Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy

A Case Study

Jakub sighed as he finished reading the letter. Religious leaders back home in Papua had written urging him to cut short his study leave in Jakarta and return to mediate a brewing crisis. Unemployed tribal people from the area surrounding the mining city of Kuda on the island of Papua, Indonesia were threatening workers at the gold mining operation run by the P.T. Freeport Indonesia (PTFI) company. Jakub felt that his future was on the line—individually and career-wise.

Kuda was built by PTFI to service the ever-expanding operation of the largest gold mining operation in the world and the largest foreign taxpayer in Indonesia. PTFI was primarily owned by Freeport-McMoran Copper and Gold, Inc., a USA-based mining company of which the Indonesian government owned approximately 10 percent.

Jakub had heard success stories of PTFI’s work and the benefits it brought to many of its employees as well as the Indonesian government since it began its work in Papua in 1967. He also knew stories that painted a less rosy picture of PTFI’s work.

PTFI’s work had contributed to widespread environmental decline. An independent environmental study revealed that PTFI was annually dumping 40 million tons of tailings - the crushed rock and mineral waste left after the gold has been physically and chemically extracted - into the Agabogong River. This was especially devastating because the local tribal people hold the land and the river in sacred trust. To them, the dumping of toxic mine waste into the river was “killing their Mother.” Furthermore, because of construction projects in the mining city, Kuda, over eleven square miles of crop-producing land that locals had previously farmed as their primary food source was now dead to any productive activity. Finally, although the company denied that the drinking water had been contaminated, the local people believed that seriously polluted water was contributing to rising infant mortality rates. Those individuals who had been able to secure jobs at the mine had access to bottled water, but the unemployed and the workers families’ only water source was contaminated.

PTFI’s presence in Papua had also had widespread effects on Papua’s native tribal people. In the early stages of the mining development, many of Jakub’s own Amungme people were moved off their tribal land onto the land of the Komoro people. This forced removal of thousands of families freed space for the mining development, but it also created the potential for serious inter-tribal conflict. Neither those who were displaced nor those who lost land to resettled families were compensated by the government.

In the 1980’s the government moved thousands of additional people from the overcrowded islands of Java, Bali and Madura in order to more “effectively” settle and extract Papua’s natural resources. Although the settlers from outside Papua did not have the right to own or sell the land they moved to, many were hired by the mining operation. Settlers from outside Papua were paid higher wages than the local tribal people, who were given menial jobs at the bottom of the pay scale. Nevertheless, many tribal people who had been displaced from their homes when the mining industry came to the island moved to the edges of Kuda in search of jobs. As tension among workers, non-working tribal people, and the mining company erupted in violent conflicts, the Indonesian government got involved. Five separate military interventions in 1994 and 1995 left some sixty persons dead.

At the time Jakub recalled reading an editorial in a Jakarta newspaper citing the massive amount of taxes PTFI paid to the government, how important this revenue was to the country, and the importance of providing security for the mining operation. The article also noted that many elites, including those in the military, directly benefited from Papuan mining and timber operations.

Jakub knew that the combination of years of perceived injustice and the threat by native tribal persons to protest their unemployment were reaching a boiling point that could dwarf the incidents and violence of ‘94-‘95. In fact, Nathaniel Rumbiak, foreman of the mine from another part of Papua, had stated that if the area agitators did not stop threatening the mine workers, he would call in the military to protect them. Jakub feared that the threat of military action could go well beyond issues at the mine and give the military an excuse to attack resistance forces supporting an independence movement against the government.

The letter sent to Jakub by the local pastor was about one of his parishioners, Darius Beanal, a recognized Amungme leader. The pastor feared for his friend who spoke out against the job discrimination tribal people were experiencing , was a vocal opponent of the mine pollution, and demanded compensation for the land stolen by the mine. Many of Darius’ followers were threatening to block the miners from getting to work if the mine managers did not meet their demands for jobs and clean water.

A further challenge to Jakub was the fact that not all the members within his own Christian community saw eye-to-eye on how to make a difference in this troubled situation. Members of his church who worked for PTFI and those who did not were at odds with each other. Many with jobs defended the mine, pointing out that the mine had provided a school and a medical clinic to the residents of Kuda. Others angrily responded that these were poor substitutes for their dignity and the health of their land and rivers. Jakub felt it ironic that Christian and Muslims in the area had a relatively peaceful coexistence, while the potential for intra-Christian conflict was more threatening.

Jakub felt a tremendous weight on his shoulders and in his heart. He was one of the few members of his community to attend university and be recognized in the province for his skills as a teacher and a peacemaker. How could he provide effective mediation when those of his own tribe, his own family, his own community, and his own church were so divided?

This case was revised with permission of the author in 2005. The case was originally published by Case Study Institute in the Journal for Case Teaching, Volume 8. Copyright c 1997. Used by permission.