massacre victims to sue mining company, page-31

The one man crusade continues!

I've written the following in the ABC website, I'll let you know what there response is if any.


I'm very disappointed in the smear campaign that constituted you report on Anvil Mining. There were many broad assertions without much factual backing to put Anvil in the poorest light possible.

To assist me in understanding where your information came from can you please tell me the following:

1) The notion that only 6 rebels were involved? All news sources from that time indicate that 100 or more heavily armed rebels were thought to be involved.

2) Why didn't you assert that at the time 100 or more heavily armed rebels were thought to have attacked and taken control of the village, even if after the event it was only 6? Anvil could surely have only acted on the information available at the time?

3) You refer to the rebel activity as a rebel uprising due to dissatisfaction with Anvil. Reports from that time indicate they were external forces that initially attacked the town and started 'recruiting'.

4) You didn't mention what rebels in the Congo usually do to 'recruit' more child soldiers. Your report ran along as if these people had done nothing to warrant the militaries attention.

5) Reports from the time also indicate that the villages fled when the rebels attacked, you seemed to assert they only ran away from the army, as if the rebels were friends (yet arrive at 2am shooting the place up).

6) In believing that the nearest village to the mine (and major source of the local workforce) was under attack, why wouldn't a responsible entity facilitate the authorities to restore order as soon as possible?

7) Atrocities committed by rebels were never mentioned, just assertions that the Congolonese army was brutal. News flash, they're all brutal! Would you have the company flee in the face of what could easily have been a massacre by the rebels?

8) Anvil assisted the repatriation of the displaced persons, watered and fed them after the event as many were without food for 3 days and no one else was there to help. This was not mentioned. Why?

9) There is an assertion that Anvil should have known there was to be a massacre. Yet there was previously no military activity in Katanga province for virtually the entire war or the period afterwards. How did you determine that Anvil should have known this massacre would occur, what experience did the company have with how the army reacted to these situations?


10) There was plenty of fighting in the north east of the country but virtually nothing so far south. In the fighting to the north terrible atrocities were being conducted by both sides. If Anvil was to draw it's conclusions from this, why would they not assume the village was going to be burned, pillaged and the inhabitants raped and killed?

11) In smearing the company as being a poor contributor to the locals you failed to mention that Anvil is the only mine ever to be granted World Bank insurance from MIGA (look them up, you should be able to handle that). MIGA conducts very stringent due diligence to ensure recipients of there backing conform to extremely high social and ethical standards. This occurred in June 2004, with further backing received in May 2005 this would not have occurred without Anvils substantial social involvement.

Here's a brief snipit from there website:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) is a member of the World Bank Group. As stated in MIGA's Convention (Article 2), the objective of the agency is "...to encourage the flow of investments for productive purposes among member countries, and in particular to developing member countries...." MIGA does so by:

providing political risk guarantees (insurance) to investors in projects in developing member countries; and
providing advice to developing member countries on how to improve their ability to attract foreign investment.

2. Article 12(d) of the Convention states the following:

"In guaranteeing an investment, the Agency shall satisfy itself as to:

(i) the economic soundness of the investment and its contribution to the development of the host country;

(ii) compliance of the investment with the host country's laws and regulations;

(iii) consistency of the investment with the declared development objectives and priorities of the host country; and

(iv) the investment conditions in the host country, including the availability of fair and equitable treatment and legal protection for the investment."

There's far more but please feel free to do your job.

I look forward to receiving sources for this travesty of journalism.