What is peace tourism?

What’s the difference between war tourism and peace tourism? Recent tourist attractions in Cambodia have addressed this question. It’s not that Cambodia is any stranger to grim tourist sights. Phnom Penh’s two most famous attractions, Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Killing Fields, are relics of the Khmer Rouge’s bloody reign that killed over 2 million of its own citizens in the name of a communist utopia. Today, tourists and locals alike come in flocks to witness the horrifying setting of some of the greatest human rights abuses in the last half-century. But now the Cambodia is trying two add a few new dark destinations to its must-see sight map. Specifically, Pol Pot’s grave and toilet seat as well as the house of the Khmer Rouge commander, affectionately known as “the Butcher.”

Pol Pot's Grave

So what’s the difference between visiting the Killing Fields and say the Butcher’s last abode? Why, the quality of information provided. While Tuol Sleng and the Killing Fields are flushed with placards giving information about the conditions under the Khmer Rouge and are designed to educate people about such horrific happenings, these new sights have no information besides a “sign that says ‘please help to preserve this historical site.’” The big question: is it okay to profit from Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge’s atrocities? And moreover, how can we distinguish between profiteering and education?

In order to answer these, let’s look back at our first question: what’s the difference between war tourism and peace tourism? The intention with which you approach your travel experience is what will decide. We can use the example of Pol Pot’s grave versus the Tuol Sleng Genocide Memorial. The Tuol Sleng Memorial is designed to educate and produce a reaction; that is, to make sure we learn from these past atrocities so that we as human beings will not continue to make them. That is peace tourism: learning the consequences of war so that we can appreciate and uphold the necessity of peace.  Pol Pot’s grave with its lack of information about the man it contains does not do this. It is a form of war tourism because it fetishizes rather than educates. It is your responsibility as a traveler, especially to a recently war torn nation, to respect this history of the place you’re a visiting. Be conscious. And before you go out, ask yourself, what is it that I am trying to learn from this? Why do I travel?

Tim O'Brien wins the Dayton Literary Peace Prize

Tim O'Brien

In a world plagued by corruption, violence and the idolatry of our golden calf—cold hard cash—it’s often hard not to get discouraged by the values of those in power and the direction the world seems to be headed. Arctic drilling, the melting of the ice caps, war in Syria, corruption at the Olympics, oppression in Myanmar, the list goes on and on and it’s often overwhelming. The knee jerk reaction to this deluge of depressing information is to simply shut it out. But instead of closing our eyes to what we don’t want to see, or writing off these problems as natural and unchangeable, let's look at people who are making a positive difference in their communities and in the world and find inspiration to start making tangible changes in our own lives.

"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" – Margaret Mead

Taking our lead from the words of Margret Mead, at Friendship Tours World Travel we’re starting our own “power to the peaceful” movement, spotlighting people around the world who aren’t afraid to stand up and say: I can make difference. To kick-start this project we recognize Tim O’Brien, Vietnam War veteran, peace activist and author. Just yesterday Tim O’Brien was recognized as the winner of the 2012 Dayton Literary Peace Prize for his body of work, including his book of short stories The Things They Carry, which humanizes the experience of US soldiers in the Vietnam War. Upon winning the award, Tim O'Brien stated, "Over what has been a long career, this award means more to me than any other by far." Congratulations Tim O'Brien your words have not fallen on deaf ears. 

To learn more about Tim O'Brien and his literary award check out the article in the Huffington Post.

Have your own inspiring story to share? Leave a comment on this post, we'd love to hear from you. 

A look at UXOs and an interview with Legacies of War

Bombed regions are highlighted in red and yellow

What's a UXO, anyway? 
Unexploded Ordinances (UXOs) is a term used to describe military armaments  (bombs,  landmines, hand grenades, bullets, etc.) that were armed and launched with the intent to kill, but which, due to design or malfunction, never detonated.  These "duds" range in all shapes and sizes and while some are clearly bombs, others are easily mistaken for rusty cans, balls or car mufflers. If touched, UXOs can explode at any moment. This makes them extremely dangerous, especially to children who might confuse a “dud” with a potential plaything. Even worse, UXOs aren’t always easy to find; some might be on top of the ground, but often they are fully or partially buried, can lurk under grass and bushes and even linger beneath bodies of water. 

