The ethics of choosing to visit a repressive country like Myanmar
Mar 19th, 2017, 08:21 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ethics of choosing to visit a repressive country like Myanmar
I posted this over in the lounge but then realized that many people will not have access to the lounge. So, I've decided to post this general question here as well since Myanmar is the example I used.
I am torn, especially since the trip to Myanmar we just took. We really liked Myanmar and loved connecting with people whose lives have been difficult and who are now earning a living off the tourist economy. But, we were also conflicted (before, during and after our trip) because, even though we tried when possible to do otherwise, a portion of our money definitely also went to the "former" leaders of the country who control so many things and financially benefit from guests in the country. And, there are very significant human rights abuses occurring as the Rohingya minority are persecuted in Myanmar. Now, I also just read an article about horrible abuses in the jade mining industry. http://time.com/battling-for-blood-jade/
Obviously, this is but one example of a country where would-be travelers might have to think more than once about supporting the country through a tourist visit. What are your thoughts? Sustainable tourism (the type we try to engage in) does help the average guy and a lot of people now have jobs precisely because people like us choose to visit. But, visiting a country like this can also give the impression that the visitor does not care about repression, dictatorships, financial gain by the wealthy and powerful. And, those powerful people do gain financially.
I am torn, especially since the trip to Myanmar we just took. We really liked Myanmar and loved connecting with people whose lives have been difficult and who are now earning a living off the tourist economy. But, we were also conflicted (before, during and after our trip) because, even though we tried when possible to do otherwise, a portion of our money definitely also went to the "former" leaders of the country who control so many things and financially benefit from guests in the country. And, there are very significant human rights abuses occurring as the Rohingya minority are persecuted in Myanmar. Now, I also just read an article about horrible abuses in the jade mining industry. http://time.com/battling-for-blood-jade/
Obviously, this is but one example of a country where would-be travelers might have to think more than once about supporting the country through a tourist visit. What are your thoughts? Sustainable tourism (the type we try to engage in) does help the average guy and a lot of people now have jobs precisely because people like us choose to visit. But, visiting a country like this can also give the impression that the visitor does not care about repression, dictatorships, financial gain by the wealthy and powerful. And, those powerful people do gain financially.
Mar 19th, 2017, 08:38 AM
#2
"...visiting a country like this can also give the impression that the visitor does not care about repression..."
I disagree. We help the people by being witnesses, as useful I think in the area of human rights as money. Oppression continues unopposed, for instance, in the obvious example of North Korea where travel in any numbers by outsiders isn't permitted.
To thrive and to combat oppression the people of any country need support to make a living for their families and they need eyes on the ground. We can give them both. Don't "think more than once", just go. If we go there the people will know we care. If we don't, just how does that support them?
I disagree. We help the people by being witnesses, as useful I think in the area of human rights as money. Oppression continues unopposed, for instance, in the obvious example of North Korea where travel in any numbers by outsiders isn't permitted.
To thrive and to combat oppression the people of any country need support to make a living for their families and they need eyes on the ground. We can give them both. Don't "think more than once", just go. If we go there the people will know we care. If we don't, just how does that support them?
Mar 19th, 2017, 09:45 AM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I debated long and hard about visiting Myanmar before our first trip in 2009. Indeed, I'd booked a trip (but not yet paid for it) when ASSK asked that people not visit, back around the turn of the millennium.
I have kept up with the issues in Burma since then, and there are plenty of books one can read that give lots of things to think about. For a long-term historical perspective, try River of Lost Footsteps by Thant Myint-U.
The abuses in jade mining have been long known, take a look at The Stone of Heaven: Unearthing the Secret History of Imperial Green Jade by Adrian Levy. There are similar abuses in the run mining, bur i haven't seen any books on it.
For personal accounts of the impact of the junta on the people, I find memoirs the most affecting. A couple I really appreciated were Twilight over Burma: My Life as a Shan Princess by Inge Sargent and In the Land of the Green Ghosts by Pascal Khoo Thwe.
