This is my first blog on the Buyat case in nearly a year—the last one was on 18-Dec-2007 when the South Jakarta Court ruled in favor of Newmont in the civil suit filed by WALHI. With favorable rulings for my Dad and Newmont in Manado High Court and South Jakarta Court, we had hoped that Buyat controversy would come to a decisive close. But recently there are some murmurs in the halls of Indonesia’s Supreme Court, where the appeal against Manado High Court’s ruling has rapidly progressed to the top of the pile of pending cases.

While the Supreme Court is reviewing the appeal, the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP), which was created as part of the Goodwill Agreement between the Government of Indonesia (GOI) and Newmont to do long-term monitoring at Buyat Bay, has released the findings of its first round of monitoring for the year 2007, and their conclusion once again establishes that Buyat Bay is clean and its fish are fit for human consumption. The executive summary released by ISP, stated that:

…it can be readily concluded that the Buyat Bay and Buyat area communities have levels for which there is no possibility of mercury- or arsenic-related illnesses to have occurred either in 2005 or in the PT Newmont Minahasa Raya’s mining period between 1996 – 2004.
[Download Exec Summary]

In yet another decisive court ruling handed down by the South Jakarta District Court, the judges have vindicated my Dad and Newmont of any wrong doing. This verdict resonates perfectly with the ruling in the criminal case by the Manado High Court, thereby reaffirming once again that Buyat Bay is clean.

While the latest verdict brings one more chapter of the Buyat Bay hoax to an end, it should mark the beginning of serious soul-searching for WALHI. Most importantly, it raises questions about Chalid Mohammed and his leadership of WALHI.

By now it is commonly known that Newmont followed all the regulations and there are irrefutable scientific facts that show that Buyat Bay is clean. Prominent evidence that supported these conclusions included Government of Indonesia’s own reports and testimonies as well as the findings of researchers from the World Health Organization, CSIRO-Australia and other academicians from Indonesia’s universities.

Earlier this week the Australian chapter of Friends of the Earth posted a statement on their website in response to comments made by Australian Senator Ian Macdonald. The press release stated the following:

National environmental organisation, Friends of the Earth (FoE) Australia, has responded angrily to a statement made in the Senate by Ian Macdonald implying that its sister organisation, WALHI/ Friends of the Earth Indonesia is linked to terrorists.

"Today’s statement by Senator Macdonald is scandalously and recklessly incorrect" said Cam Walker, FoE Australia. [link]

Senator Ian Macdonald earlier in the day on the Senate floor stated the following:

Interestingly, WALHI appears to have now been joined by radical Islamic groups in its campaign against the US mining giant, Newmont. A photograph— which I could perhaps table if the Senate were interested—recently featured in the Indonesian press shows Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah, flanked by Muhammad Al Khaththah, the leader of the Indonesian chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, attacking Newmont’s environmental record. I also note an article from the Straits Times of 22 April 2006 which states:

The head of Walhi [Chalid Muhammad], the main environmental group, is also a member of Hizbut Tahrir, a hardline Muslim group which emerged over the past year, and which has been famously described as being a ‘conveyor belt for terrorists’. Although the group claims to be non-violent, the Walhi chairman took part in recent violent demonstrations outside the US embassy, wearing full Islamic robes. [link]

read more | in bahasa

In a surprising move, the Indonesian chapter of Friends of the Earth, WALHI, joined forces last week with Form Umat Islam, in an effort to attack Newmont's environmental performance as well as discredit and disband the Indonesian elite counter-terrorism force, Detachment 88. Detachment 88 has been highly successful in arresting key individuals involved in the Bali, Marriott and Australian Embassy bombings in Indonesia, as well as hundreds of members of Jemaah Islamiya (JI) a Southeast Asian based terrorist network with links to Al-Qaeda.