Okay, but why should I care about these "duds"? 

UXOs remain in former combat zones, military testing ranges and bombing sites from recent wars. Between 1964 and 1973 the US dropped over two million tons of ordinances onto Laos, but 30% of them did not detonate! Laos alone is contaminated by 75 million “duds,” most of which are cluster bombs, residual from the Vietnam War.  Since 1964, these leftover UXOs have killed 50,000 Laotians and counting (30,000 of which were civilians)  and injured 20,000 (20,000 of these deaths and injuries occurred after the war!). That's right, UXOs continue to kill people long after wars are over and the military has packed up and left.  

So what can we do to clean up these "bombies"? 
This week Friendship Tours World had the opportunity to talk with our volunteer partner in Laos, Legacies of War, about UXOs, the Secret War, and Legacies' effort to spread awareness and clear the country from the contamination of cluster munitions. Mari Quenemoen, Program Consultant with Legacies answers our questions and gives information and advice on how you can get involved. 

Hillary Clinton at COPE in Vientiane, Laos, photo courtesy Legacies of War

What was the "Secret War"? Why was America bombing Laos in the first place?
The U.S. dropped bombs on Laos during the Vietnam War for a number of reasons. The U.S. provided support to the Royal Lao Government in a civil war against the communist-leaning Pathet Lao, and it also continuously bombed the portion of the Ho Chi Minh Trail that crosses over into Laos. Veterans of the war have also reported that pilots were instructed to release their un-used payloads over Laos rather than risk landing in Thailand with a plane full of bombs. The war was "secret" because Laos was officially a neutral country at the time, making war against it in violation of international law.  

Why do most American citizens know so little about US involvement in and bombing of Laos?

Most Americans know about the war in Vietnam because it was formally declared, and also because information about that war is readily available in our history books  and in the media. This is not the case with Laos. Even most members of Congress did not know the full extent of U.S. involvement in Laos at the time, and details of the bombings remained highly secret for decades. Recently declassified strike data finally brought to light the massive scale of the bombings. That's why Legacies strives to raise greater awareness about the history of the bombing and the ongoing problems caused by unexploded ordnance.

What makes cluster bombs so dangerous and difficult to clear?
Unlike mines, which were often set in a relatively well-defined area (hence the term "mine field"), cluster bombs were dropped over a vast territory, making their location much harder to predict. Any surface in an area that experienced bombing could be contaminated with bombs. Some bombs got buried in the soil, only to resurface decades later. Clearance teams must often survey an area multiple times before feeling confident that the area is clear. Also, as the bombs age and decay, they become more and more volatile.

What are some of the organizations Legacies works with? How have they been effective in bringing about positive change?
Legacies of War works with partner organizations providing life-saving victim assistance, mine risk education, and UXO clearance on the ground in Laos, including World Education, Mines Advisory Group (MAG), the Cooperative Orthotic and Prosthetic Enterprise (COPE) Center that Secretary Clinton visited in Vientiane, HALO, and Norwegian People's Aid. Legacies of War has also partnered with Refugee Nation, a theater troupe in L.A., to engage Lao-American communities in sharing stories about the Lao-American experience.

How can education and heightened awareness help to promote hope, healing and peace?
Our education and advocacy work has multiple goals: to increase the resources available to do UXO clearance, victim assistance, and mine risk education in Laos; to raise awareness among the U.S. public about the history of the bombings of Laos and the remaining problem of UXO; and to provide space within the Laotian-American community to heal the wounds of war. We have been struck that this issue resonates with people across the political spectrum - most people can agree that no child growing up in Laos today should have to live in fear of bombs that were dropped over 40 years ago. Legacies has successfully worked with members of Congress to support legislation to increase the resources allocated to UXO programs in Laos from $3 million in 2008 to $9 million in 2012. We have also reached out to thousands of people across the country with our traveling exhibition and our social media work. The more people know and talk about this issue, the more pressure will grow in Washington to do something about it.