In the years since our first trip, I have seen some changes - some foe the better, some for the worse. Better: people are able to earn a living in support of tourism (drivers, guides, selling crafts, etc) and some for the worse: sites are more crowded, and some places are in danger of being irreparably damaged.
Back early on when one could go to Myanmar, one had to purchase FECs to pay for things in the country and each person was required to exchange $200 for FECs. That money pretty much lined the pockets of the generals. At that time most of the hotels were owned by the generals and their cronies. Now, there are plenty of places owned by locals. Indeed, the old junta-owned places are rarer now (and many look pretty run down). I have had long talks with locals, like the woman who owns the Inle Lake View. She was in the cohort of people who were ready to start university when the junta closed down all of the universities and mandated that they decentralize and locate in small towns, depriving the students of the ability to socialize with their peers (and thereby stir up trouble in the eye of the generals). It also removed students from educational resources like libraries and lecturers. Many university professors and lecturers left the country at that point. Many people in this cohort went to prison, not just ASSK, but many, many other activists. For instance, the man who owns the Inle Princess (and the Mrauk U Princess) was one of those people.
I also had long discussions with people who fled the country after the demonstrations and arrests. One man who went to Korea for a decade said that when he returned all of his old friends were "gone" - dead or still in prison.
There is no simple answer to this question. But after three trips to Burma/Myanmar, I feel like I have been able to do more good than harm. By traveling independently, I can choose where to spend my money. One of the things ASSK said was that those who go to Myanmar on group tours are the ones whose money goes to the generals.
One can travel responsibly in Burma - yes, it take more effort and research bit it certainly can be done.
I have kept up with the issues in Burma since then, and there are plenty of books one can read that give lots of things to think about. For a long-term historical perspective, try River of Lost Footsteps by Thant Myint-U.
The abuses in jade mining have been long known, take a look at The Stone of Heaven: Unearthing the Secret History of Imperial Green Jade by Adrian Levy. There are similar abuses in the run mining, bur i haven't seen any books on it.
For personal accounts of the impact of the junta on the people, I find memoirs the most affecting. A couple I really appreciated were Twilight over Burma: My Life as a Shan Princess by Inge Sargent and In the Land of the Green Ghosts by Pascal Khoo Thwe.
In the years since our first trip, I have seen some changes - some foe the better, some for the worse. Better: people are able to earn a living in support of tourism (drivers, guides, selling crafts, etc) and some for the worse: sites are more crowded, and some places are in danger of being irreparably damaged.
Back early on when one could go to Myanmar, one had to purchase FECs to pay for things in the country and each person was required to exchange $200 for FECs. That money pretty much lined the pockets of the generals. At that time most of the hotels were owned by the generals and their cronies. Now, there are plenty of places owned by locals. Indeed, the old junta-owned places are rarer now (and many look pretty run down). I have had long talks with locals, like the woman who owns the Inle Lake View. She was in the cohort of people who were ready to start university when the junta closed down all of the universities and mandated that they decentralize and locate in small towns, depriving the students of the ability to socialize with their peers (and thereby stir up trouble in the eye of the generals). It also removed students from educational resources like libraries and lecturers. Many university professors and lecturers left the country at that point. Many people in this cohort went to prison, not just ASSK, but many, many other activists. For instance, the man who owns the Inle Princess (and the Mrauk U Princess) was one of those people.
I also had long discussions with people who fled the country after the demonstrations and arrests. One man who went to Korea for a decade said that when he returned all of his old friends were "gone" - dead or still in prison.
There is no simple answer to this question. But after three trips to Burma/Myanmar, I feel like I have been able to do more good than harm. By traveling independently, I can choose where to spend my money. One of the things ASSK said was that those who go to Myanmar on group tours are the ones whose money goes to the generals.
One can travel responsibly in Burma - yes, it take more effort and research bit it certainly can be done.
Mar 19th, 2017, 02:24 PM
#6
My feeling is that a country exists both in conjunction with and separately from it's government. *Especially* when that government was not freely elected.
