Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Lonely Planet's Burma guide called unethical
Traveling can be political, and as reported by the BBC last September, guidebooks even more so. The current political situation in Burma is so highly charged that Britain's Trade Union Congress (TUC) is asking travelers to stop buying Lonely Planet's guide to Burma in order to encourage the company to withdraw the book from the market. The TUC along with Tourism Concern, Burma Campaign UK and the New Internationalist launched an online petition on Thursday calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Lonely Planet guidebook because "holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime," as New Internationalist co-editor Chris Brazier explained.
This brings into question what role tourism plays on the political scene. Both the Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Burmese unions have asked travelers not to visit their country as long as the military regime is in power. Lonely Planet however believes that travel choices should be left up to the tourists themselves and that publishing a guide on Burma "does not of itself represent support or otherwise for the current regime."
What do you think? Should Lonely Planet withdraw its Burma guidebook?
Filed under: Activism, Burma (Myanmar)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jen Feb 22nd 2008 4:08PM
Sounds like a great way to get those books flying off of the shelf - I know I'm tempted.
Craig Feb 22nd 2008 4:09PM
No. It's as simple as that.
As LP said, people can choose on their own whether or not to go. Having more information about a country, in this case in the form of a guidebook, can only be a good thing. I'm not advocating travel to Burma, I just don't see any reason to ban such a book. For one thing, I sometimes read guidebooks to places I haven't been and don't plan on going just for a different perspective of the place.
rachel.berg Feb 22nd 2008 4:43PM
Seems like censorship to tell LP to take an already published book off the shelf.
Adoxos Apr 23rd 2008 6:45PM
Is the question, "Should we ban books?" Because at the end of the day isn't that what TUC and the New Internationalist are advocating?
Leif Feb 22nd 2008 5:45PM
Fact: Independent travelers in Burma bring with them desperately needed funds for untold thousands of people who make their livings in tourism and whose lives would be devastated by a travel boycott.
Fact: Independent travelers that go to Burma can expose themselves to the people and life in Burma, and upon their return report on what they saw, more effectively exposing the human rights violations of the military junta.
Fact: Though Aung San Suu Kyi is the undisputed leader of the National League for Democracy and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, she is human and therefore fallible. Her long term confinement and her arguably extreme views on boycotting travel in Burma could be construed as out-dated and needlessly detrimental to the lives of everyday Burmese people fighting to survive. Also, it should be noted that Aung San Suu Kyi's plea for a travel boycott was not unanimously accepted by her fellow opposition party members. Many active members that still live in Burma, opposing the regime at their personal daily peril fervently disagree with a travel boycott.
Fact: Independent travelers that have visited Burma since the most recent protests and crackdowns report that not a single Burmese citizen they met, *not one*, supported a travel boycott. Indeed the Burmese they interviewed pled for people to do the opposite. Visit, observe, report.
Fact: 99% of the people behind this petition have never stepped foot in Burma and don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Marginally-informed busy-bodies are the bane of this planet.
thora Feb 23rd 2008 7:17AM
THANK YOU for the important facts you shared.
roberta Feb 23rd 2008 2:57PM
Thank you for your comments. As someone who has visited Burma independently numerous times and have developed close ties with people from all walks of life there I totally agree with you. Sanctions and boycotts only hurt the people most in need and it only stokes the xenophobia of the government. It's so easy for people in the west to get all sanctimonious about Burma. How about China? They're the ones propping up the Generals' regime.
This is only another form of censorship, something I thought we in the West were firmly against.
David Feb 23rd 2008 12:08AM
Speaking of marginally informed, I'll add my two cents here:
I've done a lot of time (years, in fact) in Asia with LPs books. Especially in poorer places, the locals pick up on where the tourists are being sent (LP China had instructions for a hike along the great wall. Where the hike ended, several kilometers from where it started, there was very little save for a cafe with 'Lonely Planet Cafe' painted on the side).
That said, even when I was in Thailand _during the elections_ I didn't feel like I had a good grasp on the local political scene. And equally rarely would I have had idea one if my cozy crash space and/or meals were being provided by a savvy government operation. They didn't seem to be. But my (Cambodian/Thai/Chinese/whatever) isn't so good, and I'm most assuredly not a local - by definition.
I'm not sure if they still do it, but the North Koreans used to offer a stage-managed tour of the country. It's hard to think the money there wasn't being used to support the regime. This situation is less clear - not having been there I can't say. Either way, I don't think the book should be withdrawn. People make their own choices. I think the book should note the concerns of where the money goes, and should offer advice on how to be sure, if you do go, your money goes to the right place. But withdrawal seems too much like censorship.
Justin Glow Feb 23rd 2008 8:37AM
David, North Korea still does offer the managed tours of their country. One of our writers, Neil Woodburn, went on this tour and reported back:
http://www.gadling.com/infiltrating_north_korea_by_neil_woodburn/
Leif Feb 23rd 2008 10:17AM
David,
Oh the managed tours are most certainly going on in Myanmar. Telltale signs are the new vans with tinted windows (with functioning seatbelts!), with a cooler of drinks inside and guests that are not allowed to speak directly to anyone but their guide. This is why I make a point of using the words 'independent travelers' above.
There's no way to avoid giving at least a little of your money to Burma's regime when you visit, but you can drastically control how much goes to the regime, and that's part of what LP is trying to accomplish with the Burma guidebook. Is every hostel/restaurant/bus company listed without a doubt independent and not associated with the junta? Probably not. But most are.
And any time you see a business of any kind calling itself 'Lonely Planet Something', please report it at lonelyplanet.com. There are no officially sanctioned LP affiliate businesses anywhere in the world and LP actively goes after anyone using their name in any capacity.
Tokyo Tintin Feb 27th 2008 3:08PM
There seems to be a conflation of two ideas here: one, whether LP should publish a guidebook to Burma, and two, whether or not there should be a travel ban.
1) I find it highly unethical and irresponsible that LP has chosen to go against the wishes of a nation’s democratically elected leader in the hopes of turning a quick buck. They should recognise their moral duty and withdraw this book from publication. — Encouraging a company to behave honourably is not in any way the same thing as censorship or banning a book.
2) The debate as to whether or not there should be a travel ban is moot because there *is* a travel ban. As the democratically-elected leader of her country, Ms Suu Kyi feels that it would be in the best interests of the nation and its people for tourist dollars to be spent elsewhere. As leader of her country, we should all respect and abide by her decision.
Yes, many people in Burma rely on tourism. But there are many people in countries without a self-imposed travel ban who are just as deserving of your tourist money as the Burmese. If concern for the plight of the average Burmese citizen is really what's motivating us, our money would be better spent as a donation to an aid organisation like the Burma Campaign or to Amnesty International.
leo Feb 28th 2008 2:53AM
The problem travelling to Myanmar is using transport, hotels, restaurants, etc belonging to government, in that case we are suporting the government economically.
Opposition agree that local people are making an income with tourists if they use the local guides, private hostels and restaurants and so on.
We can help in that way. if any doubt about Myanmar there is a good magazine on line where you can find answers and ask doubts.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/