“In ten days travelling across Burma, people bent my ears in bars and cars, on riverbanks and in villages. They talked so much I feared for their safety. They were funny, bitter, rueful, and touchingly friendly. Totalitarian countries are lonely places. ‘Thank you for coming’ they said, ‘talking to oneself sends a person mad’.”  (Christopher Hope, writing in The Daily Telegraph in February 2001)

Taisamyone and Hnin Maung made eloquent contributions to the discussion on “Ethical Tourism” in “Burma Digest” of 17 December 2006. I agree with most of what they say on the general subject of pleasure-seeking tourism, but I would venture to suggest that they overstate the arguments against more serious travel. They speak moreover as Burmese, not as potential foreign visitors on a voyage of discovery. My perspective as a foreigner about travel to Burma is quite different from theirs. To be told that I ought not to go only makes me more curious and more inclined to take the plunge.

“Ethical Tourism” in the case of Burma means something rather different from the normal definition of the term. The Council of Europe, set up in 1949 to promote Europe’s cultural and social heritage, has described how “a new kind of tourism is arising, a sustainable tourism, respectful of persons, their culture and their environment: ethical tourism.” But I do not think this is quite what we mean in a Burmese context. Our concerns are more with the moral dilemma of whether we should go to Burma at all because of the serious abuses of human rights which have taken place there. In short, is it politically responsible to visit at the present time? The politics of the issue are paramount. If you are in any doubt about this, read Dr Joan Henderson’s brilliant analysis of The Politics of Tourism in Myanmar at http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cit/006/0097/cit0060097.pdf .

You can divide foreigners who are thinking of visiting Burma into two broad categories. There are those who want to go on holiday, relax and have a good time. Escapism, if you like. Hedonism, quite possibly. Such tourists are vaguely aware that all is not well in the country, but the travel information they see presents Burma as a very enticing, photogenic destination, and sadly few travel agencies have anything to say about the recent history of the country, even about the change of name from “Burma” to “Myanmar”. To be frank, I would rather those holiday-makers went somewhere else. They will learn next to nothing about the country, its people and its culture, cocooned as they will be in their package tour itineraries. As Daw Aung San Suu Kyi put it in 1997, visitors “should not buy their pleasure at the expense of the ordinary people.”

But the second category are those rather like myself who have taken an interest in Burma, for whatever reason, and are curious to learn more about and experience the country at first hand. In 2005 such individual tourists outnumbered package tourists by 2.5 to 1. So what might they have read before their visit? Quite possibly the much maligned Lonely Planet Guide, which sets out some of the pros and cons about travel to Burma. A number will also have read Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s Freedom from Fear and may have noted that Chapter 2  My Country and My People has been taken from a booklet she wrote in 1985, at the height of General Ne Win’s Burma Socialist Programme Party regime, called  Let’s Visit Burma. So it’s alright then to travel there? Not exactly. She has more recently said: “Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime” and she certainly has a point, because tourism might be seen to impart an aura of normality, respectability and perhaps even approval on the country. Yet in The Voice of Hope published in 1995, Alan Clements asked her: “Are you advocating would-be travellers and tourist to stay away from your country?” - “No” she replied, “we are not doing anything like that”.

So what exactly has Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said about Tourism?

We might then ask what is the message which Daw Aung San Suu Kyi might wish to convey. She has, for example, said that: “It is better to stay at home and read many of the human rights reports there are.” But this will not satisfy those who want to see and hear for themselves whatever they are able to see and hear. Seeing is believing. From my own analysis of her statements over many years and my own meeting with her in December 1999, I would summarise her position as follows: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi -

        has reservations generally about tourism to Burma, whatever the regime in power, and is concerned to avoid the excesses seen in some neighbouring countries. She does not want tourism to be the main currency earner. She clearly does not like “mass tourism”.

        regards it as very important that prospective tourists and travellers should search their consciences before visiting Burma at the present time. In May 2002 she told The Times: “It certainly is a dilemma, and I think people can help most by studying the situation carefully and deciding what they can do to help.”

        understands why individuals with primary or secondary cultural, educational or scientific interests might wish to visit Burma and in principle supports such visits.

        is not generally sympathetic to the universal concept of tourism as a service industry, and wishes to protect Burmese people from accepting a subordinate “servant” status.

        has not advocated a tourism boycott, except against the “Visit Myanmar Year 1996” which has now long since passed.

        has few supporters for her policy on tourism among ordinary Burmese, some of whom tend to be embarrassed about this.

        knows that no-one in the NLD leadership would wish to gainsay her, whatever their personal views, since this could weaken her position vis-à-vis the junta.

