Malaysian envoys worldwide sought to stop Murum dam | Asian Correspondent

Malaysian envoys worldwide sought to stop Murum dam | Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Nov 22, 2013

Malaysian diplomats stationed worldwide are now sought to intervene in the controversial Murum Hydroelectric Project, one of the 12 mega-dams undertaken by the Sawawak Energy Berhad.

Indigenous people around the said river are getting desperate day by day to save their land and property, but there seems to be no aid in sight to ease their suffering. They have explored all means to get the attention of the government and local media, but not enough.

A dramatic pose by an indigenous Penan protecting water resource. (Photo: Bruno Manser Fonds)

Last week, a group of about 27 international NGOs and activist organizations joined forces in an attempt to help. The office of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Rzak has remained silent despite a letter calling for his intervention. In a letter dated November 11,  the NGOs have written the prime minister expressing concern over the situation of Indigenous Penan women, men, and children who are peacefully protesting at the site of the Murum hydro power project.

The NGOs are now set to  deliver a  signature campaign against the maltreatment of indigenous Penan protestors in the Murum Dam. The campaign containing complaint against harassment, intimidation, and violation of human rights will be sent to Malaysian embassies worldwide on November 25.

Led by the Borneo Project, International Rivers, Bruno Manser Foundation, and SAVE Rivers, the complaint is part of the effort to get the direct attention of Malaysian consulates asking to intercede and to stop the ”maltreatment, abuse and disrespect of indigenous communities” protesting against the construction of the dam. According to the Bruno Manser Fonds, the indigenous groups are asking for the withdrawal of police and to allow human rights observers as well as lawyers to access the area.

The protesters have been cordoned off by a barricade of armed police since November 5, the letter added. Lawyers, human rights groups, medics, media personnel and convoys carrying basic supplies of food and water for distribution all have reported that their access to the site has been blocked.

Information regarding the health and wellbeing of families inside the security perimeter is nearly impossible, according to Borneo Project. This raises concern over the conditions of those who are vulnerable, including younger children and the elderly.
Intimidation, threat, arrest, detention and criminalization of members of the Penan families seeking justice against forced displacement are clear violation of  the rights with respect to freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, the groups said.
The list of NGOs provided by Borneo Project:

• Accountability Project, International
• Accountability Counsel, International
• Human Rights Watch, International
• Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self Determination and Liberation, International
• Green Advocates, International
• International Rivers, International
• Asian Indigenous Peoples’ Pact, Asian Region
• NGO Forum on the ADB, Asian Region
• Pesticide Action Network-Asia Pacific, Asian Region
• Borneo Resources Institute (BRIMAS), Malaysia
• Jaringan Orang Asal Semalaysia (JOAS), Malaysia
• The Sarawak Native Customary Land Rights Network (TAHABAS), Malaysia
• Malaysian Damn the Dams Action Group, Malaysia
• Pacos Trust, Malaysia
• SAVE Rivers, Malaysia
• Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
• Malaysia Tenaganita, Malaysia
• Association for International Water Studies (FIVAS), Norway
• Borneo Project, USA
• Bruno Manser Foundation, Switzerland
• Burma Partnership, Burma/Myanmar
• Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Philippines
• Huon Valley Environment Centre, Tasmania
• Korean House for International Solidarity (KHIS), Korea
• Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens [Movement of Dam Affected People]
• Brazil Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan
• Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo
• Ecuador Shwe Gas Movement, Burma/Myanmar
• Sierra Leone Network on the Right to Food, Sierra Leone

The Taliban Dilemma, the US and Pakistan | Asia Sentinel

The Taliban Dilemma, the US and Pakistan | Asia Sentinel
Salman Rafi Sheikh,19 NOVEMBER 2013


Did the US botch a Pakistan peace overture with the killing of the head of the local Taliban?

The Nov. 1 drone attack by the US that killed the Pakistani Taliban leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, appears to have paralyzed whatever prospects there were for a ‘peaceful solution’ to Pakistan’s continuing terrorism and violence and has to be regarded as a major blunder stemming from lack of communication and distrust between the two countries.

Worse, the killing of Mehsud, who had expressed at least some inclination to start a dialogue with the Pakistan government for normalization -- although many believe he had no intention of seriously negotiating -- has allowed for his replacement by Mullah Fazllulah, who has vowed never to negotiate with Pakistan. Faizlullah is the hardliner who ordered the attempt to kill the schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, turning her into a world figure after she survived being shot in the head.

