Thousands of Displaced Villagers Attack Barrick Gold's North Mara Mine in Tanzania

[Editor's Note: Although this article is somewhat dated, we are publishing it for two reasons: (1) it was virtually "blacked out" by the corporate news media in the United States and Canada, and (2) it concerns a company whose greed and ruthlessness, coupled with its complete disregard for the rights of indigenous peoples and the planet and its ecosystem, make it a poster child for everything that is wrong with unrestrained global capitalism. We shall continue to publicize this company's crimes against people and nature in the hope of bringing public and investor pressure to bear upon the company. -- Perry H. Chesnut, Editor NRN]

The Dominion

December 24, 2008

Civilian Uprising against Barrick Gold in Tanzania

Mine security shoots young man, villagers respond by destroying $7 million in equipment

by Sakura Saunders

photos: Allan Cedillo Lissner

NEW YORK–Last week, reports surfaced in the mainstream press that thousands of villagers had raided a gold mine in Northern Tanzania, setting fire to $7 million* worth of mine equipment. Most reports blamed problems with crime in the area, calling the intruders "gold-seekers."

While the spokesman for Barrick Gold** Tanzania, Teweli Teweli, describes these villagers as "well-organized groups" who attacked the pit following the blasting of high-grade ore, others paint Barrick as the aggressor in this event, citing immediate and historic causes that have been largely ignored by the international community.

According to several witnesses, the immediate cause of the civilian uprising was the killing of a young man named Mang'weina Mwita Mang'weina. Human rights lawyer Tundu Lissu, who represents many of the villagers, explains that Mang'weina and some friends were engaged in an argument with Barrick security when one of the guards shot Mang'weina, who was unarmed at the time. This incident caused an uproar within the community, which immediately took up stones, overpowered mine security (who then fled), and attacked the mine, setting fire to millions worth of equipment.

Mang'weina himself is a part of the legacy of the North Mara mine. He was one of the thousands of unemployed locals in the area, angry over the mine's recent history of forced displacement, loss of livelihoods, human rights abuses and ongoing repression. He is the seventh person killed at the hands of mine security since July 2005, when the killing of a local boy sparked a similar uprising that resulted in the destruction of mine equipment and the subsequent detention of over 200 villagers.***

Eyewitnesses to the 2005 killing told The Guardian (Tanzania) that "the boy who was shot dead was walking past the company premises when company security guards, suspecting him of stealing oil, stopped him. When the boy failed to heed the order, the guards called the police who, before even questioning him, shot him in the chest."

Not one year later, security guards employed by Barrick Gold allegedly shot – five times in the back – another villager who was alleged to have illegally entered the mine complex, bringing the death toll to six.

According to Lissu in a letter written in June 2006:

The killings represent a major shift in Barrick's strategy for dealing with the troublesome locals who have always opposed the Mine. In the period after the forced evictions of the villagers in August 2001, hundreds of villagers, particularly community leaders and prominent locals were targeted for illegal arrests, criminal prosecutions and long term imprisonment. Numerous local leaders including the area's [late] Member of Parliament Chacha Zakayo Wangwe and elected Member of the Tarime District Council Augustino Nestory Sasi were harassed this way, with the latter being sentenced to 30 year jail before we got him out on appeal to the High Court of Tanzania in December 2004.

Calculating from media reports, Lissu estimates that over 10,000 artisanal miners, peasant farmers and their families were kicked out of the area to make way for the North Mara mine in 2001. Since that time, there has been ongoing tension between the mine and the local communities.

According to Allan Cedillo Lissner, a Toronto-based photojournalist who recently interviewed families surrounding the North Mara mine, "Ongoing conflict between the mine and local communities have created a climate of fear for those who live nearby." Since the mine opened in 2002, one family told Lissner that they live in a state of constant anxiety because they are repeatedly harassed and intimidated by the mine's private security forces and by government police. "There have been several deadly confrontations in the area and every time there are problems at the mine, the Mwita family say their compound is the first place the police come looking. During police operations the family scatters in fear to hide in the bush, 'like fugitives,' for weeks at a time waiting for the situation to calm down," Lissner explains.

The Mwita family explained that they used to farm and raise livestock, telling Lissner that "now there are no pastures because the mine has almost taken the whole land ... we have no sources of income and we are living only through God's wishes. ... We had never experienced poverty before the mine came here." They also told Lissner that they would like to be relocated, but the application process has been complicated, and they feel the amount of compensation offered was merely "candy."

According to Tanzanian journalist and community advocate Evans Rubara, this latest uprising "is a sign to both the government of Tanzania and the International community (especially Canada) that poor and marginalized people also get tired of oppression." He hopes that the recent conflict will inspire Barrick "to start another strategy that will bring a good and constructive relationship with the local communities by implementing programs that do not enhance more looting and belittle Tanzania, leaving thousands in destitution."

Since this most recent uprising, dozens of villagers have been arrested. According to Lissu, who plans to represent those arrested, "They have arrested dozens of people; [Barrick is] on a war path; these people have been denied bail, they are targeting the youth and repression is on."

Lissu also spoke about reports of weapons making their way into the North Mara area. "Two days ago, we got information that [Barrick is] importing weapons: a ton and a half of tear gas, and hand grenades were transported to the mine on Thursday. The hand grenades were seized by customs on the way to the North Mara Gold Mine, but have since been let through," he told ProtestBarrick.net on the phone from Tanzania.

Sakura Saunders is an editor for protestbarrick.net, an all-volunteer news site that networks organizations and community groups organized against Barrick Gold around the world.

