In envisioning an integrated Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), the governments of the six riparian countries and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) regard the “connecting of nations” as contributing to the “linking of people” and vice-versa.Strategy papers and other programme documents reiterate that the goals of regionalisation are not only to enhance “connectivity” and “competitiveness” of the region through the improvement of transportation, telecommunication and power systems, but also to foster a greater “sense of community”.What the creation of a “community” implies for the diverse Mekong peoples is, however, not fully articulated. From these materials, it would seem that the concept refers to enhancing social welfare: by increasing incomes and by preventing disease, degradation of environment, human and drugs trafficking and other social problems, the programme strives to improve quality of life for the inhabitants of the GMS and bring them closer together. Policy documents and policymakers’ declarations also hint that collaboration is to foster mutual respect and understanding among diverse groups and countries, and create peace and stability in the region.
- Extracted from Rosalia Sciortino, “Creating a Mekong Community”, Mekong Currents, January 2008. New Mandala denizens with interests in the Greater Mekong Sub-region and the diverse machinery that is being used to promote certain “community” agendas will find that Sciortino’s full article is worth a read.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Grasshopper // Feb 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sciortino says:
Indeed, most peoples of the GMS are not aware of the regional plans affecting their lives. Caught in the specificity of their local contexts, they do not subscribe to the concept of “the Mekong” as a region, remaining divided along socio-economic means and ethnic and national-identity lines.
It is certainly not for the ADB to promote regionalism in the Mekong region. The Mekong community must go to the ADB.
A Mekong region like Guandong or the Bohai straight is a ridiculous fantasy of foreigners who see all the appropriate natural infrastructures and think it should happen. Then these foreigners apply the principles of “globalisation”, which hasn’t happened yet (in order for it to be properly defined), to peoples who seemingly must share their philosophy and techniques of universal connectedness.
Furthermore what form of regionalism along the Mekong could possibly occur? It couldn’t be a closed regionalism like in the EU because histories between relevant cultures are still volatile and economic progression in the Mekong region is very much dependent on FDI from afar. I think the only regionalism that is likely to happen in SE Asia is through ASEAN, because it is structured around what each state can agree on and conforms to cultural structures of power — not silly NGO’s pseudo imperialistic take on justice.
One of these experimental approaches is spearheaded by the PETA Mekong Partnership Project. Since 2004, the Project has strived to build a community of GMS artists committed to enhancing public well-being. Through arts workshops (laboratories) and play production and performances, artists from the six Mekong countries share their experiences and skills and learn to apply their arts to highlight social issues affecting their region, starting with HIV/AIDS and gender discrimination.
Who is the Philippine Educational Theatre Association running these ‘laboritories’ of arty wonderfulness ? Couldn’t be holistic catholics wanting to ’share’ and ‘communicate’, and just be generally ‘nice’ – could it? Kymlicka, whose views on multiculturalism should be hammered into these type of people before they set off on idolatrous hooray for the human quests, argues in Multicultural Citizenship that people are free within a culture and that it is very difficult for one to integrate into another culture — that mostly the culture you come from defines your perception and it is this perception which will continue to define the individual. It is quite ironic then that such lame sparks for GMS are occurring through PETA, which obviously would not be paid attention too enough (as it requires many to find secularism — a Western cultural product??) for an ignition, therefore leaving cultural integration, essential for ‘regionalism’ in a pragmatic, ‘economically prosperous’ and ‘disease curing’ way, in a more antagonistic state than if it didn’t happen at all as there would have been no failed imposition. I think her final points are contradictory to what she was saying in the beginning about hostility, because they promote it… at least in me.
Over the course of time, however, the participating artists came to appreciate the opportunity to learn from one another, explore both traditional and modern art forms, and mix them together in their new productions. Ultimately, they were all struck by the seemingly endless shapes of Mekong arts, many of which they had not known before. They recognised that they had learned to accept each other’s differences and respect divergent views.
