The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) of His Holiness the Dalai Lama has issued a statement on mining in Tibet. The statement was issued at a roundtable discussion that was held in London on 22-23 September 2009, on the Shethongmon mine project. Shethongmon is a rural area in South-western Tibet, about 250 kilometres west of Lhasa, the capital city of Tibet. The roundtable meeting was organized by TibetInfoNet, which is also a consultant for Continental Minerals, the Canadian company invested in the project.
According to the statement, the CTA is against any such mining project in Tibet. The statement, however, does not mention how grave these investments are. Despite having its pleas and moral suasions repeatedly ignored by Canadian mining companies, the exile Tibetan leadership continues to engage in these discussions. For the purposes of this blog, instead of writing about these exchanges I think it is better to highlight the crimes and injustices these mining projects perpetuate.
The CTA statement cites three major mining related protests in Tibet that occurred in 2009. It failed to mention that a protest actually took place against the Shethongmon mining project on 19th June 2006. According to reliable sources, soon after the protest, disciplinary officials of the Party started "education campaigns" in the villages, telling farmers that mining is good for them and that dissenting opinions will not be tolerated.
Local protests against mining are not new in Tibet. Farmers in not-very-distant area of Meldo Gungkar, for example, have been protesting in their area since 1991 (see chapter 6 of CTA's report, Tibet: Environment and Development Issues 2000). Even as recent as two months ago, there were reports of clashes between local Tibetans and Chinese miners at the Meldo Gungkar's Gyama mine site. And two weeks ago, this intensely disputed mine was bought by another Vancouver based company named Jinshan.
As usual, here's a question for readers: How is Canada able to gain such deals in Tibet? Canada is the only Western country with significant investments in mining in Tibet. Any informed person would know that such deals must include heavy corruption and deep connections with the Party.
It must be noted here that all Tibetans are NOT against mining. Apart from Tibetans profiting from Chinese rule, there are also some progressive and business minded Tibetans in exile who think mining could be beneficial for Tibetans. The issue is not mining. It is about how decisions are made. It is about the problematic hierarchy of interests/considerations (economic vs ecological, state-political vs local-cultural, etc.) that fuel these decisions. It is about who makes these decisions, who gets the benefits and who loses.
Local Tibetans affected by the Shethongmon mine will likely be given some compensation. The profits will go to the company and the Chinese authorities. It is estimated that about 200 to 300 million US dollars would be paid by the company from their net profit to the government as Corporation Tax (at 35 %), which is the international norm. The company's conservative estimate of the expected return rate is 2.5 times the capital investment.
Foreign companies mining in Tibet are engaging in a kind of legalized robbery. Stealing can be lawful when lawmakers are colonial masters. The application of principles of corporate social responsibility ought to first look at more fundamental questions such as "Who are the legitimate owners of Tibet's gold and other mineral resources?" "What are the rights of an indigenous people (or nation) to their land?" These are not academic or philosophical questions. Canadians need not look far but into their own constitution (Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act) for general guidance.
++++++++++++
For background information on Shethongmon project, visit Continental Minerals' website. TibetInfoNet has published some reports on the project which can be read here and here. There is a campaign against these projects lead by Students for a Free Tibet and Canada Tibet Committee. Visit their website.
According to the statement, the CTA is against any such mining project in Tibet. The statement, however, does not mention how grave these investments are. Despite having its pleas and moral suasions repeatedly ignored by Canadian mining companies, the exile Tibetan leadership continues to engage in these discussions. For the purposes of this blog, instead of writing about these exchanges I think it is better to highlight the crimes and injustices these mining projects perpetuate.
The CTA statement cites three major mining related protests in Tibet that occurred in 2009. It failed to mention that a protest actually took place against the Shethongmon mining project on 19th June 2006. According to reliable sources, soon after the protest, disciplinary officials of the Party started "education campaigns" in the villages, telling farmers that mining is good for them and that dissenting opinions will not be tolerated.
