No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Retrofitting the Mekong: Community-based environmental responses to Chinese transnational infrastructure in a Thai border town
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2023
Abstract
For decades, the Mekong River has been a site of ongoing tensions between China-backed infrastructure and communities relying on the mighty Mekong for their lives and livelihoods. In Thailand, tensions have escalated into actions against ecologically damaging hydropower dam development and the blasting of river rapids for Chinese navigation in a Thai border town. This article examines how Chinese transnational infrastructure has been reconfiguring power relationships among actors at multiple scales. Based on my fieldwork, I offer a narrative of the concerted efforts by one small community-based environmental group in northern Thailand, some of whose activism has prodded Chinese planners and project managers into responding to widespread criticism of ecological damage caused by its hydropower and riparian infrastructure and ignoring the needs of downstream local communities. The interactions between Chinese agencies and local NGOs will be discussed through the concept of a moral ecology of infrastructure, which contributes to transcending infrastructure and the environment, enabling a broadened understanding of human and nonhuman relations in more recent retrofitting of the dams and waterway projects. I argue that the reconfigured ‘Green’ Belt and Road Initiative is a contingent process in which multiple transnational actors claim decision-making power over the retrofitting and redevelopment of the Mekong's ecological infrastructure.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The National University of Singapore, 2023
Footnotes
I express my gratitude to the Gerda Henkel Foundation for financial support, Susanne Brandtstädter for her guidance, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. I appreciate the Rak Chiang Khong group and Chiang Khong residents for sharing their invaluable insights and experiences. Lastly, I'm grateful to the participants of the Third China Made Workshop: The Social Life of Chinese Infrastructures in Southeast Asia, at the National University of Singapore, 17–20 May 2021, for their encouragement from the initial draft to publication.
References
1 Klinger, Julie Michelle and Muldavin, Joshua S.S., ‘New geographies of development: Grounding China's global integration’, Territory, Politics, Governance 7, 1 (2019): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T., Murton, Galen, Rippa, Alessandro, Harlan, Tyler and Yang, Yang, ‘China's Belt and Road Initiative: Views from the ground’, Political Geography 82 (2020): 1–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
2 Liu, Hong and Lim, Guanie, ‘The political economy of a rising China in Southeast Asia: Malaysia's response to the Belt and Road Initiative’, Journal of Contemporary China 28, 116 (2019): 216–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Lindberg, Jonas and Biddulph, Robin, ‘China's Belt and Road Initiative: The need for livelihood-inclusive stories’, Geoforum 121 (2021): 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Ibid.; James D. Sidaway, Simon C. Rowedder, Chih Yuan Woon, Weiqiang Lin and Vatthana Pholsena, ‘Introduction: Research agendas raised by the Belt and Road Initiative’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38, 5 (2020): 795–802.
5 Oliveira et al., ‘China's BRI’, p. 1.
6 Ruwanpura, Kanchana N., Rowe, Peter and Chan, Loritta, ‘Of bombs and belts: Exploring potential ruptures within China's Belt and Road Initiative in Sri Lanka’, Geographical Journal 186, 3 (2020): 339–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Bogojević, Sanja and Zou, Mimi, ‘Making infrastructure “visible” in environmental law: The Belt and Road Initiative and climate change friction’, Transnational Environmental Law 10, 1 (2021): 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Chiang Rai Provincial Public Health Office, ‘Number of registered population Chiang Khong district, Chiang Rai province as of 1 Jan. 2018’, Health Data Centre (HDC), https://datacro.moph.go.th/hdc (in Thai).
9 Santasombat, Yos, The river of life: Changing ecosystems of the Mekong Region (Chiang Mai: Mekong Press, 2011), pp. 25–47Google Scholar.
10 Scaramelli, Caterina, ‘The Delta is dead: Moral ecologies of infrastructure in Turkey’, Cultural Anthropology 34, 3 (2019): 388–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Balée, William, ‘The research program of historical ecology’, Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 1 (2006): 75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geoffrey C. Bowker, Science on the run: Information management and industrial geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920–1940 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), p. 191; Cronon, William, ‘The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature’, Environmental History 1, 1 (1996): 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin Reuss and Stephen H. Cutcliffe, eds, The illusory boundary: Environment and technology in history (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010).
