Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia ASEAS 5(2) 199198 Editorial Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia Oliver Pye1 Citation Pye, O. (2012). Editorial: Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia. ASEAS - Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 5(2), 198-207. South-East Asia’s environment is of special relevance to the world today. This is not simply because of its particular geological and geographical history (periods of in- teraction and separation with Asia and Australasia, endemic speciation on the thou- sands of islands), its tropical forests, and its reef-lined coasts which have made it into one of the globally most bio-diverse regions (Sohdi & Brooke, 2006). In more recent human history, the geographical location of South-East Asia between China and In- dia, Arabia, and Europe led to the early integration of its environmental resources into global trading flows, also significant to its eventual colonial subjugation by Euro- pean powers (Reid, 1993). The experience as a major political fault line during the so called Cold War and subsequently, export-led agriculture and industrialisation in the region, transformed the way South-East Asian societies interacted with and exploited the environment. The environmental crisis that accompanied this economic success story is an extreme example of the challenge we face to create a sustainable future today. This urgency of environmental change and crisis in South-East Asia has given rise to an increasing number of publications on environmental issues in the region. Rather than seeing the environment as ‘nature’ outside of human society, most of these writings have focussed on the changing relations between society and nature. Most authors can be located within an increasingly influential tradition of Political Ecology (Robbins, 2012) that looks at the “social relations of nature” (“gesellschaftliche Natur- verhältnisse”, Görg, 1999), the “social production of nature” (Smith, 1984) and “socio- natures” (Swyngedouw, 1999). At issue are how societies appropriate nature, how they thereby produce land, forest, water, and urban socio-natures, and how this recipro- cally influences social relations of production, exploitation, power, and conflict. 1 Oliver Pye is a lecturer of South-East Asian Studies at Bonn University, Germany and the guest editor of this issue. His research foci are globalisation, social movements, and the social relations of nature in South-East Asia. Contact: opye@uni-bonn.de d o i 10 .4 23 2 /1 0. A SE A S -5 .2 -1 ASEAS 5(2) 199198 At one level, the changing socio-natures of South-East Asia can be seen as a result of successive waves of commoditisation processes and the “dynamic relationships between commoditization, nature, people and places” that this entailed (Nevins & Peluso, 2008, p. 2). The way in which these commoditisation processes were organ- ised, influenced how societies and states developed. Long before colonial times, non- timber-forest-products (NTFPs) were exchanged down rivers, linking forest-based peoples in the interiors via intermediate trading centres (often at the mouth of the river) to China (Tagliacozzo, 2005). This gave rise to “dendritic systems” (Bronson, 1977; Dunn, 1975) of politically independent but mutually trade-dependent societies. Later, wars were waged over the control over NTFP extraction and trade, leading to the emergence of regionally powerful trading empires such as Srivijaya, Angkor, Ayut- thaya, or Makassar. Trade with forest and agro-forestry commodities played a defining role in the co- lonial interest in South-East Asia. For several hundreds of years, Portuguese, Dutch, and English trading companies waged war against Malay, Javanese, Bugis, and Moluc- can peoples and each other for the monopoly over the spice trade (Reid, 1993). Nut- meg and cloves, cultivated as orchards on the Moluccas, were in such high demand that they were worth their weight in gold in London and Rotterdam. Subsequent co- lonial domination of the region at first took over and expanded existing NTFP trading networks, exhausting the stocks of products such as gutta percha, camphor, or bird’s nests (Columbijn, 2006; Potter, 1997). But the new colonial powers soon had a more far-reaching and long-term impact on the social relations of nature in the region. In particular, the colonial powers de- veloped a timber industry that was dependent on large amounts of capital and waged labour for timber extraction and milling (Bryant, 1997; Peluso, 1992; Pye, 2005) and new systems of plantation agriculture. Sugar, tobacco, and