What can American students do to make a difference and get involved?
College students can consider starting a Legacies of War student chapter!  Even without a chapter, students can raise awareness on campus in multiple ways: hosting a screening of a film like Bombies or Surviving the Peace, organizing a Lao meal or trip to a Lao restaurant with a presentation on UXO, organizing a petition drive, or creating an exhibit to raise awareness at a community or campus event. We would be happy to talk to student groups interested in doing more!  Also, getting involved can start small...."like" our Facebook page, follow us on Twitter, share our content, and spread the word!

How has Legacies been effective in clearing UXOs and helping the future of the Laotian people?
1) Through our education and advocacy efforts in Washington, DC, Legacies has helped raise the level of U.S. funding allocated to UXO programs in Laos. More money means more land cleared, more farmers able to safely tend to their fields, and fewer children playing on contaminated soil.

2) We have increased the visibility of this issue so the next generation will contribute to ending this legacy of war in Laos. UXO contamination is a large problem that will require a long-term solution - at current funding levels, it could take 100 years to solve. We need a significant, sustained investment over the long term to make Laos bomb-free.

3) Our outreach efforts have allowed people affected by the bombings and UXO, in Laos and in the U.S., to share their stories and continue healing the wounds of war.Most Americans know about the war in Vietnam because it was formally declared, and also because information about that war is readily available in our history books  and in the media. This is not the case with Laos. Even most members of Congress did not know the full extent of U.S. involvement in Laos at the time, and details of the bombings remained highly secret for decades. Recently declassified strike data finally brought to light the massive scale of the bombings. That's why Legacies strives to raise greater awareness about the history of the bombing and the ongoing problems caused by unexploded ordnance.

Reflections on Laos

In March a group of Friendship Tours World students traveled to Laos, where they visited COPE, an organization that provides prosthetic limbs and orthotic rehabilitation for victims of UXOs (unexploded ordinances). From 1964 to 1973 the US dropped over two million tons of cluster munitions onto Laos. The campaign was part of the CIA's "Secret War," which was intended to support the Royal Lao Government against the communist forces of the Pathet Lao and the North Vietnamese. While the US has long since packed up and gone home, 30% of the munitions dropped on the country remain unexploded, and 37% of Laos is still contaminated with these "bombies." 40 years after the war, less than 1% of the UXO's have been cleared; and while the US spent $17 million per day dropping bombs, between 1993 and 2010 it has only spent $3.1 million per year cleaning them up.

Motivated by her experience in Laos and time at COPE, Clarissa Coburn, an 11th grader at Laguna Blanca School in Santa Barbara, CA wrote a letter urging Americans to visit Laos and do their part to help heal the country from the bloody legacy of the Secret War:

Clarissa at COPE

Reflections on Laos, the Secret War and Unexploded Ordinances
Clarissa Coburn, 11th grade
Laguna Blanca School

Wars in history books are about facts and statistics:  famous people, important dates, key strategies and the long-term political and economic effects, as understood by the “winners.” But when it comes down to it, war isn’t as clean cut or simple as it is made out to be. There are no true winners when casualties are a consequence. It is really hard to remember that all of the lofty ideals and pure motives in the world cannot change the fact that people will die — innocent people who may or may not support those who are the intended target.

That’s what I learned in Laos, it’s embarrassing that I had to go all the way to South East Asia to realize something that should be completely obvious: all of those statistics--those “body counts”--were once real, living people with hopes, dreams and potential. Every statistic that  says 10,000 people died in a war, really means that 10,000 people had their lives cut short. And it’s not just those individual losses; for each of those deaths, 10,000 families lost loved ones. Thousands more of those 10,000 dead also lost best friends, lovers, co-workers, and community members. That random person who used to smile from the corner table at the local coffee shop? Gone. 10,000 people are now missing who never got a chance to finish their projects, contribute to society or meet that person who’s  thrilled to find  they had the same weird quirk. Potential lost, love lost, countless opportunities lost, and why? Because top decision-makers decided that war was necessary. Civilian casualties were justified, and  in the end the world would be a better place for it.

