[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Bangkok Post March 8, 1998. YADANA



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.