rubber estate owners on Java and Sumatra, in the Malay states, and in the Mekong delta imported labourers from as far as China and India to clear large areas of forests and initiated small-scale agriculture for new monocultures (Breman, 1990; Brocheux, 1995; Stoler, 1995). This represented a qualitative shift from expanding market exchange to introducing capi- talist relations of production, creating new landscapes of produced socio-nature. The productions of these socio-natures were political projects that changed pow- er relations at different scales and created new political ecologies of South-East Asia. While expanded exchange networks could be accessed by the control over trade cen- Oliver Pye - Editorial: Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia ASEAS 5(2) 201200 tres, the timber industry and plantation agriculture required “territorial control” (Vandergeest & Peluso, 1995), i.e. the principle of state ownership over land and for- est in a defined and mapped area. The colonial state in general and forest admin- istrations in particular strived to exclude customary use of forest resources by the peasant population (Bryant, 1997; Cleary, 2005; Kathirithamby-Wells, 2005; Peluso, 1992; Vandergeest, 1996). Subjugating nature was a means “to improve” (Li, 2007) – a modernising and civilising project to develop the colonies. Meanwhile, dispossession of peasants for commercial plantations, new taxation systems, and labour laws cre- ated gendered systems of indentured labour for commoditised agriculture (Breman, 1990; Stoler, 1995). If the colonial experience was a defining one in the region (Thailand – although not colonised – copying similar structural processes), a second common experience of long, protracted war recalibrated the complex interaction between political re- gime and environment. Anti-colonial liberation struggles merged with World War II, continuing and intensifying as proxy wars between the United States, the Soviet Union, and China, and transforming into long civil wars, creating their own brutal socio-natures. Cambodia, for example, became caught up in the American war in Vi- etnam, in which forests became guerrilla cover to be destroyed by intense bombing (half a million tonnes of bombs 1969-73; Kiernan, 1989) and Agent Orange. Similarly, rice fields were systematically destroyed by using the herbicide Agent Blue (Westing, 1976). Under the Khmer Rouge, agricultural production became collectivised under a war economy that prioritised rice exports to China in exchange for weapons – kill- ing millions through overwork and starvation (Kiernan, 1996). In the subsequent civil war lasting into the 1990s, the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnam-backed forces financed their troops through extensive logging, creating a peculiar political ecology of forest destruction based on conflict and cooperation between warring parties (Le Billon, 2000, 2002). Although the social relations of nature – particularly access to land and forests – were a major factor in the social upheavals against the colonial powers (Peluso [1992] writes of “forest-based agrarian war” in the case of Indonesia), the post-colo- nial nationalist governments of South-East Asia prolonged many of the principles set down by the colonial territorialisation efforts. In the name of development, colonial forestry departments were revamped and geared towards national timber industries (Broad, 1995; Bryant, 1997; Cooke, 1999; Peluso, 1992; Pye, 2005) and export networks ASEAS 5(2) 201200 (Dauvergne, 1997), increasing deforestation rates across the region (Aiken & Leigh, 1992; Hirsch, 1993). The plantation economies, too, were nationalised and expanded (Stoler, 1995). In forestry and agriculture, coalitions between corporations and po- litical elites pursued more profitable and permanent conversions such as eucalyptus and acacia pulp and paper plantations (Lang, 2002) and oil palm (Colchester et al., 2006; Marti, 2008). Water socio-natures also became the target of national development plans. Thai- land, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines systematically developed their indus- trial fisheries and trawler fleets, leading to overfishing and increasing conflicts with small-scale fishers (Butcher, 2004). Special development fantasies evolved around riv- ers. Coalitions of government planners, energy corporations, and engineers strived to subdue and control their raw and seasonally wild power with dams that promised the double benefits of energy and irrigation (Molle, Foran, & Käkönen, 2009). Mean- while, industrialisation