Call me naive, but who decides which countries are
politically correct to visit, and which are not? Has some
worldwide organisation - eg Amnesty International - compiled
an official list with ratings, viz:
1. Burma - definitely no go, foul regime; long way away
from the West, limited Western investment;
2. China - also nasty regime, especially re Tibet, but much
Western investment so we must be careful not to offend them;
3. Indonesia - formerly very nasty regime; Suharto
massacred one million (far more than Ne Win); East Timor;
but huge Western investment; better not to jeopardize
investment;
4. Malaysia - Mahathir is a nasty piece of work and not
exactly Western-style democracy but massive Western
investment;
5. Singapore - again very nasty Government who (often
secretly) quash all opposition and totally censor the
press, huge investors in Burma and support the SPDC, but we
can ignore that; great for shopping and eating; better
remain ambivalent;
6. Laos - hardly a democracy but no Western politicians
have heard of the place so who gives a shit;
7. Vietnam - tricky one; UK are major investors and Prince
Andrew recently visited. Tourism is booming and they did
suffer badly in the war; not exactly democratic government
so probably OK;
8. Cambodia - totally corrupt governments, almost all evil,
but we did invest a lot in their elections, difficult one;
9. Cuba - not Asia (well spotted) and Castro's a bastard,
so what? Tourism to Cuba is fine, say all the UK tour
operators;
Not listed: North Korea (dreadful government but we must
help them and not boycott them and so we'll support them
but we won't support the Burmese, because that's what is
termed politically incorrect).
South America - a lengthy list of highly dodgy
regimes; Africa - ditto, etc, etc.
So I'm off to celebrate the millennium in Norway.
[There are 37 posts - the latest was added on Sun 9 May, 14:27]
Use the form at the end of this page to add your own post.
Topics
| Thorn Tree
| Home
And how perceptive!!!
You hit the nail right on the head. And who can figure out
the reasons for the 'ins' and 'outs'.
You're presuming a top-down flow to this process (ie who
decides ... ) when really it's bottom-up. That's a very
important difference. You have dissidents and groups,
sometimes with focal-point leaders (e.g. Burma) and
sometimes not, often using the Internet and other means to
get the word out, with international groups like Amnesty
often latching on and adding momentum. Still, it's a very
uphill fight. All govts. have their dings (Amnesty is going
after the U.S. on human rights recently, for example), and
few people would boycott everything. Still, there should be
a threshold (for me, Burma is the one govt. definitely below
that threshold).
... whatever is happening on this side of the region ...
Asia or South America or any part of the non-western run
governments is all due to the uninvited interferences of the
west. Before the west were colonials .... there was all
quiet on all the non-western fronts but when the west became
the colonials or conquerors .... these fronts were never the
same even after the west left and provided independence.
There was always and will always be interferences from the
past colonials to stamp their authorities. Whatever is
happening in all the non-western run governments actually
have the indirect blessings of the western powers. Whether
we like it or not .... the non-western run governments need
the west for its technological, economical and monetory
support. Whenever you see a conflict in any region... there
will always be the hidden hands of the western powers eager
to stamp their influences. Personally in my opinion....
Amnesty International is a farce as much as the others so
called NGOS like Greenpeace, Survival International,
Earthwatch etc etc ... as they seemed to like picking on the
minnows rather than the giants of the west. Whenever we do
something right..ehy never remember. Whenever we do
something wrong .... they never forget!
amnesty doesn't use the avoidance of any particular
countries as an action. incidentally the campaign this year
is raising awareness about the usa (previous countries have
included china and kenya) and i have recieved more mailings
about the us than any other country.
