Many New Mandala readers will want to learn more about the renewed call to boycott Lonely Planet. This protest is a response to the famous publisher’s continued efforts to print a guide to Burma. More details from the boycott organisers are available here. The Lonely Planet case for the guidebook is made in this (now dated) material from BurmaNet News.
Update 28 February 2008: A Media & Communications Manager from Lonely Planet has got in contact with me and asked that I draw readers’ attention to the current Lonely Planet statement on responsible travel to Burma. It is well worth a read. In part, the publisher writes:
Make no mistake: our decision to publish is not a show of support for the current regime and we fully support the restoration of democracy in Burma. We do not, however, believe you create new freedoms by stifling information or banning books.
19 responses so far ↓
1 littlebang // Feb 26, 2008 at 11:04 pm
This is a hard one to call – does one wish to stop tourists entering Burma? That will only hurt the poor people. Or encourage tourism which suggest that Burma is a nice ‘tourist’ destination despite the junta?
I would focus efforts on China who are the main prop for the Military regime. But China does not have a history of budging on anything.
*sigh
2 jonfernquest // Feb 26, 2008 at 11:32 pm
1. “…the BBC Worldwide’s refusal to remove the book is in direct contradiction of the BBC’s own CSR statement, which acknowledges the corporation’s responsibility ‘for both the impact of our output and how we run our business.’”
2. “…we don’t believe it is possible for any company, including BBC Worldwide, to adopt a neutral position on the issue of travel to the country…
3. “…Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime….”
Just an emotional declaration of “belief” ?
Where is the proof that not going to Burma, not engaging with Burma and Burmese people, not publishing a Burma guidebook, is the right thing to do?
Is this the whole argument that they provide to support their position?
The proof of the exact opposite is sitting in my friend’s email inbox.
Friends of his in Burma (both poor and middle income business owners who employ poorer people) who derive their income from the tourism industry complaining that they cannot make ends meet because there are no tourists anymore.
I think the logic runs something like this, because I am working in the area of human rights, I am by definition altruistic and doing good things for other people, without any self-interest, so trust me unconditionally, even though I present no hard evidence and engage in no debate.
(I have seen so many people making money under these pretenses, as NGOs or fundraisers. The latest being a hilltribe missionary canned after he was caught in a sexual indiscretion. He was more likely to be found on the golf course than helping people. Or pay to volunteer scams.)
If there are specific tourism projects that are violating human rights TUC should give details and be selective in targeting those specific projects *****and provide citations******* TUC staff members went to college, didn’t they?
Publications like that highly informative ANU publication with papers from the current state of Myanmar conference 2006 is what I’m talking about.
3 farang // Feb 27, 2008 at 5:09 am
I disagree with this boycott. Visiting Myanmar is not giving support to this stupid military government.
I think that if more foreigners go to Myanmar it will foster the opening of Burma: the sight of weathy visitors may but strengthen the will of the people to overthrow the generals for more democracy and a more opened economy.
The boycott of the Lonely is more helpful to Lonely’s competiters than to Burma’s people…
4 aiontay // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The airport in Putao was extended and improved using forced labor back in the 1990s, supposedly to facilitate tourism (see “Stop Press” in Conde Nast Traveller, June 1995 for one citation), so I guess you can put Putao on your target list, if the regime would actually let you go and help out the poor folks there with tourist dollars and thereby strengthen the urge for democracy.
Maybe military shooting a Japanese journalist on film and beaten up unarmed monks has more to do with the decrease in tourism, rather than a call to boycott Lonely Planet.
5 Nicholas Farrelly // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Speaking of Putao, as I understand it there is a relatively new, foreigner-operated tourist facility up there. It goes by the name Malikha Lodge and was founded by Brett Melzer and Khin Omar Win who I take it are the owners of Balloons over Bagan. I haven’t been (and, anyway, I certainly couldn’t afford the rates I have seen quoted – 3 nights for $1350 per head!). Their handsome website is, however, worth a visit.
