Message-ID: <32E3CFA7.7A8E@mind.net> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:03:51 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Re: Who speaks for Mandalay? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
mailto:EUNSteve@AOL.COM wrote:> For our purposes here I accept your account of the history of tourism in
> Mandalay.
>
> For their own purposes and self interest outsiders with money dangled that
> money and the concept of "eco-tourism" in front of the government of
> Mandalay.
>
> Perhaps those outsiders went further than dangling concepts and provided more
> tangible incentives to move in their direction.
>
> However: the dilemma remains.
I'm glad to be moving beyond our differences, and instead seek solutions. For the record, the eco-tourism example I used was in Malaysia--not Mandalay. The Mandalay project was a dam, and I know little about that situation, however, as you said, the dilemma remains. >
> There are now at least two voices to listen to in Mandalay: the voice of the
> legal government of a sovereign entity, and a subgroup within that entity.
This, I believe, is the quintessential problem of development...who is really being helped? Who are the "real" locals?
> You are saying that our government has the right, the moral obligation, to
> choose the voice to which we shall attend.
No, I'm not saying that our country has either the right or the moral obligation...I believe that the development community as a whole has a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves. But I would certainly not want to limit this just to the U.S (there are many, many other countries with foreign aid programs) nor would I want to suggest that helping people is a "right." What I am suggesting is that development projects must carefully consider the impacts on all of the people involved; all too often the local elite benefit enormously from development projects while the more traditional peoples receive little of no real benefit.
> You are not saying, withdraw from Mandalay, refuse to take sides.
I think that this should always be an option, that is we should not just engage in development projects fro the sake of development as a whole. As in both the Malaysian and the Mandalay example, local elites benifitted financially, while poor farmers were left out in the cold. This happens over, and over again throughout the world.
> You are saying, yes, we should use our money and our influence--but use it on
> the side of ecological and cultural virtue.
Well, if the only choices are economic betterment for local elites, or "ecological and cultural virtue," obviously I'd root for the latter, but I have to ask why we can't have both? We need to empower indigenous peoples so that they are not victims but partners in/of development.
> Why not instead propose that all the people of Mandalay, including the
> thousands of landless who might like the jobs generated by the tourist
> industry as well as those with land to preserve, have an opportunity to
> debate the matter and vote?
Unfortunately, I think we all know too well that legitimate elections are hard to hold. In many countries, native people don't even have the vote.
> Choosing one voice as you propose and putting our power and our money to work
> for that one opinion seems as morally suspect as the actions you criticize.
I honestly couldn't agree more. I think the key to successful development is a balance between the various stakeholder's interests.
B. Diamond