Over the last few years a string of government ministers and travel industry chiefs have taken turns in preaching the virtues of ethical travel. They have spoken much about avoiding those countries with atrocious human rights records. Burma in particular has been singled out as a country where no UK person, whether tourist or businessman, has a morally defensible reason to venture. Yet in the light of the unfolding dramatic events in the Middle East, might it be time to look at our stance again, lest we detect more than a slight whiff of hypocrisy?
No-one can question that the regime in Burma has a less than impressive record for human rights. The repression and violence of the ruling military against their population is well documented and has been ongoing for decades, while there have been no free elections for longer than most of the Burmese people remember.
So what criteria were applied to Burma that were not applied to Egypt, or a smaller scale and more recently, Libya? The facts stated in the last paragraph appear to have applied to both countries, although the transgressions of the Egyptian state seem to have been more palatable as millions of tourists have flocked to the country in search of sea, sand and sunset cocktails on the Nile. What is it about the Egyptian state’s behaviour that made it easier for us to swallow than their Burmese counterparts?
And then we have Tibet. The subject of many campaigns against tourism within its borders for the brutal suppression that goes on away from the world’s direct gaze. Yet few advocate boycotting tourism in China, the world’s second largest economic power, the big friend that nobody wants to upset, and the country that has annexed Tibet and claimed is as its own. Why the inconsistency here? How can it be so wrong for us to visit the land of the oppressed, yet normal for us to enjoy the treasures packaged neatly for us within the land of the oppressor. Morality in tourism is clearly more complex than it seems at first glance.
So maybe there are other factors at play in deciding which countries should be boycotted by our worthy legions of prestigious adventure junkies and luxury seekers. But what are they?
A history of repression?
Evidence of genocide?
A stable democracy?
Strategic military or economic importance?
Their relationship with our large trans-Atlantic special friend?
Which of these do our governments and travel industry leaders take in account before they form a moral stance and begin preaching? What should we as individuals take in account when we make our own decisions?
Back in 2007 the British government spoke in very strong words condemning any sort of interaction with Burma. One minister (Ann Clywd) said: “Anyone with any sense would not go to Burma on holiday. I hope that people do not go now, are not going and will not go. Nobody with any kind of morality should trade with Burma. I’d like to see the government making a strong statement that investment should be banned.” The Prime minister of the time Gordon Brown went further and said: “I want to see all the pressures of the world put on the regime now – sanctions, the pressure of the UN, pressure from China and all the countries in the region, India, pressure from the whole world.” Can we assume from his words that China were on the right side of the moral divide in this case?
The Foreign Office carried this strong message to any UK company which contacted the government asking about trade with Burma. They were “informed of the grave political situation there and of the regime’s atrocious record on human rights”. It would be interesting to learn which other countries warranted similar warnings from the government, particularly for those UK firms dealing in weapons of death and torture, and what criteria they used to make such judgements.
As for tourism, there has long been a moral pressure exerted on those who visit those countries on the ‘evil list’. Witness this 2009 article condemning an Australian journalist who visited Tibet. In it the author states that “a powerful form of myopia appears to descend upon those who choose to see Tibet, not as a region under oppressive siege, but as an ultimate ‘Shangri-la’ destination, seems the mountains and turquoise skies disable any sense of ethical responsibility.”
This moral outrage that has been directed at those who have chosen to visit Tibet and Burma has been noticeably absent when millions of others have travelled en masse to other countries with equally morally questionable political situations. So why the contrast in reactions from the lobbying groups? Repressive regimes exist the world over, yet some seem to attract more activists’ fury than others.
One counterbalance to the strong pressure to boycott travel to certain countries on the strength of the behaviour of their regimes comes from travel journalist Jennifer Cox, who wrote a powerful article in Wanderlust magazine in 2007. In it she questions how and why our society decides if we should boycott a country. “Do we continue to boycott Burma solely because we are appalled by the junta’s atrocities? Or are we also swayed by the stigma of breaking the boycott – like crossing the picket line? And how much of a sacrifice are we making when we boycott Burma, anyway – safe in the knowledge there are plenty of other countries to visit?”
Should we as individuals allow state or commercial entities to dictate to us where we should or should not travel on moral grounds? And if we do seek their advice, surely we are obliged to consider just what criteria they are using to make their ethical judgements and how selectively they are choosing to apply them.
Brilliant article Andy, and so true. Especially on the China point – I never quite got my head around why people would travel to China but not Tibet.
It is related to other travel issues as well – I had an acquaintance in Australia who would make a big song and dance about people using their air-con and how it was bringing the downfall of the planet due to climate change, yet would then happily jet off to Bali with her family for a holiday. I guess I am similarly hypocritical – I rail against the amount of air travel people take, yet later this year I am flying back to Australia to see family (in my defence, I try to keep my air travel to only once ever two or three years, and only trips where other forms of transport are bloody difficult). It is almost as though we want to be seen as principled people yet also don’t want to miss out.
I currently live and work in China and before that spent 6 years doing the same in Turkey (another nation with a spotty human rights record). Last summer I spent a month traveling around Burma. I’ve spent time in Egypt. And a lot of other iffy places, politically. I’ve had to really wrestle with the ethics of where I’ve been and a lot of research has gone into it- I didn’t enter Myanmar lightly, that’s for sure. But you know what? The Burmese I met were happy I came: I ate street food, hired trishaws and private taxis, stayed in small guesthouses, engaged in careful yet thoughtful dialogue with the locals who were almost relieved to know that there were still people out there aware of what was going on at ground level.
