This week, we visited the site of a proposed potash mine in Udon Thani province. Again, we stayed with anti-mine villagers. My home stay was really great--I miss it a lot. My Paw has traveled to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. And he came back to Udo to grow organic rice and raise six buffaloes. He's a very smart man and very passionate about the mining issue. So were the "Iron Women" who were also part of a large group of activists that call themselves the Conservation Club. Inspiring, to be sure... but so intensely concerned that they refuse to speak with pro-mine villagers. We also spoke with the provincial government and with the mining company itself, Italian-Thai. The whole unit was really interesting for me.
My goal here in Thailand has ultimately been to learn whether globalization and development are predominantly positive or negative forces. I've definitely learned that it isn’t that simple. Sometimes, projects are unequivocal, like the Pak Mun Dam. But often, an objective conclusion isn't so easy.
The spoken goal of development is to help people. The rhetoric underlying that goal is predictable: export more, increase GDP. It was startling to hear pro-mine villagers articulate the perception that if their country does not develop, they will be embarrassed. The pressure of the development ideology reaches so far as to grip many of the most rural developing world farmers.
An assumption behind that ideology is that development always helps people. If someone has to sacrifice, therefore, for the progress of their country and the world, this is acceptable. Another pervasive assumption is that the environment is not a people’s problem. Salinization, for example, is harder to conceptualize than its human effects, like crop failure or drinking water contamination.
The most basic tenet of democracy is information. It is, for a short time, refreshing to learn that all those involved in the debate over the Udon Thani potash mine recognize the importance of accurate information. Unfortunately, each group is irreversibly certain that an exchange of accurate information would result in a consensus that their own opinion is right. The villagers of the Conservation Club in Udon Thani have expressed their clear refusal to talk openly with pro-mine villagers. The Italian-Thai mining company and their friends at the Ministry of Industry have tried to establish open lines of communication—but “the government is not able to perform any information giving” because the Conservation Club overpowers them. “If the consensus reached is that the mine shouldn’t happen,” we asked the MoI, “would that be a satisfactory conclusion?” It is telling to note the preconceived response that “this would be a missed opportunity for development.”
So this mine is going to happen, sometime or another.
It is my perception that the forces that drive development (namely, the quest for profit) will not be stopped by a group of Not-In-My-Backyard dissenters over the long term. If the anti-mine villagers like my Paw were to stop the Italian-Thai Corporation, there would no doubt be another mining company on their heels. And it would likely not be owned by any Thais.
So while I am against the operation of this mine, I would encourage protestors to focus on negotiation if I had the chance again. I believe it is feasible to fight for a permit process that gives villagers' opinions a veritable consequence. I believe it is possible to make a space for an independently conducted EIA that has a bearing on the design of the project. I believe it is acceptable that the company leaves a salt tailing pile on the surface of the mine, so long as management of surface water contamination is truthful and accountable, that violations are properly compensated for, and that all is backfilled in the end. I have to believe that traditional agricultural ways of life and the fulfillment of global economic needs can coexist.
Now if only we consumers could slow the increases in demand for the materials that must come from somewhere, we could maybe reign in the capitalist system. But I'm afraid that people in power have drawn the conclusion that a slowing of economic growth is unacceptable in any case…
My goal here in Thailand has ultimately been to learn whether globalization and development are predominantly positive or negative forces. I've definitely learned that it isn’t that simple. Sometimes, projects are unequivocal, like the Pak Mun Dam. But often, an objective conclusion isn't so easy.
The spoken goal of development is to help people. The rhetoric underlying that goal is predictable: export more, increase GDP. It was startling to hear pro-mine villagers articulate the perception that if their country does not develop, they will be embarrassed. The pressure of the development ideology reaches so far as to grip many of the most rural developing world farmers.
An assumption behind that ideology is that development always helps people. If someone has to sacrifice, therefore, for the progress of their country and the world, this is acceptable. Another pervasive assumption is that the environment is not a people’s problem. Salinization, for example, is harder to conceptualize than its human effects, like crop failure or drinking water contamination.
The most basic tenet of democracy is information. It is, for a short time, refreshing to learn that all those involved in the debate over the Udon Thani potash mine recognize the importance of accurate information. Unfortunately, each group is irreversibly certain that an exchange of accurate information would result in a consensus that their own opinion is right. The villagers of the Conservation Club in Udon Thani have expressed their clear refusal to talk openly with pro-mine villagers. The Italian-Thai mining company and their friends at the Ministry of Industry have tried to establish open lines of communication—but “the government is not able to perform any information giving” because the Conservation Club overpowers them. “If the consensus reached is that the mine shouldn’t happen,” we asked the MoI, “would that be a satisfactory conclusion?” It is telling to note the preconceived response that “this would be a missed opportunity for development.”
So this mine is going to happen, sometime or another.
It is my perception that the forces that drive development (namely, the quest for profit) will not be stopped by a group of Not-In-My-Backyard dissenters over the long term. If the anti-mine villagers like my Paw were to stop the Italian-Thai Corporation, there would no doubt be another mining company on their heels. And it would likely not be owned by any Thais.
So while I am against the operation of this mine, I would encourage protestors to focus on negotiation if I had the chance again. I believe it is feasible to fight for a permit process that gives villagers' opinions a veritable consequence. I believe it is possible to make a space for an independently conducted EIA that has a bearing on the design of the project. I believe it is acceptable that the company leaves a salt tailing pile on the surface of the mine, so long as management of surface water contamination is truthful and accountable, that violations are properly compensated for, and that all is backfilled in the end. I have to believe that traditional agricultural ways of life and the fulfillment of global economic needs can coexist.
Now if only we consumers could slow the increases in demand for the materials that must come from somewhere, we could maybe reign in the capitalist system. But I'm afraid that people in power have drawn the conclusion that a slowing of economic growth is unacceptable in any case…
posted by Darren Legge at 4:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home