Burma Postbag

The Times,February 23, 2002

Many Times Travel readers have written to us concerning last week’s cover story
  • The politics of temple-hopping
    • by travel editor Cath Urquhart about Burma. The issue of whether or not to visit the country has provoked responses on both sides of the debate. Here is a selection:

    I WAS both interested and pleased to read Cath Urquhart’s article on Burma with its qualified endorsement for tourists to go to that lovely country. I went there in May 1996 and have been singing its praises ever since. We stayed in a small family hotel in Yangon - where, as Urquhart says, the owners kept the money we paid them and did not have to pass it on to the Government. People almost constantly came to talk to us, and were delighted to learn that we were English.

    A.G. Orchard, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire

    IT IS unfortunate that The Times has announced that it’s OK for tourists to visit Burma. Our organisation, Tourism Concern, has never been black and white on this issue, and does not attempt to argue, as Urquhart suggests, that tourism cannot bring any positive benefits to a troubled country. Of course there can be pros, but we argue that these are far outweighed by the cons.

    Urquhart illustrates her case with that of the Burmese comedians recently released from jail after being imprisoned for telling political jokes, quoting them as saying that they want tourists to come, because foreigners are their protection.

    Well, it would be wonderful to know the formula for getting political prisoners out of jail, but the reality is that you can never be sure what forces are at play.

    Maybe tourists did play some part in this case - but it seems likely that the campaigning of human rights groups and media coverage were more decisive factors.

    Of course, there are people who are financially dependent on tourism, but these people are in the very tiniest minority of Burma’s population. This is not to suggest these few don’t bear considering, but the bigger picture is that tourism is simultaneously fuelling a regime that is keeping 48 million people in poverty. And, as is pointed out in the footnotes to Urquhart’s article, all tourists have to exchange US$200 on arrival at the airport; money that goes straight into the government coffers.

    If we want to help the democratic movement in Burma, all that is asked of us is that for now, we stay away. “Burma will be here for many years,” Aung San Suu Kyi (the country’s elected leader who is prevented by the military junta from assuming power) has said, “so tell your friends to visit us later. Visiting now is tantamount to condoning the regime.”

    Lara Marsh, Tourism Concern

    I READ with interest the article on travel to Burma. I was there five years ago and my experience matched that of Cath Urquhart. While everyone I met was a supporter of Suu Kyi, all of them also welcomed tourists and said that on the issue of the tourist boycott they did not agree with her.

    Like Urquhart, I firmly believe that responsible tourism is of benefit to the ordinary people of Burma. It introduces money into the local economy and provides jobs; I had a freelance driver and guide on my trip who were entirely dependent on tourists for their livings. I also agree that tourism is important in keeping a country in the public eye. The gaze of tourists, while not a cure for all ills, is an inhibition on some action that may otherwise take place.

    Of course, a tourist cannot right all the world’s ills and some of the tourist dollars will inevitably end up in hands that may not be the most desirable, but the balance of disadvantage is, in my view, in favour of visiting Burma despite the sincerely held views to the contrary.

    Richard McManus, London N1

    IT WAS refreshing to read Cath Urquhart’s travelogue on Burma. I have been closely interested in Burma since I was Burma Desk Officer at the Foreign Office in the early 1960s and, though I have never lived in the country, I have visited on several occasions.

    I am a strong believer in the value of human contact to assist the process of peace and reconciliation throughout the world, and Burma is no exception. As I feel Urquhart found on her visit, the tourist boycott staged by activist groups in the UK is simply not understood in Burma, and given the relatively normal relations enjoyed by Burma with all its regional neighbours, of very little impact overall.

    Derek Tonkin, Guildford, Surrey