Here in China, I teach at a university, getting middle class urban kids ready to study abroad. Because I work for an Australian program, I can tackle more serious issues and topics than if I was under Chinese management. My students are starting to think a lot about the world, about ethics, about human rights. Should I not be in China because of what they’ve done? Maybe, maybe not. But my being here is not one I’ve taken lightly.
I’m starting to wonder if these travel bans are really a good idea for the local people- maybe we do need thoughtful and aware tourists/visitors on the ground to scope out the situation and to protest abuses and to let the locals know they aren’t being ignored by the world at large. Bearing witness.
I don’t think banning anything has a positive affect on the world. I’ve been to some fairly reprehensible places in my life-in 2007 I cycled from Korea to Cape Town through the Axis of Evil, through North Korea, Tibet, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and across North Africa down the West Coast to South Africa through countries with dictators who have done atrocious things both past and present but I never once felt in the wrong for merely going there.
I know there are arguments that you are ‘propping up the regime’ but to see the situation and meet the people face to face is essential for any understanding and I honestly think it works both ways. In North Korea (on a guided tour) I spent an afternoon at an amusement park and got to talk to a big group of North Korean children. I speak a bit of Korean from a year spent teaching in South Korea so tried to answer their questions and they weren’t eveil tyrannical questions they were questions, same as ours, about food, customs, culture, people.
If we have no cultural exchange and no dialogue then how can we mend these gaping wounds of humanity. I think the last fifty years have taught us that vested interests prevents and change coming from above (i.e. governments) and that the only decisive change has come from groundswell movements. These include the Jasmine Revolution inspired changes going on at the moment in the Arab world as well as slightly less favourable uprisings such as the Taliban, the Maoists in Nepal and the Nationalist parties in western Europe.
Change can not be dictated.
Thanks for the comments and for sharing your very personal perspectives and first hand experiences. My instinct says that, as Dan says in his first sentence, banning anything doesn’t often help us. Exchange between cultures and sharing beliefs, traditions and experiences can surely only help us to understand each other better. I’m convinced that many of these decisions are based almost wholly on political aims rather than the moral virtues that the politicians attach to them. You only have to witness the world’s eagerness to deal with Ghaddafi in recent years despite his well-publicised record.
So….I started writing a long, REALLY long, response to your interesting and thought-provoking post. Then I realized the subject matter is far too personal and close to home for me (I’m ethnically half Burmese and have close relatives living in Burma) to effectively comment on in a comment section of your post.
I’m going to write my own post about it.
Thank you for address this important and significant issue. I’ll be back once I have a proper response for you.
In short, I do NOT support the travel ban on Burma. With respect to the other countries mentioned, I think it’s a case by case basis in determining if an individual is comfortable with traveling to a place that is not advised to travel to and I really don’t know enough about the situations to comment.
I really don’t subscribe to the “don’t go, don’t visit, don’t spend money there” school of thought either. Sometimes interaction with the outside world is what these places need to move forward.
Very thoughtful post Andy. I liked Dan’s comment above: “If we have no cultural exchange and no dialogue then how can we mend these gaping wounds of humanity.”
It’s so important that people who go anywhere abroad attempt to seek out what’s happening there, try to inform themselves as best they can about the situations. Everyone has their own individual set of moral values. If we inform ourselves, we are better equipped to make the decision for ourselves based on our belief system. I would take anything I hear from any government with a (massive) grain of salt. You have to question their motivations behind boycotts/bans.
I could care less about who boycotts who. Everybody has different reasons. If we look at travel alerts, a country like Australia has a travel warning now for citizens going to Indonesia, and the US has one for citizens going to Mexico. Boycotts are a bit like that too. It only affects us as travelers if our passport is not very popular in our destination country.
As a traveler, I boycott countries myself. I hate countries that discriminate tourists/travelers based on their nationality, making it cheaper or more convenient for certain people to come spend their money, and making it harder for others. I also boycott countries with high visa prices. I don’t believe in paying more than 100 dollars for a visa anywhere. But that’s just a personal thing.
The actual answer to this question is very difficult. But, as wonderful as it sounds, I don’t think that the answer is this:
“If we have no cultural exchange and no dialogue then how can we mend these gaping wounds of humanity.”
I keep coming across this idea among people who love to travel but, sadly, I don’t think that it can be true. Cultural exchange and dialogue can lead to hatred as much as it can to understanding and healing. Look at Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, the Gaza Strip…communities who have lived together and exchanged views with each other for centuries…to return to a grisly, antagonistic result.
It seems that something more than just dialogue and cultural exchange is required…but if I knew what that missing ingredient was, I’d be the proud owner of a Nobel Prize and the winner of that Miss America dream, World Peace.
More excellent comments and proof that this is a complex issue. Agree with Abi that cultural exchange doesn’t automatically lead to mutual understanding. There needs to be a level of trust to go with it as well. Although that’s not a reason not to have those exchanges (and nobody yet has written in favour of boycotts).
Thank you for an excellent and thought provoking article. Isn’t the answer to do what the opposition groups in the countries ask us to do? Nelson Mandela was very clear in the struggle against apartheid that he wanted westerners to boycott South African goods. Aung San Sui Kyi also asked western tourists not to go to Burma, although there are reports that she and other opposition groups may be changing their minds. In the case of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has always urged western tourists to visit the country to see the situation for themselves in order to put pressure on the Chinese government on their return. Also he says that Tibetans are encouraged by the presence of foreign tourists. The ethical dilemna is explored on the Free Tibet travel page:
http://www.freetibet.org/about/travel-to-tibet