And so in Laos I learned this lesson. It was a nasty surprise. As I thought about the estimated 20,000 to 200,000 civilians who died during the Secret War in Laos, I felt utterly horrified. But the worst blow came next: it wasn’t over. Laotians live with the threat of unexploded cluster munitions  on 37% of their country. Sure, we stopped bombing 40 years ago and the War, no longer secret but still largely unheard of, has been over for so long that Americans have already had several intervening wars. For young Americans, the Vietnam War is a thing of ancient history, but the story is different in Laos. Laotians can’t forget about what America did to them because they continue to live with it every single day. For them, existing on less than two U.S. dollars per day, escape is impossible. It’s not as easy as moving on to talk about the next war.

For me, nothing could have brought that message home quite like meeting the people who knew exactly what it is to suffer from the after-effects of  war. It is impossible to explain the experience of meeting these people;  it is truly a situation where you must go and see for yourself. It can’t be explained; words can’t ever be as convincing here in the US, where it all seems like an admittedly sad, but far-off story. I am aware that there are serious budget problems that our nation must deal with, and that spending cuts must be made. But in the end we caused this damage and we need to clean it up. At the very least, we owe the Lao people something better than a 2,000 year future of fear, death, injury and poverty.

Ultimately, all I can really say is this: I challenge you to go to Laos and see the extreme poverty. I challenge you to witness the ways in which scrap weaponry is incorporated into everyday life. I challenge you to visit a mother who lost her five year old child to a UXO. I challenge you to hear the story of a teenager who lost his eyes and both hands on his 16th birthday in an accident of curiosity. I challenge you to listen to him when he tells you that he doesn’t blame you or America. I challenge you to think long and hard about whether or not you find yourself as guiltless as he does.

And after you have done these simple things: I challenge you to return home and retain your position about giving US aid to Laos.

Hillary Clinton's pledge to COPE

Just last week, on July 11th, Secretary Hillary Clinton visited  COPE during a tour through SE Asia before the 2012 ASEAN conference. While visiting the facilities, Clinton received a hard-copy of Clarissa's letter in her welcome basket. In response, Clinton wrote her own letter pledging US support for  COPE, Laos and the removal of cluster bombs. 

What can you do to help? Join our partners, Legacies of War, learn more about the "Secret War," help spread education and awareness, and donate to the cause. Or take Clarissa's words to heart and join us next spring on an investigatory journalism trip to Laos. A group of people dedicated to making a difference can have a huge impact on the world. 

Tuesday Travel Tip: How to Travel Responsibly in Burma

Now that Burma has begun to take it’s first cautious steps towards democracy, is it okay to travel there? In this week’s Tuesday Travel Tip, I’ll be looking particularly at the question of traveling to Burma. Is it safe and ethical for foreigners to go there? And if so, how can we as responsible travelers, use tourism to support the local people? In the Lonely Planet’s 2010 Myanmar guide, it poses a serious question for all potential visitors:

Does your money, no matter how carefully spent, sustain a military dictatorship that has imprisoned political dissidents, used forced labour, cracked down on peaceful demonstrations (as was seen in September 2007) and seized foreign aid (most notably following the Cyclone Nargis in May 2008)? Or does isolating one of the world’s poorest countries not only deprive a burgeoning private sector of income, but also push the government into the arms of neighbours with bigger bankrolls and their own serious human rights issues?

As we looked at in last week’s blog on Myanmar’s recent political developments, 2012 has been a big year for the Burmese people. Whether or not his election was fraudulent, since U Thein Sein took office in 2011, he’s followed the UN guidelines for democratic reform, releasing many political prisoners, allowing Suu Kyi to run for office, and negotiating ceasefires with ethnic minorities. These changes have shifted the lens through which tourism is approached, and when the NLD rescinded their 15-year travel boycott in Fall 2010, the question evolved from “should I travel there?” to “how should I travel there?”

Young Buddhist Monks in Bagan

At the beginning of November, 2010 Win Tin, co-founder of Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), issued a momentous statement: “We want people to come to Burma, not to help the junta, but to help the people by understanding the situation: political, economic, moral—everything.” After supporting a 15-year travel boycott, times had changed to where isolation was doing more harm than good to the Burmese people. “For the outside world to see, to know our situation,” Win Tin continued, “that can help our cause a lot.” As a conscious traveler, how can we take up this call to action and endorse positive change by understanding and sharing the political, economic and moral situation of the Burmese people?

