31.12.2006
.
.
The tourism boycott
_ By Raluca Enescu
In addition to my article in the previous issue of Burma Digest and in reply to some objections I have received, here are a few more points to make
Firstly, as a reply to one of the comments I have received, and which stated that: “The US Dollars 1.1 billion invested in tourism relates only to contracted and approved foreign investment made under the Foreign Investment Law of 1988. The latest figure I have seen is US Dollars 1.034 billion for 43 tourist projects to end June 2006. Realized investment - that is actual financial transfers into Burma - is possibly only half that level, perhaps even less. Foreign invested projects have been cut back, or abandoned, or phased over several years. Foreign investors look for a high return on their investments - at least 15% and preferably 25% annually in a high risk market like Burma, and when this doesn't happen, they get out - if they can - or mothball their investment.”
Let us analyze the situation: indeed, a lot of companies, recently, withdrawn their investment from Burma, for different reasons: business that proves to be unprofitable, ethical issues or consumer boycotts (it is to be noticed that, in many cases, the reason why some companies have done so is the tourism boycott: “We are at present refraining from conducting tours in Burma, considering her political Regime to be unsuitable for organised tourism. We do not wish to be seen to legitimise or contribute financially towards the regime.”-statement by Gecko Travel (source www.burmacampaign.org.uk). The point of launching a tourism boycott is to stop the regime from gaining money or legitimacy; under this condition, the fact that the regime is earning less money than expected would not be, in any way, a reason to put an end to the boycott.
As for the belief that there are nowadays less human rights abuses associated with the tourism industry, it is highly dubious. Recently reports came from Ngapali about forced labor being used constructing a new resort there. Also, the Soros Foundation publication Burma: country in crisis, from October 2005, states that: “The United Nations and human rights organizations have documented the harsh conditions and often brutal treatment that accompany forced labor in Burma today. The junta's efforts to attract tourists "is responsible for a lot of forced labor,” The use of forced labor associated with the tourism industry may have slightly decreased, but it is yet far from being a resolved matter.
Concerning the question of how much acceptance and legitimacy does the idea of a tourism boycott among Burmese people; there is an aspect I would like to point out: not only that it is supported by Aung San Suu Kyi/the NLD/the NCGUB, but also it is taken into account as an issue to focus on by most worldwide campaign groups; now, a lot of these groups are directed by refugees from Burma (or, at least, keep in touch constantly with the Burmese community in their country); had it been so much opposition to the tourism boycott, we should have noticed by now a change of direction in these campaign groups’ attitude towards the issue.
Also, concerning Aung San Suu Kyi’s attitude towards tourism, it is quite dubious and interpretable whether, as it has been stated by Mr. Derek Tonin in his article in the previous issue of the Burma Digest, she “has reservations generally about tourism to Burma, whatever the regime in power,” As I understand it, her main concern is about the Burmese people becoming “the servant class” and “cheap labor”. It seems to me not only logical, but also strongly implied, as she said that “politics and business could not be separated” that these concerns are to be seen in the context of a certain type of political regime. In an open society/democracy, no one is to be regarded as “servant” or “cheap labor”; these are problems that closed societies are facing. The idea is not to be dissociated from the context.
Finally, it is true that gas or fish exports bring more money to the regime, and, undeniably, a boycott of those is, indeed necessary. But what about the undeserved legitimacy that the junta is gaining trough the use of tourism? ( As I said it and I repeat it, we are not talking in this article about John Pilger going to Burma and making his documentaries; the normal/average tourist, whatever good his intentions may be, is highly unlikely, under the present conditions, to get an accurate, realistic idea of what is going on in Burma: remember that people are not allowed to speak freely to tourists!!!)
Your Comments here_ please do not use symbols "(:/\<>!|{]@~#$)"
Request: If you can kindly volunteer to translate BURMA DIGEST English articles into Burmese, please let us know burmadigest@tayzathuria.org.uk .
.
Last week's English article