and urbanisation created new problems of heavily polluted urban riverscapes (Lucas & Djati, 2007). Developmentalist strategies based on the exploitation of natural resources were implemented by authoritarian regimes of various shades. Large-scale infrastructure projects were wedded to centralised state control over resources and to the politics of repression. Suharto’s New Order regime in Indonesia was a stark representation of this regional trend. The mass killings of labour and peasant activists in 1965 radically changed the social landscapes of land reform on Java (Cribb, 1990) and plantations in Northern Sumatra (Stoler, 1995), laying the ground for an unchallenged export-led industrialisation. Large-scale projects such as the Grasberg mine in West Papua were backed up by military might, while a system of large-scale timber concessions hand- ed out to conglomerates close to the regime (Barr, 1998; Gellert, 2005) was supplied with disciplined labour by the transmigrasi programme (Hancock, 1997). However, these authoritarian regimes were challenged by a wave of democracy movements that swept across the region in the 1980s and 1990s. The Peoples Power movement that toppled Marcos in the Philippines in 1986, the May 1992 democracy movement in Thailand, and the Reformasi movement that brought down Suharto in Indonesia in 1998 all opened up democratic space for the articulation of environmen- talist critiques of the then dominant development model (Broad & Cavanagh, 1993). Politicisations over the social relations of nature often preceded these mass move- ments. In Indonesia, for example, Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia, (WALHI), a net- Oliver Pye - Editorial: Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia ASEAS 5(2) 203202 work of NGOs and grassroots groups, was able to lead successful campaigns against a pulp and viscose factory on Sumatra and a planned pulp plantation in West Papua (Gordon, 1998). WALHI joined struggles by peasant and indigenous groups to form an “environmental and agrarian justice movement” (Peluso, Afif, & Rachman, 2008) that blossomed after the fall of Suharto. In Thailand, successful resistance to eucalyp- tus plantations and forced relocations of forest-based peoples (Lohmann, 1991; Pye, 2005) gave rise to the Assembly of the Poor, a network of grassroots movements that put forward an alternative development paradigm based on local sovereignty over natural resources (Missingham, 2003). In countries where democracy movements did not emerge (Laos, Vietnam), were weak (Cambodia, Malaysia), or were violently put down (Myanmar), environmental justice movements have not developed to the same extent. Anti-logging protests by indigenous peoples in Malaysia (Brosius, 1999) and Cambodia (Bottomley, 2002) remained marginalised at the national scale. These challenges to authoritarian natural resource regimes coincided with wider transitions of neoliberal globalisation. For South-East Asian environments, this meant a new wave of commoditisation embedded within political regimes that emphasised a mix of privatisation, ‘good governance’, and ‘self-management’ (Li, 2007; Nevins & Peluso, 2008). New appropriations of nature, be it “aquarian capitalism” (Fougères, 2008) of aquaculture and live reef fisheries, national parks and conservation services (Hall, Hirsch, & Lee, 2011), bio-diversity and genetic information (Colchester, 1996), or ‘carbon stocks’ link different actors along the “friction of the commodity chain” (Tsing, 2005, p. 51). The new decentralised but globalised political ecologies that this creates “complicate conservation” (Dove, Sajise, & Doolittle, 2011), leading to pro- cesses that cannot be captured by a dichotomy between local and indigenous con- servation versus central, capitalist exploitation. Rather, shifting alliances create new politicised paradoxes of development and environment at different scales (Forsyth & Walker, 2008; McCarthy 2006, 2010). The papers in this special edition of the Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Stud- ies are located firmly within this recent phase of ambiguous transition. In a first set of articles on forest politics in Indonesia, Anu Lounela looks at how the pent-up so- cial anger at the injustices under Suharto led to peasant mobilisations and land occu- pations. She explains the sources of authority which a local Javanese leader draws on to challenge state policies on land and forests. Also on Java, Ahmad Maryudi shows how this kind of community resistance against state control over forests became ASEAS 5(2) 203202 co-opted and bureaucratised within a community forestry scheme. The forest user groups that were officially sanctioned by the state forest company Perhutani are a good example of the now dominant ‘self-management’ environmental governance re- gime. Cathrin Bullinger and Michaela Haug discuss the unintended consequences of the decentralisation policy in the Reformasi era. The combination of centralised tim- ber industry and localised concession-granting political power led to an upsurge in logging activities and to reassertion of centralised power by the Ministry of Forestry. The Ministries of Forestry of several South-East Asian countries are key players in a new commodity which is currently being produced within the global climate regime: carbon. The UN mechanism Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) aims to sell carbon stocks ‘saved’ by preventing deforestation on an emerging carbon market. In their interview with Prof. Rachmat Witoelar, the Indonesian President’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Executive Chair of the National Council on Climate Change, Till Plitschka and Irendra Radjawali explore why REDD is the key component of Indonesia’s climate change mitigation programme. In a second interview, Chris Lang from the website REDD Monitor explains some of the dangers of REDD. The production of a new and lucrative commodity could lead to powerful groups (state agencies, timber companies, carbon brokers, international NGOs) appropriating carbon stocks to the detriment of indigenous peoples and their use of forests. The kind of stakeholder alliance that has come to typify the new REDD socio-natural landscapes across the region – conservation NGOs, carbon trad- ing companies, and government agencies – also run the REDD project in Cambodia discussed by Donal Yeang. However, Donal Yeang argues that given the right condi- tions, REDD projects can be designed in such a way that supports local communities’ rights to land and forest resources. This kind of ‘sustainable rural development’, but in a very different context, is also the focus of Amalia Rossi’s article on the Royal Projects in Northern Thailand. She shows how projects that used to aim to integrate communist-leaning ethnic groups into the Thai cultural mainstream are now being recalibrated along King Bhumibol’s “sufficiency economy philosophy” to win over Thaksin-supporters to the royalist camp. Marina Wetzlmaier’s article on the impact of mining in the Philip- pines reminds us that neoliberal development does not only rely on fuzzy stakeholder self-management but also on old-fashioned violence. Mining was liberalised in the Philippines in the 1990s, but state support of foreign investment has led to conflicts Oliver Pye - Editorial: Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia ASEAS 5(2) 205204 between indigenous peoples and small-scale gold miners and to armed resistance against large-scale mining. The last group of articles looks at changing waterscapes from different perspec- tives. Erik Cohen’s auto-ethnography of the 2011 flood in Bangkok offers a very per- sonal insight into how the middle-class segment of the city reacted to the flood. The extent of the flooding was itself a highly politicised event and connected to previous modernist waterscape development in Thailand. This theme is taken up by Carl Mid- dleton who explores how Thailand’s energy sector has shifted its dam-building activi- ties to the Mekong region after social and environmentalist movements in Thailand successfully prevented the further expansion of dams nationally. He shows how a “transnational nexus” of Thai banks and engineering companies have financed and built dams in Laos and Myanmar, raising issues of trans-border environmental jus- tice. Finally, the photo essay by Martin Lukas, Julia, Irendra Radjawali, Michael Flitner and Oliver Pye on the Kapuas River in West Kalimantan visualises its “conflict-laden multi-functionality”. It points to the spatial dynamics inherent in the transformation of the social relations of nature across South-East Asia that connect the urban and the rural in new and diverse ways. References Aiken, S. R., & Leigh, C. H. (1992). Vanishing rain forests. The ecological transition in Malaysia. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Barr, C. M. (1998). Bob Hasan, the rise of Apkindo, and the shifting dynamics of control in Indonesia’s timber sector. Indonesia, 65, 1-36. Bottomley, R. (2002). Contested forests: An analysis of the highlander response to logging, Ratanakiri Province, Northeast Cambodia. Critical Asian Studies, 34(4), 587-606. Breman, J. (1990). Taming the coolie beast: Plantation society and the colonial order in Southeast Asia. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Broad, R. (1995). The political economy of natural resources: Case studies of the Indonesian and Philip- pine forest sectors. Journal of Developing Areas, 29(3), 317-340. Broad, R., & Cavanagh, J. (1993). Plundering paradise: The struggle for the environment in the Philippines. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Brocheux, P. (1995). The Mekong Delta: Ecology, economy and revolution, 1860-1960. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Bronson, B. (1977). Exchange and the upstream and downstream ends: Notes toward a functional model of the coastal state in Southeast Asia. In K. L. Hutterer (Ed.), Economic exchange and social interaction in South- east Asia: Perspectives from prehistory, history and ethnography (pp. 39-52). Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia No 13. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies. ASEAS 5(2) 205204 Brosius, P. J. (1999). Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest. American Anthropologist, New Series, 101(1), 36-57. Bryant, R. L. (1997). The political ecology of forestry in Burma 1824-1994. London, UK: C. Hurst. Butcher, J. B. (2004). The closing of the frontier: A history of the marine fisheries of Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Press. Cleary, M. (2005). Managing the forest in colonial Indochina c.1900-1940. Modern Asian Studies, 39(2), 257- 283. Colchester, M. (1996). Indigenous peoples’ responses to bioprospecting. In M. Bauman, J. Bell, F. Koechlin, & M. Pimbert (Eds.), The life industry. Biodiversity, people and profits (pp. 114-119). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications. Colchester, M., Jiwan, N., Andiko, Sirait, M., Firdaus, A. Y., Surambo, A., & Pane, H. (2006). Promised land: Palm oil and land acquisition in Indonesia. Implications for local communities and indigenous peoples. More- ton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme & Sawit Watch. Colombijn, F. (2006). Dried-up dragon’s blood and swarms of bees’ nest collectors. Non-timber forest products in Sumatra 1600-1870. In P. Boomgard, D. Henley, & M. Ossewijere (Eds.), Muddied waters. His- torical and contemporary perspectives on management of forests and fisheries in island Southeast Asia (pp. 259-278). Leiden, Netherlands: KITLV Press. Cooke, F. M. (1999). The challenge of sustainable forests. Forest resource policy in Malaysia. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Cribb, R. (1990). The Indonesian killings 1965-1966. Studies from Java and Bali. Victoria, Australia: Monash University. Dauvergne, P. (1997). Shadows in the forest. Japan and the politics of timber in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dove, M. R., Sajise, P. E., & Doolittle, A. A. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond the sacred forest. Complicating conservation in Southeast Asia. Durham and London, UK: Duke University Press. Dunn, F. L. (1975). Rainforest collectors and traders: A study of resource utilization in modern and ancient Malaya. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Fougères, D. (2008). Aquarian capitalism and transition in Indonesia. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM. Forsyth T., & Walker, A. (2008). Forest guardians, forest destroyers. The politics of environmental knowledge in Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. Gellert, P. K. (2005). Oligarchy in the timber markets of Indonesia. From APKINDO to IBRA to the future of the forests. In B. P. Resosudarmo (Ed.), The politics and economics of Indonesia’s natural resources (pp. 145-161). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Gordon, J. (1998). NGOs, the environment and political pluralism in New Order Indonesia. Explorations in Southeast Asian Studies, 2(2), 1-26. Görg, C. (1999). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. Münster, Germany: Westfälisches Damfboot. Hall, D., Hirsch, P., & Li, T. M. (2011). Powers of exclusion: Land dilemmas in Southeast Asia. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Hancock, G. (1997). Transmigration in Indonesia: How millions are uprooted. In M. Rahnema & V. Baw- tree (Eds.), The post-development reader (pp. 234-243). London, UK: ZED Books. Hirsch, P. (1993). Political economy of environment in Thailand. Manila, Philippines: Journal of Contempo- rary Asia Publishers. Oliver Pye - Editorial: Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia ASEAS 5(2) 207206 Kathirithamby-Wells, J. (2005). Nature and nation. Forests and development in peninsular Malaysia. Copen- hagen, Denmark: NIAS Press. Kiernan, B. (1989). The American bombardment of Kampuchea, 1969-1973. Vietnam Generation, 1(1), 4-41. Kiernan, B. (1996). The Pol Pot regime. Race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975- 79. