When Australian mining company Frontier Resources announced plans to build a mine at Mount Kodu in Papua New Guinea, it was greeted with righteous indignation from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who sent a ‘high-level delegation’ to PNG to express concern about the plan, and suggested that PNG could be ‘compensated’ if the project was successfully blocked.
That’s strange, I thought. Why is Mr Howard – not known for favouring environmental protection over exploitation of natural resources – so vexed about this proposed mine?
The gold and copper deposits at Mount Kodu lie close to the Kokoda track, the rough mountain pass along which Aussie diggers fought several battles against the Japanese during the Second World War. It is therefore viewed as highly significant for Australian military history, and along with Gallipoli, regarded as the place where the ‘Anzac legend’ was forged. So the prospect of a mine right next to this hallowed ground was not popular, and was taken up by politicians and the media as a story about national pride. It provided an opportunity for the Prime Minister to get on his high horse, and with textbook nationalist populism, to denounce the proposed mine.
A similar incident occurred a couple of years back, when the road that runs along the Gallipoli peninsula – used primarily by buses carrying tourists to visit the battleground – was widened. Howard takes a personal interest in Gallipoli, and in 2005 he gave a rousing address to the crowds gathered at Anzac Cove. The roadworks prompted outrage from politicians and the media, who said that damage to the site was tantamount to desecration of a war grave. It was another chance for indignation from people who don’t usually give a hoot about the destruction of cultural heritage.
What is interesting about the Frontier Resources case is that it sets up a clash of conservative ideologies – on one hand free market capitalism, and on the other militaristic nationalism (dressed as heritage protection). For Howard, ever keen to foster a martial spirit, it seems that the latter takes priority. No matter about PNG’s sovereignty, the country’s need for foreign investment, and initial enthusiasm for the mine among Mount Kodu locals. Howard is encouraging Australians to view the plan as an affront to their history, a violation of Anzac.
But shouldn’t we be pleased to see Howard’s new-found enthusiasm for preserving cultural heritage? I would be if he was at all consistant, but his track record shows that he’s only interested when it allows for some political mileage to be made.
Currently in Western Australia, hundreds of ancient sites and spectacular rock art are threatened by expanding mines and industrial operations. It is thought that 20-25% of rock art of the Dampier Archipeligo has been destroyed since the 1960s. On the Burrup Peninsula some of the world’s oldest and most important rock carvings could be destroyed if Woodside Petroleum get their way. Will John Howard be going to such measures to ensure the protection of these sites of outstanding historical significance, which are actually within his jurisdiction?
October 4, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Is this the first split from Leftwrites!
October 4, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Oh it’s not a split, just a diversion!
October 4, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Congrats on the blog.
October 5, 2006 at 10:59 am
Gallipoli was, after all, an invasion. Imagine the outcry if the Japanese government complained that building works in Darwin interfered with Japanese services to the pilots who attacked the place!
October 5, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Yes, it is remarkable how much influence the Australian government has on planning decisions at Gallipoli. The campaign is very much identified as an Australian tragedy, despite the fact that almost three times as many Brits, three times as many French, and over seven times as many Turks were killed there. That is not to take away from the significance of the site for Australians of course.
As for the Kakoda trail, of course it is also significant for Australians, and I applaud attempts to preserve it, but Howard has been very arrogant, and has shown a Downer-like disdain for PNG. He seems to have forgotten that it is no longer an Australian protectorate… or is it?
Interesting that you mention the Japanese. Travelling through southeast Asia, you see a lot of development projects funded by Japan, often in places where they were formerly colonial overlords. There is of course plenty of controversy over their war graves.
October 6, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Hi Will
I am interested in Aboriginal cultural heritage which encompasses intangibles like relationship to Country and access to and knowledge of the meaning of sites and places of significance to various communities – their ecology, history and current protection needs.
The ongoing impact not only of land loss, but, increasingly, the effects of population growth, land clearing, forestry, mining, numerous forms of “development” and climate change, are major problems for preserving Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Many Aborigines, who are active around this issue, strongly believe that cultural heritage, its recognition and protection, and community’s ongoing connection to it, is absolutely key to dealing with many of the social and economic problems their communities face.
October 7, 2006 at 12:42 am
Hi Rose,
Of course exploitation is harming Aboriginal cultural heritage. This is sadly being played out right now with Woodside Petroleum’s plan to destroy rock art on the Dampier archipeligo.
Recognition of cultural heritage – that’s important – protection is more likely with recognition. Which is why Aborigines and archaeologists should be working together. It’s not always been a great relationship, but now more than ever, there is a common interest to preserve the shared cultural heritage from the ravages of privatisation and corporate hegemony.
February 7, 2008 at 11:56 pm
[...] February 7, 2008 Over a year ago, plans to mine a copper and gold deposit in Papua New Guinea were met with outraged opposition and [...]
April 25, 2008 at 12:51 am
[...] the concerns of local New Guineans who hoped to benefit from the project. But it again raises the question. Why is the government going to such lengths protect this site while, in Australia itself, places [...]
September 22, 2008 at 9:19 am
[...] written before about ideological aspects of the government’s hypocritical heritage policy, but news of [...]