The number of Western visitors going to Burma at the present time is very small. Such interest as there is comes mostly from individual travellers, some of whom coincidentally have educational, scientific or cultural interests in mind, including artists, musicians, student groups, academics and professional societies. In this context, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi not only has no objection to such visits, but positively welcomes them. Professor Clark Neher, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Associate of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at Northern Illinois University, commented in 2004: _

“I have met with Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the democratic opposition in Burma.  She is the mother of my student [Alexander Aris] and I rank her among the most courageous and knowledgeable persons I have ever met.  Her understanding of Burmese culture is unparalleled.  I have told her about Stanford Travel/Study and she has been positive about this kind of tourism because every effort is made to work closely with the Burmese people and to avoid contact with and financial support for the military government.  She has been pleased to hear that Stanford Travel/Study  recommends and provides outstanding books to read, includes a professor with special knowledge of Burma, sets up meetings with American diplomats and Burmese leaders of non-governmental agencies, and participates in development-oriented projects.”

But what about all the money from tourism going into the pockets of the Generals?

Taisamyone is of the view that “The junta benefit from the tourism in huge financial gains”. As the former Chairman of an investment company which liquidated all its hotel investments in Burma within five years of investment, might I tell you about the financial reality of tourism in Burma today? It is a seriously loss-making business. In 2005 Burma reportedly earned US$ 153 million from some 156,000 international visitors (not including businessmen, officials and family reunions and short cross-border visits). This is broadly in line with the rule of thumb that each tourist to South East Asia brings in about US$ 850 revenue. When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi says that “the bulk of this money goes straight into the pockets of the generals”, is this really true? Judge for yourself. This US$ 153 million is gross income, in industry terms Gross Operating Revenue. Before the State takes its legal or illicit cut, the industry - hotels, restaurants, travel agencies, airlines, boutiques, even the most humble postcard seller - has to provide goods and services for the visitors whose money they are taking. There are wages to pay, equipment to be maintained, food and drink to be bought, transport to be provided. When all the various operating expenses have been deducted, you are left with Net Operating Profit, or more frequently in the case of Burma, with Net Operating Loss. This is known as EBITDA - earnings before deduction of interest (on debt), taxation, depreciation and amortisation.

At the end of the day, there is quite clearly precious little to go “into the pockets of the generals”. Hotels in particular may face problems in meeting taxation and land rental payments. Debt may have to be rescheduled. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no international class hotel in Burma has yet posted an overall profit, let alone declared a dividend in any particular year, which is why so many of them, including Shangri-la Traders Hotel, are up for sale, except that it is unsaleable because there are no buyers. Accumulated losses hang like the Sword of Damocles over so many tourist operations in Burma.

To put the tourist industry in national perspective: gross earnings of US$ 153 million in 2005 compare with overall foreign currency receipts of US$ 3.55 billion, or something in the region of a mere 4.2%. Much as we might regret even one cent going into the pockets of the generals, what the State is eventually able to extract from tourism, which I estimate to be in the region of some US$ 25 - 30 million annually, is to my mind a very small price to pay for encouraging serious travellers to visit the country - about 0.4% of a CIA estimated GDP for 2005 of US$ 7.5 billion. Thailand earns from tourism in five days what Burma earns in a whole year.

So where might we find an independent assessment of the pros and cons of politically responsible travel to Burma?

A difficult question indeed, because most pro-democracy campaigners by their very modus operandi  filter out facts and arguments which do not promote their interest in achieving the maximum isolation of the military junta. They are, understandably enough, not interested in a balanced and impartial assessment, but rather in pursuing a hard-hitting campaign. Only those quotations from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and only that material which supports their position find favour. But I would invite you all to take a look at a survey, conducted in 2003 by the Vienna-based Institute Respect funded by the Austrian Foreign Ministry. The survey attempted an independent assessment of the pros and cons of tourism (and was criticised for its pains by the Burma Campaign Austria). The full report, in German, is at:

http://re000330.host.inode.at/content.php?m_id=99&id=103&newsdetail=445&ch_id=  with a Summary and Recommendations in English in Chapter 7.

I would also commend to you: http://www.voicesforburma.org/tourism which is passionate about human rights in Burma, but equally passionate about the benefits of ethical travel.

Al Jazeera reported after their recent visit to Burma: “An official from the main opposition group, the National League for Democracy, says it is up to tourists to inform themselves properly. ‘I personally have no objection,’ he told us. ‘When I say tourists, I mean the real tourists, you know, who are really interested in the social, economic and cultural conditions. I think these people can always come to us, no problem.’ ”

For me, this guidance seems fair enough. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would, I think, agree. What else needs to be said?