Recently I wrote about my visit to Myanmar (also known as Burma), of how the once-wealthy country is now slipping ever downward, its infrastructure in disrepair. Of Suu Kyi, whose house we were not allowed to see. Of how avidly the people watched her on TV. But mostly, of the beauty of the country and its people. There was much I did not write. I was there as a tourist for 12 days. Several readers have criticized that column. Here is why.
I favor tourism because I feel it provides a window to the world for the people and for the government. However, Suu Kyi has urged tourists not to come, explaining that the people of Myanmar are well aware of their problems and know what they want -- democracy -- and that many have died for it. Also, most of the money from tourism goes directly to the generals and gives them reason to think that the international community does not oppose their human rights violations.
On the same subject a reader wrote: "The tourist industry is inextricably linked with widespread and systematic human rights abuses. Millions of men, women and children have been forced to build roads (we saw this, little children breaking, hauling rocks for roadbeds), railways and other tourist infrastructure while the regime reaps the rewards of the tourist dollars." Another reported that conscripted laborers must provide tools and all supplies and work for no pay; many die of disease and exhaustion without medical care.