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.
