• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Pausing on the road to ok Tedi

by Simon Longstaff

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As far as proverbs go, this one has a particularly unnerving quality as it seems to deny any saving grace for those who act in all good conscience. It is because of this that I believe that the proverb needs either to be reinterpreted or set aside.

This is no mere exercise in semantics. Our Judgements about the motives of people are particularly relevant when we try to make sensible decisions about matters such as BHP's activities in relation to its mining activities at Ok Tedi.

Indeed, BHP's operations in Papua New Guinea are a classic example of the need to pause a moment and think clearly before leaping to conclusions.

We need to separate our judgement of the deeds performed by the company from our assessment of the moral responsibility of those who were the ultimate authors of those deeds.

If we accept that good actions can lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences, then it is possible that we can violently disagree with BHP's actions without necessarily concluding that the company's officers are morally culpable.

BHP has been at pains to suggest that all of its actions have been motivated by a concern for the best interests of others. It has also sought to dispute the facts concerning the damage done and the alternatives available to it.

Specifically, the company has suggested that the construction of a tailings dam was not possible in the geological conditions at Ok Tedi.

I have no way of assessing this claim. However, there is a well-known ethical maxim stating that “ought implies can”. That is, no-one can blame us for failing to do the impossible.

Beyond this, we should accept the possibility that BHP was genuinely motivated but mistaken in its assessment of the consequences of its actions.

For example, it may have miscalculated the degree and nature of harm suffered by some of the people affected by its Ok Tedi mining operations.

If there has been some element of miscalculation, then many will be inclined to reserve some measure of condemnation for what might be regarded as a lack of competence or even negligence. Perhaps an institution as well resourced as BHP should be able to foresee the results of its actions.

Then again, others will be unhappy about any form of calculation that seeks to determine the overall increase in welfare of the community, as a whole, by weighing in the balance the harms and goods accruing to different groups within society.

Those who are inclined to do so might point to the significant benefits that BHP's activities at Ok Tedi bring to the majority of the community and offset these positive contributions against the losses suffered by a smaller proportion of the population.

However, is it right to sacrifice the fundamental interests of the minority in favour of the majority?

At the heart of this old question is a sense that there are certain things that should not be done – irrespective of the consequences.

Balanced against this is the competing notion that individuals should accept a certain level of sacrifice if doing so will increase the general level of wellbeing enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

Once again, I am not in a position to assess the level of harm or benefit flowing to individuals and groups within Papua New Guinea.

Instead, I have tried to suggest some of the considerations that we might take into account. In relation to this, one of the conundrums for us to consider is that role of a democratically elected government when it seeks to speak on behalf of the people of a nation.

Should we respect the government's right to speak (and heed its pronouncements) even when its pronouncements inform a position that we find to be personally objectionable?

In other words, whose judgement should prevail when individual consciences or social norms are at odds with the declarations of a foreign parliament?

Watching and listening to the debate about this matter I have been struck by the fact that protagonists and antagonists alike seem to be genuinely unable to understand that their opponents are acting with sincerity.

It seems that radically different conclusions have created an unbridgeable gulf in their assessment of motive.

It may be that BHP has concentrated on the interests of too narrow a group – perhaps placing the interests of shareholders and the immediate Ok Tedi community before others who have a justifiable right to have their interests considered.

It may be that those adversely affected by the mining operations, and their lawyers, have failed to take into account the interests of others who support the development.

There is a difference between accountability and responsibility. It is a distinction that we should learn to discern.

If hell is taken to mean the process of living through the consequence of our mistakes, then I can make sense of the proverb.

Some in BHP must be wondering if things can get any hotter for them.

However, if the proverb is taken to mean that well-meaning people should be condemned for their mistakes, then I join with a Jesuit friend of mine who doubts that the infernal regions even exist.

discuss this article

---