* On December 17, 2008 Barrick Gold said it had revised down the damage to its North Mara Mine in Tanzania during an attack last week to about $7 million from an earlier estimate of $15 million.

** In January 2006, Barrick Gold merged with Placer Dome, who previously owned the North Mara mine.

*** By mid 2006 all of the villagers detained after the 2005 uprising had been released by the courts after the authorities failed to prosecute them.

__________________________________________________________
Article source: The Dominion, December 24, 2008

Native Rights News is making this material from The Dominion available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

--
Posted By Perry Chesnut, Editor NRN to Native Rights News at 2/03/2009 07:54:00 AM

OAS Moves Forward on DRIP Taylored to Needs of Indigenous Peoples

Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples moves forward

By Gale Courey Toensing

Story Published: January 9, 2009
Story Updated: January 9, 2009

WASHINGTON – An international human rights declaration geared specifically toward meeting the legal needs of the indigenous peoples of the Americas took a step forward last month when the Organization of American States' working group in charge of preparing the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples held a special session in Washington.

Around 50 indigenous representatives from the Americas attended the special session Dec. 9-12 at OAS headquarters in the Simón Bolívar Room. The OAS is an international body comparable to the United Nations that consists of 35 nations in the Americas. It is the region's principal multilateral forum for strengthening democracy, promoting human rights, and dealing with shared problems such as poverty, terrorism, illegal drugs and corruption, and carries out mandates established by the hemisphere's leaders. Visit the group's Web site at http://oas.org/.

The working group is involved in final revisions of the text, working out issues related to the process of negotiation, and pinpointing the particular issues unique to the hemisphere's indigenous peoples that should be reflected in the declaration.

December's special session was not a negotiating session, but nevertheless presented challenges, said Leonardo Crippa, a Kolla member from Argentina, and staff attorney at the Indian Law Resource Center, which has been participating in the process of developing the American Declaration since its beginning in 1989. The center's Web site can be viewed at http://indianlaw.org/.

"In negotiating sessions we usually negotiate the language that will be in the text of the American Declaration, but this time even though there were no negotiations there were some challenges, for instance, the identification of the particularities of the region that this American Declaration should reflect. That was challenging because we needed to reach some sort of agreement between the indigenous representatives and the state representatives," Crippa said.

There is consensus among the indigenous representatives, but one of the major challenges has been to get the U.S. government under the Bush administration to ratify any human rights treaty. The U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were the only four nations that voted against adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007.

The U.S. government has submitted statements to the working group outlining its general reservations about the outcome of each negotiation session. It also submitted 10 principles of the rights of indigenous peoples that it believes were already achieved in the negotiation process.

"And by doing this the U.S. basically said, 'Well, since we are submitting our general reservations on this with the 10 principles, we're not going to be involved actively in the discussions,' and that's what they've been doing for almost one year."

Canada and Columbia fall in line with whatever the U.S. wants.

The U.S. still sends representatives to the sessions, but they are observers only and not actively involved. There is hope that will change with the Obama administration, he said.

The American Declaration will complement the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Whereas the U.N. Declaration makes a universal and broad statement of rights, the American Declaration will address the particular needs of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Crippa said the special session in December was successful in defining the articles of the Draft American Declaration that are close to agreement and will become part of the negotiation sessions this year, and in identifying the regional particularities that should be reflected in the Draft American Declaration.

In Columbia, for example, there is an internal armed conflict that is imposing human rights violations on indigenous peoples there, Crippa said. Another regional particularity is the regularity with which states fail to comply with treaties they've signed with indigenous peoples. And there is the case of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in the Amazon and regional countries like Peru, Columbia and Ecuador.

The sensitive areas basically relate to property rights, land uses, natural resources, self government and self determination.

Indigenous peoples are threatened by destructive industrial projects on or near their territories – mining, oil drilling, construction and logging. This is an issue faced both by American Indian tribes and indigenous peoples in developing countries.

"And a big particularity is the existence of indigenous peoples with their own judicial system, with their own government, with their own legislative organizations which is something that is occurring here in the U.S.," Crippa said.

These issues often end up in U.S. courts with rulings against the tribes. The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will provide the standards for the administration of justice and the OAS to provide the international venue to adjudicate these cases.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is an autonomous organ of the OAS and is one of two bodies in the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. The commission has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The other human rights body is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which is located in San José, Costa Rica.

"Both the Inter American Commission and the court will interpret the American Declaration because they will have jurisdiction to do that legal work whenever they have a case concerning human rights violations of indigenous peoples," Crippa said.

That means the American Declaration will, in fact, be more effective on the ground than the U.N. Declaration because it will be implemented through an already existing court system. At the U.N. level, there is no international human rights court.

"It's a big difference," he said.

He said the Inter-American Court and domestic courts in Mexico and central and South America have already used the standards of the Draft American Declaration in deciding indigenous cases, so a body of case law is being built that will set precedent for future legal actions.

Just as most international human rights laws started out as declarations, the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the first step toward becoming an international convention or treaty.

The working group will hold meetings in Washington Jan. 26-30 and March 23-27. Once the indigenous and state representatives agree on the language of the declaration, the working group will submit the text to the OAS General Assembly for adoption by a vote of all the American member states.

"I think some time in 2010 it will be adopted."

__________________________________________________________

© 1998 - 2009 Indian Country Today

Native Rights News is making this material from Indian Country Today available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/13/2009 08:42:00 AM