The Burma Campaign UK, an organization dedicated to promoting “human rights, democracy and development in Burma” lists the NLD’s official statement on tourism, released May 2011. The NLD explains that “while tourism could enhance the economic life of the people of the host country by creating new jobs, bringing in hard currency and raising the standard of living, it could have negative consequences if environmental issues are ignored and the meeting of different cultures and social values are not approached with sufficient sensitivity.” Although Burna's political and human rights situation has improved vastly over the last year, many problems still exist within the tourism infrastructure. To understand and address the current issues facing Burma, I've broken them down into three main problems:

Intha man fishing on Inlay Lake

• Environmental Concern. Tourism has lead to the destruction of native ecology, where the clearing of forests has been used to make room for large hotels, golf courses and resorts. Waste management is another major concern. A lack of proper regulations for garbage and sewage has threatened such ecosystems as Inlay Lake, the home of the leg-rowing Intha people. Pollution from fertilizer and human waste dumped into the lake has driven many fish species near extinction and threatened the livelihood of the local people.

• Crony Alert. Big tourism related businesses are still owned by members of the government or their cronies. In fact, many large “private” companies are run by what the Lonely Planet describes as “government members on the sly.” Most of these cronies are involved in the gem and timber trade, but some have also infiltrated tourism. Tay Za, a notorious government crony and businessman, has founded two luxury hotel chains: Aureum Palace and Myanmar Treasure Resort. Government-owned hotels have historically imposed forced migration of locals to make room and forced labor for their construction.

• Ethnic Conflict. While Sein Thein has extended the olive branch to most of the country's ethnic minorities, recent bloodshed in the Myanmar’s Western state of Rakhine may impact the continuation of Myanmar’s democratic reforms. While these conflicts are not directly related to tourism infrastructure, the world is watching how Myanmar handles the conflict between Buddhists and the Islamic ethnic minority, the Rohingya, who have long been persecuted by the government. 

U Bein Bridge, Mandalay

No matter how hard you try, a percentage of the money you spend will inevitably go to the government, whose track record over the past 50 years has been more than questionable. However, it is possible to travel responsibly. As Burma’s era of isolation draws to a close, it’s our responsibility as travelers and global citizens to ensure that our actions, observations and interactions help and not harm the Burmese people. The best way to promote sustainable and ethical travel is to set an example with your own trip.

What to Avoid:

• Avoid staying at large luxury resorts as they are likely owned by the government or their cronies and have contributed to sever environmental and human rights abuses.
• Don’t give money to beggars. The NLD warns that indiscriminant handouts can create a population of beggar children and do not actually help the community at large.
• Don’t travel in a large package tour. Most package tour providers are interested in making money, not promoting the well being of the local people. They tend to patronize government and crony hotels with questionable environmental and human rights records. And as Suu Kyi explained, “tourists who go around in ‘air conditioned taxis’ don’t see anything that’s going on in the country.”
• For your own safety, unless you are an experienced journalist, stay away from areas of ethnic conflict. 

Bagan, Burma

What to Do:

• Stay at small guesthouses and patronize local eateries. This will ensure that your money goes to benefiting the local people.
• Spread your money around. Buy souvenirs from multiple vendors and eat at a different restaurant for each meal, not only will this enrich and broaden your own experience, but it will also help spread your money to benefit as many people as possible.
• Talk to the local people. After years of isolation, the Burmese love meeting and talking to foreigners, whose presence shows that Burma and her plight have not been forgotten by the rest of the world. The best way to learn about Burmese culture, politics and everyday life is through interactions with locals. Indeed, cultural exchange was one of the main reasons the NLD has decided to advocate for tourism. However, approach political subject matter with caution. Even though the government has begun to democratize, criticizing the government may have negative repercussions on the local people.
• Support programs that are environmentally and ecologically conscious; the NLD welcomes visitors who seek to ameliorate Burma’s troubles through their business.
• Share your observations. Your trip doesn’t end when you return home. In fact one of the responsibilities of travelers to Burma is to share with the rest of the world what they have seen and learned in order to promote the continuation of democratic reform and pressure the government to protect its citizen’s civil liberties. 

