Source: Special Correspondent

The Jubilee research report on Bougainville launched in late August has caught wide attention abroad and in the autonomous region. In what seems as a shock for the Australian public to find that there is greater opposition to the reopening than expected, critiques however; seem unwilling to agree on the report, which apparently contains quoted voices of those living in the ruins of a mining town coupled with a completely decimated and toxic environment.

Surprisingly, and sadly though, a handful of Bougainvilleans have gone onto every social media outlet available to dispute the report. Even the autonomous region’s CEO President Momis attacked the report saying that his own people’s voices were ‘misleading’ and ‘irresponsible’.

Not only that, even an individual who is thought to be a staunch advocate for Bougainville’s freedom labeled his own people in the research as ‘squatter settlers’. Those ‘squatter settlers’ unfortunately are the people who have been living on the land which is now nothing but a gigantic hole for generations. These ‘squatter settlers’ were forcefully evicted from their land and pushed aside to make way for a development that never benefited them.

All the more, outsiders who think they know more about the people also attempted to discredit the report, with reasons pertaining to difficulty in understanding the language and the people. However, they should have not read the details of the report that the interviews were carried out in Tok Pisin and Nasioi (Central Bougainville language) languages, and the reason for that was to gauge subtle nuances that would rather not be picked up if it had been carried out in English.

Not only that, the questions asked were open ended, hence it further enabled respondents to express themselves. To anyone familiar with social research, the intention is to obtain participants’ responses that would usually not be obtained through close ended yes or no questions. Ultimately, it was intended to explicitly gauge views of the respondents.

Also, another cooked up reason from so-called elites is that the reopening of Panguna mine is valid through the payment of blood. Meaning those from other places apart from Panguna who were killed in the crisis justified the reopening of the mine, contradicting the initial intention that bloodshed was actually for freedom and independence of Bougainville. What utter misleading misconception brought by such individuals who are supposed to be more informed, however tend to be misleading and irresponsible as their President.

Also, the people who are still facing difficulties today are the ones living in the ruins of the destroyed environment. They are more affected than those living outside of the ruins and destruction. These people not only feel the pain of losing loved ones during the crisis, but are continually risking their lives every day living close to toxic wastes and dangerous chemicals coming out of the mine pit.

The research has and is getting intention abroad because people now have realized that there is a cover-up by those trusted to represent Bougainville, all the more those who should be more informed about the history of Bougainville’s journey are the ones who tend to undermine it.