There was a brutal civil war and the people of Baugainville (and PNG more broadly) lost a real albeit difficult to seize opportunity to modernise a big chunk of their country. You probably shouldn't feel better, that situation is pretty much the worst possible outcome.

But to lay that at the feet of Rio Tinto and claim they were responsible for a genocide and war crimes is crazy talk. PNG as a political body wasn't organised enough to maintain order and the shock of the vast wealth (and pollution) being created at BCL was too much for their systems to handle.

Rio Tinto was present, they were involved, they should have done things differently and the company changed its approach to community management afterwards. But it is a very morally ambiguous situation and the blame should probably sit with the PNG polity. It is not unreasonable for a company to expect and pressure a government to maintain law and order. Rio didn't try to set up that civil war - PNG did that to themselves. When it was obvious that the situation was getting violent Rio basically just evacuated and wrote the project off.

> But to lay that at the feet of Rio Tinto and claim they were responsible for a genocide and war crimes is crazy talk.

The flashpoint for the violence was the rio tinto ran mine - specifically the low wages, environmental damage, and unfair distribution of profits. To excuse them of responsibility for the ensuing violence is crazy talk.

If I come to your family home, and start paying your brother to use your room as a garbage dump - am I innocent of the resulting conflict between you and your brother?

> If I come to your family home, and start paying your brother to use your room as a garbage dump - am I innocent of the resulting conflict between you and your brother?

Yes. Obviously that is between my brother and I.

Rio wanted peace and stability. If people start a civil war, that is on them. Principle of personal responsibility and all that jazz. If the Beaugainvillians (and mainlands) had behaved like civilised and reasonable people rather than reaching for explosives and violence then they would have gotten a much better outcome - that sits with them. Life is not fair, other people treating someone badly doesn't excuse their purposefully choosing poor behaviour.

Completely disagree, but I guess we're at an impasse. I believe that companies are responsible and should be held responsible for the consequences of their resource exploitation. Do you really see a difference between this situation, and blood diamonds? Or do you also think blood diamonds are covered under the "Principle of personal responsibility"?

Where would that end? Do we hold consumers responsible for purchasing things that use materials that were mined? For better or worse, justified or otherwise, people choosing violent rebellion against law and order are responsible for their own actions even if the greedy corporations are bringing infrastructure, wealth and pollution to their island. A remarkable number of people have successfully not started civil wars when Rio Tinto opens a mine nearby.

I don't know anything about blood diamonds and don't care to learn; although I think it is something to do with Africa. I refuse to work in Africa because everything I've heard suggests it is too unsafe. I think lab-grown diamonds are cheaper and of higher quality so we should go with them instead. Or Rio Tinto's pink diamonds sourced from the Argyle mine in Australia.

> Do we hold consumers responsible for purchasing things that use materials that were mined?

Well a good first step would be forcing companies to disclose that so consumers had the ABILITY to choose. Until they have the ability, there is no way to blame them. Once they do... yes I do think consumers are responsible for the practices of the companies they buy from. It's pretty diffuse blame, but...

> people choosing violent rebellion against law and order

The specific case we're talking about was, at least from the perspective of the rebels, a violent rebellion against a _corrupt government_ and the profiteering corporation working with them. Nobody was like "you know what I hate! Law and order and infrastructure!"... no, they were like "we are being treated like slaves".

They weren't being treated like slaves. Rio would have been paying them more money than they'd ever seen in one place before, and I have it on excellent authority that the mine was trying hard to bring up the standards of living on the island.

It is not reasonable to blame Rio Tinto for the PNG government was corrupt. That is the fault of the PNG government and the PNG people. As for the profiteering - operating a mine is not profiteering; it is pretty routine business. They had a 20-25% profit sharing agreement with PNG. They were investing in training the locals.

Rio wasn't shooting at anyone and wasn't advocating shooting at anyone. They were using explosives on rocks, the Bougainvillians were using them on buildings. The locals and their own government are ultimately responsible for tensions escalating out of hand.

I'm picking up that you might not like corporations here, but you can't call a company genocidal and responsible for war crimes because some backwater has a corrupt and ineffective government and it turns out they don't have an advanced enough social system to handle big infrastructure projects. Corporations simply do not have primacy over a government; governments get to do what they like and are responsible for that power. People who are in an active state of rebellion are also responsible for their own actions.