I do understand the feeling that to bring economic support into the country may be one way to help support such a government. But the flip side of that is that by withholding such support, you may somehow starve them out. This is where logic breaks down for me. In even the worst case, most economically unequal societies, any hardships will most certainly fall on the lowest ranks first and hardest. The powers that be remain comfortable. And as much as some may believe this deepening of economic despair will in turn be the only thing that forces motivation for change, I don't feel it usually works that way.
Seems more likely to me that through interaction with the outside world and as importantly for immediate concern, by being able to stay healthy, feed their families and so on. Perhaps people will see that they're not alone and forgotten. Solidarity had an awful lot to do with the fall of the east not so long ago.
I do understand the feeling that to bring economic support into the country may be one way to help support such a government. But the flip side of that is that by withholding such support, you may somehow starve them out. This is where logic breaks down for me. In even the worst case, most economically unequal societies, any hardships will most certainly fall on the lowest ranks first and hardest. The powers that be remain comfortable. And as much as some may believe this deepening of economic despair will in turn be the only thing that forces motivation for change, I don't feel it usually works that way.
Seems more likely to me that through interaction with the outside world and as importantly for immediate concern, by being able to stay healthy, feed their families and so on. Perhaps people will see that they're not alone and forgotten. Solidarity had an awful lot to do with the fall of the east not so long ago.
Mar 19th, 2017, 02:57 PM
#7
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great points made in all above replies--even the briefest.
Any and every place has issues. Name a country where you feel it's "ethical" to travel, JulieS, and I guarantee, with a modicum of research, you'll find--if you really want to--some issue(s) which will cause you to question going.
Can you please define "sustainable"--tourism or anything else? It's IMHO become one of those overused catch-phrase marketing terms like "authentic" which should be permanently banned from travel talk. Then maybe we can all get over the "I'm a more 'authentic' or 'ethical' or 'sustainable' traveler than thou" mindset.
Any and every place has issues. Name a country where you feel it's "ethical" to travel, JulieS, and I guarantee, with a modicum of research, you'll find--if you really want to--some issue(s) which will cause you to question going.
Can you please define "sustainable"--tourism or anything else? It's IMHO become one of those overused catch-phrase marketing terms like "authentic" which should be permanently banned from travel talk. Then maybe we can all get over the "I'm a more 'authentic' or 'ethical' or 'sustainable' traveler than thou" mindset.
Mar 19th, 2017, 06:20 PM
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughtful replies from all of you. Thank you.
As I said, I am conflicted realizing that if I go I help support local entrepreneurs prosper and people on the more bottom rung of the financial ladder who are relying on tourism for income. Should they be punished by tourists who choose to skip visits to their country in order to make a point about the overall repressive structure their leaders have enforced/imposed when they have already suffered a lot under the regime? Yet, as tourism starts to increase in a country like this and becomes a rolling snowball, does it then start to erase or cover up the fact there are still huge issues?
Kathie--Thanks for the list of resources. Obviously you know much more about the background than I do. Travel is valuable in that (for my husband and me anyway) we tend to pay much more attention to the news coming out of places we have visited, and I will read more extensively about places I have been because it is easier to make the connections. I'll admit I knew nothing about the jade mining problems.
I'll admit that it was jarring during our trip when the issue of the Rohingya came up, and when we talked about it with Burmese, there was a somewhat tacit agreement among the different people we talked with that this was okay. Many ended up just commenting that it was complicated. I believe ASSK herself has kind of closed her eyes to this. We tiptoed lightly around the subject and didn't push discussions of it at all.
Yes, everywhere has problems but some countries more than others.
In my definition sustainable tourism refers to going directly to the source when traveling to a country so local people there will get the most money from my visit. That means not taking large group tours that have layers and layers of middlemen, directly contacting (when possible) agencies/hotels/arrangers, staying in small locally owned lodging rather than large corporate or international chains (and, yes, I do realize that these places provide jobs to lots of people so they can be justified in that way), patronizing small ma and pa restaurants etc.
