“I will visit beautiful Burma when Aung San Suu Kyi says so”……..(Joanna Lumley, British actress)

“The cost of a holiday could be someone’s life”. Have you ever thought of this? Actually, those words belong in the slogan launched by the Burma Campaign UK, associated with their campaign to boycott tourism in Burma. You may, as well, wonder what this means. Since Burma opened up to tourism in 1988, over $1.1 billion has been invested in the hotel and tourism industry. Now, honestly: do tourists know that their money is bound to benefit one of the most repressive dictatorships in the world? Are they aware of the human rights abuses associated with the tourism industry? Let’s take a look at the facts!

According to “The Burma Action Group’s Alternate Guide” (in fact, a report presenting the blatant human rights violations associated with developing the tourism industry, published in 1996 as part of the “Don’t visit Burma Year-a reaction to the regime’s slogan “Visit Burma Year”), tourism industry is often associated with slave labour and forced relocations.

“A massive program of development is being carried out to make the country ready for tourists. An estimated two million people - including children - have been forced into slave labour alongside prison chain gangs.” Says the report.   “Thousand of ordinary Burmese people are being forcibly removed from their homes to ‘clean up’ tourist sites or to make way for new developments. One such development is the Myanmar Golf Club in Rangoon.  At first, the army blockaded the area, home to people who had been living there for decades. When this failed, the SLORC arrested one member of each family and sent them to jail. The remaining families were then forcibly moved to a new ‘town’ 25 kilometres out of the city. No compensation was paid.”

In addition, it is quite obvious that the current illegitimate regime strongly benefits from the tourism industry; not only because tourists draw in hard currency, but also because it is an effective and comfortable way for a junta faced with more and more criticism and disapproval from worldwide media to gain a certain kind of legitimacy.

As for the social implications of either visiting Burma or, in contrary, boycotting tourism, there is not much truth in the myth that the tourism boycott would rather hurt ordinary people than the regime, as it is often claimed, as well as it is untrue that it is possible to visit Burma without benefiting the junta. Lonely Planet’s guide to Burma has tried to list a few tactics which, they claim, would prevent tourists from benefiting the dictators, such as staying at private hotels or avoiding patronizing companies involved with the military-owned Myanmar Economic Holdings. In a way, their initiative is to be appreciated, yet it is legitimate to ask: how effective and applicable are, actually, those guidelines?

An article published in The Observer in 2003 said that “according to western diplomats in the capital Rangoon, the military junta and their cronies are benefiting directly from recent tourism developments. A list of owners of the hotel plots at the newest beach resort in the country, Ngwesaung, reads like a Who’s Who of generals and their cronies” We have to be aware that we are facing the typical situation of a closed society: there is a small group of people having the ultimate and exclusive control over all sources of income, and they are definitely not the ones that you want to benefit! Indeed, there exist privately own services, but does choosing these-ones prevent your money from getting to the regime? Hardly! Some services have been sold to private individuals, but a lot of them are, actually, the regime’s close allies, so the problem remains unsolved. Moreover, in August 2002 Burma’s Minister of Hotels and Tourism Maj-Gen Saw Lwin admitted that the government receives about 12 per cent of the income even of private tourism services. Given these conditions and the fact that around 75% of Burma’s people make their living from agriculture, while of the remaining 25% only a small percentage ever come into contact with tourists, it becomes common sense that boycotting tourism to Burma would be a highly more suitable strategy than visiting the country anyway.

Another common myth, which is to be found, more likely, among people with a higher awareness concerning Burma’s case states that contact with tourists would help encourage democracy, communication and prevent abuses. Firstly, it is to be emphasized and clarified that boycotting the tourism is not the synonym of a complete isolation; anyone following the pledges of campaigners for Burma as well as NLD’s statements can notice that the call for boycotts or sanctions is always accompanied or followed by a call for international action and diplomatic approach.  As for the communication issue, it becomes highly dubious whether a tourist visiting Burma should be able to get an accurate impression of the real happenings in the country, or whether he should be able to exchange information with local people. In 2001, for example, the Myanmar Tourism Promotion Board (MTPB) issued an order calling on local officials to “protect tourists and prevent potential conflicts” by limiting “unnecessary contact” between foreigners and ordinary Burmese.  In addition, take into account that, if speaking to foreigners about realities in the country, one can be imprisoned. Who would risk? There is a tight control preventing genuine contact between locals and foreigners. In the given circumstances, the accuracy of the impressions of a tourist is questionable; another very effective way for the regime to gain legitimacy.

As a final, ultimate argument: the regime is desperately trying to promote tourism to the country; Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD have asked for a boycott of the tourism; who has the right to represent Burmese people’s will? A junta illegitimately holding the power and guilty of countless abuses, or the elected leaders? It all comes down to whom you decide to support; and it is a decision you bear moral responsibility for. Joining worldwide campaigners, politicians, artists and people like you, by saying “I’m not going” you are making a strong statement: that you cannot be fooled.