Burma - Aung San Suu Kyi "arrested"
May 13th, 2009, 10:20 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burma - Aung San Suu Kyi "arrested"
Reports are coming out that the Burmese leader has been arrested for breaching the terms of her house arrest. She was due to be released at the end of teh month but now faces aprison sentence. Apparently, an American swam across the lake to her home and spent some time in her house before swimming back.
Surely now is the time to stop visiting this country , at least until this corrupt, oppressive and violent dictatorship is removed.
Surely now is the time to stop visiting this country , at least until this corrupt, oppressive and violent dictatorship is removed.
May 14th, 2009, 02:17 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though I live in Thailand I did not fully understand or appreciate the Burmese, their culture and their country until I had visited. It's a shame what is happening now but it could outlast one's lifetime if you were to wait for the ideal western style democracy to happen in Myanmar.
To see Myanmar now is to see a relatively virgin South East Asian nation post colonialization and pre democratic independence. You will not have another chance to visit a country before the onslaught of the McDonald's, KFC, Starbucks, Levis, Nike, and the other multinational corporations of the world.
To see Myanmar now is to see a relatively virgin South East Asian nation post colonialization and pre democratic independence. You will not have another chance to visit a country before the onslaught of the McDonald's, KFC, Starbucks, Levis, Nike, and the other multinational corporations of the world.
May 14th, 2009, 03:15 AM
#4
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the politicians take care of the politics.
Tourist must draw a line.
I had seen tourist busted in Myanmar for distributing political flyers.
Most said the flyers were sent to them by someone they met on blog site like this.
Don't criticize the king in Thailand unless you want trouble.
Tourist must draw a line.
I had seen tourist busted in Myanmar for distributing political flyers.
Most said the flyers were sent to them by someone they met on blog site like this.
Don't criticize the king in Thailand unless you want trouble.
May 14th, 2009, 03:59 AM
#5
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has all been canvassed at great length before.
Crellston - I'm not attacking you, not remotely, but may I say, gently, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The sentiments are fine, even noble - but simplistic political comment is not very helpful, IMHO, to you OR the people of Burma.
Things are a lot more complicated. Sometimes, I think we STRENGTHEN the government's position by not going... I wonder if you can work out my logic?
Of course, the only way to really come to the beginnings of an understanding is to visit. Heh.
Which puts us right back where we started.
Crellston - I'm not attacking you, not remotely, but may I say, gently, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The sentiments are fine, even noble - but simplistic political comment is not very helpful, IMHO, to you OR the people of Burma.
Things are a lot more complicated. Sometimes, I think we STRENGTHEN the government's position by not going... I wonder if you can work out my logic?
Of course, the only way to really come to the beginnings of an understanding is to visit. Heh.
Which puts us right back where we started.
May 14th, 2009, 06:52 AM
#7
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cat, your posts sound an awful lot like [fill in the blank]...
it's a shame what's happening (again.)
i myself am torn--i feel for you kathie. i wouldn't know what to do. i want to see the country quite badly but this stuff turns my stomach.
it's a shame what's happening (again.)
i myself am torn--i feel for you kathie. i wouldn't know what to do. i want to see the country quite badly but this stuff turns my stomach.
May 14th, 2009, 08:49 AM
#9
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that votes have been solicited, but I really want to say a few words in support of those who are thoughtfully planning to go to Burma/Myanmar.
While one appreciates the integrity and compassion that drive the OP's exhortation to "stop visiting this country," I just don't understand how that point of view is effective today, right now.
What is wrong with the following alternative way of thinking about the issue of travel to Burma?
The tourism boycott has hardly "starved the generals into submission" as hoped but it sure seems to have deprived the common people. Furthermore, while the Burmese people have been largely closed off from ordinary tourists of good-will who decide not to visit on principled grounds, we read that sex-tourism and other forms of travel based on gambling and drugs are unimpeded by the boycott. One has to ask who is enriched by that and how this is good for the people.
