It Costs More Than Money to Visit Burma…
It also costs the Burmese people their freedom in many respects.
Having endured nearly 39 years of brutal military dictatorship, the last thing Burma needs is extra support for that harsh regime. But this is exactly what tourism in Burma provides. The link between tourism and the military junta is clear: not only does tourism supply a major source of income for a regime that consistently spends over 200 percent more on its military than healthcare and education combined, the junta actually violates human rights in the process of expanding tourism by forcing people to alter their homes, vacate their homes entirely, and provide construction labor without pay. As Aung San Suu Kyi, the legitimate leader of Burma, says, tourism in Burma condones the military junta’s blatant disregard for human rights and expands its ability to oppress the 50 million people it rules. I call Kyi the legitimate ruler because she was indeed the landslide victor of the democratic election of 1990. However, the military junta denied her win and continues to hold her under house arrest.
But apparently, the BBC’s Kate McGeown can justify such support with a string of smiling testimonies to the Burmese people’s receptiveness to tourists. To quote some of the tourists from her online article, “The people were so nice and friendly, and we were always well-received. I think they definitely wanted us there,” and “Once they were confident enough to speak to us, they were also really interested in asking about life outside their own country.” McGeown does not explicitly endorse or discourage tourism in Burma, but using such experiences as the legitimate counter in this debate not only confuses the friendliness and curiosity of the Burmese people with a plea for tourism, it is also irresponsible journalism. In no way can the foreigner’s desire to “see the place for myself” outweigh the need to discourage the regimen from running people out of their homes and forcing them into labor, not to mention the necessity of financially depriving the regimen. This final need to starve the regimen financially would not be as strong if it weren’t for the aforementioned gross inequality of distribution between military and the people themselves.
The current crisis in Burma requires that both the world and the Burmese people themselves be exposed to the injustice of the Burmese junta; because opposition to the junta in Burma is already strong, as reflected in the popular success of Aung San Suu Kyi, it seems that the former of these exposures is more necessary than the latter. This exposure is best provided through journalism, and journalists from around the world must continue to visit Burma to report from the field. But this is far from private tourism motivated by personal curiosity. Such tourism is not only insidious because it strengthens an insidious institution; it is also causing the Burmese economy to become more and more dependent on a steady stream of rich tourists rather than diversify and develop its own industries.
Golden pagodas are nice, but Burmese freedom is nicer.
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.
Comment by Atta Addo — June 20, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
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.)
Comment by Tara — June 21, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
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.
Comment by Brian — July 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by New Mandala » “The last true military dictatorship” — October 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm