We believe that small-scale, responsible tourism can create more benefits than harm.  So long as tourists are fully aware of the situation and take steps to maximise their positive impact and minimise the negatives, we feel their visit can be beneficial overall.  Responsible tourists can help Burma primarily by bringing money to local communities and small businesses, and by raising awareness of the situation worldwide. 

What about supporting the regime?

The military government’s main source of foreign currency comes from trade with its Asian neighbours:  Thailand, India and China.  Time Asia recently discussed the importance of Chinese trade, aid and investment to Burma, with trade alone being worth US$1.1 billion in 2004.  China is by far the largest supplier of foreign investment to Burma, accounting for US$126.6 million in 2004/05. 

Recent rises in energy prices have directly caused the small growth in the economy over 2005, as the value of Burma’s natural gas exports to Thailand increased, leaving Burma with a trade surplus.  Natural gas exports look set to expand in the future as Burma has recently signed deals to supply India and South Korea.  Burma’s other principal exports include teak, pulses and textiles, and it is one of the world’s largest producers of opiates.  In 2004/05, exports brought in a total of US$ 2.9 billion in foreign currency.  Until this situation changes (highly unlikely in the present climate) your visa fee, or the lack of it, will make very little difference to the regime’s coffers. 

There is still a moral argument for not supplying the regime with revenue, and we advise tourists to spend their money carefully, to ensure that the amount going to the government is kept to a minimum.  The fact remains that visiting Burma will inevitably supply the regime with a small amount of income.  We see this as a necessary evil, which can be outweighed by spending lots of money on small-scale, locally-owned products and services.  

What about legitimising the regime?

The regime already has a certain degree of international legitimacy.  The SPDC represents Burma as its government at the UN and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), along with many other international organisations.  Ambassadors of the regime are recognised by countries worldwide, including the UK, Australia and the EU.  Tourist visits, or the lack of them, have little effect on this. 

Responsible tourists may actually contribute to making the regime appear less legitimate.  In our experience, they are extremely unlikely to return from a visit to Burma with a sense of the regime’s legitimacy.  Instead, they are much more likely to develop an awareness of the junta’s abuses, and may even go on to campaign against them. 

What about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi?

We respect and recognise Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as the closest thing Burma has to a representative leader, and for the courageous and selfless work she has done for her people.  Why then do we ignore her message to boycott tourism?

While her overall message has encouraged a boycott, she is referring to mainstream tourism when she discusses the problems it brings.  She is rightly concerned about tourists funding the government by staying in expensive, government-owned hotels and being unaware of (and unwilling to learn about) the situation.  We do not advocate this type of tourism, and agree with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi that it is harmful to Burma.  When asked about ‘alternative tourism’ in an interview, she conceded that ‘visitors to the country can be useful, depending on what they do and how they go about it.‘  We agree, and feel that responsible and informed tourists can fulfil this useful role. 

What about forced labour?

There is no doubt that forced labour and forced relocation have both been used in the construction of tourist infrastructure.  Does a visit to Burma therefore condone these rights abuses?  Like most things, the answer is not a simple yes or no. 

According to ILO reports, forced labour has been used in Burma since the 1960s for military portering and installations, infrastructure projects, urban and rural beautification and other reasons.  Despite continued pressure from the ILO and an SPDC directive of 2000 outlawing forced labour, there has been no let up in the practice.  The reason for this failure to effectively tackle forced labour is, according to the ILO, economic.  Local military commanders are not provided with adequate funding for projects and therefore force civilians to work without pay to complete them.  In 2001, an ILO report identified the root causes of forced labour in Burma’s poverty and lack of international engagement, and called for foreign investment, international financial support and humanitarian assistance to halt the practice. 

The use of forced labour, then, is entrenched in Burmese society and caused by its poverty and isolation.  This of course does not make it right, or mean it should be encouraged.  But the sad fact of the matter is that forced labour looks set to continue in Burma, whether tourists visit or not.  Roads, bridges and railways will and do continue to built by unpaid workers.  If Western tourists could stop this by boycotting the country, we would advise them to do so.  Unfortunately, they cannot succeed where the ILO has failed. 

What, though, does this mean for the individual tourist?  Most people do not want to feel that their presence is contributing to the use of slave labour, however widespread and entrenched the practice.  The bulk of infrastructure development would occur anyway, but what about projects aimed specifically at tourists such as the Pagan railway or the Mandalay Palace?

In central Burma, most of the development and construction projects aimed at attracting tourists were undertaken before 1995 in preparation for the government’s ill-fated Visit Myanmar Year 1996.  They were primarily aimed at high-spending mainstream tourists.  Alternative tourists staying in small guesthouses and using local transport and facilities are unlikely to find that these have been constructed with forced labour for the purpose of attracting tourists.  Tourist sites are another matter, and we advise anyone considering going to avoid those sites that have been upgraded or constructed using forced labour. 

Over the last few years, the use of forced labour in central Burma has decreased, mainly because most of the large infrastructure projects have been completed, although it is still sometimes used for small projects.  In contrast, the practice has increased in ethnic and border areas, particularly in war-affected regions.  The majority of cases occur in conflict areas and involve forced portering and construction of military installations and other military projects.  Tourists are not permitted to visit these areas and have no effect on these cases.  In the ethnic areas open to tourists, there are some cases of forced labour being used specifically for tourist projects, such as the building of tourist accommodation in Naga areas of Sagaing Division, and the forced relocation of the Salon people in Tenasserim Division to perform for tourists.  We would advise tourists considering travelling to ethnic areas to avoid these two sites and to be extremely wary of any resorts or developments aimed specifically at tourists in these regions. 

So do tourists encourage forced labour?  Those visiting the central Burma/Shan State quadrangle can feel reasonably safe that their presence will not cause forced labour to be used in these areas in the present or near future.   This does NOT mean that the facilities used were not constructed with forced labour in the past, only that the practice has decreased in these places in recent years.  Alternative tourists are less likely to use major hotels constructed with forced labour, but as an added precaution, should seek to actively avoid tourist sites and infrastructure where it is known to have been used.  Particular care should be taken in the ethnic areas where the practice is still widespread. 

The links between tourism and forced labour are undeniable.  But boycotting Burma will not stop the practice.  With a little care and information, tourists can avoid sites built for visitors with forced labour, and may have a small effect on its decrease through their contribution to the economy. 

Our view on the boycott

Overall, we feel that a blanket boycott on tourism does more harm than good.  While widespread, mainstream tourism may shore up the government and provide no insight for tourists into Burma’s unique situation, we feel that responsible tourism can, for the most part, avoid these negative effects.  Instead, it can provide much-needed income for the small percentage of ordinary Burmese working in the industry.  A blanket boycott would deny these people an income. 

In an interview in 2005, Yvette Mahon, former co-director of the pro-boycott Burma Campaign UK, recognised this problem, saying ‘I hate the fact that some ordinary people will be affected by the tourism boycott.  It’s not something I feel happy about.’  She went on to justify the boycott as a ‘short-term strategy aimed at ensuring long-term freedom for everybody in Burma, ‘ and pointed out that it’s ‘our responsibility to see that there’s some transition to democracy as quickly as possible.’  But will boycotting tourism really bring democracy to Burma?  It’s now been 12 years since the boycott began, and Burma is no closer to achieving political change.  Indeed, many say it is further away now than it has ever been.  The ‘short-term strategy’ is starting to look like a long-term position, with no end in sight.  In the meantime, people suffer.  Isn’t it time for another way?