Local protests against mining are not new in Tibet. Farmers in not-very-distant area of Meldo Gungkar, for example, have been protesting in their area since 1991 (see chapter 6 of CTA's report, Tibet: Environment and Development Issues 2000). Even as recent as two months ago, there were reports of clashes between local Tibetans and Chinese miners at the Meldo Gungkar's Gyama mine site. And two weeks ago, this intensely disputed mine was bought by another Vancouver based company named Jinshan.
As usual, here's a question for readers: How is Canada able to gain such deals in Tibet? Canada is the only Western country with significant investments in mining in Tibet. Any informed person would know that such deals must include heavy corruption and deep connections with the Party.
It must be noted here that all Tibetans are NOT against mining. Apart from Tibetans profiting from Chinese rule, there are also some progressive and business minded Tibetans in exile who think mining could be beneficial for Tibetans. The issue is not mining. It is about how decisions are made. It is about the problematic hierarchy of interests/considerations (economic vs ecological, state-political vs local-cultural, etc.) that fuel these decisions. It is about who makes these decisions, who gets the benefits and who loses.
Local Tibetans affected by the Shethongmon mine will likely be given some compensation. The profits will go to the company and the Chinese authorities. It is estimated that about 200 to 300 million US dollars would be paid by the company from their net profit to the government as Corporation Tax (at 35 %), which is the international norm. The company's conservative estimate of the expected return rate is 2.5 times the capital investment.
Foreign companies mining in Tibet are engaging in a kind of legalized robbery. Stealing can be lawful when lawmakers are colonial masters. The application of principles of corporate social responsibility ought to first look at more fundamental questions such as "Who are the legitimate owners of Tibet's gold and other mineral resources?" "What are the rights of an indigenous people (or nation) to their land?" These are not academic or philosophical questions. Canadians need not look far but into their own constitution (Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act) for general guidance.
++++++++++++
For background information on Shethongmon project, visit Continental Minerals' website. TibetInfoNet has published some reports on the project which can be read here and here. There is a campaign against these projects lead by Students for a Free Tibet and Canada Tibet Committee. Visit their website.
5 comments:
Thanks for another informative, well referenced and well argued posting.
This touches on the bigger issue of Development in Tibet in general and the involvement of International companies and organizations in it.
It seems to me the position of many in the past has been to simply oppose almost any project - from mining to dams to the railway - and thus campaign against involvement of any International organisation from a Canadian mining company to the World Bank.
The projects have then gone ahead with minimal environmental or social assessments by a Chinese company whose sole interest is the bottom line
This approach may have limited foreign involvement to some extent but does not appear, to me at least, to have actually stopped any project from proceeding. It has merely meant that China has relied on it's own companies and financing to actually built the project.
The Dulan relocation, on the Tsaidam, is an example where under pressure the World Bank withdrew. The result? China proceeded anyway using it's own resources, almost certainly with a worse project with few, if any, of the environmental and social safeguards the the WB would have imposed.
Perhaps it is time for the opponents of each project to review their tactics. Rather than simply try to stop the project entirely and oppose any international involvement, perhaps there would be a less damaging outcome if international involvement was encouraged on the condition that environmental and social assessments be published.
This would allow pressure to be put on the companies and organisations involved to publish detailed development plans and then focus on the worse environmental and social consequences. Thus, in the mining case, serious compensation for the locals and, perhaps, slightly more costly but beneficial adjustments to water course management to cater for farmers, would become the issue.
The same argument applies to dams. If the WWF, say, were responsible for an environmental assessment, they may be able to suggest adjustments less damaging to local ecosystems. Canadian engineers may make the scheme more efficient (meaning less pressure to build the next upstream dam). And the World Bank, or whoever, could help devise much better compensation.
This does not imply support for the project as a whole, which could still be the subject of campaigns by those who felt the net impact was just too negative.
But it would mean that greater information was available and that the best available technology would be used were the project to proceed.
I do not feel that any of the pressure, including local demonstrations and campaigns by Tibetan groups, has stopped a single development project.
Nor does it seem likely to. Instead it has hindered international involvement from experts who may be able to mitigate the problems caused, lead to a cult of secrecy limiting informed comment on the details and resulted in a completed project that is more damaging that it could have been.
It is only the result on the ground for Tibetans and the environment that interests me, I do not give a fig about the politics or financing, so there may be fundamental flaws in this suggestion.
However at present it seems to me that simply opposing international cooperation in development projects, even controversial ones, does not halt any development but merely results in a worse one.
ps thanks for your reply re Tsangpo dams, I too will be away for a while but should return before the dams are built....
Stone Routes
Greetings from London (LHR), Stone Routes!
Thanks for your comments. I am very pleased to read about your end interests. We need more people like you, people whose primary interest is bringing change on the ground in Tibet. While I like critical line of thinking on Tibet activism, it seems to me that getting EIA reports published does not really mean a thing compared to issues of principle, on which many respected activists oppose these projects. With due respect, I think your suggestion is problematic in many other respects. For one, expecting groups like WWF to be allowed to do EIA reports on dam projects in Tibet is unrealistic. As for World Bank, they have been "involved* in these studies for a long time. Two, these groups have their own organizational interests and by the time the reports come out, let's assume it happens, it will be too late for the settlement of more important issues, such as public hearings of these projects. Speaking of which, China's own EIA law is of international standard and includes clauses for public hearings, at least on paper. It is thus advisable to work with Chinese environmental leaders in implementing their own laws than working with international NGOs to do these studies, *if* getting an EIA published were our end goal.
Another problem with thinking about international groups like World Bank and WWF is that these relegate local Tibetans and (prospective) Chinese allies at the periphery of action. I think we need to bring them at the center of our work ...
Best regards,
TT
Greetings from Glastonbury, the true capital of England....
thanks for your swift response. I agree with nearly every word in it.
I in no way want to be a critic of those campaigners who repeat the fundamental principles and moral imperatives that should govern consideration of such matters. Indeed in my heart I am one. They should continue to do so as loudly and often as possible. Someone needs to provide clarity in this messed up world.
However I am frustrated because this approach alone simply is not working. So, unwillingly and with a heavy heart, I have come round to the view that the dreaded word compromise has to be the way forward at least until the world comes to it's senses.
In the same way some environmentalists, through gritted teeth, have begun to accept that nuclear power may be part of the UK's energy future, I believe that some development in Tibet has to be accepted. Rather than every project being simply opposed, why not focus attention on the very worst ones and try to improve those that are to go ahead in spite of all opposition?
The WWF and WB may not be the most perfect institutions but I would trust their reports slightly more than an EIA produced by a Chinese power company. I am talking shades of grey here. I also meant to include any international NGO's with relevant expertise, not merely the Institutions I mentioned as an example.
It seems the Canadian mining company is at least talking to interested parties which is surely better than nothing, which is what I suspect we would have if a Chinese mining company alone was responsible.
You are perfectly right to point out that the key is local involvement, especially environment groups active in China, and I fully agree that this should have been at the top of my list. The law, as you point out, is there and even some of the words from the Chinese leadership but the action never seems to materialise.
And it is manifestation only that interests me. Without it we can be spiritually consistent but end up a world deep in trouble.
So the more information the better, even from flawed institutions.
The only real question... how to go forward
regards
Stone Routes
Hello Stone Routes,
Greetings from Mussoorie, India! It is cold but beautiful here. I hope you are in a slightly warmer but equally beautiful place, wherever you are.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I agree with your view that Tibetan rights activists should learn from past experiences, such as the Dulan/WB "victory" consequences on the ground. Thanks for mentioning this important point, which I hope will make Tibetan rights activists seriously re-think their action/advocacy strategies.
Please continue to share thoughts and information.
Best regards!
Great post and clear explanation of the current situation with mining in Tibet by Canadian corporations. Will post up on SFT Canada FB page.
Post a Comment