Upland Geopolitics: Postwar Laos and the Global Land Rush

In his recently published book Upland Geopolitics, Mike Dwyer defies simplistic understandings of the global land rush as the result of a gap in local governance that savvy investors exploit. He convincingly argues that the patterns and dynamics of land grabbing in the Global South are complex and must be understood through an in-depth analysis of the intersection of investment dynamics, intrastate politics, and historical pathways. Ultimately, he shows how land is not inherently ready for investment but is made “socially available” to investors by disarming alternative land claims.Based upon in-depth, ethnographic research supplemented by follow-up visits, Dwyer explains these patterns of land investment with an impressive degree of empirical depth and rigor. After introducing the political-economic dynamics of road development and rubber enclosure in northwestern Laos, he takes the reader on a historical tour to trace the events and processes that shaped the contemporary geopolitics of the Lao uplands. In particular, this is a history of tensions between national integration and fragmentation. The French sought to integrate the protectorate with its other Indochinese territories during the colonial period. In contrast, during the Cold War, the United States worked to keep the uplands fragmented in order to mobilize ethnic minorities as guerrilla fighters against the communists. After the war, the socialist government engaged in “population management” through resettlement programs and land zoning to bring the uplands within their control. In a chapter on contemporary developments, he shows how the current era of turning “battlefields into marketplaces” is one in which investment becomes a tool that the state uses to manage upland groups. This history resonates with continuing attempts to integrate the country with infrastructural development, such as in the recent completion of the Laos-China Railway.The great value of this book is that it compels the reader to question many of their assumptions about the political economy of development in the Global South. It is too easy to rely upon common explanations about the drivers of investment and enclosure, such as that China and Chinese companies overpower the Lao government to acquire land easily, or that the Lao government is highly centralized and thus land projects result from ministerial-level decisions implemented by local government offices. The book exposes how such analyses misunderstand the complexity of history and politics surrounding land deals.One of the most insightful findings of the book is how political events from several decades ago still impinge upon how contemporary land allocation decisions are made. In straightforward terms, villages that were allied with the United States during the Second Indochina War have been treated as if they need government development schemes, such as rubber contracting arrangements that turn out to be highly exploitative. In contrast, other villages that were allies of the current government have been treated favorably, including by allowing them to engage in contracts with rubber companies on their own terms. Dwyer shows that while the political allegiances of the war did not directly determine governmental decision-making, they did play a role in shaping which local communities were seen as needing state-guided development and which ones could pursue more autonomous development.The insights of Upland Geopolitics shed light on a region of Laos that I am quite familiar with, having grown up in a neighboring province and conducted my dissertation fieldwork there in 2022. Reflecting on my experiences and knowledge, several questions came to mind while reading the book that would be interesting for the author to explore. One concerns the impact and trajectory of historical processes on the present. While the political history of the region, especially during and immediately after the war, has undoubtedly affected the treatment of different groups, by which mechanisms did this occur? How important are these histories for the local officials who make decisions about land allocation? Are they aware of their political past or are they acting in relation to the conditions of those groups in the present, which were, of course, inherited from the past? Yet another question concerns whether these political dynamics apply to land deals across the whole country. In other words, is political allegiance always a crucial factor in shaping the patterns of enclosure?Finally, the explanations provided prompt questions about the relationships between villagers and local government officials that are not related to history. I wondered whether villages that were on the other side of the war, allied with the United States, ever developed close links and gained favor with local government, and whether villages on the “right side” of the war, allied with the socialist government, ever lost favor with the local government, perhaps in relation to conflicts over extractive development. More generally, what agency do villages have to shape the outcomes of land and plantation investments? Their political responses and reactions to these projects must have played a role in their development. Of course, not all of these questions fall neatly within the scope of this book project, but they are worthy of further discussion and investigation.In sum, this book is an exemplary and insightful investigation of the political dynamics shaping the patterns of land enclosure in northwestern Laos, what Dwyer has aptly termed “upland geopolitics.” The uplands are often approached as sites of ethnic diversity, underdevelopment, resource extraction, and rapid livelihood change. Dwyer advances another, crucial way of thinking about the uplands—in terms of their complex and critically important land and resource politics. This geopolitically minded approach is essential for the next generation of scholars and activists seeking to understand and influence the trajectory of Southeast Asian uplands.