Is this the direction that even more tourism in Burma would go if Lonely Planet caved in? As I see it, at least the Lonely Planet gives readers some of an idea (sometimes great, sometimes not so wonderful) for what goes on in the country, in its many (non-luxury) parts. Kudos to Lonely Planet for holding the line after all these years of mud-slinging.
And, just to add a further two cents, who doesn’t have a Lonely Planet (or three) on their desk? I often find them a handy reference for all sorts of reasons. Immediate guidance for tourists is only part of what their books offer the world.
And, just as an aside, this Balloons over Bhutan thing (also operated by the same company) looks amazing! Check it out.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
6 Land of Snarls // Feb 27, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Thoroughly agree with all of the above. Burmese people need to know they haven’t been forgotten, and they need money. Just try not to support upper-class businesses. Good on Lonely Planet!
7 aiontay // Feb 27, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I’ve got some of Tony Wheeler’s old Lonely Planet guides on my bookshelf, and I’ve travelled in Burma, so I can’t condemn anyone out of hand who goes there. But there is no doubt that in the 1990s, in the run up to the “Year to Visit Myanmar” people had land confiscated to build things like Traders Hotel, and that people were dragooned into working on projects like the Putao airstrip. It seems that given the rather direct negative impacts of tourism on ordinary Burmese, you’d have to come up with a pretty good reason to go there.
Also, is anyone going to deny that the military regime is corrupt, and that business people don’t have to pay them off? Tourism is no different than timber; the regime gets its cut, so yes you do support the regime on some level by going there.
Finally, I find the idea that foreigners visiting Burma some how empowers the Burmese people incredible. The Kachin farmers or Wa people I knew up in the Northern Shan State don’t need any foreigners to strengthen their will.
8 montyman // Feb 27, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Travel with passion not politics
travelling independently still puts pennies in the Tan Schwe Govt’s pockets. Howver if it’s human rights issues that stops you going then don’t go anywhere in St East Asia including Thailand, Laos Cambodia and Vietnam.
I think China India and Thailand have greater imputs into Myanmars economy than you or I
Whenever I go the local economy appreciates even a cheapskate like me, they are also pleased I am there because the Govt are reticent to behave in their usual desapotic ways in areas of tourism.
When the september protests took place very few of the International media were on the ground and it was often independent tourists that relayed those scenes over the internet
Burma is a beuatiful unspoilt country and whatever you decide I love it and it’s people and those of us that do go certainly keep it in the worlds eye when we report back our own feelings
travel with passion not politics
9 Land of Snarls // Feb 28, 2008 at 1:58 am
“Also, is anyone going to deny that the military regime is corrupt, and that business people don’t have to pay them off? Tourism is no different than timber; the regime gets its cut, so yes you do support the regime on some level by going there. ” Well spoken, Aiontay,and with good accent, even if in jest! (Shakesp.) (I feel it’s ok to employ the word ‘jest’ in relation to trivia. )
Allow me to suggest a boycott on travel guides and travel to the U.S., for much the same loopy reasons.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that boycotts and trade sanctions do much more than increase the misery of people who are already living in unbearable conditions, as well as giving a boost to the self-righteous.
“Finally, I find the idea that foreigners visiting Burma some how empowers the Burmese people incredible.” Not what they’ve told me, but then I don’t “know” them, I’ve just met them & spent a little time with them. And I’ve only met them in Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore – Monks, torture victims, refugees. I haven’t been to Burma yet.
I have addresses from some Burmese refugees I met in KL, & verbal messages to deliver to their families who they are not expecting to see or be able to communicate with in the foreseeable future. They were insistent: Westerners should go there.
BTW, on the subject of LP guides: I got a first edition of ‘Istanbul to Katmandu, a classic overland route,’ by Paul Harding & Simon Richmond, publ. June 2001, as soon as it came out. Impossible since shortly after its publication, of course, but wonderful as fantasy-fodder. When I was in London in 1975 I got a fantastic big map for that route (but extended to Burma)from an organisation called BIT Travel, & I’ve dreamed of it ever since. What an adventure!
