2
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/harva5/public_html/blog/wp-includes/http.php:1) in /home/harva5/public_html/blog/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: It Costs More Than Money to Visit Burma… http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=77 Hard-hitting analysis from Harvard's pre-eminent journal on world affairs. Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:44:40 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: New Mandala » “The last true military dictatorship” http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=77&cpage=1#comment-6157 New Mandala » “The last true military dictatorship” Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:19:37 +0000 http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/?p=77#comment-6157 [...] In the third, and least satisfactory, part of the documentary, Williams attempts to build a case against the investment, trade and tourism activities that prop up the junta.  He includes film of the Unocal  and Total pipelines in southern Burma, and shows secret interviews filmed with the slave labourers who have built them.  One woman says: If we could kill them we would.  We have been feeling pain and we want to return it [the pain] to them. [...] [...] In the third, and least satisfactory, part of the documentary, Williams attempts to build a case against the investment, trade and tourism activities that prop up the junta.  He includes film of the Unocal  and Total pipelines in southern Burma, and shows secret interviews filmed with the slave labourers who have built them.  One woman says: If we could kill them we would.  We have been feeling pain and we want to return it [the pain] to them. [...]

]]> By: Brian http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=77&cpage=1#comment-1463 Brian Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:37:26 +0000 http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/?p=77#comment-1463 Yes, a tourism boycott would probably hurt the citizens of Burma but unfortunately, this may be some necessary hardship to change the balance of power there. Yes, a tourism boycott would probably hurt the citizens of Burma but unfortunately, this may be some necessary hardship to change the balance of power there.

]]> By: Tara http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=77&cpage=1#comment-842 Tara Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:52:13 +0000 http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/?p=77#comment-842 <i>It may be true that the junta spends 40% of its national budget on the military and a meagre 0.4% on health and education,but with less foreign capital inflows,that 0.4% will certainly be much less</i> That's not entirely logical. The junta has more than enough money to spend on healthcare - the influx of foreign capital will have little impact on how they choose to spend the money. They're just as likely to take your tourist dollars and spend it on a new car for the general or a nuclear reactor. It may be true that a tourist boycott will negatively impact civilians, but that is certianly not the reason why. Tourism is an easy market for the average person to participate in - acting as a guide, selling handicrafts, street snacks, bicycle taxis - a person could market themselves directly to the consumer and earn cash. I think there's room for ethical tourism in Burma, an all out boycott ignores the complexities of reality, the problem comes in how to promote ethical tourism. Because ultimately, there will be those people who won't contribute anything positive by going there, but who either think they can, or are just unaware of the issue. There will be many who could contribute, but being aware of the issue, choose not to go. This will leave a very small group of dedicated journalists or activists who actually will go, and make a positive contribution. I do think it's unfortunate that so many people use the "But they were so happy to see us, I think they really wanted tourists to visit!" rationale. At the same time, I think reflects more upon people's perceptions that the boycott represents an ideal shared by all Burmese opposing the government. There is some value in demonstrating that this isn't true. The problem is that no one ever moves past that assertion to presenting a more logical and holistic perspective of the issue, and that's what we really need. I do think we need to acknowledge that yes, in fact, there are Burmese people who are making a "plea for tourism". That does not negate the need to be aware of the negative impacts of tourism, that some Burmese may either not be aware of, or are choosing the benefits over the cost. Which in a country where survival can be so difficult, is certianly a legitimate position. Considering the degree to which Burma's neighbors rely on tourism, I think its safe to say that's not an economic issue that should be of immediate concern. With effective management otherwise, Burma's tourism industry would have significant room for growth. The immediate problem with it is the human rights abuses, and the destruction of cultural heritage through 'preservation' and rebuilding, and the way uncontrolled 'cultural' tourism effects the local economies in tourist areas. (not entirely different from what you said, Nathan, just on a smaller scale, I guess.) It may be true that the junta spends 40% of its national budget on the military and a meagre 0.4% on health and education,but with less foreign capital inflows,that 0.4% will certainly be much less