14 Ashley Carse, ‘Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal Watershed’, Social Studies of Science 42, 4 (2012): 539–63.
15 Jakkrit Sangkhamanee, ‘Infrastructure in the making: The Chao Phraya Dam and the dance of agency’, TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia 6, 1 (2018): 47–71.
16 See Franz Krause and Veronica Strang, ‘Thinking relationships through water’, Society & Natural Resources 29, 6 (2016): 633–8.
17 Howe et al., ‘Paradoxical infrastructures: Ruins, retrofit, and risk’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 41, 3 (2016): 547–65; Akhil Gupta, ‘The future in ruins: Thoughts on the temporality of infrastructure’, in The promise of infrastructure, ed. Nikhil Anand, Akhil Gupta and Hannah Appel (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018), pp. 62–79; Joshua J. Cousins, ‘Malleable infrastructures: Crisis and the engineering of political ecologies in southern California’, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 3, 3 (2020): 927–49.
18 Howe et al., ‘Paradoxical infrastructure’, p. 555.
19 Nathaniel Matthews and Stew Motta, ‘China's influence on hydropower development in the Lancang River and Lower Mekong River Basin’, in State of Knowledge Series 4, Challenge Program on Water and Food (Vientiane: CGIAR, 2013), p. 1.
20 P.K. Menon, ‘The Mekong River and international development of natural resources’, The International Lawyer 5, 1 (1971): 53–8.
21 Ming Li Yong, ‘Reclaiming community spaces in the Mekong River transboundary commons: Shifting territorialities in Chiang Khong, Thailand’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 61, 2 (2020): 205–6.
22 Masami Ishida, ‘Development of five triangle areas in the Greater Mekong Subregion’, in Five triangle areas in the Greater Mekong Subregion, ed. Masami Ishida (Bangkok: Bangkok Research Center, IDE-JETRO, 2012), pp. 14–15.
23 E.C. Chapman and Peter Hinton, ‘The emerging Mekong Corridor: A note on recent development (to May 1993)’, Thai–Yunnan Project Newletter 21 (1993): 12–16.
24 Andrew Walker, The legend of the golden boat: Regulation, trade and traders in the borderlands of Laos, Thailand, China and Burma (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1999), p. 65.
25 David Murray, ‘“From battlefield to market place”: Regional economic co-operation in the Mekong zone’, Geography 79, 4 (1994): 350–53.
26 Ibid.
27 Naho Mirumachi and Mikiyasu Nakayama, ‘Improving methodologies for transboundary impact assessment in transboundary watercourses: Navigation channel improvement project of the Lancang-Mekong River from China-Myanmar Boundary Marker 243 to Ban Houei Sai of Laos’, International Journal of Water Resources Development 23, 3 (2007): 411–25.
28 Ming Li Yong, ‘Reclaiming community spaces’, p. 210.
29 The Mekong is called the Lancang Jiang in China.
30 Pu Wang, Shikui Dong and James Lassoie, The large dam dilemma: An exploration of the impacts of hydro projects on people and the environment in China (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014), pp. 35–6.
31 Bowker, Science on the run, p. 10.
32 Ishida, ‘Development of five triangle areas’, p. 15.
33 Prachachat, ‘เวนคืน 2.5 พันไร่ผุดศูนย์โลจิสติกส์ชายแดน-หัวเมืองหลัก’ [Expropriation of 2,000 rai (989 acres) to build a logistics centre near the border and in the cities], Prachachat.net, 30 Jan. 2018.
34 Bangkokbiznews, ‘รมว.คมนาคม’ ลงเสาเอกศูนย์ขนส่งสินค้าเชียงของ’ [The transport minister participates in the pillar erection ceremony at the Chiang Khong cargo centre], Bangkokbiznews.com, 18 Jan. 2018.
35 Fieldnotes, 2 Feb. 2020.
36 Ming Li Yong, ‘Reclaiming community spaces’, pp. 210–12.
37 Philip Hirsch, ‘China and the cascading geopolitics of Lower Mekong Dams’, Asia-Pacific Journal 9, 20 (2011): 1; Ian Baird, ‘The Don Sahong Dam: Potential impacts on regional fish migrations, livelihoods and human health’, Critical Asian Studies 43, 2 (2011): 211–35.