10 x // Feb 28, 2008 at 3:33 am
Tourism is not going to make or break the regime. Over the long term engagement with the regime is more likely to bring about a moderating influence on the generals’ behavior.
11 aiontay // Feb 28, 2008 at 10:30 am
Land of Snarls, any comparison to Shakespeare is the unkindest cut of all, to Shakespeare at least.
Awhile back a friend of mine was all outraged because some Canadian was refusing to visit the US in protest of Dubya and his policies and the fact that the US electorate re-elected the yahoo; I wasn’t upset. But I think your slightly missing my point. When I traveled in Burma I knew my money in part went to the regime, no doubt about it, and that any money that goes to them does in fact support them. It certainly isn’t being spent on health care. I just got back from New Orleans. It isn’t loopy to suggest that my hotel tax went to the government coffers. Several posters have basically said that tourism doesn’t support the regime; sure it does. Is it enough to prevent someone from going? I don’t know, but I certainly wouldn’t be dismissive of the fact that the regime hopes for tourism to be a money maker for them like it is in Thailand, and people might want to factor that in to their decision making.
Before I went to Burma for research (and later worked on a regime-sanctioned project briefly!) I did ask several Kachin friends, some of whom have pretty strong KIO connections, what they thought of my going. None of them seemed too thrill and certainly did encourage me to go, although they supported me going. However, my use of the term empowering came from a post that seemed to suggest the sight of wealthy foreign tourists might somehow strengthen the Burmese people’s desire for democracy and lead to an overthrow of the regime. Maybe I read it wrong, but I find that opinion a bit hard to believe.
To return to the issue of Lonely Planet, I would point out that the whole rationale of Lonely Planet was (and boy I’m probably dating myself here) “travelers” were somehow different that “tourists” and that there was an implicit moral superiority in that distinction, one that I never bought. So there’s a certain irony in seeing them taking a position in line with rest of the tourism industry position and being shocked that people might be holding them different standard.
Maybe I’m self righteous, but I wonder if everybody thinks that a tourist trip just of the sake of enjoyment to say, Pinochet’s Chile, would be perfectly fine, or if it might be useful to consider the political dynamics of the situations?
Oh, and you went across Sumatra and you think Burma is an adventure? Sounds like you had one.
12 Nicholas Farrelly // Feb 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Readers who have been following this Burma travel boycott conversation will want to read the update to the original post that I have just made. It should give everyone interested in the Lonely Planet issue more food for thought.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
13 alan morison // Feb 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The BBC is at loggerheads with Britain’s union movement over Burma tourism. But from Phuket, you can still catch a dive boat and supplement general’s business empire.
THE RICH are still different. They can afford to go diving off Burma and not feel embarrassed that they are supporting a regime that tramples on democracy and kills and beats protesting monks.
Dive boat companies operating out of Phuket into waters off Burma report that it has been business as usual this high season, with calls for a boycott falling on the deaf ears of divers from around the world.
Burma’s ruling generals are actually making more out of the Phuket and regional dive businesses than ever before, having increased the fee this high season for travel in Burma waters to $US200 per person per day.
The result is that an eight-day live-aboard ”experience” that will carry divers to Burma for four days will cost each passenger about $2200.
I won’t name the dive companies or individuals involved because the personal opinions of the people who spoke to me are not necessarily going to be shared by their employers.
Essentially, the clash of principles for the dive industry is the same as the clash between the BBC and Britain’s Trade Union Council.
Does tourism actually help to break the general’s hold on the country, or does it simply shore up their evil empire?
The TUC now wants the ‘Lonely Planet Guide to Burma’ banned and has called for a boycott of all 288 Lonely Planet guides unless that happens.
BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the broadcaster, bought Lonerly Planet last year and insists the guide simply ”provides information and lets readers decide for themselves.”
Putting aside principle, divers want to go to Burma waters simply to explore the pristine sites that can be found in the 800-island Mergui Archipelago and beyond.
Whether it is morally right or wrong, these well-heeled divers focus on the experience, regardless of the high cost or how their money is ultimately used.
According to dive industry insiders, the marine world in Burma waters is ”fabulous . . . among the best anywhere.”
It may even be that some of the divers who undertake trips to Burma waters are not even aware of the important issue of principle involved.
Or perhaps they have simply chosen to forget the images of protesting monks and the bloody crackdown that were beamed out on the BBC and elsewhere in September 2007.
Certainly, descriptions of the Mergui Archipelago make it sound a wonderful place to visit.
Because the protected Similan Islands off Thailand now attract so many boats each high season, there are plenty of takers for sites that offer so much more.
As well as the Mergui Archipelago, where some islands are said to have probably never been dived, the Burma Banks offers up a rocky outcrop in the middle of the ocean that attracts prolific marine life.
For people who are hooked on the highs of the underwater sport, the fact that they are supporting a corrupt regime seems incidental or of no consequence.
Dive companies say there were a few cancellations after the monks’ protest was brutally suppressed, especially among Americans.
But people from all countries now go diving with the generals, with Britons, Japanese, Germans and Hungarians taking spots of the 12-berth live-aboards of one company in particular.
Magazines aimed at promoting tourism for the advertising income simply overlook right and wrong while enthusing breathlessly about the chances of encountering a whale shark or a manta ray.
Dive company employees actually say that larger species of marine life are only just beginning to return in numbers now that Burmese authorities have finally managed to control local dynamite fishing.
Business continues to flourish off Burma, with the sole resort in the entire Mergui Archipelago recently being bought by German interests.
One person who visited that island for a few days described it as ”a really lovely diving resort” where all transactions of necessity took place in US dollars.
When divers talk about the merits of Burma waters, the superlatives flow thick and fast.
Although there is still high demand for trips to Burma waters despite the increasing cost, apparently there are fewer companies involved this high season in making the trips.
This is more likely to be because of basic industry economics than closures on principle.
One dive company employee told me he remembered back six years ago to the days of a corrupt and obese middleman known as the ”Fat Controller.”
At the time, the ”Fat Controller” liaised between the dive companies and the Burmese immigration officials. His gold necklets and rings jangled as he collected the bribes.
Passports were handed in, but never stamped. Today, the employee said, even late arrival at a docking point warrants an additional fee for the authorities.
At least one company still involved in Burma diving also does adventure travel on land inside Burma.
A spokesperson said that for tourists, it was relatively simple to make sure that money spent goes to the poverty-stricken Burmese rather than their wealthy and unprincipled masters.
Tourism on land within Burma seems to be a different issue to what goes on in the water.
I know travellers who were in Burma at the time of the monks’ uprising.
They were close enough to the action to be able to tell protesters first-hand that the rest of their world supported their stand.
The protesters asked the tourists what the world thought, because inside Burma they don’t get to see the BBC, only the general’s one-eyed media.
Another tourist was able to report directly how the families of protesters were rounded up in chains and carried under guard on a riverboat ferry to an uncertain fate. He just happened to catch the same ferry.
I wonder if Britain’s TUC would prefer to have workers in Burma simply accept the unadulterated diet of propaganda and lies from the regime?
There are plenty of businesses in the West and Asia still dealing with the generals. This is where the efforts of the union movement should probably be concentrated.
Considering all the circumstances, tourism in Burma can be a powerful force for good, although it’s strictly for the adventurous and travellers need to be careful where they spend their money.
However, when it comes to diving off Burma, the issue seems to be clearcut. More and more, it is the rich who fail to take the trouble to separate right from wrong.
Private charters to Burma waters are increasing, industry insiders say. Boats making those trips are becoming more luxurious.
It sounds like the diving adventure of a lifetime. Yet the fact remains that every passenger has to pay $US200 a day.
