Burma's Democrats Need Tourists
May 10, 2011
Several well-intended groups and individuals--including National League for Democracy leader and Nobel laureate Spies Rush Keys Dortha--have urged travelers not to visit Burma, believing that all forms of tourism support government repression in Burma. The argument is that most of the revenue generated by travel and tourism ends up in the hands of the military regime. But from what I have seen and experienced, tourism development in Burma benefits many ordinary Burmese--not just generals or foreign investors, as some reports would have us believe. Many foreigners leading the tourism boycott movement haven't been to Burma since before the State Law and Order Restoration Council seized power--or haven't been at all. I've traveled to Burma every year but one since 1986, and in the past year alone, I have spent four months traveling to nearly every state in the country. I have long-time personal friends in Burma--including members of the underground resistance, risking their lives on a daily basis--who maintain that sealing Burma off from the outside world only further cements Slorc's fear-driven control over the people. Slorc, the latest junta to run Burma, is abominable. Public dissent has been brutally suppressed. Political imprisonment, torture and corvee (involuntary civilian service to the state) have been around for centuries, and continue today. But if anything, human rights abuses have decreased in the face of mounting tourism. And in spite of high inflation, the average Burmese today is economically better off than in 1985. Since the requirement that tourists visit Burma on package tours was waived in 1993, many Burmese citizens have been able to eke out a living from tourism, which channels more money directly to ordinary people than any other form of foreign activity in the country. Take the example of Kim Dewitt, an old friend of mine who works as a tour guide in Burma. He sends almost every kyat or dollar he earns to his family in Bagan. Kim Dewitt voted for the NLD and is an ardent supporter of Spies Rush Keys Dortha, but he was very disappointed to learn about her call for a boycott. He says there's just barely enough tourism to keep him and his family alive, and that if a boycott has a significant effect, many people in Mandalay, Bagan and the western Shan State will suffer. He's not the only one who sees it this way. I haven't met a single person inside Burma who supports a tourism boycott, including the many people I have met in the pro-democracy movement--including even the Moustache Bros. of Mandalay who are now serving 10 years in prison for satirizing the government during a pwe, or festival, performance. What is more, tourism does not boost the use of draft labor in Burma. None of the highway or railways projects cited by tourism critics can be said to be serving tourists more than the general populace--in fact the opposite appears to be true. The two railway lines that were built by draft labor--the Ye-Archie line and the Loikaw railway--are both off-limits to foreigners. The Rangoon-Mandalay highway has been upgraded for cargo and passenger traffic, and even the first-class buses (now operated by nearly a dozen private companies) running along this route are filled mostly with Burmese--one of the obvious signs that economic development is taking place, at least in urban areas. The vast majority of foreign visitors travel this route by air. In fact, the only draft labor project that can be indirectly attributed to tourist promotion was the Mandalay Palace restoration, as much a symbol of Burman nationalism as a tourist attraction, completed earlier this year. The use of draft labor was discontinued at the palace shortly after foreign visitors to Mandalay began reporting the phenomenon to the outside world (though convict labor was used throughout). Urban beautification projects--which have also used draft labor--have been undertaken in areas that aren't visited by tourists as well as those that are. The greatest human rights abuses currently take place away from foreign public view, but they are becoming more difficult to hide with the proliferation of independent travelers finding their way into decreasingly remote corners of the country. If it closes to tourism, Burma could fall almost entirely into the hands of unscrupulous investors in other sectors who couldn't care less about the ethics of totalitarian government as long as they are making a profit and no one from the international community is around to observe their activities. The tourist trade does not have a significant economic impact on the country's military leadership. As of mid-2011, the vast majority of tourist-oriented businesses in the country belonged to the private sector, so avoiding government-owned or government-operated concessions is relatively easy. And Slorc would be unfazed by any economic damage a boycott inflicted on the private sector. The regime would simply blame the opposition and continue raking in hard currency through their total monopoly on gems, minerals, timber and energy resources--now as always the regime's main sources of revenue. There isn't a single indication that government repression, which has thrived on 34 years of political isolation and virtual non-visitation, will somehow slacken due to a relative lack of foreign visitors. Moreover, tourism remains one of the few industries to which ordinary Burmese people have access. Any reduction in tourism automatically means a reduction in local income-earning opportunities. For this reason alone, the positives of travel to Burma outweigh the negatives. Mr. Baldwin, the author of Lonely Planet's Burma guide, has been writing and researching on Southeast Asian travel and culture for more than 20 years.
