would a bad human rights record stop you from going to a country?

[purves grundy]

Nah, i dunno about that.

The international community has only made cosmetic efforts. It really doesn't care, save for a few admirable american senators. There's never been any kind of concerted effort at freeing the entire population from their virtual prison.

So, no, i don't agree that the international community is telling itself that. It simply doesn't give a hoot.

If it really cared, and tried, then those anti-human generals could be royally fucked over and have to give way to suu kii, who is the officially elected prime minister. Still.

But no one gives a fuck about burma.

The whole topic i'm afraid goes right to the core of my understanding about human values and how they get abused by total wankers.

I actually think many countries are interested in helping Burma; the problem is that some significant nations are not. Burma is now on the Security Council agenda (at the insistence of the much-hated-on-U75 John Bolton), and foreign investment from the EU and USA is virtually non-existent. It's FDI from Asia that's helping the generals - see article. Little money from independent tourists goes to them, thank fuck.

Total re-think needed, imho. Anyway, fair enough, we disagree here, and this really does need another thread.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Wouldn't go to Saudi (bunch of undemocratic women oppressing Koran twisting, UK arms buying, terrorist exporting wankers) but would quite happily go to Israel (as I'm a left of centre Zionist) which despite obvious faults is really only acting in self defence although IMO it is self defending in the wrong manner and should be living in peace with it's neighbours.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I always thought the Chinese were bad til I got told a bit more about the Tibet situation, now I'm a bit confused. Still wouldn't go to China, the Govt are guilty of plenty other wrongs

I can understand that, but the reality of China is a bit more complex than the two extremes of 'It's all one giant gulag' or 'It's got a glittering future' that are usually talked about.

It's a place of definite improvements, of people tangibly noticing that their standard of living is going up. For instance, I noticed when I re-visited the Mrs's hometown, which is quite a rundown semi rural place, that even within a year, the main high street had become a bit more prosperous-looking.

People are not as oppressed as the western media sometimes makes out. Go round urban centres and you'll see people in western clothes, going to giant shopping malls, eating out at restaurants, and generally feeling happy that they can afford something like a western lifestyle for the first time in their history.

On the other hand it's also a place where the countryside is lagging way behind the cities. Many people cannot even afford to heat their houses, and sit there shivering in winter. But it ain't subsaharan africa either. And there are plenty of unemployed youth around; they merely get their frustration out by playing games in internet cafes all day instead of lurking.

Healthcare is another major issue, which could see mass protests in a few years. Basically the whole lot has been privatised, and few people, especially in the countryside, have any kind of insurance.

But I also don't think the government dictates how people live their day to day lives anything like they used to, compared to 30 years or so ago.

It's a place of change. When I'm 80, and China is top dog, I'll be able to say "I was there, I was there Gandalf, 3000 years ago."

 

[fela fan]

Total re-think needed, imho. Anyway, fair enough, we disagree here, and this really does need another thread.

Agreed, it does need a good thinking. And unfortunately a thread devoted to burma will not go very far.

We could continue to sneak stuff in here on this one...!

I'm more than interested in your views mate, being on the inside as you are.

One of many quotes that i've read, yet has an abiding memory for me is that burma is the basket case of south east asia, yet is the most resource rich country of the region.

 

[purves grundy]

And unfortunately a thread devoted to burma will not go very far.

How true

 

[fela fan]

How true

Why though??

!

I bloody wish it would. I recall during the early to mid-90s that burma and east timor occupied my mind as the most unjust places on earth.

East timor found some kind of solution. Burma didn't. Why not???? I don't really know to be honest. What goes on in burma cuts right to the bone as far as injustice is concerned.

Basically, too many people don't have enough time to care.

To solve a hotspot it needs some kind of momemtum. Burma never gets it.

 

[Yossarian]

True - I guess one reason may be that whatever happens in Burma is unlikely to destabilise the region or affect many interests.

And what can one person do about it? I've met people who've worked as volunteers in the refugee camps along the Thai border and that's something I've seriously considered myself and could still end up doing one day.

Otherwise, since there's not a whole heap of 'Made in Burma' products in the shop to boycott (although there are these companies: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list_details.html), refusing to go to Burma for a holiday looks like a good place to start.

 

[purves grundy]

I'll say it again, if you want to see the junta fall in Burma, 'boycotting' the few western companies which do business in Burma will achieve nothing. It is not western companies which are propping up the generals, it is Asian governments and corporations as this recent leader in the Independent makes clear. China, India, and South Korea lead the way, with ASEAN countries incerasing their share year by year. I'd say this fact is one of the reasons why there's not a concerted effort by the left to help Burma - its traditional foes, namely the US and EU, are not the culprits here - and it's loathe to change tactics. They might - shock horror -have to side with Bush, who seems deadly serious about Burma.

With China and Russia locked in a warm embrace with the generals, both permanent members of the Security Council, there's little chance of the SC passing any meaningful resolution on the country. And remember the terrible effect the sanctions regime had on Iraq, and how the left quite rightly railed against it? I don't think the Burmese people would appreciate being strangled anymore than they are at the moment.

The US and the EU have next to no leverage on the Burmese issue. Should they direct their energies towards changing Asian policy, and how could they go about this? Should they continue pursuing the UNSC route? Should western governments increase business in some sectors of the Burmese economy, bypassing the generals as far as possible but working with more progressive elements (and they do exist)? These are questions which a meaningful debate on the issue should address.

 

[Yossarian]

It is not western companies which are propping up the generals, it is Asian governments and corporations as this recent leader in the Independent makes clear.

Did you notice that the article you linked to comes to an opposite conclusion than the one you did?

 

[purves grundy]

Did you notice that the article you linked to comes to an opposite conclusion than the one you did?

