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