That’s not entirely logical. The junta has more than enough money to spend on healthcare – the influx of foreign capital will have little impact on how they choose to spend the money. They’re just as likely to take your tourist dollars and spend it on a new car for the general or a nuclear reactor. It may be true that a tourist boycott will negatively impact civilians, but that is certianly not the reason why. Tourism is an easy market for the average person to participate in – acting as a guide, selling handicrafts, street snacks, bicycle taxis – a person could market themselves directly to the consumer and earn cash. I think there’s room for ethical tourism in Burma, an all out boycott ignores the complexities of reality, the problem comes in how to promote ethical tourism. Because ultimately, there will be those people who won’t contribute anything positive by going there, but who either think they can, or are just unaware of the issue. There will be many who could contribute, but being aware of the issue, choose not to go. This will leave a very small group of dedicated journalists or activists who actually will go, and make a positive contribution.

I do think it’s unfortunate that so many people use the “But they were so happy to see us, I think they really wanted tourists to visit!” rationale. At the same time, I think reflects more upon people’s perceptions that the boycott represents an ideal shared by all Burmese opposing the government. There is some value in demonstrating that this isn’t true. The problem is that no one ever moves past that assertion to presenting a more logical and holistic perspective of the issue, and that’s what we really need. I do think we need to acknowledge that yes, in fact, there are Burmese people who are making a “plea for tourism”. That does not negate the need to be aware of the negative impacts of tourism, that some Burmese may either not be aware of, or are choosing the benefits over the cost. Which in a country where survival can be so difficult, is certianly a legitimate position.

Considering the degree to which Burma’s neighbors rely on tourism, I think its safe to say that’s not an economic issue that should be of immediate concern. With effective management otherwise, Burma’s tourism industry would have significant room for growth. The immediate problem with it is the human rights abuses, and the destruction of cultural heritage through ‘preservation’ and rebuilding, and the way uncontrolled ‘cultural’ tourism effects the local economies in tourist areas. (not entirely different from what you said, Nathan, just on a smaller scale, I guess.)

]]> By: Atta Addo http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=77&cpage=1#comment-785 Atta Addo Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:23:46 +0000 http://hir.harvard.edu/blog/?p=77#comment-785 It's a very good point that Nathan raises.The fact that much of the income from tourism ends up strengthening the Burmese military junta and most tourists do not view it that way or are completely ignorant of it. However, one problem I have always had with such boycotting strategies as Nathan seems to advocate is that while it may rightly hurt the ruling junta,such actions inadvertently hurt the civilian population even more.It may be true that the junta spends 40% of its national budget on the military and a meagre 0.4% on health and education,but with less foreign capital inflows,that 0.4% will certainly be much less.Coupled with the fact that the regime may source alternative funds from narcotics trafficking or illegal affiliations with western corporate entities,this approach to dealing with the problem becomes even more tricky and difficult.As for tourism stalling the diversification and industrial development of Burma,my guess is that it does not play such a big role,simply because both diversification and industrial development could have occured alongside tourism if the regime were committed to it. The Iraqi Oil-for-food program provides a good example of how civilians can be hurt by actions intended against rogue regimes.Although boycotting and sanctions may be useful,experience shows that the more specific they are the better.How this can be achieved should be a matter of serious concern to the international community especially the United States and other global leaders. It’s a very good point that Nathan raises.The fact that much of the income from tourism ends up strengthening the Burmese military junta and most tourists do not view it that way or are completely ignorant of it.
However, one problem I have always had with such boycotting strategies as Nathan seems to advocate is that while it may rightly hurt the ruling junta,such actions inadvertently hurt the civilian population even more.It may be true that the junta spends 40% of its national budget on the military and a meagre 0.4% on health and education,but with less foreign capital inflows,that 0.4% will certainly be much less.Coupled with the fact that the regime may source alternative funds from narcotics trafficking or illegal affiliations with western corporate entities,this approach to dealing with the problem becomes even more tricky and difficult.As for tourism stalling the diversification and industrial development of Burma,my guess is that it does not play such a big role,simply because both diversification and industrial development could have occured alongside tourism if the regime were committed to it.
The Iraqi Oil-for-food program provides a good example of how civilians can be hurt by actions intended against rogue regimes.Although boycotting and sanctions may be useful,experience shows that the more specific they are the better.How this can be achieved should be a matter of serious concern to the international community especially the United States and other global leaders.

]]>