Should We/You Travel to Countries With Despotic Governments?
Or, to intensify the question: Should we encourage you to travel to such countries? We think so, but we've given the question much thought, and have respect for those who disagree. Since this question most often arises in reference to Tibet (occupied by China) and Myanmar (ruled by the home-grown bad guys of the SLOC, the State Law and Restoration Council), we'll concentrate on those countries (though a number of others come to mind - Indonesia, China's Xinjiang Province, and Kenya, for example). Here's the gist of our thinking.
First, we want you to know that we don't advocate going to these places because we're cultural relativists. That argument holds that no nation is morally or intellectually competent to urge another nation to change its ways. This is especially true, the argument continues, for the so-called "advanced" nations, whose legacy of imperialism and ethnocentricity invalidates their moral posturing. After all, China's history is one of enforced respect and kow-towing to authority, the crushing of opposition, and Burma, or Myanmar, well, they have different cultural norms, don't you know. Who are we to tell them what to do?
We think this is well-intentioned but woozy thinking. There is a higher law than mere, hands-off "respect" for other cultures. Despotism is a crime, no matter what its cultural trappings. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, "The arc of the Universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
The better argument for boycotts against repressive regimes holds that by traveling to oppressed countries one somehow encourages the oppressors. Or that one becomes a kind of collaborator in the oppression.
On a strict dollars-and-cents basis, there is some truth in this. We'll stipulate that it's a problem (though we're happy to say that we try to work with private companies whenever possible. In Tibet, for instance, we deal solely with a Tibetan-operated company). No, the reason we believe in taking clients to Tibet and Myanmar (or China itself, for that matter) is that we're convinced, by the Tibetans and the Burmese themselves, that they want us to. We ask, Would it be better if the Chinese were the only foreigners in Tibet? That's the way it was for nearly 30 years, and what good did it do the Tibetans, or the cause of Tibetan independence? Answer: No good; minus good, in fact. The same is roughly true for Myanmar. Despotic regimes work best in secrecy, in isolation from the world. The Dalai Lama, knowing this too well, encourages responsible tourism to Tibet. John Healey of Amnesty International agrees. "We're aware that human contact is one of the most powerful weapons against abuse. Renegade governments often clean up their act when they know the outside world is watching. Victims of oppression crave contact."
At every opportunity we ask the Burmese people what they would prefer [i.e. boycott or continued contact]. To a person they've urged us not to support any boycott of tourism to Burma.
In short, we think, with all due respect and sympathy, that our bottom line goes deeper than money and moral outrage. We're not in the business of sheltering our clients from reality, good or bad. So, GeoEx travelers do not go to these wonderful places, do not come into contact with the resilient, bright, eager Tibetan and Burmese people, and return thinking that they've just visited paradise. They know that they've had the paradoxical, and very modern, and all too common, experience of traveling to magnificent destinations, seeing magnificent sights, meeting magnificent people, who are in trouble. And they almost invariably come home eager to help, not forget, those people. We think that follows the long arc of justice.