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. Lang, C. (2002). The pulp invasion. The international pulp and paper industry in the Mekong region. Montevi- deo, Uruguay: World Rainforest Movement. Le Billon, P. (2000). The political ecology of transition in Cambodia 1989-1999: War, peace and forest ex- ploitation. Development and Change 31(4), 785-805. Le Billon, P. (2002). Logging in muddy waters. The politics of forest exploitation in Cambodia. Critical Asian Studies, 34(4), 563-586. Li, T. M. (2007). The will to improve. Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham, UK: Duke University Press. Lohmann, L. (1991). Peasants, plantations, and pulp: The politics of eucalyptus in Thailand. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 23, 1-18. Lucas, A. E., & Djati, A. W. (2007). The politics of environmental and water pollution in East Java. In P. Boomgaard (Ed.), A world of water: Rain, rivers and seas in Southeast Asia Histories (pp. 321-352). Leiden, Netherlands: KITLV. Marti, S. (2008): Losing ground. The human rights impacts of palm oil expansion plantation in Indonesia. Bo- gor, Indonesia: Friends of the Earth, LifeMosaic, & Sawit Watch. McCarthy, J. F. (2006). The fourth circle. A political ecology of Sumatra’s rainforest frontier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. McCarthy, J. F. (2010). Processes of inclusion and adverse incorporation: Oil palm and agrarian change in Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(4), 821-850. Missingham, B. D. (2003). The Assembly of the Poor in Thailand. From local struggles to national protest move- ment. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. Molle, F., Foran, T., & Käkönen, M. (Eds.). (2009). Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region. Hydropower, livelihoods and governance. London, UK: Earthscan. Nevins, J., & Peluso, N. L. (2008). Taking Southeast Asia to market. Commodities, nature, and people in the neoliberal age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Peluso, N. L. (1992). Rich forests, poor people: Resource control and resistance in Java. Berkeley, CA: Univer- sity of California Press. Peluso, N. L., Afif, S., & Rachman, N. F. (2008). Claiming the grounds for reform: Agrarian and environmen- tal movements in Indonsia. In S. M. Borras, M. Edelman, & C. Kay (Eds.), Transnational agrarian movements confronting globalization (pp. 91-121). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Potter, L. M. (1997). A forest product out of control. Gutta percha in Indonesia and the wider Malay world, 1845-1915. In P. Boomgaard, F. Colombijn, & D. Henley (Eds.), Paper landscapes. Explorations in the environ- mental history of Indonesia (pp. 281-308). Leiden, Netherlands: KITLV Press. Pye, O. (2005). Khor Jor Kor. Forest politics in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus. Reid, A. (1993). Southeast Asia in the age of commerce 1450-1680. Bangkok, Thailand: Silkworm Books. ASEAS 5(2) 207206 Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: Capitalism, nature and the production of space. Oxford, UK: Black- well. Sodhi, N. S., & Brooke, B. W. (2006). Southeast Asian biodiversity in crisis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stoler, A. L. (1995). Capitalism and confrontation in Sumatra’s plantation belt, 1870-1979. Michigan, MI: Uni- versity of Michigan Press. Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3), 443–465. Tagliacozzo, E. (2005). Onto the coasts and into the forests: Ramifications of the China trade on the eco- logical history of northwest Borneo, 900-1900 CE. In R. L. Wadley (Ed.), Histories of the Borneo environment (pp. 25-60). Leiden, Netherlands: KITLV Press. Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction. An ethnography of global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vandergeest, P. (1996). Mapping nature: Territorialization of forest rights in Thailand. Society and Natural Resources, 9(2), 159-175. Vandergeest, P., & Peluso, N. L. (1995). Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and Society, 24(3), 385-426. Westing, A. (1976). Ecological consequences of the Second Indochina War. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Oliver Pye - Editorial: Changing Socio-Natures in South-East Asia