Burma is one of the most, beautiful, diverse and culturally rich places in the world, but if you decide to visit, please take the NLD's call to action to heart. If playing golf and relaxing at a resort is the vacation you desire, then please don't go to Burma. Tourists have the ability to positively influence the country's progression to democracy and this is a power that should not be taken lightly. Remember, your actions have consequences. By using your trip to set an example in sustainable and ethical travel, you can transcend ordinary tourism and forge a path towards positive political, economic and social change. 

The End of Isolation

Part II: Democratic Reform Arrives in Burma

Clinton and Suu Kyi in Yangon, photo copyright Paula Bronstein

For the last quarter century, the name Myanmar has conjured an image à propos to the pages of Heart of Darkness: a mysterious almost surreal place, marred by the iron fist of the military junta and synonymous with the worst human rights violations. The pariah of the western world, Myanmar’s isolation only seemed to add to its phantasmagoric landscape and after 2010’s fraudulent elections, which blocked international monitors and democratic hero Aung San Suu Kyi from participating, there seemed little hope of change. “After years of deadlock and stagnation, change is coming, but strictly on the junta’s terms,” the New York Times bleakly forewarned.

But April 1st's election of Suu Kyi and other NLD representatives to parliament suggest that change may be coming, and this time on the terms of the people. On April 4^th, after nearly 25 years of tense dealings, the Obama administration tentatively re-opened relations with Myanmar (also known as Burma), lifting the travel ban and allowing American NGOs in health, education and environmental conservation to enter the country. Vice President Hilary Clinton described Suu Kyi’s election as “an important step to the country’s transformation.” And in May, even more sanctions were suspended as the first American ambassador to Burma since 1990 was elected. “As an iron fist unclenches in Burma, we have to extend our hand,” said President Obama, to which Clinton added: “so today we say to American business: Invest in Burma.”

Since taking office in March 2011, Myanmar’s president Thein Sein has been making all the right moves to reopen Burma to the rest of the world. Releasing hundreds of political prisoners, negotiating peace talks and allowing Suu Kyi to run for office, all fall under the UN’s mandated list for the country’s democratic reform. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon defined three indicators of political change in Burma: “the release of all political prisoners, genuine national reconciliation and an inclusive electoral process.” While these requirements have yet to be fulfilled to their completion, Thein Sein efforts have been the most significant reforms in nearly 50 years of military rule.

In her 2011 meeting with Hilary Clinton, Suu Kyi stated, “if we go forward together, I am confident that there will be no turning back from the road towards democracy. We are not on that road yet, but we hope to get there as soon as possible with the help and understanding of our friends.” It’s possible we are seeing the tentative steps of a fledgling democracy, but Aung Din, former political prisoner and head of the US Campaign for Burma warns against lifting sanctions too soon: “if they do it very quickly, and make it too generous, it will only undermine the democratic forces in the country.”

Are we seeing real democratic change in Burma? The consensus is cautiously optimistic. After years of isolation and military mismanagement, Burma’s tanked economy requires foreign investment for revitalization, which may act as incentive for Thein Sein to continue with the necessary reforms. The Obama administration’s suspension of its sanctions are to act as incentive for Myanmar's continued democratic reform, striking “an appropriate balance," said Senator John McCain, "between encouraging the price of reform now unfolding in Burma, while maintaining sufficient leverage to continue pressing the Burmese government for additional progress.”

25 Years of Isolation

Part I: The History Behind the Burma Travel Boycott

Burmese Freedom Fighter Aung San Suu Kyi

April 2012 was a landmark month for Myanmar (formerly known as Burma); as ex-political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi was elected to parliament, President Barack Obama dropped the 16-year US travel boycott against the country. Over the past 50 years, Burma had been one of the most isolated and mysterious places in the world. It’s diverse ecology, rich cultural history and gold-coated pagodas are juxtaposed against extreme poverty and human rights abuses. In 1962, less than 20 years after Burma’s independence from British colonial rule, General Ne Win seized power through a military coup, abolishing the parliament, setting up military junta rule, and closing Burma off to the outside world.  Visas were limited to 24hours and a 17-member “Revolutionary Council” was put in charge, using the guise of socialism to march the country into abject poverty (Lonely Planet).