38 Ellen Bruzelius Backer, ‘The Mekong River Commission: Does it work, and how does the Mekong Basin's geography influence its effectiveness?’, Südostasien Aktuell: Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 26, 4 (2007): 31–5; Yi Fu, ‘The analysis of the international legal water regime of the Mekong River Basin’ (PhD diss., University of Göttingen, 2017), pp. 16–17.
39 Ibid.
40 Ming Li Yong, ‘Reclaiming community spaces’, p. 206; Sokphea Young and Sophal Ear, ‘Transnational political economic structures: Explaining transnational environmental movements against dams in the lower Mekong region’, Third World Quarterly 42, 12 (2021): 2999.
41 The word รักษ์ (rak) and รัก (rak) are homonymous in Thai.
42 The Mekong School emphasises on-site experiential learning and has introduced an online platform for wider engagement. See their official website: www.mekongschool.org.
43 Kru Tee, interview, 19 Oct. 2019.
44 Ming Li Yong, ‘Reclaiming community spaces’, p. 208.
45 Thecitizen, ‘คนริมโขงแสดงจุดยืน “ค้านระเบิดแก่งน้ำโขง” ในปฏิบัติการ “เชียงของ โขงร่มเย็น 93”’ [At the event known as Chiang Khong Rom Yen 93, Mekong residents voiced their opposition to the Mekong Blasting Project], Thecitizen.plus, 15 May 2017.
46 Prachatai, ‘ทหารนัด ปธ.รักษ์เชียงของ ถกหน่วยความมั่นคง-กรมเจ้าท่า เหตุค้านจีนสำรวจแก่งน้ำโขง’ [The chief of the Rak Chiang Khong Conservation Group was invited to talk to provincial officers, the military, marine department, and security agency about their movement against the Chinese-led navigation project], Prachathai.com, 26 Apr. 2017.
47 Siamrath, ‘สั่งแจงปมค้านพัฒนาเดินเรือลุ่มน้ำล้านช้าง-โขงหวั่นระเบิดแก่ง’ [Explanation from Thai government agency on the controversial Lancang-Mekong blasting issues], Siamrath.co.th, 25 Apr. 2017.
48 Shaun Lin and Carl Grundy-Warr, ‘Navigating Sino-Thai “rocky” bilateral ties: The geopolitics of riverine trade in the Greater Mekong Subregion’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38, 5 (2020): 831.
49 Ian Storey, ‘Thailand's military relations with China: Moving from strength to strength’, ISEAS Perspective 2019/43 (Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, 2019), p. 11.
50 Pichamon Yeophantong, ‘China's Lancang dam cascade and transnational activism in the Mekong Region’, Asian Survey 54, 4 (2014): 700–724.
51 Tanyaporn Buathong, ‘สำรวจชีพจรแม่น้ำโขง ย้อนรอยโครงการระเบิดเกาะแก่งแม่น้ำโขง กับการใช้อำนาจอันทรงพลังของจีน เพื่อเปลี่ยนแปลงธรรมชาติ’ [Explore the pulse of the Mekong River: Retracing the project to blow up rapids in the Mekong river by China], BBC, 15 June 2020. Pictures and video by Jiraporn Kuhagarn, planning editor, Isariya Prythongyam, https://www.bbc.com/thai/resources/idt-sh/mekong_blast_thai.
52 Rak Chiang Khong Group, Living River Association, Mekong Community Institute, and Local Villager Researchers Mekong River Chiang Rai Group, ‘แม่น้ำโขง สายน้ำที่เปลี่ยนแปลง : งานวิจัยของชาวบ้านริมโขงจังหวัดเชียงราย’ [The changing Mekong River: Research by Mekong villagers in Chiang Rai province] (Chiang Mai: Wanida, Mar. 2023).
53 Pai Deetes, ‘Victory on the Upper Mekong: Thai Cabinet terminates rapids blasting project’, International Rivers, 6 Feb. 2020, https://www.internationalrivers.org/news/blog-victory-on-the-upper-mekong-thai-cabinet-terminates-rapids-blasting-project/.