To the utter dismay of the government in Islamabad, the US once again has played its part in bringing the whole process of dialogue, however fragile it was, to a dead end. Not only does it reflect lack of cooperation and coordination between Pakistan and the US authorities, but also the markedly different visions and priorities they have of the region’s future.

The timing of the attack has further added to the already brewing lava of intense suspicions in Pakistan over US intentions although the killing was and is still being followed by serious attempts on the part of Pakistani authorities to prevent the breakdown of the dialogue, even in the face of doubts over the Taliban's desultory offers of negotiation as ploys to gain time.

The killing has led many to the conclusion that the US is not interested in helping to establish peace in Pakistan, at least until Pakistan helps the US to achieve its war objectives in Afghanistan.

The question of the Pakistani Taliban has thus become a very serious dilemma for the Pakistani authorities, one which demands serious political and strategic maneuvering both at the national and international levels.

One thing is becoming increasingly clear in Pakistan with every passing day – that the incumbent government is serious in a reaching a compromise with the Pakistani Taliban, perhaps because the ruling business-oriented party, the Pakistan Muslim League, has rightly realized the crucial importance of establishing peace as a prerequisite for making Pakistan an attractive place for foreign direct investment. The first thing the government had to do was to dissociate itself from this particular attack in order to maintain its credibility vis-à-vis the Pakistani Taliban, leading the interior minister to declare the attack an “ambush of peace talks.”

On the other hand, the provincial government of Khyber Pakhutnkwa Province, the most troubled and terrorist-hit province of Pakistan, also declared its intention to stop the flow of NATO/ISAF supplies through areas under its jurisdiction.

The disagreement between the troubled Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial government, formerly known as the of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or the Pakistan Movement for Justice, and the central government of the Pakistan Muslim League over the issue of NATO supplies against the backdrop of US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 has further exacerbated the political environment in Pakistan, reinforcing the fact that terrorism in Pakistan is inevitably linked with the Afghan conflict.

While the wrapping up of the Afghan conflict is on fast track, a number of bilateral and multilateral events are in process with a single objective: to provide a face saving exit to the US forces. Most recent one was a trilateral meeting hosted by David Cameron, the UK prime minister, and participated by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Karzai. After this meeting, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced in London that the dialogue process with the Pakistani Taliban had begun.

Significantly, Sharif’s statement came in response to Mehsud’s interview with the BBC in October, in which he declared his intentions to start serious negotiations with the Pakistani government. It is also significant to note that Islamabad, prior to Oct. 9, the date of the BBC interview, had not formally announced the initiation of talks or establishment of contact with the Pakistani Taliban. Not only did he invite the government to engage in dialogue, but also made it clear that for the ceasefire to be credible, “it is important that drone attacks are stopped.”

The Pakistani Taliban had placed some hope on the negotiation process, especially in light of the prime minister’s assurances to terminate air strikes on FATA territory after his October visit to the US. However, why did the US kill Mehsud right after the PM’s announcement of the initiation of talks? Nisar Ali Khan, the interior minister of Pakistan said in a press conference after the attack that the strike came just hours before a delegation was supposed to travel and initiate talks with the Pakistani Taliban.

The minister added that during bilateral interactions with the US, including with Secretary of State John Kerry, Pakistan had urged that drone strikes to be halted completely, especially during the peace talks. Thus it is difficult to believe the often repeated rhetoric that both the US and Pakistan are “closely cooperating” in curbing the menace of terrorism in the region.

Mehsud was one of the US’s most wanted terrorists, with a reward on his head of US$5 million. The Pentagon suspected him of arranging the attack on a NATO base in Afghanistan, of a botched car bombing in New York’s Times Square, and of terrorist attacks against Americans in Pakistan. Nonetheless, critics say the US is seeking to keep Pakistan in line with the policy objectives of the US, which is to ensure the orderly departure from Afghanistan, and a peace with the Pakistani Taliban would have got in the way of that.

Such views are not unfounded. For example, the killing of Wali-ur Rehman, the second in command to the Pakistani Taliban also came against the backdrop of a possible initiation of negotiations between the government and the Taliban. He too was killed in a drone attack by the US, on May 29, when the governments at the center and in provinces had just been formed after elections on May 11, 2013.

During elections, all parties in general emphasized the need for engaging with the Taliban in dialogue and find a peaceful solution. Rehman’s killing within weeks after elections had the effect of postponing the talks until Sharif’s statement of Oct. 31 in the UK.

