The Golden Land of Natural Beauty, Ancient Heritage and Human Zoos
By Y. Jeffery
Tourism in one country is rarely such a
contentious issue. For Burma, its roots
lie in the fact that the tourist industry has such a sinister link to the ruling military junta. Since 1988, the country has gradually opened up to foreigners, starting with trades and industries which exploited Burma’s huge natural resources. However in 1996, the push was made for a major expansion of the tourist industry with the “Visit Myanmar Year” campaign. Though it’s not unusual for a country to promote tourism, the reasons behind Burma’s encouragement of it are horrifying because of what the junta invests the income from tourism in.
The junta spend nearly half the national budget on the military (the size of which has nearly doubled in the past 20 years), whilst less than US$0.50 is spent on health per person each year. Not only does the Burmese army have the largest number of child soldiers of any nation1 (over 70,000), but the army’s primary use is to gain control over the population, always in a brutal manner. The SPDC ploughs money into the military, and so into violent offensives against ethnic groups. A sense of unease surrounds the debate on whether tourists should visit Burma, which has now raged for years as people realise that visiting Burma means supporting these terrible actions.
In total, over US$1.1 billion have been invested in the Burmese tourist industry since 1988, and official figures state that the industry generates US$100 million per year2. In theory this should help to improve the Burmese economy, but in reality it is either ploughed into the military, or lines the pockets of generals and their friends. The Observer, a London-based newspaper, noted in an article that “according to western diplomats in the (now former) capital Rangoon, the military junta and their cronies are benefiting directly from tourism. A list of owners of the hotel plots…reads like a Who’s Who of generals and their cronies”. Corruption continues to this day. The SPDC itself admits to siphoning about 12 per cent3 of the income of private tourism services.
A place of great natural beauty, Burma’s vast teak wood forests, complete with endangered species such as the jewel-thrush; a rich cultural heritage and pristine beaches are an immediate attraction to tourists seeking an alternative to other Asian countries which are relatively “spoiled”. As Burma was a closed country following the first military coup in 1962, its infrastructure was not capable of coping with the hundreds of thousands of tourists they expected (though didn’t show4), let alone coping with industries such as mining and logging. To the junta the answer was simple: forced labour. Thousands of men, women and children have endured beatings and abuse whilst being forced to construct roads, railways and airports for tourist use5. The US State Department and the International Labour Organisation6 have both confirmed that the Burmese army uses forced labour to “prepare…for expected tourist arrival”7.
However, for many Burmese people the effects of tourism upon their lives runs much deeper. More than 1 million people have been forced out of their homes in order to “beautify” cities and make room for commercial hotels and tourist attractions. For example in Pagan alone 5,000 people were given 10 hours’ notice to pack their belongings and be “relocated” to an undeveloped area to make room for tourist attractions, with “little compensation for the destruction of their homes”8. In some instances, members of Burma’s diverse ethnic communities have been forced to live in tourist centres and perform traditional activities for tourists – for all intent and purposes, a human zoo. The Salons, “sea gypsies” who traditionally live on boats in the Mergui Archipelago, southern Burma, were not just rounded up by soldiers and forced to live on land, but were also made to perform traditional dances in a “Salon Festival” for the amusement of tourists. More recently it’s emerged that the Padaung tribe, whose women elongate their necks with rings, are to be taken back from Thailand (where they have refugee status), to be used as another tourist attraction9. It is hard to imagine this as anything other than an appalling violation of human rights.
So how can tourists decide whether or not they should travel to Burma? In light of the knowledge of the human rights violations, a conscientious traveller must consider the impact their visit will have on Burma. The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) see every tourist entering Burma as a vote of support for their rule. In addition to this, it is impossible not to give monetary support to the regime - even so-called privately run businesses must go through the SPDC to obtain and retain their licences.
Though only a small number of people have first-hand experience of Burma, it can be useful to look at the accounts of those who have been there. Take, for example, Kate McGeown, a BBC journalist who travelled to Burma specifically to see what the situation was like inside10. She reported that people seemed “genuinely happy to see me during my trip” and that many people thanked her for coming, a remark which was “repeated throughout” her visit. Reports like this suggest that ordinary Burmese people welcome travellers, and that they feel supported, not forgotten, by the international community during their visits. By using private businesses for accommodation and transport and by avoiding package tours, a traveller in Burma can try to minimise the monetary support they give the SPDC.
Some argue that another benefit is that they can talk to the local people, and so can bring information out of the country as well as giving the Burmese information about the outside world because the Burmese media is heavily censored, and is ranked 164th out of 168 in the World Press Freedom Index 200611, which is compiled annually by Reporters sans Fronticres as a report on how free the media in a country is. It is debatable how strong this argument is, as organisations such as Burma Campaign UK have alleged that Burmese people who are suspected of talking to foreigners, especially about politics, are subject to torture and imprisonment because of it12.
Guy Horton, a human rights researcher, conducted five years of undercover research in Burma. He found “widespread, systematic destruction…traumatised, weak, psychologically numb people attempting to survive” in conditions where their “homes, food, implements and animals” had been destroyed13. To travel to Burma is to further support these terrible actions of the SPDC, however unintentionally. There have been reports of travellers being watched by the military intelligence and not being allowed to change their travel plans once in Burma. Others have spoken of their “shock and sorrow” on seeing the terrible consequences of the army’s actions during a visit to Burma.
Some take their lead from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (as the democratically-elected leader of Burma) and support a complete boycott, as she said “Burma will be here for many years...visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime”. Currently, organisations such as Burma Campaign UK are running campaigns to boycott tourism in Burma, and actively encourage people to join them. APHEDA (Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad) have organised a boycott of “Lonely Planet” guidebooks because they believe that by printing a guide to Burma, Lonely Planet are encouraging travellers to visit Burma without thinking about the situation there. However, the Burma guide does include a section which encourages people to think about whether or not it is right to go.
Despite the attempted boycotts in Britain, however, when the World Travel Market takes place in London in November this year, the Myanmar Tourism Promotion Board will be running a stand alongside six Burmese travel companies offering “expeditions for unique experiences and the ultimate adventure of a lifetime” in a package they label “Eastern Safaris”14. Others insist that a total boycott will only harm those whose livelihoods depend upon it, and that the benefits of visiting the Burmese people and doing what we can to help them whilst we are there is worth the visit because human rights abuses are “less likely to take place in areas where international visitors are present”15. Yet the Burmese army imposes huge travel restrictions on travel within Burma, and visitors simply cannot go to the afflicted areas.
Undeniably though, the human cost of the development of tourism in Burma so far has been terrible. To travel with a completely clean conscience is not possible; however unwillingly a visitor in Burma supports the junta. Ultimately, a traveller must decide whether what they might able to give the Burmese people in a visit to Burma, or what they can gain personally from a visit, is worth the human cost and support they give the regime if they visit Burma.
Endnotes:
The Burma Campaign UK website October 2006
Travel Video Television News website 11thOctober 2006
“Myanmar (Burma)”, Lonely Planet, 2005
BurmaNet News, October 2006
Ibid
BBC News website October 2006.
US State Department website October 2006.
Ibid
ITV website October 2006
“Burma: Orwellian state, with teashops”, BBC,
Reporters sans Frontières, Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006
Ibid
“Burma’s generals must be brought to account”, Guy Horton, Burma Campaign News Winter 2005
“London Promotes ‘Eastern Safaris’ in Burma”, William Boot,”, The Irrawaddy,
Ibid
To go to the other articles published in the October 2006 BI Newsletter click on the links below:
