To go or not to go?

Published 17 July 2008

Should you visit Burma? Not if you want to discover the harsh realities of life under the generals

In May 2002, with Aung San Suu Kyi temporarily released from house arrest, I was doing poetry workshops and readings in Mandalay and Rangoon. It was just before the monsoon, and the dawn air was like a sauna as I walked round the Golden Palace, destroyed by the Japanese and rebuilt with forced labour. Restored, it feels like an emptied concentration camp, aggressively regimented and dead: the way the junta would like to keep the whole country. Above is Mandalay Hill, from which, at dusk, the largest lit-up building you can see is Mandalay Correction Facility, the city's jail.

In Rangoon the monsoon broke. The swirling streets were ankle-deep. I talked to writers about how British poetry had been revived in the 1970s by translations from eastern European poets struggling with censorship - which Borges called "the mother of metaphor". They identified instantly. I wish I'd had more books with me. They have no access to other writing, and drew straws for the books I had to give.

I asked Suu Kyi what she thought of tourists coming to Burma. "Let the junta know tourism is waiting to happen the moment they change on human rights," she said. "But now tourists shouldn't come; they won't see the truth."

"No," said a writer friend. "Let tourists see for themselves." "No, she's right," said another. "What would they see?"

I agree. On the surface you see poverty but not the misery: forced labour, surveillance, writers tortured for "distributing information regarding repression to international press agencies and western diplomats" or "spreading information injurious to the state". Incessant power cuts illustrate the unseen truth. My friends got eight hours of electricity in 72. In hotels, the air-conditioning just switched to generator.

What tourists do see are "The People's Desires", painted on walls and prefacing all printed matter. "Oppose those relying on external elements, acting as stooges, holding negative views; oppose those trying to jeopardise stability of the State and progress of the Nation; oppose foreign nations interfering in internal affairs of the State; crush all internal and external destructive elements as the common enemy." Writers have to pay to print this on the front page of their books.

Conservation is another matter. Burma has the largest tiger reserve in the world. Whether conservation is a Canute-like operation against relentless Chinese exploitation of Burmese timber or not, western conservation agencies, like welfare groups, have to operate there - or the animals will disappear. For that, I would go again. Otherwise not.

Ruth Padel's "Tigers in Red Weather" is published by Abacus (£8.99)

Post this article to

5 comments from readers

enzreale
17 July 2008 at 12:25

Sorry, but I disagree with your point of view.

If there's a reason for not going to Burma is that tourism directly fills generals' pockets. But travelling through the country allows people (with some sense of reality) to know and understand quite well - even if only in surface - the harsh reality and the daily struggle of Burmese people. Burma is a wonderful and vilified country, a deep injury that you will always bring with you. Stay home won't help your understanding.

nawawimohamad
18 July 2008 at 11:32

The problems with Burma are because the generals do not want to conform to the west and it has no oil. In present scenario, even if Martians rule Burma (while killing and consuming the Burmese for nutrition) and conform to the west (the US in particular) and can produce vast amount of oil, everything would be fine.

R Noble
18 July 2008 at 13:44

The links between mass human rights abuses and the tourism industry in Burma have been well documented. This has included the displacement of over a million people under ‘beautification’ schemes near major tourist attractions, such as Bagan, and to make way for tourist developments, such as resorts and golf courses. The use of forced labour, including child labour, to develop tourism infrastructure in order to attract foreign investment is also well-documented.

Travelling to Burma without contributing to the military dictatorship – either economically with your money or ‘morally’ with your very presence – is virtually impossible. Visa fees, airport duties, currency exchange and domestic travel are unavoidable outlays for international tourists, and many hotels and businesses are owned by or pay money to the regime.

That such gross abuses of so many peoples’ rights should take place in the name of tourism is indefensible. In a country with no enemies, which spends half its annual budget on its military to exert war on its own people, displacing thousands of ethnic Karen families in the process – condemned as a crime against humanity by Amnesty International - any increase in revenue would not be a positive development for its civilian population.

It is for this reason that Tourism Concern has been asking tour operators and tourists to stay away until such a time as democracy has been restored. We have also been campaigning for BBC Worldwide, the majority shareholder of Lonely Planet, to withdraw its Burma guidebook. The tourism boycott is part of a broader strategy of economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts by the international community to exert pressure on the illegal military regime for democratic reform. Please sign our petition today by visiting www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Burma-Campaign-Action

While the concept of encouraging responsible travel in Burma is an attractive one, with tourists only using small privately run business and buying goods from locals, this is a very simplistic and idealistic view of international tourism. It is not possible to encourage one type of tourist to visit to Burma without also encouraging another inevitable set of travellers who have no qualms about whose pockets their dollars come to line.

Rachel Noble, Campaigns Officer, Tourism Concern

concord
19 July 2008 at 17:01

The whole policy of isolating Burma - whether though economic sanctions, tourism boycotts, or political moves -- is totally counterproductive and just prolongs the dictatorship. As long as Burma remains poor and isolated, it will remain easy to rule at the point of a gun. Better approach is to introduced the forces of modernization and liberalization, by developing the economy, increasing trade, and drawing the country into the international community, increase interaction with the world. Sanctions and boycotts have been in place for years -- with zero effect. Time for a new approach.

Douglas Chalmers
23 July 2008 at 01:48

If you are a Buddhist, you SHOULD visit Burma to discover the harsh realities of true service and self-sacrifice as shown by the Buddhist monks there following the real path taught by Buddha.

They suffered the brunt of military reprisals against their peaceful demonstrations. Far different from the idiotic rock-throwing, mob-inciting robed separatists who have the cheek to call themselves Buddhists in Tibet.

Burma thus lies at the heart of modern Buddhism. There is no doubt about that - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3h5x_2yuM

But there is another side to Burma/Myanmar which is the construction of a ridiculously unnecessary new capital city, Nay Pyi Daw, inland with investment from the pandering members of ASEAN - http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2007/01/naypyitaw-photo-alb...