The killing of Rehman and now Mehsud is most likely to have a similar effect, or even worse since the new Taliban leader, Mullah Fazllulah, happens to be a staunch enemy of the State of Pakistan. He is the man who established his control in the Swat Valley, among other things banning the attendance of girls in school. Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head and neck on Oct. 9, 2012 on his orders. She survived and has become a symbol of resistance to fundamentalism.

Mullah Fazllulah and his troops were eventually pushed out and forced to leave military operations in the region in 2009. Announcement of his appointment was immediately followed by an official statement by the Pakistani Taliban declaring that there would be no negotiations with the government of Pakistan since Mullah Fazllulah “is already against negotiations with Pakistan.”

The mess created after the attack has pushed the government of Pakistan to its limits. Its consequences can be very grave. One thing must be clear that one cannot hope to find solutions to such complicated problems as terrorism and insurgency merely by removing heads of such organizations and networks. And, considering the loose structure, vague ideology and motivation of the Pakistani Taliban, this strategy may not work. Such organizations are never short on leadership. Hence the killing of Hakeem may not affect the Taliban’s continuity in carrying out attacks. Therefore, the need is to take pragmatic steps to review counter-terrorism strategy in the light of Pakistan’s socio-political realities and review aspects of its relations with the US.

There is arguably no other way of dealing with terrorism than through dialogue. Pakistani authorities seem to have realized this, and their intention to go ahead with the dialogue process was reinforced in a statement by the foreign office which said that, “the government, however, is determined to continue with efforts to engage with the Pakistani to bring an end to the ongoing violence and make them a part of mainstream politics within the parameters of our constitution.”

The statement is very meaningful, not because of its content, but because of the agency through which it has been given i.e., the foreign office., giving the impression of having been specifically directed against the US’ calling the dialogue process a matter “internal” to Pakistan, and celebrating Hakeem’s death a victory of the US in the war against terrorism.

The dilemma for Pakistan is wide and open. Where it has to deal with the Pakistani Taliban, it has to handle the US as well. Lack of coordination between the US and Pakistan is becoming a major issue and a problem to be seriously reckoned with. However, how and the extent to which it would affect the approaching end-game in Afghanistan and Pakistan-US bilateral relations in that context is another question. But it is more than apparent that the damage to the Pakistan government’s efforts to establish peace with the Taliban has been done.

Uncle Sam Returns to the Philippines | Asia Sentinel

Uncle Sam Returns to the Philippines | Asia Sentinel
A. Lin Neumann, November 12, 2013


Major contrast with China’s regional profile

With US President Barack Obama having failed to show up at last month's APEC summit in Bali, the US Marines have landed again on the Philippine island of Leyte in a display of quick response to Typhoon Haiyan that seems certain to be welcomed by the storm-ravaged country and is symbolic of the continued US presence in the region.

The public relations value of the straight-talking, telegenic Brig. Gen. Paul Kennedy, commander of the Okinawa-based 3rd Marine Expedition Brigade, and his troops, unarmed, helping out in the devastated city of Tacloban soon after the storm hit could hardly be lost on Washington – or the region.

China’s response was slower but by Tuesday a flight with relief goods on board a large Chinese cargo plane arrived. Initially, though, the US was quicker and far more thorough.

The Marine operation encompasses up to nine C-130s plus four MV-22 Ospreys—tilt-rotor planes that can operate without runways—and two P3 Orion aircraft for search and rescue. It is the first of a massive response by the US to the tragedy, which is believed to have killed at least 10,000 people and probably many more.

That the Marines are in Leyte, almost 70 years after Gen. Douglas MacAthur's famous landing, displays, without much need to draw it out, the long relationship that Washington maintains with its former colony and serves as the most dramatic display possible of the region’s need for a US presence.

The Marines landed shortly after the disaster with Kennedy leading an advance contingent that will quickly grow.

"Everything's destroyed," Kennedy said Monday in comments replayed on CNN and elsewhere. "Roads are impassable, trees are all down, posts are down, power is down…We are gonna move stuff as they direct, as the Philippine government and the armed forces [ask]."