I also worry about singling out Burma/Myanmar for one's ethical tourism decision-making. Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square....these are all potential reasons for not wanting to visit China and "enrich the current regime" but some of us go anyway and think that it's a very good idea to do so. Sure, there are lots of ersatz cultural experiences on offer from the tourism industry, and authentic cultural experiences are in short supply, and one disagrees with the government, but one goes for those rare moments of insight and connection to local people that make all the rest of the travel dross worthwhile.
Years ago (1991?) Aung San Suu Kyi asked us to "Use your freedom to promote Ours" (or something to that effect). While initially supporting the boycott may have been the best way to honor her request, one could argue that the best way to use our freedom now is to look at how the situation has changed since the early 1990s and decide to visit Burma/Myanmar.
It may be simple-minded on my part, but isn't openness better than sealing people off on principled grounds (especially when today's "principled" decision by a few always threatens to become tomorrow's "sanctimonious" decision by the many)? Here's a vote for putting aside the 'either-or' decision and focusing on how we travel wherever we go in the world, including Burma/Myanmar.
Sorry to go on so but, like all of you, I love to travel and rail against forces that keep people apart. I am also hoping that if I am deceiving myself on this matter and there is a sensible, nuanced argument against travel to Burma, that someone will take the trouble to tap it out here.
While one appreciates the integrity and compassion that drive the OP's exhortation to "stop visiting this country," I just don't understand how that point of view is effective today, right now.
What is wrong with the following alternative way of thinking about the issue of travel to Burma?
The tourism boycott has hardly "starved the generals into submission" as hoped but it sure seems to have deprived the common people. Furthermore, while the Burmese people have been largely closed off from ordinary tourists of good-will who decide not to visit on principled grounds, we read that sex-tourism and other forms of travel based on gambling and drugs are unimpeded by the boycott. One has to ask who is enriched by that and how this is good for the people.
I also worry about singling out Burma/Myanmar for one's ethical tourism decision-making. Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square....these are all potential reasons for not wanting to visit China and "enrich the current regime" but some of us go anyway and think that it's a very good idea to do so. Sure, there are lots of ersatz cultural experiences on offer from the tourism industry, and authentic cultural experiences are in short supply, and one disagrees with the government, but one goes for those rare moments of insight and connection to local people that make all the rest of the travel dross worthwhile.
Years ago (1991?) Aung San Suu Kyi asked us to "Use your freedom to promote Ours" (or something to that effect). While initially supporting the boycott may have been the best way to honor her request, one could argue that the best way to use our freedom now is to look at how the situation has changed since the early 1990s and decide to visit Burma/Myanmar.
It may be simple-minded on my part, but isn't openness better than sealing people off on principled grounds (especially when today's "principled" decision by a few always threatens to become tomorrow's "sanctimonious" decision by the many)? Here's a vote for putting aside the 'either-or' decision and focusing on how we travel wherever we go in the world, including Burma/Myanmar.
Sorry to go on so but, like all of you, I love to travel and rail against forces that keep people apart. I am also hoping that if I am deceiving myself on this matter and there is a sensible, nuanced argument against travel to Burma, that someone will take the trouble to tap it out here.
May 14th, 2009, 09:05 AM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know my response to the post was rather flippant, and it deserves a more thoughtful response.
Here is my history with thinking about going to Burma: My first trip was planned in the early 1990s but cancelled when ASSK asked that people not travel to Burma; after ASSK had been released I again planned a trip, but cancelled when government forces ambushed her entourage, killing a number of people; and third, I planned a trip after the government released a number of pro-democracy activists, but cancelled after the government attacks on the monks and other demonstrators.
While I know people on both sides of the debate (go, don't go), I long opted not to go. I believe there are valid arguments both ways. I am invested for myself and for others in making a conscious decision about whether or not to travel to Burma. After much thought (and lots of reading) I decided to go this year.
Now that this has happened will I change my mind? I don't know. ASSK was due to be released soon, and I think everyone following the situation knew that the government would do something to prevent her release. So I don't (yet) have the sense that anything has changed. This seems like business as usual in Burma.