To answer your question, "Naive Traveler", start with "Catch
22",the master of the uninformed generalization, above. The
notion that everyone in the world lived in blissful harmony
before the Europeans started colonizing is so ridiculous, it
can't be ignored. Ask Viet Nam what a good buddy China was
for a millenium before they ever heard of France. Check out
the centuries of "love" between Burmese and Khmers and Thais
and Chams prior to 1600. Look at the dynastic ebb and flow
in China, and their battles over Korea and Formosa with
Japan. If you want imperialism, how about the Mongols and
their heirs? Ghengis and Kublai and Tamerlaine and Suleiman
and the Moghuls put their horse' heavy hooves on Eurasia
when Western Europe was still insular and cringing. The
Mayas and Aztecs and Incas didn't run peace-and-love summer
camps to create their empires, nor did the Egyptians,
Babylonians, or Arabs. The Pawnees and the Cheyenne and the
Pueblos and Apaches were mutually exclusive. As far as
celebrating the millenium in Norway to avoid the taint,
"Naive", remember the Vikings, who imperialized Normandy,
the British Isles, the Faroes, Iceland, Greenland, North
America, Russia, and even Sicily when they had the upper
hand, and burned the hell out of everything else. There is
no easy way to rank regimes, as the original post ironically
suggests. I've been to the first eight places he lists, and
I felt that my visits were in no way detrimental to the
people. They did leave me with questions, though. It's easy
to bad-mouth Suharto, for instance, but wait five years and
see what Indonesia is like without him. Will the prosperity
that was growing (and not by any stretch just among his
cronies) be renewewd? Will the ethnic and religious strife
that was kept in check continue to consume the country, and
ultimately destroy it? Will the huge areas devoted to
National Parks now be raped in a time of anarchy, to the
world's detriment? Will the non-coercive population-control
programs that were having such success be continued? It's
easier to be moralistic about Burma; compared to Indonesia
or Malaysia, and worse than even Viet Nam, the average local
person or foreign traveller couldn't enjoy the country
without constant government interference. As a traveller
there, I only wished I'd had the ability to arm the local
population. But as little as possible of what we brought in
went to the regime, and witnesses and confidants are a great
help to the people. Telling people living under repressive
regimes that we care, and telling their stories when we
return, are effective weapons against the Castros of the
world. Rather than ask Amnesty International to provide a
conscience, just look at the countries that restrict the
free flow of people and ideas, and you'll know who belongs
on The List. Then, maybe the best thing to do is go there,
and promote the flow that the totalitarians of whatever
excuse are trying to block.
Norway is the one of two European countries I will continue
to boycott in every way I possibly can - tourism, products
etc. It is one of only 3 countries left in the world that
continues to hunt whales - the others Peru and Japan (I
boycott them too). Nothing against the Norwegian people at
all, but so long as they vote for a government that allows
this cruel trade, I am in no way going to add to their
national income. Perhaps they should weigh up the costs of
lost tourism etc from others like me against their selfish
indulgence in whale meat. I boycott Spain because I regard
bullfighting as cruel too. Each to his own, naive traveller.
Whatever you are prepared to tolerate or do something about.
Well, now Norway's out which I only suggested because of
their strong human rights stance (anti-SPDC, pro ASSK, Nobel
Peace Prize, etc), that leaves just 2 choices:
1. Luxembourg
2. Liechtenstein
which just goes to show how subjective this traveling lark
is, and why it is such an emotive issue.
are just as bad as the Liechtensteinians. How many
Luxurnbergers have been in the news lately for opposing
female circumcision in Chad? NONE! That gives you a pretty
good idea of their commitment to human rights.
While the Liechtenstein government has been remiss on the
Chad labia issue, they have more than made up for it by
refusing to allow whaling ships in their many harbors, and
by coming out strongly against indiscriminate dissemination
of sperm whales. On balance, I think a person of conscience
could go there for a light lunch, like maybe a Bacon
Luxerngurger with a side of fries.
Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others can certainly provide
information to help you make up your own mind-which is
ultimately what you need to do.
For example, I visited Burma while Suu Kyi was still allowed
to give her weekend talks, because I thought it was
important for foreigners to be able to show support for her
(I made sure I made it to her talk). I wouldn't go now, esp.
knowing how the govt supports the drug trade.
Also, i agree that attributing everything to Western
influence is ridiculous, although I would not excuse the
many British, American, Dutch, tec. misadventures and
atrocities. The history of never colonized Thailand, for
example. is repleate with examples of petty nobles and
others treating the Thai people horribly. Spending 5 years
there dealing with members of the elite further convinced me
that they needed no help or examples from outsiders to
disrespect and exploit their own people. Assuming only
Western influence is venal not only ignores indigenous
exploitation, it also insults the indegenous exploiters by
assuming they are merelyimpotent --- they aren't.
Political correctness of any stripe --- left or right is
simple ignorance. Quit hectoring and actually learn
something about the world.
You can create in your mind any rationalization you like to
justify what you were going to do anyway. Try a dose of self
knowledge.
What are you doing on this site, when you've ruled out every
country on the basis of "oh, it's just not politically
correct enough for somebody like *me* to deign to visit."
Get a life and don't bother traveling, you're nowhere near
open-minded enough to enjoy it.
I think he has a point. This site frequently hosts hot
debates on travel boycotts to Burma, yet surprisingly not of
any other country in SE Asia with a history of brutality and
repression like China or Indonesia. Why is it that people
who travel widely in those countries blast others for going
to Burma - because their destinations are 'relatively'
better? I think this writer's being satirical when he says
Suharto's numbers are higher than Burma's therefore why not
boycott Indonesia? Perhaps Burma's awareness and
anti-tourism campaign is alone among other SE Asia nations
because it evolved from a powerful local
spokesperson - with Western connections and who discourages
tourism - that no other country in SE Asia has seen.
