Bangkok Post

October 15, 2006

Interim Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has told each newly appointed minister to look into the projects initiated by the previous government and determine whether or not to proceed. In all likelihood there will be many calls for Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand to review the involvement of Egat in a joint venture with the Sinohydro Corporation, a Chinese state-run enterprise, to build a 1,000 megawatt hydroelectric dam at Hutgyi, 50 kilometres inside Burma.

Just two weeks before the coup a senior official at Egat was quoted in the Bangkok Post as saying that the dam project would likely go ahead without social or environmental impact studies, to avoid interfering in Burma’s internal affairs.

It should be admitted that not all dams are bad and that hydroelectric power is attractive because it doesn’t use fossil fuels. However, there are a number of reasons why Thailand should stipulate that thorough studies be made before work is begun on the project, and also reason to think this might be the case.

Interestingly, Mr Piyasvasti, as chairman of the Energy for the Environment Foundation at the time, was quoted in the same Post article as urging the government of caretaker prime minister Thaksin to take into consideration human rights issues before implementing projects in neighbouring countries.

Burma and Thailand, under the previous government, have planned to build a total of five dams along the Salween, with a Memorandum of Agreement signed between Egat and Burma’s Ministry of Electric Power last February on the Hutgyi dam.

While there has never been an adequate environmental and social impact assessment, environmentalists and human rights groups have protested against the dam scheme for over a decade, saying the dams would destroy the ecological system of the Salween river – the last free-flowing river in the Mekong region.

One logical reason to “interfere in the internal affairs of Burma” and do the studies is that the dam is apparently a driving force behind the fresh aggression of Burmese soldiers against ethnic Karen in the region. There are already 120,000 Karen refugees along the border in Thailand, and many more living in or near the inundation area inside Burma.

Another big reason to consider such a partnership with Rangoon at this time is the implications it might have in the eyes of the rest of the world.

His Majesty the King spoke recently about the need for Thailand to bolster its image in the international community after the coup. The United Nations, the European Union and the United States have all come out strongly to urge a return to democracy in Burma and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

It has been said by some that Thais are naive to believe that there is a fundamental difference between the longstanding situation in Burma and the present situation in Thailand, since in both cases a democratically elected government was overthrown.

However, it is not naive to point out that in Burma a pro-democracy movement was brutally crushed, while in Thailand no blood was shed and many pro-democracy groups have been very supportive of the new government.

Burma’s rulers show no sign of relinquishing the power they grabbed more than 15 years ago. The Council for National Security has promised a return to full civilian authority in a year’s time. Only time will tell.

In the meantime the interim government can and should distinguish itself from Rangoon by putting human rights and the environment in the forefront in all its dealings, whether in Thailand or a neighbouring country.