Analyze

Ortmann (2023, p.8):

The Formosa protest one year later provides a contrasting case study [to protest against the Vinh Tan coal power plant] to understand when repression is a strategic choice by the regime. The protest occurred in response to massive pollution caused by the Taiwanese steel producer Formosa-Ha Tinh Steel. Perhaps the most important difference was the media coverage. While the Vinh Tan protest had garnered significant, relatively objective coverage in the Vietnamese press, the Formosa case was highly censored, and whatever can be found is highly biased against the protesters who were supposedly only interested in harming Viet Nam’s national interests. To understand what happened, it is necessary to draw on foreign media, which covered the protests over many months, as well as other academic sources.

In social science literature, the Formosa Vietnam disaster is considered a key example for the importance of transnational environmental advocacy networks (Fan et al. 2021). Catholic priests and the US-based organization Justice for Formosa Victims (JfFV) have called for the release of imprisoned activists and for adequate compensation of impacted fisheries. More recently, after several attempts to gain jurisdiction in Vietnam, a group of 7,800 plaintiffs launched a civil lawsuit against Formosa in Taiwan’s supreme court. Beyond the repression experienced by activists in Vietnam, lawyers involved in the case have cited limited recourse to international law in Taiwan, expensive court filing fees, and other bureaucratic measures as challenges to the lawsuit.

• TS: From April 6, 2016 until the end of the month, hundreds of tons of wild and farmed fish died along about 250 kilometers of coastline around the periphery of Formosa Steel, and the pollution spread to the south, affecting a total of four provinces (Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue). The fishermen of the northern province of Nghe An claimed they had also been impacted, but the government denied that the pollution spread to the north. (Jobin & Ying 2020)

• TS: In April 2016, a dive by fishermen also found a 1.5km long drainage pipe of one-meter diameter coming from Formosa Steel that was discharging yellow wastewater onto the seabed. (Jobin & Ying 2020)

• TS: The Vietnam Fisheries Association pointed out that red tide generally kills shallow-sea fish, but in this case there were many deep-sea fish involved, so the red tide seemed to have little to do with this case, and the cause was therefore most likely human pollution (Green Trees 2016; Maodun 2016). (Jobin & Ying 2020)

• TS: In July 2016, the Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency (VEPA) provided the Vietnamese National Assembly with a 20-page report detailing the results of a survey conducted in central Vietnam the previous May by over one hundred scientists (including several foreign scholars): 115 tons of wild fish, 140 tons of farmed fish, 67 tons of oysters, 10 tons of crabs and 7 tons of shrimp had been lost; 450 hectares of the ocean, 40% to 60% of the coral, and 40% to 60% of the seabed were destroyed (Jobin & Ying 2020)

• TS: According to the Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency (VEPA), the pollution prevented 17,682 fishing boats from going to sea, causing 40,966 people (176,285 people including fishermen’s families) to suffer a major economic loss.  (Jobin & Ying 2020)

• TS: According to an official statement made by the Vietnamese government in June 2016, followed the next month by a report from the Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency (VEPA), the main causes of the massive deaths of fish and shrimp were the high concentrations of benzene, cyanide and ferric hydroxide emitted by Formosa Steel. The two most serious violations of Formosa Steel’s 53 violations were its wastewater treatment system and the release of hydrogen cyanide, a colorless but extremely toxic substance. Zyklon B, a colorless but highly toxic hydrogen cyanide also known as prussic acid, was used by the German Nazis in their “Final Solution” during World War II to kill millions of Jews. Benzene corrodes the skin and can damage the lungs, liver, kidneys, the heart and the central nervous system, possibly causing coma. On April 24, 2016, divers employed by a contractor of Formosa Steel suffered health problems; one of them died on the way to hospital. Although the release of pollutants such as hydrogen cyanide could certainly have caused the sudden death of the divers, the divers were actually protected by oxygen masks and diving suits, so the causality between the pollution and the death remains mysterious. (Jobin & Ying 2020)

Scholars argue that Vietnamese environmental movements and civil society have been stifled by one-party authoritarian rule, resulting in short lived and fragmented activist campaigns (Ortmann 2017; 2021; Bruun 2020; Wischermann et al. 2021). Notably, the government has established its own environmental organizations, efforts of which keep getting undercut by close business ties and other conflicts of interest (Ortman 2021, 275). Independent NGOs and journalism, in turn, have been tolerated, but all organizations are required to register with the government, preventing funding expansion and growth (ibid). This asymmetry has led to competition with established international organizations like Greenpeace that offer better job opportunities and resources (2021, 292). Finally, though all media in Vietnam are owned by the government and subject to censorship, journalists benefit from a certain degree of freedom that has enabled critical coverage of environmental pollution (Ortmann 2021, 280).

From Roberto: I took the liberty of reaching out to the disaster research and practitioner community via the RADIX listserv to see what their thoughts are on the inclusion of war and terrorist attacks within the category of disasters. In my query, I specified that my interest was in the ways academics, and particularly anthropologists, thought about this issue in theoretical/analytical terms. I was hoping to make a clear distinction between the inclusion of war and attacks in policy, as that may follow more a vital systems security type of governmental justification, but it is interesting that, in their responses, the respondents moved back and forth between academic and governmental definitions of disasters. One comment was particularly insightful, bringing up alternative concepts other than disaster that may be more inclusive. People like Katiana Lementec, for example, has used the term "upheavals" to bring disaster scholarship and development induced disaster/displacement like the building of the Three Gorges Dam. One respondent brought up "complex emergencies," and we could also include "crisis" as one of the more inclusive terms, but these terms also bring with them the baggage of ignoring the historical political ecology or longue durée of catastrophes and reducing our focus to the immediate emergency. I asked those who replied if I could share their thoughts with the Disaster STS group and they agreed, so I copied and pasted their responses in the word document that is attached.

• Disaster governance -- and legitimation of particular modes of governance -- has been different in different historical periods and settings. Historian Michele Landis Dauber (year?), for example, describes how New Dealers had to frame the Great Depression as a disaster -- “afflicting citizens through no fault of their own” - in order to secure and legitimate federal aid to those in need. Focusing on more recent developments, John Hannigan, describes how “a humanitarian aid model for dealing with disasters became widely accepted in international affairs during the 1970s and 1980s; faltered in the 1990s; and is currently being challenged by a new approach to disaster management wherein risk management and insurance logic replace humanitarian concern as guiding principles” (2013, 1)" (quoted in Fortun et al. 2016) 

• While organized to address immediate needs, disaster response often lays ground for enduring structures of different kinds. A literally concrete example is how temporary housing for disaster survivors often becomes permanent housing, though under-designed for this. A more general examples is given by MIchale Landis Dauber in her description of the way federal aid to people in need during the Great Depression in the United States laid ground for a truncated and compromised form of the welfare state that we still live in -- turning on “suspicion that those in need are reasonable for their own deprivation.”