{"article":{"id":9356,"heading":"Exporting corporate control","author":"Joe Conason","created":"2001-08-18 11:25:07","modified":"2005-08-15 00:37:31","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:37:31","article":"<br>  <br> Globalization's glad prophets tell us that when the golden arches of McDonald's <br>  <br> finally encircle the world, liberty will flourish beneath them. But so far, the <br>  <br> evidence that open economies promote open societies is hardly conclusive -- and <br>  <br> today there is a case pending in the courts of the United Kingdom that suggests <br>  <br> a far less happy prospect: that the suppression of free speech and independent <br>  <br> journalism suffered in other countries may someday cross international borders <br>  <br> as easily as a shipment of frozen hamburger. <br><br> The plaintiffs in this case are Barrick Gold Mining, a huge firm based in <br>  <br> Canada, and Barrick's chairman, Peter Munk, a Toronto multimillionaire with many <br>  <br> powerful friends such as former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and <br>  <br> former U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush. The defendants are Guardian <br>  <br> Newspapers, London publisher of the Guardian (which I have occasionally written <br>  <br> for), Britain's premier liberal daily, and the Observer, its Sunday paper. <br><br> On Nov. 26, 2000, the Observer published \"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,\" a <br>  <br> column by investigative reporter Gregory Palast (who has written for Salon) that <br>  <br> outlined the cozy relationship enjoyed by the Bush family and the Barrick <br>  <br> interests. Palast, who happens to be an American citizen, pointed out that <br>  <br> Barrick's U.S. subsidiary, Barrick Goldstrike, had donated over $100,000 to <br>  <br> Republican committees in recent years; that Goldstrike had previously obtained a <br>  <br> very sweet deal to mine gold on public lands in Nevada, pushed through during <br>  <br> the final days of George H.W. Bush's presidency; and that the former president <br>  <br> had landed on Barrick's payroll after leaving office, to peddle his influence <br>  <br> with foreign leaders in exchange for a salary and stock options. <br><br> Palast's column went on to discuss other Barrick ventures in Indonesia, Zaire <br>  <br> and, most controversially, Tanzania, where he mentioned a report by Amnesty <br>  <br> International alleging that in 1996, a company later bought by Barrick had <br>  <br> participated in the \"extrajudicial killing\" of dozens of small-scale artisanal <br>  <br> miners, in order to clear the Bulyanhulu gold pits, a rich site to which the <br>  <br> company claimed title. The story behind that alleged incident is long and <br>  <br> somewhat murky, but this much is clear: Several independent newspapers in <br>  <br> Tanzania reported in August 1996 that as many as 52 miners were buried alive <br>  <br> when bulldozers operated by Kahama Mining Co. Ltd., a firm later acquired by <br>  <br> Barrick, filled in the pits, assisted by armed troops. The miners had until then <br>  <br> successfully resisted KMCL's attempt to evict them from the land, a tract some <br>  <br> 30 miles south of Lake Victoria. <br><br> Those appalling stories, since buttressed by eyewitness accounts, were denied by <br>  <br> the repressive Tanzanian government, which had sided with the company against <br>  <br> the local miners in a legal dispute over the property, and later refused to <br>  <br> mount an official inquest into the charges. Survivors and volunteers were <br>  <br> reportedly prevented by the government from attempting to exhume bodies from the <br>  <br> site. <br><br> While steadfastly repeating similar denials that anyone was killed when the <br>  <br> miners were removed from Bulyanhulu, Barrick disowns any responsibility for the <br>  <br> disputed events of 1996 because the Canadian company didn't acquire KMCL until <br>  <br> three years later in 1999. <br><br> The company's own documents indicate, however, that its officials were well <br>  <br> aware that its prospective subsidiary was using aggressive methods to rid the <br>  <br> site of thousands of native miners. Those so-called artisanal prospectors had to <br>  <br> be removed to facilitate extraction of what is now conservatively estimated to <br>  <br> be $3 billion worth of gold ore. <br><br> In a speech to shareholders last May, Barrick's president and CEO boasted that <br>  <br> \"prior to our acquisition, we followed the progress at Buly for five years, <br>  <br> remaining in close contact with the [KMCL] senior management team. We did our <br>  <br> homework -- and when the opportunity presented itself, we moved quickly to <br>  <br> acquire the property. But we did it with discipline: For an attractive price, <br>  <br> and only after we became comfortable with Tanzania as a place to invest.\" <br><br> A Barrick corporate spokesman was unavailable for comment. In court filings, <br>  <br> Barrick representatives have suggested that the atrocity charges were fabricated <br>  <br> by local miners and political opponents of the multinational in Tanzania. <br><br> The explosive charges of mass murder reached Amnesty International, which <br>  <br> reported briefly on the incident in its 1997 report on world human rights and in <br>  <br> its two subsequent annual reports. Under pressure from Barrick and the Tanzanian <br>  <br> government, Amnesty revised its report on Bulyanhulu in its 2000 report. Because <br>  <br> the Tanzanian authorities have persistently stonewalled Amnesty's request to <br>  <br> conduct an investigation, the human rights organization's rules prevent it from <br>  <br> saying that the charges have been verified. But human rights lawyers and <br>  <br> parliamentary dissidents in Tanzania provided Palast with evidence of the live <br>  <br> burials that he found compelling. <br><br> How many miners, if any, may have died to make the Bulyanhulu mine safe for <br>  <br> Western exploitation remains unknown. But Palast was certainly accurate in <br>  <br> citing Amnesty's original reports. Unfortunately for him, though, there is no <br>  <br> right under British libel law to repeat previously published material, as there <br>  <br> is in most instances under American law. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>\n","contact":"Salon.com","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"A gold-mining company with ties to the Bush family tries to muzzle a muck-raking journalist.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/08\/exporting_.txt","filesize":"9.6 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/08\/9356.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}