Here is my history with thinking about going to Burma: My first trip was planned in the early 1990s but cancelled when ASSK asked that people not travel to Burma; after ASSK had been released I again planned a trip, but cancelled when government forces ambushed her entourage, killing a number of people; and third, I planned a trip after the government released a number of pro-democracy activists, but cancelled after the government attacks on the monks and other demonstrators.
While I know people on both sides of the debate (go, don't go), I long opted not to go. I believe there are valid arguments both ways. I am invested for myself and for others in making a conscious decision about whether or not to travel to Burma. After much thought (and lots of reading) I decided to go this year.
Now that this has happened will I change my mind? I don't know. ASSK was due to be released soon, and I think everyone following the situation knew that the government would do something to prevent her release. So I don't (yet) have the sense that anything has changed. This seems like business as usual in Burma.
May 14th, 2009, 10:05 AM
#11
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great reply marya_.
I think it will always be business as usual in Burma, Kathie, whether ASSK is under house arrast or not.
I've always thought of her as the visible symptom of a disease. It's useful to ask ourselves whether our concern is really about her - the regime - or, in fact, something else entirely...
I wonder what would happen if she was let out and disappeared from media view? Would we all flock to Burma? Would it be O.K. then?
Nothing whatsoever will have changed.
So if one links the decision about going to Burma with the fate of ASSK, one is kinda missing the point. The regime is the regime is the regime. That is the issue. Our protests, screeches of rage and impotent threats have achieved absolutely nothing for a decade and a half and will continue to do so. That's a given.
Depriving the government of our tourist dollars does nothing but make us feel better, IMHO. The regime couldn't give a rat's arse. The ethical dilemma is fascinating.
Kathie, I can't imagine a better candidate for Burma... an enquiring, informed and open mind can go a long way towards unscrambling the enigma. You'll fail, as we all do - but at least you'll know what you DON'T know.
Sometimes we have to go through the darkness to find the light. In Burma it reflects from the golden pagoda of Shwedagon at sunset. Go see.
I think it will always be business as usual in Burma, Kathie, whether ASSK is under house arrast or not.
I've always thought of her as the visible symptom of a disease. It's useful to ask ourselves whether our concern is really about her - the regime - or, in fact, something else entirely...
I wonder what would happen if she was let out and disappeared from media view? Would we all flock to Burma? Would it be O.K. then?
Nothing whatsoever will have changed.
So if one links the decision about going to Burma with the fate of ASSK, one is kinda missing the point. The regime is the regime is the regime. That is the issue. Our protests, screeches of rage and impotent threats have achieved absolutely nothing for a decade and a half and will continue to do so. That's a given.
Depriving the government of our tourist dollars does nothing but make us feel better, IMHO. The regime couldn't give a rat's arse. The ethical dilemma is fascinating.
Kathie, I can't imagine a better candidate for Burma... an enquiring, informed and open mind can go a long way towards unscrambling the enigma. You'll fail, as we all do - but at least you'll know what you DON'T know.
Sometimes we have to go through the darkness to find the light. In Burma it reflects from the golden pagoda of Shwedagon at sunset. Go see.
May 14th, 2009, 12:38 PM
#12
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kathie, and many others,
Burma has long been on my 'MUST visit' list. And one day , hopefully we will get there.
However, until there are fundamental changes in government, I will stay away.
Events of the last few days simply make the decision easier.
I wont list examples, but there are many countries where most people would not visit during a given period. Such as .......during the the early forties, or ........during the late sixties / early seventies.
The current regime in Burma is brutal and inhumane.
Kathie, I know your decision to visit, or not, has been given very careful consideration and I eagerly await your trip report .... and your pre-trip expectations.
Burma has long been on my 'MUST visit' list. And one day , hopefully we will get there.
However, until there are fundamental changes in government, I will stay away.
Events of the last few days simply make the decision easier.
I wont list examples, but there are many countries where most people would not visit during a given period. Such as .......during the the early forties, or ........during the late sixties / early seventies.
The current regime in Burma is brutal and inhumane.
Kathie, I know your decision to visit, or not, has been given very careful consideration and I eagerly await your trip report .... and your pre-trip expectations.