The US’s immediate response on top of the Marines’ arrival includes emergency shelter and hygiene materials from the US Agency for International Development, 55 tons of emergency food to feed 20,000 children and 15,000 adults for five days, and US$100,000 for water and sanitation support from the US Embassy in Manila. On Monday, the US announced that the USS George Washington aircraft carrier and its support fleet, numbering 7,000 sailors, has been dispatched from a port call in Hong Kong to support relief efforts.
That stands in stark contrast to the offer by Beijing of a relatively minuscule US$200,000 in cash. If Beijing were seeking to project its soft power in the South China Sea, that didn’t do it and indeed it is shown up by aid flowing in from across the world.

China, of course, has coast guard vessels not far away projecting its claim to reefs and shoals that are also claimed by the Philippines. It is unlikely those Chinese vessels will be steaming to Leyte.


To be sure, many Filipinos are still wary of Washington's intentions. But at least when it comes to disaster response, the US military's presence in the region can be greatly helpful. The US military response to the 2004 tsunami in Aceh, for example, helped to warm relations with Indonesia after years of tensions over human rights violations.

The US legacy in the region can be mixed – and lately tarnished by a massive bribery scandal going all the way up to admirals over berthing logistics fees but its ability to project force and lift into disasters is almost always a welcome sight.

Other countries have also quickly responded. According to Reuters, Australia announced a US$10 million package, including medical personnel and non-food items such as tarpaulins, sleeping mats, mosquito nets, water containers and hygiene kits; the UK announced a £6 million (US$9.6 million) package including aid for up to 500,000 people including temporary shelter, water, plastic sheeting and household items. New Zealand has offered NZ$2.15 million in aid, Japan is sending a 25-strong emergency medical relief team and Indonesia is dispatching aircraft and logistical aid including personnel, drinking water, food, generators, antibiotics and other medication.

Domestically the Philippines disaster response has almost never been adequate even in the normal disasters that occur on a regular basis. It lacks the kind of heavy-lift aircraft needed in a disaster and its outdated air force is hardly a match for the typhoon's devastating aftermath. The Marines, for example, brought in the mobile radar and lighting equipment needed to get the Tacloban airport working.

Asked by CNN what is most needed, Richard Gordon, the head of the Philippine Red Cross, said "Heavy lifting, the movement of relief goods... to deliver goods to the areas that need them."

Australia dumps carbon tax, snubs Warsaw climate summit | Asian Correspondent

Australia dumps carbon tax, snubs Warsaw climate summit | Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Nov 08, 2013

It is official: Australia’s new government denies global warming.  The Coalition Government will not send its environment minister to the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19) at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which will kick off  in Warsaw, Poland from 11-22 November 2013.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt will stay at home to expedite the processes involved in repealing the carbon tax, a top election promise made by his boss, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.




However, a representative on his behalf has been dispatched to take part in the annual event. Hunt will be busy repealing the carbon tax while the conference is underway. The carbon tax was passed by the Australian legislature in 2011 under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Since Abbott won the federal election in September this year, scrapping the carbon tax has topped his priority agenda.

Australia will be represented by Australia’s Climate Change Ambassador Justin Lee from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will also not attend.
Climate observers said this will send the wrong signal that Australia is walking away from its commitment on climate action and it may set a precedent for other countries to backslide.

Climate skeptics and right-wingers are already cheering on Australia’s unprecedented example. Recently, former PM John Howard also scoffed at ”alarmists” in a climate skeptics’ gathering held in London and admitted he is “unconvinced” of an impending ”global warming catastrophe.”

The COP19 expects to bring together around 40,000 attendees from government, academia, business and advocacy groups to advance international agreements that aim to mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.

In the past, a government minister represented Australia to the UNFCCC.  Ian Campbell headed the delegation under John Howard’s first government in 1997.  Labor Climate Change Ministers Penny Wong and Greg Combet, respectively, attended the conference from 2007, although in  2012, the Gillard government’s parliamentary secretary on climate change Mark Dreyfus attended the conference on behalf of Combet.

Oppositions and environmental groups are wary of the bad signal Australia will be sending to the summit. Opposition climate spokesman Mark Butler told The Australian, “Other countries are going to read into it at best with confusion and at worst that the Abbott government is walking away from global action on climate change. ”

Greens MP Adam Bandt also said it was “understandable” that Minister Hunt was “embarrassed” by his government’s decision to scrap the carbon tax, but it was no excuse to skip the global summit. While no major decisions will be made at Warsaw, the meeting will build momentum in the lead-up to major negotiations for a global agreement on cutting greenhouse gases in Paris in 2015.

