayuu group, before the Colombian national police and army oversaw the town's destruction at the behest of the multinational mining company Cerrejón. Chomsky and Forster assert that the company used "increasingly coercive" tactics to force people from their land. "I have suffered in the flesh everything that has happened," said one resident. "They kicked us out of our homes, they mocked us, and violated our rights."

Today, about 100 of the town's former residents have formed the group Tabaco in Resistance to seek redress from the mining company. The group is asking for a collective relocation of all of Tabaco's residents in order to preserve what is left of their community. The problem is, according to former resident José Julio Pérez, "Cerrejón drags out this process until people collapse from exhaustion. People are dying, growing old, giving up under pressure." Pérez is calling on the international community to pressure Carrejón to give into the group's requests.

http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2007_293/news/12511-1.html