By 1988, fed up with a continually disintegrating economic situation, the Burmese revolted, taking to the streets in huge pro-democracy demonstrations. On the 8^th of August 1988 the government hit hard against the people, killing over 3,000 citizens in less than six weeks. Worn down by protest and bloodshed, the military junta promised to hold free elections in 1989. In response, the National League for Democracy (NLD) was quickly formed and, Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of revolutionary hero Aung San, became the spokesperson. The vote took place in 1990; the first Burma had seen in 30 years. With 82% of the votes, the NLD won in a landslide election, but the Junta refused to handover power and instead imprisoned the party's main candidates, including Aung San Suu Kyi, who was  placed under house arrest, where she remained off and on until 2010. In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, drawing international attention to the struggle and plight of the Burmese people.

It was in this environment of slaughter and oppression that the first western embargos against Myanmar were formed. In addition to economic sanctions, in 1995, Suu Kyi made an official statement against tourism to her country, asking international visitors to “visit us later,” qualifying traveling to Myanmar as “tantamount to condoning the regime." “The bulk of the money from tourism goes straight into the pockets of the generals,” Suu Kyi stated in 1995. Those in favor of the boycott saw travel to Myanmar as simultaneously an economic and symbolic endorsement of the military junta. The Free Burma Coalition explained that “Nowhere else in the world have human rights abuses and tourism been so closely linked." Indeed according to the Burma Campaign “local populations have been displaced… for the construction of hotels and other tourist facilities,” while forced labor has been used to construct these tourist accommodations. “The net result is economic hardship exacerbated by the abrupt breakdown of a traditional way of life and gross violation of human rights.” 

However, while the tourism boycott did help to cripple the economic power of the military junta, it also had adverse effects on the people it proposed to protect. In 2003, Zarni, the founder of the Free Burma Coalition, reversed his position on the travel boycott, stating that  “the whole boycott and sanctions campaign, in which I played a lead role, was a major strategic mistake” (qtd. in Lonely Planet). By stopping tourism, the Burmese people became more cut off from the outside world than ever before. Not only were they blocked off from international news sources, but the lack of international monitoring only increased the junta’s ability to continue down its path of oppressive human rights violations. Indeed, despite the efforts of the boycott and embargos, the junta still remain in control. In 2007, a protest against high fuel prices led by students and Buddhist monks led to violent crackdowns. Less than a year later, in 2008 Cyclone Nargis stormed through Yangon and the Irrawaddy Delta, killing a reported 85,000 people with an approximate 54,000 still unaccounted for. The junta did almost nothing to help its citizens during this crises and foreign aid was blocked for nearly three weeks (New York Times).

Would a lack of trade embargos and travel boycotts have made Burma’s situation different? It’s a question than can only lead to speculation. But as democratic change starts to corrode the framework of junta rule, it’s clear that the question of traveling to Myanmar needs to be reassessed. Perhaps shutting off a country from the rest of the world is not the best way to bring about political change. Take Cuba for example, where over half a century of a US embargo has done nothing to change the government and only harmed civilians.

In November 2010, the NLD retracted its support of the travel boycott, but despite the country's recent advancements, Burma still has a long road to democracy. The question is no longer whether or not to travel to Burma, but rather how to travel there? Is there such a thing as responsible and ethical travel? Can your trip make a positive difference on the country and its people? In its 2010 Myanmar guide, the Lonely Planet cites Suu Kyi’s statement about conscious tourism: “Visitors to the country can be useful, depending on what they do, or how they go about it,” she explains, “tourists can open up the world to the people of Burma just as the people of Burma can open up the eyes of tourists to the situation in their own country if they’re interested in looking.” But, she continues,  “tourists who go around in ‘air-conditioned taxis’ don’t see anything that’s going on in the country.”