Businesses support repeal of carbon tax

PHP Billiton, among other businesses under the Australian Business Council,  supports the dumping of carbon tax. While backing the Federal Government’s plan, the mining giant, however, urged scrapping the price of carbon should be done as soon as possible. It warned of a possible  complications if it is not done by mid-2014. The mining firm said it still believes in having a price on carbon, but any policy should be trade friendly and revenue neutral.

BHP Billiton noted that repealing the carbon tax will get rid of the current problem of Australian firms paying a higher cost on pollution than their international competitors.  The company shares concerns already expressed by others businesses about the uncertainty that will be created should the legislation not pass by mid-next year.

Climate action nationwide rally

Amid plans to scrap the carbon tax, a climate action is brewing nationwide. Various environmental groups are set to mobilise rallies in every major city nationwide on November 17. It is a collaboration of GetUp, the Australian Conservation Foundation,  the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Environment Victoria, Fire Brigade Employees Union, Greenpeace, 350.org, Oxfam Australia and many other groups. ACF said they intend to make this event as big as they can.



The ACF wants to keep Australia’s carbon tax. It said that while the tide of history is flowing towards pricing pollution, Australia is turning back the clock. Along with the climate action rally, the Foundation also supports an online petition to the prime minister, environment minister, and environment decision makers from all parties.

GetUp who is spearheading the climate action  rally said 2011 was a turning point for Australia.  Climate scientists warned it was the beginning of the critical decade for climate change and thus required stronger action to avoid the catastrophic effects of rising emissions. Australians responded to this warming by enacting the carbon tax.

However, Australia faces another turning point this year which is poised to “go backwards on climate action at a time when the government’s own independent climate policy advisory body has warned the nation’s current emissions reductions targets are “inadequate” and what it needs is stronger and more ambitious targets.”

Anonymous Cambodia marks Million Mask March with ‘small’ online campaign | Asian Correspondent

Anonymous Cambodia marks Million Mask March with ‘small’ online campaign | Asian Correspondent
Clothilde Le Coz, Nov 06, 2013

The Cambodian government was warned by Anonymous Cambodia that “fairness, justice and freedom are more than words“, as stated by V in the movie “V for Vendetta”. On November 5, Anonymous Cambodia aimed to lead a major rally in “cyberspace” for fear that supporters marching in reality would be arrested. “I would say Hun Sen is… a dictator because if Anonymous march to the street on Nov 5 like people did in the US, I am sure they all will get arrested“, stated an Anon on November 4.

On November 5, to help LuLzSec to celebrate “Guy Fawkes Day”, Anonymous Cambodia participated in a “fun” hacking session on NASA.  It also  hacked the Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia to leak data as well as the KHMAC investment website.

Anonymous

Too small?

When reached on November 6 to assess the impact of the November 5 operation in Cambodia, one Anon stated it was small because “less than 10 people helped“, coming from different parts of the world. For example, the group aimed to target the SL garment company but was “too busy” working on other attacks. “We [did] not have enough people to help DDoS the site,” stated the Anon.

 ”A Bunch of Chopsticks Can’t Be Broken”

 

To Anonymous Cambodia, there is no good existing example of government and knowledge and information have become the prerogatives of the rich. “Freedom to us is vital to humanity. Without freedom one cannot live as a human being. Whoever is preventing human from being a human is not welcome by us,” the Anon states. To them, cyber surveillance and censorship are preventing people to be free in Cambodia. Moreover, the Cambodian elections system is something Anonymous Cambodia does not trust and, at any rate, they are “not interested” in the political situation.

 

Anonymous Cambodia believes the strength for change lies in the number of people involved. As such, their so called “western” vision of freedom and change fits into the Cambodian state of mind and could be compared to the Khmer proverb: ” a bunch of chopsticks cannot be broken”, showing strength in unity.

 

Khmer Rouge Tribunal targeted

On November 2 it was reported that hackers of the group had taken down the website of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. “ECCC has tried to silence victims of crimes against humanity. So we acted,”  states the Anon, basing this action on a report from Radio France International published in Khmer language. In it, the Paris-based media states that “some civil party lawyers complained about restrictions within the tribunal”.

Targeting a website is the decision of one Anon or the result of a collective consultation.In the case of the ECCC website, an Anon from Cambodia decided and that was followed by others globally.

Moreover, according to the Anon, the Cambodian government  computer systems are easy to reach. Information has already been taken from the Anti-corruption Unit, as well as a lengthy document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 2012.

