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.