At a civil court hearing last week dealing with the latest civil case filed by WALHI against Newmont Minahasa Raya, members of WALHI and Umat Islam handed out a flyer [link] with the following message:

Newmont = Bad for the environment
Detachment 88 = Bad for the people
Bush = Bad for the world
Form Umat Islam - WALHI

On the 26th of June 2007, Jakarta-based reporter Mr. Geoff Thompson aired a program for ABC’s Foreign Correspondent on the Buyat Bay Case entitled “The Battle of Buyat Bay”.


copyright Australian Broadcasting Corporation
This documentary has some revealing statements from NGO activists, and it gives a good insight into how the Buyat controversy originated and how it has persisted for this long. The chronology of events presented in this documentary clearly shows that political interest and ideologies can easily overturn the scientific findings of reputable organizations like the World Health Organization and CSIRO in favor of pseudo-science. And the power of politics in Indonesia remains strong enough to throw innocent people into jail and disregard their human rights—reminding the viewers that the rule of law in Indonesia still has some way to go.

The appeal has no legs but the prosecutors still filed the papers on 14-May-07. And once again the action of the prosecutors has confirmed that this appeal is basically meant to appease certain political forces and circumvent the law.

If you think about the appeal from a legal and substantive point of view, the appeal is at best a feeble attempt to overturn a decisive verdict of complete acquittal. But the Buyat case has never been about rule of law or the law of science—it has however always been about politics. And the government’s decision to appeal the verdict is yet another confirmation of this sad reality.

The Ministry of Environment and the prosecution are simply determined to put my Dad in jail even though it has been confirmed and reconfirmed many times that Buyat Bay is clean. But to understand the behavior of politically motivated regulators, one must compare their determination about the Buyat case to the extraordinary hesitation and reluctance they have shown about the Lapindo case. In the case of Lapindo tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes, lives have been lost, untreated waste is getting dumped in the sea and environmental degradation is visible all over. Yet after one year of the Lapindo disaster, there is hardly any sign of regulatory action. And therefore it is not a surprise that on the one-year anniversary of the Lapindo case, various leading national dailies in Indonesia have expressed their outrage and are demanding accountability.

It appears that the New York Times has a big blind spot when it comes to scrutinizing its own reporters. According to Associated Press, Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times said that:

"Over the past few years, the Times has devoted significant resources to covering the social, political, and environmental impact of large-scale mining by Newmont and other companies around the world. We think this is an important global story for our readers, and our coverage of Newmont has been accurate and fair. We plan to defend the suit vigorously." [link]

First I think it is imperative to clarify that this is not a law suit by Newmont, it is by my Dad. Any attempt to weave in the mining sector or the Newmont angle into my Dad’s case is wrong. And to be clear, my Dad’s law suit is about a human being - an individual’s fight against the unfairness and injustice perpetrated by a media giant, the New York Times and its reporter Jane Perlez.

Today, May 15, at 11:00 am in the District Court of Central Jakarta, Dad’s Legal Counsels filed a civil claim against Jane Perlez and the New York Times Company. While talking to my Dad yesterday, I asked what prompted him to take this legal action. His response was simple:

“I have watched people in the Buyat community have their livelihoods destroyed. I have seen my friends and colleagues humiliated, questioned and detained by the police, while their wives and children were scared and embarrassed. I have seen my wife and family impacted by all the negative publicity. When I was summoned by the police who intended to arrest me, I had to reassure my wife and tell her, “Honey you have to trust me, I will be back home at some point and rest assured that we have done nothing wrong, we need to face the problem, be strong and we will get through this because truth is on our side”.

I have been accused of harming and causing the death of children, of polluting a bay by my inaction and of causing the devastation of an entire community. While in reality, I and my people had not done any wrong, the waters of Buyat bay were not polluted – in fact the criminal case brought out the facts that the Buyat waters are pristine, the fish in the bay are excellent and abundant, and the people of the region were not harmed by our operations. Yes, it did take 33 months to get the first court ruling in our favor but it’s not over yet. Over the past two and a half years we were reacting and responding to the unfair accusations leveled against us but it may now be our turn to take some action”