The Cambodian government called Anonymous’ actions “terrorists acts” on September 17 after they “declared war” on the ruling CPP in a video exposing their Operation Cambodia, responding to clashes with protesters that left one person dead.

For Mike Vitale of the Chanology project,  the Anonymous group “calls itself the final boss of the Internet and sometimes it proves to really be [...] true”. But to him, “hacking doesn’t accomplish anything [...] it doesn’t send a message; it just gets more people arrested in the name of Anonymous” in a 2011 interview.

On November 15, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York will sentence Jeremy Hammond, an Anon who leaked information from the private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (StratFor) through the WikiLeaks website, revealing the organization had been spying on human rights activists in the US.

The Mekong Under Threat

The Mekong Under Threat
ASIA SENTINE, Monday, November 4, 2013 

Nineteen local, regional and international environmental groups under an umbrella called Save the Mekong are calling for an urgent moratorium on plans by the Laotian government to build a new hydroelectric dam that they fear will do irreparable damage to the giant river’s ecosystem.

The Laos government says it expects to start construction of the Don Sahong dam this month near the picturesque Khone Falls, with commercial operation of its 260 MW of power to begin in 2018.

One of the world’s most impoverished countries, Laos has a wealth of natural resources that it is anxious to exploit in a drive to build a more sophisticated economy. With annual per capita gross domestic product a minuscule US$3,100 per year by purchasing power parity, it ranks 176th in the world. The government in Vientiane nonetheless hopes energy sales, mostly to Thailand and China, can put it on the way to lower middle income status and provide jobs outside of agriculture, which currently accounts for 75 percent of employment.
However, the dam, the environmentalists said, “will irreversibly alter the Khone Falls and Mekong River basin. It will create a non-passable barrier across the Hou Sahong channel, recognized by fishery experts as one of the worst possible sites to build a dam, as it is the passage of maximum fish migration on the Mekong, which supports the world’s largest inland fisheries.”

The Laotian government appears ready to ignore a 1995 agreement that mainstream Mekong projects can only proceed if a consensus is reached between MRC’s four member countries—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. The riparian countries are growing increasingly alarmed at Laos’s plans, which could threaten to restrict the flow of sediment to Vietnam’s rice fields and block the pathway of migrating fish, which feed millions in the Lower Mekong. Vietnam, Cambodia and seven Thai provincial governments have already objected to the construction of another dam, the Xayaburi deep inside the mountains of northern Laos on the lower Mekong, to no avail. While the Laotian government has repeatedly paid lip service to calls for moratoriums, it has continued construction work.

Environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have also warned for the possible impact on Mekong’s unique biodiversity, second in scope only to the Amazon’s. Additionally, according to Save the Mekong, more than two million cubic meters of riverbed will be excavated from the Mekong River to increase flows into the Hou Sahong channel.

The Don Sahong, the group said, will have “serious negative repercussions on fisheries and local livelihoods, as well as the food security of millions of people within the Lao PDR and in the neighboring countries of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. The project will also threaten such rare and internationally recognized giant migratory fishes as Pangasius krempfi, Pangasianodon gigas, Probarbus jullieni, and Probarbus labeamajor.”

The group said it has little faith in the Mekong River Commission or the ability of the 1995 Mekong Agreement to adequately address the threat. One clear indication, it said, is the MRC’s failure to resolve disagreement among the four member governments over whether the “prior consultation” process for the Xayaburi Dam remains open or closed.

While the Laotian government has claimed that the Don Sahong Dam is “not on the Mekong mainstream,” the group said, “we totally reject this claim, for there is absolutely no question that the Don Sahong Dam is a mainstream project that will deeply impact flows and fish migration, and have immense transboundary implications. For these reasons, we believe that the MRC will once again fail, should resolution of the Don Sahong Dam controversy remain solely in the hands of the Lao government.”

The Vietnam minister of natural resources and environment, the former Cambodian minister of environment, and members of the Thailand National Mekong River Committee have all objected to further damming of the Mekong.

“In light of the many ambiguities around the Don Sahong Dam, as well as other projects on the Mekong mainstream, deliberations over all these projects must be halted,” Save the Mekong said. “A new joint platform is urgently needed to review, clarify, and resolve outstanding issues through regional-level decision-making based on the principles of transparency and full participation of all stakeholders. Necessary studies, including transboundary impact assessments for all projects, must also be carried out in order to allow for informed decision-making.”