Is Tourism Bad for Burma?

Before I first traveled to Burma in April 2008, I had to do a lot of soul searching and research to decide whether it was right, or even irresponsible to visit the country. Here is an essay I wrote last year to explain my ultimate decision to visit Burma.

Burma: To Go or Not to Go?

"[W]e think it is too early for either tourists or investment or aid to come pouring into Burma. We would like to see that these things are conditional on genuine progress towards democratization."

These words come from a 1995 interview with Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy, the main opposition party in Burma. Suu Kyi, who is currently under house arrest, is considered a national hero by the masses, and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to bring Democracy to Burma. Her words have therefore carried a lot of weight, both domestically and internationally, and are widely responsible for the campaign to boycott Burmese tourism.

It is now 2008 and Burma, renamed Myanmar by the ruling military junta, has not made any progress toward Democracy. Additionally, the military junta has taken a further hit in popularity through its brutal suppression of protests last year, and its inept and cruel hindrance of aid after Cyclone Nargis.In the wake of all of this, Burma is still a beautiful country with a unique culture and great potential for tourism. Although tourism is truly minuscule, people do continue to travel into the country, and when they come out, many of them can't wait to go back.

How do you deal with a country with an immovable military regime? Aung San Suu Kyi and the prominent expatriated dissent group Burma Campaign U.K. agree that tourists should ignore the country for now, arguing that tourist money funds a brutal regime, legitimizes an illegitimate government, and encourages further human rights abuses (the regime commonly uses slave labor to develop tourist sites). Hlaing Sein, a campaign officer of Burma Campaign U.K. is absolutely right when he says, "It is impossible to visit Burma without funding the military dictatorship." But should this be end of story? Should we really just board up and walk away from an entire country?

As a responsible tourist, I did a fair amount of research and thought hard about whether I should go, or even if I had the right to go to Burma. I had originally come to Southeast Asia not intending to visit the international pariah, but as I came to learn more about the country, I felt myself drawn to it. I read Burma's history and found myself fascinated by its strong Buddhist routes, ethnic diversity, and its past glory (at one time Burma had an empire the size of Charlemagne's that ran from Northeastern India to the borders of Cambodia and Vietnam). I learned about its looming mountains, ancient cities, and carefully wrought temples. I especially heard tales of the kindness of its people. I have to admit, as someone who grew up in a free and democratic society, I also wanted to see what life was like under a military regime, perhaps in the same way that some people had formerly wanted to visit the U.S.S.R. There was thrill in visiting such a country, but I believe the biggest reason I eventually decided to visit Burma was curiosity.

One major factor in my final decision to enter the country were the arguments and facts presented by the Free Burma Coalition. The Coalition seems to be far less prominent than it once was, but at one time it was one of the largest Burmese advocacy groups in the world, and founded the U.S. Campaign for Burma. The Coalition website states "Free Burma Coalition supports fully tourism and travel to Myanmar (Burma) as part of its support for the emergence of an open society," and advocates educated and ethnical tourism. The Free Burma Coalition was at one point in accordance with Suu Kyi, but after years of boycotts that had achieved nothing; its leaders began to become disillusioned, and finally reversed their policy.
Another deciding factor was learning that only $198 million was earned from tourism between March 2006-March 2007, and with operating costs, very little was left for the government. Compared to the $2.16 billion that the junta made from gas sales to Thailand, this is a pittance.

Finally, there are the people. While one can make a case that the government gains from tourism, the people undeniably gain more. Tourism infuses valuable currency into a stagnant and depressed country. Even if the government takes some of this, there are ways to maximize how much you give to the people, such as frequenting privately owned guesthouses, using private tour guides, and generally avoiding as many government run services as possible. Yes, this money may be focused on the minority of people that work in the tourism industry, but in such an impoverished and stagnant country as Burma, I believe that every little bit helps.

Most importantly, there is a real morale reason to go to Burma, and I learned about this first hand. The Burmese people have been under isolated military rule for over forty years. The last thing they want is to think that the world has forgotten about them after all the years of struggle. Boycotting travel to Burma is not only ignoring the government, it is ignoring the people.

I can't tell you how many time people came up to me to practice their English, or just to talk to me. Like any other people, the Burmese want cultural interchange, they want to be part of the world. They want freedom from military rule; its true, but very few think that it will come from isolation. In fact, if the crushed protests of 1988 and 2007 have proven anything, it's that change will have to come from the outside. Burma has been isolated for decades, and the situation hasn't improved. Let's not make it worse by turning our back on an entire country based on impossible ideals.

The Basics of Burma

It is finally time for the mandatory introduction to a beautiful country. This post is for all of those who are only faintly familiar with all of the ingredients that make up the fresh and diverse sauna of Burma. So let's push away the rising steam of violence and oppression that obscures the landscape, and see what's underneath.


First, Geography:

Burma is the largest country in mainland Southeast Asia with a rough area of 262,000 square miles (678,500 sq km). The Irrawaddy is the longest river in Burma and runs in a nearly straight line from north to south, roughly bisecting the country. The long running waters then terminate in the Irrawaddy Delta, an area of rich soil that once made Burma the regions largest rice grower. This is where a majority of Burmese live.