54 Thairath, ‘บ.ต้าถัง ควงอธิบดีพลังงานลาว ถกผลกระทบข้ามพรมแดน สร้างเขื่อนปากแบง’ [Director of the Lao Energy Department and Datang Co. participate in the discussion of potential cross-border impacts of the Pakbeng Dam construction], Thairath.co.th, 15 Jan. 2018.
55 The MRC has developed five sets of procedural rules on water quality, data sharing, water use monitoring, water flow maintenance, and water use cooperation to support the implementation of the 1995 Mekong Agreement. One of them is the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA), which was adopted in November 2003.
56 Kru Tee, interview, 19 Oct. 2019.
57 transbordernews, ‘บริษัทยักษ์จีน “ต้าถัง”ถกภาคประชาชนเตรียมเดินหน้าสร้างเขื่อนปากแบงกั้นแม่น้ำโขงเฉียดแดนไทย นักวิชาการชี้ข้อมูลไม่ชัดในหลายประเด็น-หวั่นปลาบึกสูญพันธุ์ อธิบดีลาวปฎิเสธทำวิจัยเพิ่ม หวั่นล่าช้า’, สำนักข่าวชายขอบ [Datang, a big Chinese company discussed the construction of Pak Beng Dam, close to Thailand's border, with citizens. Scholars have expressed concerns regarding its environmental impact, hoping that Laos conducts further research. But Lao officials worry about construction delays], transbordernews.in.th, 14 Nov. 2018,
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Chen Teo, Hoong et al., ‘Environmental impacts of infrastructure development under the Belt and Road Initiative’, Environments 6, 6, 72 (2019): 2Google Scholar.
62 Ketels, Anja, ‘Chinese NGOs in the Belt and Road Initiative: Building people to people bonds for better governance’, in China's New Silk Road dreams, ed. Noesselt, Nele, Berliner China-Hefte, Chinese History and Society 52 (Wien: LIT, 2020), p. 86Google Scholar.
63 CSEBA, ‘CSEBA becomes a full-fledged member of SIRONET’, CSEBA, 24 Nov. 2017.
64 Jinping Xi, ‘Working together to deliver a brighter future for Belt and Road Cooperation’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 26 Apr. 2019.
65 Christoph Nedopil, Dimitri De Boer, Fan Danting and Yingzhi Tang, ‘What China's new guidelines on “green development” mean for the Belt and Road’, China Dialogue, 18 Aug. 2021, https://chinadialogue.net/en/business/what-chinas-new-guidelines-on-green-development-mean-for-the-belt-and-road/.
66 Nopparat, interview, 19 Oct. 2019.
67 Sina, ‘第二届中国与东南亚 NGO 及学者对话会举行’ [The second dialogue between Chinese and Southeast Asian NGO], Sina News, 23 Nov. 2018.
68 Ibid.
69 ‘Conference Handbook: Green and Symbiotic Development Dialogue Conference 2019’, The Third Dialogue between Chinese and Southeast Asian NGOs & Enterprises & Scholars, Changsha, 12–15 Nov. 2019, unpublished.
70 Ketels, ‘Chinese NGOs’, pp. 92–5.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.; Li, Xiaoyun and Dong, Qiang, are, ‘Chinese NGOs “going out”: History, scale, characteristics, outcomes, and barriers’, Nonprofit Policy Forum 9, 1 (2018): 2–3Google Scholar.
73 Hildebrandt, Timothy, Social organizations and the authoritarian state in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
74 Ketels, ‘Chinese NGOs’, pp. 98–9.
75 Jiang, Heng, An evolving framework for outward investment: A Chinese approach to conflict sensitive business (Beijing: American Friends Service Community, 2015), pp. 48–52Google Scholar.
76 Sidaway, James D. and Woon, Chih Yuan, ‘Chinese narratives on “One Belt, One Road” (一带一路) in geopolitical and imperial contexts’, Professional Geographer 69, 4 (2017): 591–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Oliveira et al., ‘China's BRI’, p. 2.
78 de la Cadena, Marisol and Blaser, Mario, ‘Introduction. Pluriverse: Proposals for a world of many worlds’, in A world of many worlds, ed. de la Cadena, Marisol and Blaser, Mario (Durham: Duke University Press, 2018), pp. 4–6Google Scholar.