Derek, a retired UK diplomat, contacted the Beetle to say that all too often the controversy over whether or not to visit Burma tends to overlook the very important issue of whether the people of Burma themselves are happy to see and meet foreign tourists. Derek, who is to visit Burma again next month, has made a study of anecdotal reports of Burmese attitudes over the last five years – alas the sole source of information in the absence of credible opinion polls – and his conclusion is that the Burmese people themselves very much favour visits by tourists and travellers to their country by a margin of at least 10 to 1. We have reproduced a cut down version of his survey.
*****
Some travel correspondents say that on their visits they found it difficult, if not impossible to find any Burmese, even rank and file members of Daw Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, who were against tourism to their country, despite Daw Suu Kyi’s strictures. A “search” on Alta Vista for “Burma Travel Boycott” any evening will produce over 3,000 “hits”. A sample selection of reported Burmese views from these “hits” confirms my conclusion that the Burmese people generally really do want tourists and travellers to visit.
It is for many their main source of income, protection against the excesses of the military and an assurance that their plight may at least be witnessed by those who are sensitive observers. Travel and tourism indeed advance the cause of democracy.
My simple conclusion is that we should primarily be guided by the wishes and advice of the Burmese people , and not that of the UK Government whose policy is to “strongly discourage tourism to Burma” – FCO Minister Bill Rammell, 25 November 2003, speech on “Why Human Rights Matter” to the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Tourism is admittedly a source, but not, as another FCO Minister, Mike O’Brien stated in a letter on 14 July 2003 to the Chief Executive of ABTA, Ian Reynolds, “an important source” of hard currency for the SPDC. Net profits pale into insignificance against the US$ 2-3 billion purchases in recent years, mostly from China, of arms and military equipment. Most hotels are barely covering their operating costs. Remittances by tourist enterprises out of Burma of some US$ 25 million annually [IMF estimates] for essential payments punch quote a hole in US$ 100 million annual revenue. Local costs swallow up much of the balance. It is not credible to argue that tourism is in any serious sense helping to prop up the regime. It would do so if numbers increased tenfold, but this isn’t likely to happen for a very long time.
There is no doubt that Daw Suu Kyi would prefer tourists to delay visiting Burma. Over the years, she has advanced numerous reasons for not visiting Burma, some of which are not all that convincing, notably arguments about giving the regime “legitimacy” (while the UK accepts Burma as Myanmar at the UN and maintains full diplomatic relations, with an Ambassador in post), about “it’s better to stay at home and read some of the many human rights reports there are” (which is not perhaps the best way to experience and witness what is going on in Burma), about “the bulk of the money goes straight into the pockets of the Generals” (when revenue clearly goes to meeting operating expenses, debt, depreciation, transfer to reserves etc.), about “Burma will still be there when the time is ripe” (but not for octogenarian veterans of the Burma Campaign, while for scholars, linguists, ethnologists, Buddhist scholars and many others with specialist interests Burma has been a hermit kingdom ever since the military took over in 1962), about “we haven’t had time to discuss it [tourism policy] properly” at a news conference in May 2002 (which might leave some of us still wondering what NLD policy really is).
The tourist trade has been hard hit by the latest indiscriminate US sanctions which have led to the suspension of all credit card transactions in Burma and restrictions on the utilisation of the US Dollar. Quite soon, thousands of postcard sellers and stall holders, tourist guides, hotel staff and drivers will be joining the 80,000 or so textile workers who have been made unemployed.
No-one in Burma is making any serious money out of tourism at present, and what is the point of allocating beach land to cronies of the regime when there is no investment capital available to develop projects? Occasionally critics point to the Shangri-La Traders Hotel as an example of a Joint Venture which must be making money for the SPDC. They might be surprised to know that Traders Hotel has been in liquidation since 1999.
Tourism is about meeting people, and in the case of Burma letting the Burmese know that the outside world has not forgotten them.
Derek Tonkin
If you would like to contact Derek, he can be reached by e-mail as follows: d.tonkin@btopenworld.com