What an incredibly condescending thing to write. That’s like interpreting some statistics to meet your own objectives and ignoring the ones which may provide a contradiction to your objective, but she is doing it with cultures! And in this case, forgetting to ask questions like ‘will you continue to share artistic journeys in modernist appreciation with your new brothers and sisters from other cultures ?’ If one asks the right series of questions with the appropriate ‘aww group hug’ tone, one will get whatever answers one likes.
If we didn’t try to force regionalism it would happen a lot quicker. Speculatively, with ASEAN introducing binding economic agreements to their agenda, maybe the GMS would be viewed as a SREZ like HK?
2 Grasshopper // Feb 28, 2008 at 10:38 pm
… i mean SARZ like Hong Kong.
3 Grasshopper // Feb 28, 2008 at 10:40 pm
.. Special Administrative Region, not SARZ. Acronyms. Hah!
4 khon ngai ngai // Feb 29, 2008 at 3:05 pm
In the 3Cs of the ADB’s vision for the GMS (Connectivity, Competitiveness and Community), the least item would be the last. It is up to NGOs (like Rosalia’s former affiliation) to bank roll the imagineering and bring about that seemingly nebulous idea of “community” in the face of wide disparities in income and historical stereotypes. A major stumbling blocks to achieving this vision is of course the fact that this was an imagination concocted by the ADB to create another potential growth area for investors, in terms of raw materials, cheap labor and market, of which the countries “bought” though not without an early reluctance. That reluctance seems to have waned since after all the whole grand idea of the GMS is bankrolled to a large degree by the ADB. It was also difficult to be a “party pooper” in the “end of history” situation where in, after all, in the case of Vietnam had defeated the great USof A. It was also difficult to feel excluded then from the developmentalist determined game of international donor agencies when the neo-liberal model became the basis of growth, and of course with the demonstration effect of Thailand’s boom in the early 90s.
Another irritant in this regional project and achieving this elusive sense of community is the disproportionate economic levels of countries. Thailand clearly has shown visibly that it wants to control the terms of development of the GMS by leading investments (labor intensive manufacturing and service industries) in other countries (as well as not very sustainable development type mega projects such as the Nam Theun II dam, and agribusiness in Laos.). China as well is implicated. Behind the smiles and handshakes, it remains to be seen in what terms a sense of “community” can be encouraged. There is very little educational and academic exchanges at the moment that would be important to bridge such gaps in cultural understanding and reduce the reservoir of mistrust.
5 jonfernquest // Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Visions of fat expense accounts…
“In envisioning an integrated Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), the governments of the six riparian countries and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) regard the “connecting of nations” as contributing to the “linking of people” and vice-versa. Strategy papers and other programme documents reiterate that the goals of regionalisation are not only to enhance “connectivity” and “competitiveness” of the region through the improvement of transportation, telecommunication and power systems, but also to foster a greater “sense of community.”
GMS is about as far away from the grassroots and any form of “community” as one could imagine. I was invited to exactly one GMS meeting as a university ajaan/peon. Not fond memories.
University president trying to wiggle out of paying back an ADB loan for expensive science equipment by suggesting that they teach the other poorer GMS countries how to use the equipment and then sharing it with them. Don’t believe anyone fell for it. Overall impression was that the science equipment had been a big waste of money. Later went on and built 60 million baht spa in the back of the university.
Hypothesis: GMS is a “community” of high level bureaucrats, a reason for being, an excuse for staging conferences, attendance at which is distributed as a Bourdieu like party favour among covetous academics who can then publish a paper that no one reads and will consume valuable library shelf space in libraries for the next 100 years, i.e. not very useful.
It would be nice if it was something else, like a grassroots rallying point for poor people or something like that but IMHO **the rural poor are more likely to be standing out in front under police guard holding protest signs**, in a rather futile effort to be heard (passed this scene many times riding to work on my motorcycle). Let me pull the weeds in your gigantic Versaille like garden for 3000 baht a month or something like that.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.