I recommend the book "The Lands of Charm and Cruelty," by
Stan Sesser, which covers the recent history and politics
of Singapore, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia
(Sarawak).
Personally, I am not against travel to these countries - I
have travelled to Burma, experienced a month with its
wonderful people, used my $ as 'politically correct' as was
possible, and have no regrets.
No one's mentioned Afghanistan, with its appalling
treatment of women or those various african nations
that practice "female circumcision" ie. genital
mutilation, or even Cambodia with a female literacy
rate of 22% versus 40% for males. However, for me to tell
others not to go to those countries is ludicrous. Go with
your eyes, ears, and hearts wide open, if you're travelers,
or, if you're tourists, have a good time.
Also, we don't live in a vacuum. What we of the 'first'
world do in our own countries affects the rest of the world.
Or did ya think that global warming was just a natual
phenomena?
Burma and China both have'repressive governments. Mugging
and murder are both bad, but you wouldn't excuse mugging on
the strength that murder is worse. If the focus of attention
is on Burma because of a popular spokesperson, so be it and
all the better. You've got to start somewhere or,if you
prefer, do absolutely nothing at all and continue to live
with your conscience.
.
.
.
.
.
If you really do not want to go to any country were they do
not believe in the rights of human beings and other animals
then I believe I can just shoot yourself because I believe
there is not one country that will go for it for the whole
100%.
I would not like to be a black person in the USA, I blame
Europe for what is happening in Kosovo.
Is'nt it all about money ?
.
OK, it's not an irrelevant problem not wanting to visit a
country that blatantly violates human rights, but coming up
with a list of good and bad countries is another matter.
It's easy to find some bad things about any place on earth,
be it Afghan talibans or Norwegian Vikings. Then I guess
only Antarctica is left, or any place without a (permanent)
human population. Of course, there might be some nasty
animals ripping each other apart.
As far as I see it, moral standards are not objective, you
have to make up your own mind. If it feels bad รป don't go.
But you wouldn't have known as much as you do about Burma or
Tibet, for instance, if people didn't go there to report
back to your newspaper or TV-station about the situation.
In the future, Burma will become a place of democracy and
peace and welcome tourists from all over the world with open
arms. However, we must be patient. When spiders
unite.....they can tie down a lion. I was in Burma last
spring on the Thai/Burma border. If tourists are looking
for reasons to stay out of Burma, I would suggest the
refugee camps (and there are many) in Mae Sot. It is very
sad that the power of a few corrupt generals in Rangoon
effectively seal the fate of thousands of innocent beautiful
ethnic Burmese people in the name of pure profit(you can
draw your own US/Canadian company parallels). Others have
raised valid points but I doubt that they have witnessed the
horror and sadness that ethnics live each day. Governments
and Diapers need to be changed......often times for the same
reasons!
I too enjoy travelling in Europe. I too try to do it with a conscience. I have resisted Spain (bullfighting) but find it hard to eliminate beautiful Switzerland (stolen Jewish money ex WW2 or habouring criminal money), France (nuclear testing in S Pacific), technologically advanced Germany (WW's 1&2), Italy for that matter...
Where do we stop?
Well someone already mentioned that Amnesty is cracking
down on the US' human rights record and now we have
civilian bombing in Kosovo. Yes I know that war means
there have to be casualties but since when did a peace
keeping mission mean assisting the dictator in his ethnic
cleansing policy and even bombing a few citizens. Well all
I'm trying to say is that NATO countries (and others) often
take the moral high ground over other nations when everyone
has a fair few skeletons in their closet. Some are worse
than others, some more recent than others but I don't think
you can make flash judgements. Even Switzerland - the
symbol of peace and neutrality seems to have a few
historical adjustments to make.
Just my two cents worth.
Carry on the debate - it's interesting to read different
people's points of view.
My vote is for balance. In the context of my travels to
Burma, I move as independently as possible so as to limit my
contribution to the dictator's fisc and try to help
individuals as directly as possible, even if that means
giving away money, my stuff, and buying food and other
needed items. I try to offset whatever contrubution I make
to the government by doing what I can for those in limbo on
the Burmese-Thai border; again, contributions of needed
goods, books, etc. Finally, I try to bring balance to the
picture painted about Burma at home. While some newspaper
editorialize about the evil regime, they run dreamy
photospreads depiciting the beauty of a visit to Burma. I
do what I can to make sure people know that you're as likely
to experience blissful beauty as you are to experience shock
at the point of a gun held by a terrified molitary
conscript or the Orwellian experience of airport security
laughingly confiscating your camera batteries (a threat to
security, donch know) just for the fun of it. Open eyes,
open ears, open heart. Knowledge is power. Ignorance
enforced by righteous indignance is impotent.
Guess what friends, no matter what country you travel to it
will be inhabited by... you guessed it, HUMANS. You can
label all the people and point fingers all you want, but at
the end of the day you better look in your own back yard
before you go telling others how evil they are for
mentioning the name of a country to a travel agent. Listen
to your heart. DUH!
"I won't go to blah blah because they do this" and "I won't go to blah blah cos they do that". Fine! Don't! But please stop pushing your beliefs about some countries down everyone elses throats. I don't believe I am a bad person for visiting countries that have questionable pasts (hell my past aint pretty), but I visit them hoping that their futures and the futures of the friends I make there will be better.
Somehow I think this debate about which country we should
boycott today is just a flavor of the month. Why don't I as
an American just commit suicide for all the horrific things
my country has done in this world-Vietnam,the invasion of
a national security threat like Grenada, the invasion of
Panama and the hundreds of poor who were shelled by warships
off the coast, the gulf war and the hundreds of thousands of
dead men,women and children due to the sanctions and now Kosovo...
One congressman pointed out that 90% of his constituents couldn't
even find Kosovo on a map but that 75% wanted it bombed anyway.
Doesn't attacking a sovereign country violate the charter
of the United Nations AND NATO which only allows a defensive
war in case of an attack against a NATO member country.
You got a good point in there, Cayman Steve!!
I think my only possible addition to this interesting
debate is to submit the following prayer:
Oh God, kindly clean up this world .. again; your Great
Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah aren't such a good job after all.
Maybe, you should just exterminate all the humans.
Well, I don't feel guilty about anything, and neither should
anyone else, nor let political or humanitarian situations in
other countries affect their travel decisions.
The bottom line is, all these thousands of backpackers, etc.
to include myself, actually help the people of these
countries by spending money on the local economy (unlike
tourists on package deals who spend money at huge
internationally-owned hotels). If anything, we should be
proud of ourselves for doing our part to make the
livelihoods of the locals more bearable.
As a matter of fact, we should be visiting the poorest and
most repressed/desolate regions of the world more often, to
give the people a taste of our homelands, spend money in
their shops and makeshift bazaars, and spread our
collective wealth of ideas, wisdom, and love of knowledge.
So quit whining about repression and political correctness,
and go out there and feed the world economy!
Is visiting the Sudan a wrong thing ? Khartoum was
considered a legitimate target for a cruise missile, but I
found the Sudanese to be the most friendly and hospitable
nation between the Cape and Cairo.
I'd like to go to Myanmar myself, sounds like an interesting
region. I wouldnt feel that the relatively small visa
charges and taxes would go much further than keeping a few
bureaucrats in beer.
Much better to spread a few smiles and try to know and even
understand others cultures (while showing them that
westerners are not demons), thats what travellings about for
me.
We humans are capable of great goodness and terrible
cruelity, irrespective of national boundaries. My primary
discomfort with Burma is that the country's infrastructure
was rebuild with slave labor, all to attract tourists. What
do you validate when you visit?
It's not so much a question of being naive, but you have to
learn to think for yourself. The answer to your question
'who compiles a list...?' is; YOU do. Everyone has
different criteria and opinions for judging whether a
country is fit to visit or not. There are no hard and fast
rules. In my opinion if you go to Burma you are then lending
both legitimacy and support to an illegal regime which is
guilty of slave labour, forced relocation, torture, summary
execution, political repression etc. But if you can live
with that, or if you think that by going you'll do some
good, or if you just don't care at all, then no-one will
stop you.
As for the comment that anyone who considers boycotting a
country is too narrow-minded to be travelling in the first
place - now there's a broad-minded remark. Don't criticise a
man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins.
Everything you do in life has an effect.
Trample the forest as little as possible,
bury your own trash, only hunt what you're
going to eat, replenish sources where
possible, etc., etc.
You can do more damage to some countries
by staying at home, depending on what you're
doing. Mindless advocacy can be as destructive
as mindless anything. I think some people
regard visiting Tibet to be as harmful as
visiting Burma. Would have to look at
reasons for and against, but mindless
"I think I'm right to travel anywhere and
no one should tell me what to do because
I'm young and arrogant and self-righteous
and oh so trendy and RIGHT and I'll say I'm
sorry only later if I somehow happen to
find out I'm wrong, but most likely I'll
just ignore the evidence but it won't
matter because by then the people will be
dead or imprisoned or have given up or..."
arguments are frustrating. Think more,
talk less, trust yourself in small quantities.
You know, I didn't kill the rainforest, I
only cut down a few trees...
And no, the West or Europe or whatever didn't
invent exploitation for money. (Hey, world's
oldest profession is what?)
Oooops, wrong address!