I guess if wanting to align my values with where I choose to visit and spend my money is pc, then put me in that category.
As I said, I am conflicted realizing that if I go I help support local entrepreneurs prosper and people on the more bottom rung of the financial ladder who are relying on tourism for income. Should they be punished by tourists who choose to skip visits to their country in order to make a point about the overall repressive structure their leaders have enforced/imposed when they have already suffered a lot under the regime? Yet, as tourism starts to increase in a country like this and becomes a rolling snowball, does it then start to erase or cover up the fact there are still huge issues?
Kathie--Thanks for the list of resources. Obviously you know much more about the background than I do. Travel is valuable in that (for my husband and me anyway) we tend to pay much more attention to the news coming out of places we have visited, and I will read more extensively about places I have been because it is easier to make the connections. I'll admit I knew nothing about the jade mining problems.
I'll admit that it was jarring during our trip when the issue of the Rohingya came up, and when we talked about it with Burmese, there was a somewhat tacit agreement among the different people we talked with that this was okay. Many ended up just commenting that it was complicated. I believe ASSK herself has kind of closed her eyes to this. We tiptoed lightly around the subject and didn't push discussions of it at all.
Yes, everywhere has problems but some countries more than others.
In my definition sustainable tourism refers to going directly to the source when traveling to a country so local people there will get the most money from my visit. That means not taking large group tours that have layers and layers of middlemen, directly contacting (when possible) agencies/hotels/arrangers, staying in small locally owned lodging rather than large corporate or international chains (and, yes, I do realize that these places provide jobs to lots of people so they can be justified in that way), patronizing small ma and pa restaurants etc.
I guess if wanting to align my values with where I choose to visit and spend my money is pc, then put me in that category.
Mar 20th, 2017, 04:46 AM
#9
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very nice topic Julies and nice reply by you as well. I get it. Try to be in a situation where your tourist money goes as much as possible to those who need it the most and not to support repressive political and governmental parties. As Kathie said this can be done with some research.
If we ever make it there I am with you. Do local tours that help those who need the money the most, i.e. for sustaining their lives.
Thank you.
Larry..
If we ever make it there I am with you. Do local tours that help those who need the money the most, i.e. for sustaining their lives.
Thank you.
Larry.
.
Mar 20th, 2017, 07:54 AM
#10
"Try to be in a situation where your tourist money goes as much as possible to those who need it the most..."
I'd think this would apply without fanfare everywhere we go, no repressive regime required to put it into practice. Or maybe that modus operandi is insufficiently political?
I'd think this would apply without fanfare everywhere we go, no repressive regime required to put it into practice. Or maybe that modus operandi is insufficiently political?
Mar 20th, 2017, 08:55 AM
#11
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That makes about as much sense as your comment about the effects of valium:
"Suze is absolutely correct. Diazapam doesn't make you groggy, even at the height of its effect. At any time you (I) can wake up completely alert. No after effects whatever and why it's so good on the move."
"Suze is absolutely correct. Diazapam doesn't make you groggy, even at the height of its effect. At any time you (I) can wake up completely alert. No after effects whatever and why it's so good on the move."
Mar 20th, 2017, 09:06 AM
#12
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the sentiment behind your definition of sustainable tourism is admirable julies, yours is really a definition of ethical, not sustainable travel.
The definition of sustainability i.e. "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level" is arguably going to be better served by those "international chains" etc. who are prepared to invest massive amounts of money not only in building the hotels etc. themselves but also the infrastructure necessary to support those hotels as well as providing long term, direct and indirect employement. Of course this begs the question as to how many government palms they have to grease to get their projects off the ground! But that is the way in many parts of the world, not just Myanmar
There is of course, a place for both approaches. I tend to stay in smaller, family owned places whenever I can, but I don't kid myself that this is purely for ethical reasons, I actually prefer these types of places!
Of course, the downside of increasing tourism is that it does actually increase the social and economic divide between those involved in the tourism industry and those who are not.
Please, nobody start discussing tipping
The definition of sustainability i.e. "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level" is arguably going to be better served by those "international chains" etc. who are prepared to invest massive amounts of money not only in building the hotels etc. themselves but also the infrastructure necessary to support those hotels as well as providing long term, direct and indirect employement. Of course this begs the question as to how many government palms they have to grease to get their projects off the ground! But that is the way in many parts of the world, not just Myanmar
There is of course, a place for both approaches. I tend to stay in smaller, family owned places whenever I can, but I don't kid myself that this is purely for ethical reasons, I actually prefer these types of places!
Of course, the downside of increasing tourism is that it does actually increase the social and economic divide between those involved in the tourism industry and those who are not.
Please, nobody start discussing tipping
Mar 20th, 2017, 09:15 AM
#13
My, my, that took some commitment. But in both cases, true for me. I can only say what's true for me. So sorry if that's unacceptable to you, jacketwatch. I think I'd find that position exhausting.
Mar 20th, 2017, 09:26 AM
#15
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway back on topic Crellston makes some good points. If you get "big money" like from intl. hotel chains for infrastructure yes palms are greased and the govt. gets its share to be sure but then tourist work increases too.
There was a great series about Myanmar on the Smithsonian channel approx. 5-6 mos. ago and its history is rich and fascinating. It piques ones interest in going to be sure.
Again if we do and I hope that day comes we would go local as much as possible. We too like it that way.
There was a great series about Myanmar on the Smithsonian channel approx. 5-6 mos. ago and its history is rich and fascinating. It piques ones interest in going to be sure.
Again if we do and I hope that day comes we would go local as much as possible. We too like it that way.
Mar 20th, 2017, 02:25 PM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say we too much prefer the smaller local places so this is not completely altruistic on my part when we make choices like that.
Larry--If you ever do make it to Myanmar, be sure to make it to this place. It is exactly the type of project my husband and I want to support and is a marvelous place to stay away from the more mainstream.
http://www.inlesanctuary.com/
Larry--If you ever do make it to Myanmar, be sure to make it to this place. It is exactly the type of project my husband and I want to support and is a marvelous place to stay away from the more mainstream.
http://www.inlesanctuary.com/
Mar 20th, 2017, 04:43 PM
#18
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i> but also the infrastructure necessary to support those hotels as well as providing long term, direct and indirect employement. </i>
Crellston what you have suggested is most interesting, I'd like to learn more. Would even a major hotel chain have the wherewithal to have much of an impact on infrastructure? I'm thinking of places seriously underserved by electricity, for example, or sewage, or clean water. Are you thinking perhaps of a hotel's having its own water purification system, perhaps, or a generator?
Crellston what you have suggested is most interesting, I'd like to learn more. Would even a major hotel chain have the wherewithal to have much of an impact on infrastructure? I'm thinking of places seriously underserved by electricity, for example, or sewage, or clean water. Are you thinking perhaps of a hotel's having its own water purification system, perhaps, or a generator?
Mar 21st, 2017, 11:35 AM
#19
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue, I doubt that a major hotel chain would be opening in places underserved by major utilities, at least in the early stages, so the "local" effect would perhaps be minimal (and no, I wasn't thinking of hotels having their own generators etc.) However, it is often the case, and not just in developing countries, that where major building projects are undertaken, companies are required to meet at least part of the cost of installing/improving the infrastructure necessary to support their new ventures. This would hopefully have a positive effect on the local communities.Whether this happens in Myanmar, I don't know. I would certainly hope so.
My comments were based in part on research I did some years ago as part of my prep for a volunteer project in Africa. Such inward investment into a country can bring a huge economic benefits to a country, particularly in the early years. The long term social implications of what is effectively globalisation, are an entirely different matter as is the amount of such "investment" that finds its way into the pockets of government official.
My comments were based in part on research I did some years ago as part of my prep for a volunteer project in Africa. Such inward investment into a country can bring a huge economic benefits to a country, particularly in the early years. The long term social implications of what is effectively globalisation, are an entirely different matter as is the amount of such "investment" that finds its way into the pockets of government official.
