[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Bangkok Post March 8, 1998. YADANA
- Subject: Bangkok Post March 8, 1998. YADANA
- From: suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 12:34:00
Bangkok Post March 8, 1998. YADANA GAS PIPELINE
One scene, two
views
The following are excerpts from the report of the public hearing
committee. First, a description of the conflict between supporters
and opponents of the project:
Gas as a source of energy: The PTT is a state agency
mandated to produce energy for Thai society. It claims that Thai
society needs more energy despite the fact that the state of the
economy has worsened. It also claims that gas is a cheap source
of energy and is less polluting than any other sources.
Environmentalists believe that Thailand should re-examine the
direction of current development, which requires increasing
amounts of energy. Although natural gas does not cause much
pollution, it still has a detrimental effect on the environment.
Cost of energy: The PTT believes that the cost of the gas is
acceptable, and that it will be able to supply a sufficient amount
by July or August. The PTT has a contract with a consortium
comprised of Total, Unocal, Myanmar Oil Cooperation, and
Thailand PTT Exploration and Cooperation Plc (PTTEP).
According to the PTT, since this joint venture does not involve
the Burmese government the issue of human rights is not relevant
to the debate.
Environmentalists consider human rights an issue since the gas is
from Burma. To them, buying the gas from Yadana is tantamount
to bestowing legitimacy on the Slorc government.
Money from the Yadana gas project will strengthen the Burmese
government, they say. Opponents believe that this increased
strength will only result in more human rights violations,
threatening minorities and democracy in general. Thailand should
instead find other sources of energy, such as from the Joint
Development Area (JDA), they argue.
The point of consignment: The PTT believes that Baan I-tong
must be the point of consignment, where the Burmese pipeline
meets the PTT pipeline. The Burmese government said that it can
guarantee security only at Baan I-tong.
Environmentalists point out that the PTT accepted the Burmese
proposal unconditionally, thus indicating an acceptance of human
rights violations by the Burmese government. In addition, this
unconditional acceptance resulted in the pipeline passing through
a 1A watershed area.
The decision-making process: The PTT believes they have
acted for the good of the country, and that their actions have
been legitimised by cabinet resolutions, the chamber of
commerce and provincial authorities.
These official organisations agree with the PTT that opponents of
the gas pipeline project are "ill-intentioned", violent protesters.
They believe they have done their bit to conserve the
environment.
The environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that the
decision-making process was less than proper.
For instance, the government approved the project before the
Environmental Impact Assessment was concluded. The public
did not participate in the decision-making process.
The actions of the PTT over the past three years suggest that it
had no intention of allowing public participation.
The environmentalists, on the other hand, showed their concern
for the earth, plants and animals, using non-violent methods of
protest.
The committee also pointed out that the root of the conflict lies
in the differing perspectives of the two sides. The following are
exerpts from their observations:
Relationship between humans and nature: Project
supporters believe humans own nature, which exists for the
interest of mankind, and it is necessary to sacrifice nature for the
sake of people. The opponents believe that the survival of
humans depends solely on nature and it is vital that humans do
not abuse nature to ensure the future of the world.
Concepts of development: Project supporters believe that
humans are moving in the right direction of development and that
the demand for energy is growing along with economic and
population growth. They believe that development is the capacity
to respond to the unlimited wants of the people.
The opposition, however, adheres to a Buddhist approach to
nature, giving importance to a more balanced use of natural
resources. They believe that humans should develop in a way
that promotes appreciation of life by learning to limit "wants".
Replacement of nature: Project supporters think in
commercial terms, that nature can be replaced. They see nature
in terms of commercial value; teak and rosewood are expensive
while other woods have no value. Project opponents think all
wood is invaluable and important to the livelihood of villagers
and that people who live in the forest are part of nature.
Concepts of tasks and lessons: Project supporters believe
that the future of the country's energy supply lies with them, and
their task is to meet the demand. Project opponents believe there
are more important things than energy such as living in a healthy
society where people care about others. They think humans are
too involved to care about their trading partners. Humans
overlook past brutality and human rights violations, misleading
youngsters into believing that such abuses are unimportant.