The Barrick Files 2
Reports
regarding Bulyanhulu
Amnesty
International was not the first to publish the reports of the massacre at
Bulyanhulu. A debate had been raging inside the Tanzanian government circles, in
the press as well as in Parliament and the courts of law over the planned
eviction by Barrick's local subsidiary of hundreds of thousands of small scale
miners long before as well as on the very eve of the killings. The massacre
prompted an even more furious press coverage in the local press with such banner
headlines as "23 feared buried by 'graders' in Bulyanhulu";
"Uncertainty reigns over the Kahama Killings: The number of those
dead in the mines feared to reach 52: Photos of the dead sent to Dodoma: They
were allegedly buried by graders"; "Exhumation of dead bodies stops in
Bulyanhulu"; "Miners volunteer to exhume the Bulyanhulu pits";
"The Bulyanhulu survivor names the dead: claims four colleagues died";
UDP panel to file petition on buried miners"; "Final days at
Bulyanhulu"; "The day hell broke loose at Bulyankulu", etc. These
reports came from press conferences called by various organizations including
the miners' federation who also provided the names of the dead miners and named
specific individuals and leaders involved. All this came immediately after the
mass evictions at Bulyanhulu in early August 1996 and certainly long before
Amnesty International published its first report of the massacres in 1997.
While
Barrick maintains that the mass removals went peacefully, its own internal
documents shows that its local subsidiary was pressuring the government to act
to remove the miners as far back as June 1995. Their programme of works
submitted to the government in June 1, 1995 had, for instance, noted that
"it was not easy to operate" in certain areas of the Bulyanhulu site
as agreed between the Company and the Government because of the presence of
hundreds of thousands of miners in those areas. In order for Barrick's
subsidiary to carry out its planned activities, they suggested that
"all obstacles of any sort in and around Reef #2 areas will have to
be cleared. This includes water pumps, other machines and houses that have been
built in the area. Doboro Market will also have to be moved from its current
location. This is a very important step for attaining progress in activities
planned for that area. Failure to take this important step would result in
failure to undertake works in the area, which, in turn, would hold up the
implementation of the terms of the agreement." Well, those obstacles were
cleared with the removals of the miners and the demolition of their settlements.
And, as the press widely reported, the killings of the 52 miners were an
inevitable consequence of those clearances.
Barrick
also maintains that it had nothing to do with the forced removals and the
killings (which it denies) since they acquired the Bulyanhulu concession in
April 1999. While it is true Barrick acquired Sutton Resources and their
Tanzanian subsidiary in 1999, they cannot feign ignorance of the events that
occured prior to Sutton's acquisition of the Bulyanhulu property. Documents
prepared for the project in May 1998 and which Barrick submitted to the World
Bank indicate that Barrick's predecessors were worried by the
"negative press concerning the removal of artisanal miners from the
Bulyanhulu concession by the government." Subsquent documents prepared by
Barrick itself after their take over of the Bulyanhulu mines reveal Barrick's
awareness of the fact that "the removal of a large number of artisanal
miners from the Bulyanhulu site in 1996 by the government has meant that the
area has already received regional and national political attention"! Only
two months ago, Barrick's President and CEO, Randall Oliphant told Barrick's
shareholders that prior to their acquisition of Sutton Resources, "we
followed the progress at Buly (i.e. Bulyanhulu) for five years, remaining in
close contact with the senior management team.
We did our homework - and when the opportunity presented itself, we moved
quickly to acquire the property. But we did it with discipline: For an
attractive price, and only after we became comfortable with Tanzania as a place
to invest"!
What is it that Barrick knew in their five-year follow up of "progress" at Bulyanhulu that they now seek to prevent from reaching the Western public? Why is it that Barrick has never commented on the widespread and negative press coverage they admit they received from the Tanzanian press immediately after the events of August 1996? Is it because they are safe in the knowledge that Tanzanian public opinion, however negative, does not really matter as their friends in high places can ignore it with impunity? Are they worried that a public and independent investigation might reveal ties between Barrick and Sutton Resources may have been far deeper than they care to admit; that some of the senior managers and directors of their Tanzanian subsidiary were retained from Sutton Resources and that these may be held criminally and civilly liable for the events of August 1996 should serious investigastion be undertaken? Are they worried that Western taxpayers (whose tax dollars are subsidizing their Bulyanhulu operations) and Western public opinion cannot be thus ignored, hence the all out offensive to bludgeon investigative journalists into silence through libel actions?
Statement of a survivor of the alleged burial in Tanzania
Exporting Corporate Control: Greg Balast vs. Barrick Gold Corp.