And that money goes straight to the black-hearted generals.
14 ali mc // Mar 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm
i hope everyone who supports the boycott/ sanctioning of Myanmar checked their jeans, ipods, digital cameras, televisions, computers, children’s toys, home theatre packages, DVD players, car parts, jewelry, paper books, furniture, light bulbs, car stereos, tshirts, sneakers, baseball caps, etc etc for a ‘Made In China’ tag, ‘cos if it has one then it seems a little hypocritical to me… oh, and did I mention the Olympics??
15 mayburma // Mar 21, 2008 at 6:47 am
yeah! why don’t you all try to get Dalai Lama back to Tibet first ?
No one in the West can avoid ” Made in China”. Thanks to China we all can afford things.
16 Andrew Milner // May 14, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Should the West decide to intervene in Myanmar (a terrible error in my view), all background information will be valuable, as there is a dearth of detail about the country. Lonely Planet, Myanmar (Burma) will become a valuable source of information, updated as it is by regular feedback from travellers. The Junta are seriously bad guys, albeit incompetent, but if you swallow HMG propaganda you are being deceived. Following the cyclone, aid agencies will need to work with the military government, so trying to score political points by using the former colonial name will only serve to antagonise the very people whose co-operation you need. What’s the percentage in that? So switch to Myanmar HMG, and the rest of you, stop this childish Lonely Planet boycott immediately. You are just making yourselves look ridiculous. Visit the country before you respond, then you might have slightly more of a clue than you do now.
17 Flashpackerguide.info // Aug 14, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I believe the Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi would know something about it, and she has asked tourists not to visit the country.
Lots of info at:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/action_holiday.html
Where you have a section called Myths answering most of questions in this thread. One of the most relevant ones:
Doesn’t contact with tourists encourage democracy and prevent abuses in Burma more than isolation?
“Burmese people know their own problems better than anyone else. They know what they want – they want democracy – and many have died for it. To suggest that there’s anything new that tourists can teach the people of Burma about their own situation is not simply patronising – it’s also racist.”
18 alan morison // Aug 14, 2008 at 9:52 pm
What foreigners who go to Burma can tell the Burmese is how the outside world views their discontent, and how much support they have beyond their borders. People who throw around words like ”patronising” and ”racist” without an appropriate context are usually bigots. They view every issue through their own self-righteous conceit.
19 John S // Aug 16, 2008 at 1:50 am
Shooting the messenger? Why stop at Burma? Why wasn’t there a Lonely Planet Thailand boycott after thousands of citizens lost their lives in the drug wars? And what about Lao PDR, the darling of the international aid agencies? Is the Lao autocratic regime radically different from Burma’s? Or are the Lao simply better at hiding their misdeeds and stifling any dissent? Where is the outcry over the forced relocation by the Lao authorities of thousands of highlanders from their mountain villages to lowland resettlement areas? Tourists, using their Lonely Planet Lao PDR, can visit the displaced Akha, Lahu and Hmong (lining roads in Luang Nam Tha and Bokeo provinces) and see for themselves the government-imposed suffering. Then there is China…and lets not forget the massive human rights abuses being perpetrated by the US military. Sri Lanka is another country with a dubious human rights record, but then again, is it any worse than Indonesia’s ? Admittedly a good case can be made against supporting the Burmese Junta in any way at all, but lets not get selective here with our subjective judgments. To be safe, and fair, boycott all guidebooks! They take the adventure out of travel anyway. And while we are at it, we might as well blacklist any websites that have contributions from individuals who support travel to Burma. The list could also include governments and individuals who donated aid via the Burmese authorities to help the cyclone victims. The $1.6 million the Junta scammed off them in rip-off exchange rates could fund a lot of repression. Sanctions/boycotts/military intervention? Sounds a bit like Iraq. For the sake of the citizens of Burma and other people living under repressive regimes, one would hope that there is a more effective and humanitarian way to bring about change. Any suggestions?
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.