4.1 Introduction
“The total domination of nature inevitably entails a domination of people by the techniques of domination ― Andre Gorz”(quoted in Kothari, 1996, p.1476)
In the previous chapters, we have observed that independently of the protracted debate on the construction of the TGDP, and despite the persuasive evidence adduced to show that its cost in terms of environmental degradation and human suffering was bound to be prohibitive, the decision to build the dam was virtually inevitable. We observed that the inevitability of the decision had less to do with the supremacy of reasoned debate, that is to say, than if have to do with the supremacy epistemology of power politics. We established that the Three Gorge Dam was built as an icon to represent the success of China’s modernization program and served as a ‘concrete’ symbol of China’s economic success and global destiny. The biggest country in the world, by population, had also become the country with the largest dam in the world. Consistent with the western world’s obsession with power, and dominance of every kind imaginable, China can be seen as having adopted the epistemology of power as the foundational metaphysics of its political ideology. Knowledge is a form of power and power is a potential form of control. In regard to man’s relationship to nature the ‘control’ element in knowing has led to dominating the world by technologizing it in ways that ensure the subjugation of its components by making them increasingly predictable. The problem is that the way in which science has made the world more predictable is by making it increasing synthesized, artificial, inert, and lifeless. In this chapter, my intention is to explore the tension between the technologization of the earth and the human disconnectivity which has resulted from it.
In the case of the TGDP the primary form of disconnectivity caused by building the dam has been the dislocation of more than 1.3 million people from their homes and communities. I shall argue that the debate on issues of human rights, the scope and priority of humanitarian interest and environmental responsibility cannot be resolved without recognizing the limitations placed on our judgments which presuppose the implicit values embedded in the educational epistemology of power which underpins the debate. To establish this argument, my aim will be to tease out the moral relevance of Professor Laura’s critique of the epistemology of power, as an effective heuristic for resolving at least some of the issues surrounding human displacement and issues of social justice, along with what he calls the methodological principle of ‘transformative subjugation’ to which it gives rise. Professor Laura has not to date, at least in his published work, endeavored to display the relevance of his epistemological modelling to the area of social justice, but I am convinced that the insights that can be drawn from them are profound.
Let us first look at the issues of social justice which confront displaced people involved in the massive dislocation caused by of the TGDP. Large-scale development projects ― dams, mining, highways, airports, thermal and nuclear power plants, tourism development projects, oil pipelines, to name some major examples ― designed ultimately to improve living conditions within nations, have long been associated with causing the large-scale human dislocation of millions of human beings (Oliver-Smith, 2001&2010; Cernea, 2008). There are numerous cases in China, and elsewhere in the world, that illustrate that all forms of displacement, especially those caused by the construction of dams, have far-reaching impacts not only on ecological system and river basins, many of which I have discussed in the previous chapters, but most notably on the millions of people who are forced to leave their homes and land to resettle elsewhere. With regard to social justice, one problem is that development-induced displacements (DID) allow very few options for those displaced. A second problem is that such dislocations have also led to the considerable loss of assets and the disruption of livelihoods for both the individual and the community. This in turn has prompted a greater likelihood of social-economic impoverishment and reduced access to common resources as a consequence of uprooting people involved from their familiar ‘earth environment’, disregarding the region and cause (Oliver-Smith, 1991; McDowell, 1996; Cernea, 1997&2003; Colson 2003; Mehta & Gupte, 2003; Hollenbach, 2010). To be specific, in addition to losing their land entitlements and job opportunities, it has been the case that their livelihoods and common resource bases are often undervalued, even when some compensation is actually paid. Displaced people also experience cultural disintegration and the loss of autonomy and control over their lives. Others faced with hostility and tension with the host community; they are no longer free to make choices according to their own will and needs. Although development is supposed to benefit the majority, the common scenario is that only a few reap any benefits from displacement and resettlement. Displaced people are rarely among them, which is why politically they are often praised and ‘propagandized’ as noble sacrifices for the greater common good (Dwivedi, 1997&1999; Oliver-Smith, 2010).
Because large development projects continue to serve as symbols of modernization and national progress, they are publically promoted by political and corporate elites as the only way to boost regional development for the good of the nation. In the case of TGDP, their sacrifice is regarded as a morally justifiable price to be paid for the sufficient production and generation of hydroelectric power capable of meeting the huge demands for electricity from industries and the urban customers (Cernea, 1997&2003). Despite protestations to the contrary, large-scale and high-risk migration is likely to be cited as a prime example of social injustice which has destroyed the lives of literally of millions of people (Hollenbach, 2010).
Another of the most appalling examples of social injustice is clearly exemplified by the fact that the forced displacement of reservoir refugees has not specifically been recognized as a human rights violation, especially in the case of weak groups such as minority population, in the range of existing international human rights treaties (Oliver-smith, 2001&2010). From the perspective of power-politics, development is largely about economic growth without any reference at all to autonomy and human’s free will to choose one’s destiny (Cernea, 1997&2003; Oliver-smith, 2001&2010). The pursuit of development has tragically been used to justify the outright neglect of basic human rights of those forced to relocate, especially indigenous and ethnic groups. Hierarchies in the order of rights have also been specifically created to justify violations of the very human rights which are thus ordered (Oliver-smith, 2010).
A vast array of human rights violations have occurred as a consequence of the forced displacement in China associated with its hydraulic and hydroelectric resettlement projects. It is estimated that by the mid-1980s since 1950, 86,000 reservoirs have been built in China (Tan & Yao, 2006). Among them, 311 were large-scale projects (ibid). The construction of these 86,000 reservoirs has resulted in the relocation of at least 10.2 million people (the official figure, but the actual number of reservoir oustees in China may be substantially higher) between 1950 and 1989 (McCully, 2001). The official statistics reveal that 4.6 million people were displaced during the period from 1950 to 1959 (Jing, 1999; World Bank, 2001). The large reservoirs alone had already flooded 0.587 million hectares of arable land and displaced 5.04 million people (Tan & Yao, 2006). The Chinese government refers to these people as ‘reservoir resettlers’, though the more provocative term ‘reservoir refugees’ would be more suitable for this context, inasmuch as it more accurately reflects the fact of trying to displace such large populations out of the areas to be flooded, regardless of the disruption to human lives, property losses and unwillingness to relocate, not to mention the shameful failures of promised restoration of their livelihoods (Jing, 1999; Tan & Yao, 2006). While the experimental projects of recent decades have been claimed to improve the economic and social status of a small number of reservoir refugees, however, the majority of people displaced due to the construction of dams have suffered immensely (Li et al., 2001).
In this section, I have tried to highlight how reservoir refugees’ rights have consistently been violated in China through the impact upon local populations in proximity to dam constructions, and the subsequent compulsory displacement of vast populations of people. It is clear that there has been a complete failure of compliance with regard to the basic principle underpinning international treaties which stipulate the right not to be moved off of one’s land and out of one’s house, is a basic human right which morally should be respected.