A big thank you for all your comments and thoughts sent to the Beetle. We had two votes for visiting Burma and one against visiting. What do you think?

London based Globetrotters member Steve wrote in to ask people not to go to Burma and this is why:

Dear Beetle, I totally concur with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and applaud Rough Guide’s ethical stance. As a Buddhist, I would dearly love to visit Burma and its beautiful temples but so long as the brutal regime are still in power and deny democracy and enslave their own people and worse still, the ethnic groups who live there, I will not go. What’s more, I will not buy any more Lonely Planet guidebooks or anything from any other company that I am aware profit from trade in Burma.

I have met many Burmese and Karen, Karenni, Mon and other ethnic groups from Burma and most of them have been very kind and gentle and urged me not to go there. Some years ago, I was taken over the border to Karen State to see the conditions they were living in for myself. I met many people who had been injured by shells and shooting from the Burmese army. At Dr Cynthia’s clinic in Mae Sot, on the Thai side of the Burmese border, I met many more with injuries from torture, malaria and other illnesses from escaping through the jungle to Thailand.

If you’d like to meet some lovely people from Burma who welcome outside contact, then go visit the refugee camps along the Thai-Burmese border. It’s difficult to find a country that does not have some policies or practices that do not suit our ethical viewpoint but Burma is exceptionally bad, so please do not go there.

Pam from Chicago wrote in to say:

I did visit Burma for 3 weeks in about ’96. The visa had just been lengthened. We hooked up with 2 Burmese men in the airport who acted as our driver, guide and interrupters. We couldn’t stray too far off the beaten path as far as to which towns we went or what hotels we stayed in but their sympathies were very, very against the government and we didn’t stick to the tourist route or rules farther than that. They were invaluable to us and enabled us to see behind the government curtain, into the conditions in the country and speak with “real” people. It was they that thought it was important for foreigners to visit their country. At least someone will be there to see first hand and carry the message out to the outside world. It also gave them, private citizens, an income. Sure, they weren’t legal guides and we didn’t eat in proscribed restaurants but how many independent travelers stick to legal guides, official exchange rates and sanctioned restaurants when we travel anywhere?

A tour group sees only what’s on the agenda which is what’s proscribed. Globetrotters independent travelers, by definition, find their own way and learn about the country below the skin. I guess it’s the same argument that is made for Zoos. How many people can really get to see most of the Zoo animals in their natural homes? If no one sees the animals or knows anything about them, who will care if they live or die? How can we know how to help them if we don’t see and learn about them?

I was in Tibet in Sept. / Oct. of ’87 when the Chinese shot the Monks and some Tibetan people disappeared from Lhasa. If foreigners hadn’t been there to carry the news and pictures, the word would not have reached the rest of the world so soon.

Michael Rakower, our lawyer regular contributor from New York wrote in to add his views on visiting Burma:

This is a very difficult question. I think the right answer must lie in the individual’s choice. We independent travellers have a firebrand spirit. We seek to learn and question where others don’t dare. We see beauty and opportunity where others see a wasteland of underdevelopment and lost causes. Additionally, most travellers are also highly sensitive to the circumstances of the lives of others. This puts us in a difficult position. On the one hand, we rage against the confines of established society. On the other hand, we can’t help but appreciate the level of fairness and quality of protection we in the developed world enjoy. Clearly, certain very important things are being done right for us.

In 1996 I went to Burma during a lengthy trip through Asia. I considered the same issues back then, and chose to go. This issue boils down to a moral one. To me, the most moral thing one can do is to recognize that fact. By doing so, one recognizes that his/her actions have a moral effect on the world. Some will choose not to go to Burma, choosing to pad the pockets of governments more worthy. But the issue does not have to be so simple. There are other choices that lie between going forward blindly and not going at all. For example, one can go but sneak away from changing money at the government institutions (as I did).

In retrospect, I am very glad I went. First of all, I am more aware of the plight of the Burmese now that I have gone. I watched a speech Aung San Suu Kyi gave in front of her home, along with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Burmese waving their walkmen in the air so that they could tape her speech for the edification of their families. She spoke of freedom, liberty and resistance, and I’m glad I was there to attend. On another day, I met a local man who slapped me on the arm while we were walking alone on a desolete street merely for asking a question in public about the government. In the privacy of his home, he told me that informants lurk everywhere in his village. The impoverished Burmese, he told me, are quick to turn on their neighbors if they can do so secretly.

But then there is another side to this struggle. I stopped by an open-air shop one afternoon that sold an alcoholic beverage tapped from a tree. I befriended the shopkeeper and his family. Before I knew it, we were all taking pictures of each other. Without question, I believed these people to be warm and decent. Yet, while taking pictures, I noticed a military jacket behind the counter. The eldest son owned it. I have thought about that scene for a long time. This was a poor and decent family. In a land of poverty, where almost no opportunity exists, even those families who despise the government may wish their children good fortune within it. This poor shopkeeper wanted more for his son than he could give him.

So, from a moral point of view, what is one supposed to do? As I said, I think the solution lies in recognizing that one’s actions carry a moral play on the world. While Rough Guides may believe that the statement it can make to the world by refusing to publish information about Burma is the most effective measure it can take against a repressive regime, Lonely Planet may feel equally strongly that its position will have an influential effect toward positive change. In truth, they are probably both right. To turn the tide of repressive forces, creative and noble people must act in the manner they deem most effective. Raising public awareness, getting everyone to consider the issues and act according to his conscience, will, in time, have the most positive effect.

MTV and the Burma Campaign UK are running a joint campaign calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. In the last month over 40,000 people have visited www.mtvburmaaction.com and emailed Kofi Annan and the five permanent members of the security council, demanding the UN take action.