Burma is further divided by three mountain chains, the Rakhine Yoma, the Bago Yoma and the Shan Plateau further divide the country. These natural barriers have played a large role in creating a large diversity of people, animals and flora in the country. Much of Burma is occupied by dense jungle. The jungle's prowling predators and disease carrying mosquitoes have played a large role in stopping several invasions of the country.

Burma is also rich in natural resources such as natural gas, teak (a fancy high quality wood) and precious gems. 90% of the world's rubies actually come from Burma. Unfortunately for fans of rubies, this means that 90% of rubies are effectively "blood rubies" as the junta uses hazardous slave labor to dig them out of the ground.

People:

Unlike many countries that have amalgamated their populations over time, Burma continues to have a large number of somewhat separate ethnic groups. An estimated 68% of Burmese are supposedly Bamar, making them the largest ethnic group by a large margin. However, many minority groups believe that the Bamar in fact do not even carry a majority. After the Bamar, the military junta recognizes 65 other ethnic groups (bringing the total to a suspiciously lucky number of 66), but most independent reports believe there are more than 100. With equally questionable numbers, the next largest groups are the Shan, a group strongly related to the Thais (9%), the Karen (7%), the Rakhine (4%), and the Mon(2%), one of the oldest inhabitants of Burma. Burma also hosts more recent Chinese (3%)and Indians (2%).

Two things make this ethnic group business confusing. First, many of the larger groups, such as the Shan and Karen, can be broken into many smaller groups, with different people disagreeing about the importance of the distinction. Second, these percentages are probably not too accurate as the military junta has not, and will probably never, do an accurate census. Especially one that would decrease the power of the Bamar group that dominates the military.

To finish this up...

One thing you probably know,

Poverty:

Like media reports would suggest, Burma is extremely poor. According to the CIA's World Fact Book, 1/4 of Burmese live below the subsistence level, meaning they are just barely getting by and dying in droves from malnourishment and disease. Additionally, a 1/3 of Burmese children are malnourished. Parts of Burma are even on par with the worst of sub-Saharan Africa.

One one thing you probably don't,

High Literacy/English Speaking:

When I first tell people that many Burmese can speak English, they almost don't believe me. I find this especially interesting as an American, because during my separate trips to nearby Mexico and Burma, I encountered many more people in Burma who could speak English than in America's direct neighbor! With a little thought though, this isn't surprising. During the colonial era, parts of Burma were under British control for over a hundred years with the entirety of British Burma existing from 1886-1948. By the time the British left the country, a large portion of the population was literate.

Although recent events such as declining education rates and purges of college students (who frequently lead demonstrations and rebel movements) have had a negative affect on literacy, many Burmese remain surprisingly educated. Once again, statistics are hard to pin down, but literacy estimates range from the military junta's low 23% to a high 83%. The real number is somewhere in the middle, but anyone who travels to Burma will find that the Burmese love to read, perhaps even more than Americans. Just another proof of Burmese resilience against an education squashing military.

Burma's Surprising Geopolitical Importance

Yes, the title of this post says it all: Burma is surprisingly important to its neighbors, to international relations, and perhaps even to the United States.

Wha?

How?

How is this isolated pariah of an impoverished military state capable of playing any role in international politics whatsoever?

Burma doesn't even have rudimentary nuclear technology, which it could use to drunkenly threaten its neighbors (and don't you have to be wasted to seriously contemplate such a thing?)

In fact, most scholars agree that unlike the vaguely similar North Korea, Burma has very little power projection ability. Sure, it has an impressively manned military of 400,000-500,000 (the second largest in Southeast Asia), but its generally low morale and poor and outdated equipment make it no match for its regional counterparts. On the other hand, could it defend its own borders effectively? You better believe it.

But I digress, Burma's military has very little to do with why the country is important. Burma is important by virtue of its location between India, China, and Southeast Asia. It's massive raw materials, including natural gas and dwindling forests, also play a role, but Burma's real importance comes from its place as a subtle political battleground between its neighbors.

As one may guess, China, the 21st century's largest supporter of military regimes (step aside U.S.!) is Burma's biggest ally. In exchange for cheap raw materials, China provides Burma with military and technological aid, and most importantly, political support. If China were to actually put pressure on Burma's military junta like practically every other major world power, the junta would probably be forced to give ground to the country's democratic movement. But why would China want to do that?

China's unabashed support for Burma's military regime, and the resulting close relationship between the two countries, has of course been slightly scary for Burma's neighbors. Both India and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) continue to have strong relations with their despicable neighbor, largely out of fear of completely pushing Burma into China's hands. It has even been suggested that this was the precise motivation for ASEAN to allow Burma to join the organization in 1997. This is not to say that India and ASEAN (especially Thailand) do not profit from economic relations, they do, but a fear of Burma acting as an extending arm of China plays the larger role.

The countries of Southeast Asia especially have much to fear as China has always shown great interest in influencing its southern neighbors. It is entirely possible that in the future it will come to dominate them economically, and maybe even politically.

How does this all impact the United States, still a global superpower? It all goes back to China. In America's mind, any gain for China is a loss for the United States since the U.S. seeks to handicap any regional leaders that could damage its world influence. The Chinese-Burmese relationship is at the very least disconcerting for pragmatic American policy makers.

So WOW! The scarcely covered country of Burma actually plays a role in world politics! Who would have thought? It all goes to show how even the most seemingly minuscule countries can have a major ripple effect. Till next time!