Not so long ago, some people were calling for a tourist boycott of Myanmar because it was a military dictatorship that subjugated its people. We should, many argued, deprive them of tourist income until political change occurs.
Well, political change did come, and the country now ostensibly has a civilian government. But the military is still all-powerful, and Myanmar still has a huge human rights problem. So, what to do?
Is, for example, the jailing of two journalists on trumped-up charges enough to make you stay away? How about the mass murder and gang rape of the Rohingya, a people who have even been denied their own identity by the Myanmar government?
Nearby Cambodia has become a one-party state, with opposition party members imprisoned or forced into exile. It has also jailed an Australian filmmaker for being a spy — even though no supporting evidence was presented at his trial.
That may be enough to make some people rethink their holiday plans. But the general traveller probably doesn’t even give that a thought. (Although, for some, the arrest of Westerners for “singing and dancing pornographically” might be a cause for concern.)
These are just a few obvious, recent examples. In the past, however, many parts of the world have been deemed off-limits for various reasons.
Governments have even been known to ban their citizens from travel to certain places, or to make that travel very difficult. Getting around the Middle East certainly isn’t easy for that reason, with airlines from the UAE and Saudi Arabia not servicing neighbouring Qatar due to a political dispute, and Israel available to some travellers only via third-party countries, and often requiring separate documents.
But now is the age of the “woke” traveller, and many people are deciding for themselves where they are and are not prepared to go, for many different reasons. But is this a good strategy, and does it actually achieve anything?
It could be argued, for instance, that the things that make certain destinations attractive to a certain type of visitor — cheap food, accommodation and sex — are a result of economic and political dysfunction in those countries.
But boycotting those places certainly doesn’t help the poor people who rely on tourists for the meagre incomes, and there’s no hard evidence that it’s going to change the way their governments behave.
In the end, it’s up to you. Will your money prop up a repressive regime, or will it put money in ordinary people’s pockets and food on family tables? Will it do more good than bad, or not make an iota of difference?
There’s no correct answer; just one that’s right for you.
It’s a big world, and there are more destinations than anybody can visit in one lifetime. Make your choice wisely, according to your own interests and conscience.
