Sam Chambers
“The Standard Weekend”, Saturday, November 26, 2005

Lonely Planet's latest guide to the country has reignited the debate on the link between tourism and human rights abuses, writes Sam Chambers

` B urma will be here for many years, so tell your friends to visit us later. Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime." - Aung San Suu Kyi

It's one of the most debated questions among the backpacking class, an ethical dilemma that divides and angers politically conscious travelers like no other - to go or not to go to Burma.

The issue is in the limelight again this month as Lonely Planet releases the latest edition of its country guide, the mere presence of which raises the hackles of organizations opposed to Burma's harsh military rulers.

It is also something the Australia- based publisher is well-versed in defending.

"Our aim in publishing this guide," says Anna Bolger, marketing communications manager for Lonely Planet, "is to provide objective information to help travelers make informed decisions about whether or not to visit Burma. No one reading our guide could be in any doubt about our opinion of the current regime, which we describe as `abominable."'

Many of Burma's democrats, including Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD), which won a landslide victory in the parliamentary elections of May 1990 only to see the results thrown out by the ruling junta, have called for a tourism boycott.

They say tourist dollars simply go to the regime and tourism development has occasioned large-scale human rights violations. "As long as they maintain that call, we will support them," says Anna Roberts, information and campaigns manager for Burma Campaign UK, an activist group.

"By producing a tourist guide, Lonely Planet helps facilitate and promote tourism to the country," she maintains.

Lonely Planet argues that theirs is one of very few sources of reliable information for travelers "to maximize their support for the local population, and minimize the prospect of any money they might spend going to the military regime," says Bolger.

"Our decision to publish is not a show of support for the current regime and we fully support the restoration of democracy. We do not, however, believe you create new freedoms by stifling information or banning books."

The argument that tourists play into the hands of a brutal pariah regime is convincing.

Since Burma opened up to more tourism after the present military junta crushed massive democracy protests in 1988, over US$1.1 billion (HK$8.5 billion) has been invested in the hotel and tourism industry, according to the Burma Campaign UK.

That money helps sustain military rule, campaigners say. The capricious regime is accused of using forced labor and mandatory relocations to build hotels, restaurants, roads, railways and other facilities. Official figures estimate Burma earned US$100 million from tourism in 2001-02.

"While foreign investment has flowed into Burma and enabled the regime to expand the armed forces from 180,000 personnel to around 500,000, the country's health, education and public services have almost collapsed. The regime spends nearly half the government budget on the military but less than 44 pence [HK$6] per person per year on health and education combined," says Roberts.

She is adamant that by opting to visit Burma, tourists are prolonging the misery of the population. "The greatest obstacle to prosperity for people in Burma is the regime itself," she says.

"The more revenue it is able to earn from tourism and foreign investment, the longer it will be able to stay in power."

This kind of thinking has been behind a number of boycotts of companies doing business in Burma and helped convince Pepsi, Liz Claiborne, Amoco and Levi Strauss, among others, to pull out their operations.

But is isolation good for the people? Does a guy selling Buddha statues to tourists at Rangoon's Shwedagon Pagoda deserve to lose his meager income because well-meaning Westerners stay away?

These are tricky questions and Australia-based Voices for Burma says that sanctions and boycotts only make the regime more introverted, xenophobic and oppressive, while the people are poorer for the isolation. The lack of jobs also makes it easier, they say, for richer neighboring countries like Thailand and China to exploit Burmese laborers.

"Voices For Burma [VFB] believes that to support Burmese people we need to be alongside them," writes James Mawdsley on the group's Web site. "For those who are prepared, it will open up countless opportunities to give concrete assistance."

Mawdsley has taken this advice repeatedly, traveling three times to the country to stage one-man protests. Each time he was arrested, the last time in 1999 when he was sentenced to 17 years in prison but released 10 months later.

It is unclear how Mawdsley helped Burmese democracy activists with his protests but he became famous worldwide and wrote a book about his experiences. He was praised in Britain as a hero by some but became an object of considerable controversy in activist circles.

Writing about Mawdsley in the respected exile publication, The Irrawaddy, editor Aung Zaw said the Briton's stunts had made life harder for activists inside Burma and actually hurt their cause. In the same magazine, Nor Grace, a Burmese woman, said Mawdsley does not speak for the democracy movement.

"By using Burma and our problems, he has tried to seek fame and personal gain. He was nobody [in London], but by getting involved in Burma, he became somebody," she said.

The Mawdsley tale is a cautionary one, perhaps, that visiting is one thing, but thinking you are helping the democracy movement by doing so, is quite another.

Still, Andrew Gray, co-director of Voice of Burma, says he is just trying to minimize the money the regime might make from a given visit. This can be difficult. It is impossible to know who is part of the regime - a taxi driver, room clerk or tour guide, for example, might have links with military intelligence.

Both VFB and Lonely Planet suggest the politically aware traveler stay in cheaper places to guarantee that if the regime does have some connection with the establishment, the small amount spent will have only a small impact.

VFB also asks tourists to maximize their spending on small stalls and cafes that are unlikely to be a profit center for the generals. It advises tourists to use private bus companies, private cars and tour guides, and to buy handicrafts and artwork from local shops instead of government-sanctioned souvenir shops.

"Tourists can go to Burma as tourists and not visit the tourist sites," Gray suggests, although it is hard to imagine a visit to Rangoon without seeing the magnificent Shwedagon Pagoda and coughing up the US$5 entry fee.

"It is not the attractions that fascinate us, it is the people and the culture," he says.

"Almost all exile organizations and outside political groups adhere to Aung San Suu Kyi's call for tourists to boycott the country," says Aung Ngai Oo, a Burmese analyst based in Thailand. "But they are really thinking of the big tour groups, the kind that come in on buses and never have any contact with the people. Those groups help the government."

The sort of travel that Voices for Burma and Lonely Planet promote is lower scale and not as offensive, says Aung Ngai Oo. "A more ethical tourism is better," he says. "and the people inside Burma need the income."

Clearly, the numbers of tourists entering are limited though they are growing, up from 62,000 in 1994 to 202,000 last year.

The controversy is a spirited one and, as time has passed, some have even switched sides.

The Free Burma Coalition, made up of Burmese dissidents in exile, decided in 2003 that sanctions and travel boycotts were not working.

"Our people are unhappy living in poverty and oppression, but they are also unconvinced that isolating the country economically, intellectually and politically will make their situation any better," the coalition said at the time.

"Putting the country's interests above ideology, and prejudices against the rulers, we have challenged publicly the orthodoxy of sanctions and boycotts as the only lever for change in our country."

The debate has prompted Lonely Planet to double the size of the "Should You Go?" section in the latest edition of the guide book. The authors aim to help travelers gauge the pros and cons and maximize the money that reaches locals' hands.

In the directory, for instance, Lonely Planet charts details on how money is spread around and where to find the best cheap accommodation in private guesthouses.

They also remind readers that Internet services are entirely in government hands and note the use of forced labor to build airstrips and the fact that the government owns the airlines and controls most ferries and cruise ships.

Still can't make up your mind whether you should visit or not?

I called a couple of Burmese for advice and even they are divided.

"We want as many tourists to come as possible, even though they might be supporting the regime, so that most of the people outside Burma will understand us more, not for the revenues," said an exile living in Singapore.

But another bitter opponent of the regime, exiled in Macau, remained adamant: "Tourist money only serves to prop up a nasty regime. Stay away. Wait for the right time."

I am still waiting. But I have penciled a trip in on my calendar for next year.