COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (268)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

It’s our responsibility to see that there’s some transition to democracy as quickly as possible, so that all of Burma’s people can benefit. The tourism boycott is a short-term strategy aimed at ensuring long-term freedom for everybody in Burma.

 

Q: Can’t tourists act as a kind of channel to the outside world for Burmese living in isolation?

 

A: We’re emphasizing how difficult it is for Burmese people to speak freely with foreigners. One of the arguments that is often used is that tourists can spread the word about democracy and encourage democracy. I’ve heard that argument used often. It actually makes me a little angry, because I think Burmese people know their own problems better than anyone else, and they’ve shown their commitment to democracy by going out on the streets in the thousands in 1988. To suggest that there’s anything new that tourists who are there to look at the temples and lie on the beach can really teach them about the situation in their own country is very patronizing.

 

Q: Do you see any sign that the tourism industry has contributed to a reduction in human rights abuses?

 

A: No, I don’t think the tourism industry can claim to have reduced the incidents of abuse in Burma. We’ve seen no evidence of that. On the contrary, we’ve seen human rights abuses in the drive to prepare the country for tourists. Millions of people were forced from their homes to make way for golf courses, airports, railways or new roads for the benefit of tourism. Forced labor was used to build those sites. So I think that the tourism industry has actually helped fuel abuse in Burma. We’ve got numerous stories of places where hotel owners have been hauled in by the police and asked to account for the actions of tourists who have decided to go into off-limits areas and try to find and look at Aung San Suu Kyi’s house. It’s the Burmese people that sometimes come off worse in terms of contact with tourists. So, no—I don’t see that there’s been any improvement in the human rights situation as a result of tourism.

 

Question: Joe, can the leaders of Britain’s parliamentary political parties all be wrong in their assessment of how best to bring pressure on the Burmese regime?

 

Answer: I think so. I think they are wrong. I don’t see why they don’t understand that. For me, boycotts, economic sanctions and embargos target civilians as well as the government. They’re the moral equivalent of carpet bombing, where you destroy the whole economy in order to get at the few people at the top. In fact, the resistance to what they are doing is weakening the resistance against the regime. In all cases where you see democracy growing and resistance growing you have to have some kind of economic base to work from. It’s so much easier to oppress a people that are poverty stricken. Economic sanctions never work. There’s no evidence to suggest that the military regime in Burma cares whether people boycott tourism. In fact, it’s very small potatoes for them. It’s one of the few major industries that are privatized.