You mean this?

The moral duty of the West is to attempt to persuade China and others that ignoring the brutalisation of the Burmese people for the sake of a few energy contracts will ultimately prove a very bad investment.

You must have missed this part of my post:

The US and the EU have next to no leverage on the Burmese issue. Should they direct their energies towards changing Asian policy, and how could they go about this?

The only conclusion I've come to is that the current policy is not working.

 

[Yossarian]

You must have missed this part of my post

Oops, so I did - that's what working nights does to ya!

 

[purves grundy]

Oops, so I did - that's what working nights does to ya!

No worries. So what's the way forward then?

 

[Yossarian]

I think you’re right that ASEAN involvement will be important if any change is to be effected in Burma – and I reckon China may prove surprisingly amenable to putting some pressure on Burma, at least if things get to the stage where it looks like the regime’s days may be numbered.

 

[fela fan]

No worries. So what's the way forward then?

To get china russia and asean to stop investing in burma, along with all countries.

For a period of six months or a year. See what happens.

Burma is resource rich and i'm pretty certain has plenty of food to feed itself. It doesn't depend on imports to anywhere the extent that desert iraq did.

The UN found a solution in east timor, they can do it for burma with the will.

 

[fela fan]

I think you’re right that ASEAN involvement will be important if any change is to be effected in Burma – and I reckon China may prove surprisingly amenable to putting some pressure on Burma, at least if things get to the stage where it looks like the regime’s days may be numbered.

There were positive noises not so long ago from malaysia and philippines. But i don't know what happened after that.

It should be somewhat better now that thaksin is out. He invested heavily over in burma.

ASEAN are susceptible to embarrassment and image. The US could easily put pressure on them if it wanted to. And i agree over china.

Not so sure about russia.

Incidentally, on a tangent, another reason to get rid of the security council. Five permament members, how undemocratic!!!

 

[purves grundy]

I think you’re right that ASEAN involvement will be important if any change is to be effected in Burma

There were positive noises not so long ago from malaysia and philippines. But i don't know what happened after that.

Burma receives regular chidings from numerous ASEAN countries - both the Philippines and Malaysia have recently sent envoys to the country to 'do something', both have returned with nothing. The group has an annoying policy of 'non-interference in internal affairs' which tends to temper any criticism they feel. But yeah, I agree, they are susceptible to embarassment and many members are keen to stress their democratic credentials, and they'll be central to any solution to the problem.

Incidentally, on a tangent, another reason to get rid of the security council. Five permament members, how undemocratic!!!

Absolutely, and HR abusers are also taking the piss out ofthe UN's new Human Rights Council. It's proving to be as toothless as the old Commission, being used as a platform by HR abusers to tell other countries to 'stop meddling'. But, despite Blair's recent expression of dissatisfaction with the makeup of the UNSC, it could be years before we see a change.

 

[Voley]

I used to think I'd never visit Tibet because of the Chinese occupation but I changed my mind about it after reading the Dalai Lama's autobiography.

He reckons that people should still go to see what's going on and report it to the rest of the world. The Chinese are pretty good at suppressing information about conditions in Tibet and the Dalai Lama sees independent travellers that manage to throw off their Chinese-regime-sponsored 'guide' as a good source of information.

I'm going in the Summer and I'll be blogging the whole thing when I get back.

 

[frogwoman]

the only countries that would be out for me would be israel and burma. im going to Russia this summer and thats well dodgy israel isn't even that bad (well, it is, but it's not as bad as some of the other stuff that's gone on in the world) but as a jew i feel ashamed of being associated with such a country, and it's more of an "emotional" reaction for me Im afraid. It's also the fact that so many people really fetishise israel and make it out to be the greatest country on earth, and going on a tour with something like birthright to get my "zionist experience" doesn't appeal to me in the slightest - i'd probably end up wanting to kill everyone else on it.

 

[Detroit City]

would a bad human rights record stop you from going to a country?

every nation state has had a "bad human rights record" at some time or another....

are you just talking about this point in time?

 

[frogwoman]

at this present point in time, i'd guess. i mean germany had a pretty shit human rights record for a long time, but it wouldn't stop me going now i don't agree with a lot of stuff happening in russia, like chechnya, but then i think the people aren't responsible for what the government does!

 

[han]

are you just talking about this point in time?

I guess so! After all, it's NOW that matters really, isn't it? Societies do learn from their mistakes and develop into more open and positive places over time.....Germany is an excellent example of this.

And so is the UK. Except we make alliances with the wrong people (at the moment).

 

[han]

He reckons that people should still go to see what's going on and report it to the rest of the world. The Chinese are pretty good at suppressing information about conditions in Tibet and the Dalai Lama sees independent travellers that manage to throw off their Chinese-regime-sponsored 'guide' as a good source of information.

That makes alot of sense, actually.

 

[purves grundy]

Ugh re-reading this thread I seem very argumentative and in possession of all the answers

 

[rachamim18]

Cambodia, and to a lesser degree Thailand have terrible Human Rights Records, not ot mention my nation of permamant residence the Philippines (currently visiting the US which is bnot perfect itself) and it does not negatively impact any of them from my perspective.

I find most travellers are concermed with that they believe might or might not effect them, issues such as costs, personal safety both from street crime and conflict, and so on.

Sad to say but people tend to be very selfish in this regard (and even sadder to say I am not much of an exception, I ponder this and other issues and yet it NEVER negatively impacts my itineraries). I believe it o be part of human nature.

Of course the media plays a huge part in this as in China and Tibet. I do not expect that many will be booking Tibetan tours through the Chinese Govt. this season.

 

[ringo]

Never going back to America: