Myanmar

[gingaa]

Hi:

I did a little research on Burma/Myanmar within this forum and read the long thread on the political situation, so, I think we can avoid that well-discussed aspect. I know about the dreadful military junta and it gives me serious reservations about going. But right now I'm interested in gathering some practical information.

1. Will I have problems because I'm an American, either with getting the Visa, or in relation to the American government's policies? Will normal people resent me?

2. Someone told me it takes a couple days to get the Visa, and only in Bangkok, and is a hassle. Is this true?

3. Given the reputation for terrible public transporation, is this a bad time to travel there?

4. Bombings? Yipe. Is Myanmar considered any more safe since those events?

I'll just add that I'm interested in Burma because I hear it's different from Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Viet Nam, and that--because of the repressive military rule--it's as if caught in the past. I think going there might give me more insight into SE Asia (good and bad).

[thankuverybig]

im pretty sure you wont get any anti american feeling there.

i have many burmese freinds,& the british colonial thing doesnt bother them.

if you dont get any in laos,the most bombed country in the world,im sure burma will be ok.

i think people are too busy trying to get by,to worry about politics.i hear burmese soldiers are paid a pittance,so i would be more worried about getting scammed.

[gingaa]

Thanks for the info. I'm a bit of a tight schedule, so, may have only a couple weeks to spend there. I may go for it, though with some reservations and trepidations.

[tayto]

Hi:

I did a little research on Burma/Myanmar within this forum and read the long thread on the political situation, so, I think we can avoid that well-discussed aspect. I know about the dreadful military junta and it gives me serious reservations about going. But right now I'm interested in gathering some practical information.

1. Will I have problems because I'm an American, either with getting the Visa, or in relation to the American government's policies? Will normal people resent me?

2. Someone told me it takes a couple days to get the Visa, and only in Bangkok, and is a hassle. Is this true?

3. Given the reputation for terrible public transporation, is this a bad time to travel there?

4. Bombings? Yipe. Is Myanmar considered any more safe since those events?

I'll just add that I'm interested in Burma because I hear it's different from Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Viet Nam, and that--because of the repressive military rule--it's as if caught in the past. I think going there might give me more insight into SE Asia (good and bad).

Don't go, as recommended by the legitimate government of Burma and imprisioned nobel peace laureate and civil rights activist Aung San Suu Kyi.

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/

Edited June 21, 2006 by tayto

[gingaa]

It looks like I'm going to be able to make the trip. Does anyone know how much the plane ticket in and out of Burma via Bangkok is, and how long in advance I have to book the trip? Can I wait to book it until I'm in Bangkok waiting for my Myanmar Visa?

As for the social questions to do with the regime and all, I don't think it's really that clear cut who benefits or gets hurt in relation to who does or does not visit the country. It does seem a bit like when you starve a country to weaken the leadership, the citizens are the ones who go hungry. I won't be spending a lot of money and will avoid the govt-owned places as best I can.

[jimbob]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70454

This is a forum debate about the pros and cons. People should certainly think about if they should go and if so what to do when there. I have been across the border a few times on visa runs and the people always seemed so happy to see foreigners.

[tayto]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70454

This is a forum debate about the pros and cons. People should certainly think about if they should go and if so what to do when there. I have been across the border a few times on visa runs and the people always seemed so happy to see foreigners.

Shame on you.

[gingaa]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70454

This is a forum debate about the pros and cons. People should certainly think about if they should go and if so what to do when there. I have been across the border a few times on visa runs and the people always seemed so happy to see foreigners.

Shame on you.

It's really not that clear cut. Imagine everyone stopped going to Tibet, or China, or even America in order to protest the controlling powers in those countries. Who would ultimately get hurt?

One thing that DOES seem obvious, though. It's a lot easier to say, "don't go" than it is to go. Do people that say not to visit Myanmar really care about the Burmese people so much?

According to the Lonely Planet over 80% of a carefull traveller's tourist money goes to the private sector; the vast majority of Burmese people want us to come; human rights violations are less likely to occur where outsider's eyes can see and report it; and if tourists stop coming the govt. may repress the people more.

Package tours and staying at expensive government accomodations while being oblivious to the social situation just plays into the ruling power's hands. But, considerate travel can have the opposite effect.

bye.

[bkkharry]

I think most of the people who say don't go there, have never been there. Just do gooders. I have been there 5 times in the last 5 years, one of the great hidden jewels of travel. Go and enjoy yourself, its an amazing place and the people are great.

If you are traveling around Myanmar you have to pay for your rooms with US dollars. At least the ones I stayed in. Did two circle trips, Yangon to Mandalay to Bagan back down to Yangon. Have a nice trip and don't worry.

Plane ticket should run about $200 to $250.

Edited June 24, 2006 by bkkharry

[gingaa]

I think most of the people who say don't go there, have never been there. Just do gooders. I have been there 5 times in the last 5 years, one of the great hidden jewels of travel. Go and enjoy yourself, its an amazing place and the people are great.

If you are traveling around Myanmar you have to pay for your rooms with US dollars. At least the ones I stayed in. Did two circle trips, Yangon to Mandalay to Bagan back down to Yangon. Have a nice trip and don't worry.

Plane ticket should run about $200 to $250.

Sounds great. Thanks. Decided to take 3 weeks. This may be my last big adventure for a while (at least in SE Asia), so, might as well milk it.

[jimbob]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70454

This is a forum debate about the pros and cons. People should certainly think about if they should go and if so what to do when there. I have been across the border a few times on visa runs and the people always seemed so happy to see foreigners.

Shame on you.

Interestingly judgemental and uncalled for response seeing as I simply encouraged the OP to strongly consider the pros and cons of the situation before going and reffered said poster to a previous/ongoing debate.

However since you want to point fingers and be rude I say this:

Shame on you for supporting the economic deprivation of an entire nation. People go without food and proper medical equipment because of these economic sanctions. The little people are weakened but the strong are barely affected since their main money makers are drug running and illegal logging.

[tayto]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70454

This is a forum debate about the pros and cons. People should certainly think about if they should go and if so what to do when there. I have been across the border a few times on visa runs and the people always seemed so happy to see foreigners.

Shame on you.

Interestingly judgemental and uncalled for response seeing as I simply encouraged the OP to strongly consider the pros and cons of the situation before going and reffered said poster to a previous/ongoing debate.

However since you want to point fingers and be rude I say this:

Shame on you for supporting the economic deprivation of an entire nation. People go without food and proper medical equipment because of these economic sanctions. The little people are weakened but the strong are barely affected since their main money makers are drug running and illegal logging.

Dear sir.I may be pointing fingers but I am not being rude. I am pointing out the serious mistake that the o.p is making.

I have to let him know that tourism is the latest venture by the junta to earn dollars and they are relaxing all regulations to encourage tourists to come.

Ask yourself why?

His $10 spend, equate to $1 to a poor person and $9 to the people that go out and rape and murder his family.

If you want to help the poor, deprived people of Burma , don't give any money to it's oppressors,give it to the charities that will channel the money to buy food and medicines.

2. Won’t sanctions harm the Burmese people?

The sanctions we are calling for will cut off investment to Burma and ban a limited number of exports, such as teak and gems, from leaving the country. Three quarters of Burma’s people live off the land, the vast majority do not work in industries targeted by these sanctions and will not be affected.

A minority of ordinary people may be affected but this has to be weighed against the fact that every day women are raped, villages are burned, prisoners are tortured, and Burma’s 47 million people further impoverished by this regime. We have a stark choice to make. To allow the regime to obtain finance that will ensure its survival, thereby condemning Burma to continued violence and impoverishment. Or to make a concerted effort to cut the regime’s financial lifelines while limiting the effects on ordinary people. The first strategy is a surrender to tyranny; the second is a struggle for the freedom and prosperity of a whole nation.

Burma campaign

[cclub75]

Don't forget one thing : there is no financial system in Burma...

It means : no ATM, no bank network like in BKK.

So, bring cash (USD of course).

I've been there in 2004. And I ran off cash. It was a mess to ask one of my friend in BKK to send me by UPS (they do have an office in Rangoon)... a few hundreds bills...

As for the debate Go or Don't Go... Well, I believe your personal decision will have little effect whatsoever.

Yes the Burma regime is an insanity. Yes the whole world (and Thailand !) is guilty, weak, to leave this country in the hands of some crazy "generals" (private army = state mafia).

It was one the richest country in South east asia before the WWII.

But still, I do believe that the more foreigners will go, the more it will show that we (normal people) don't forget the burmese people, and that Burma is part of the world, not on another planet.

[gingaa]

His $10 spend, equate to $1 to a poor person and $9 to the people that go out and rape and murder his family.

More likely, upwards of 80% of it will go to the Burmese people themselves, at least according to the latest edition of the Lonely Planet, Myanmar edition, which has good information about both sides of the argument (that's IF a travellor avoids the expensive government operated hotels…).

As to the other 20% going to the military junta, well, roughly 30% of my total income (prior to moving to Thailand) went to the Bush junta, so, I'm used to supporting totalitarian regimes. ; and I seriously doubt the @ 20% of my tourist dollars will be allocated specifically to the raping and killing of poor people whome the ruling powers otherwise wouldn't have the funds to brutalize.

My general impression is that some tourists do more good than harm, while others may unwittingly, out of ignorance, substantiate the legitimacy and stranglehold of the military junta. Again, it's not clear cut.

Edited June 24, 2006 by gingaa

[jimbob]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70454

This is a forum debate about the pros and cons. People should certainly think about if they should go and if so what to do when there. I have been across the border a few times on visa runs and the people always seemed so happy to see foreigners.

Shame on you.

Interestingly judgemental and uncalled for response seeing as I simply encouraged the OP to strongly consider the pros and cons of the situation before going and reffered said poster to a previous/ongoing debate.

However since you want to point fingers and be rude I say this:

Shame on you for supporting the economic deprivation of an entire nation. People go without food and proper medical equipment because of these economic sanctions. The little people are weakened but the strong are barely affected since their main money makers are drug running and illegal logging.

Dear sir.I may be pointing fingers but I am not being rude. I am pointing out the serious mistake that the o.p is making.

I have to let him know that tourism is the latest venture by the junta to earn dollars and they are relaxing all regulations to encourage tourists to come.

Ask yourself why?

His $10 spend, equate to $1 to a poor person and $9 to the people that go out and rape and murder his family.

If you want to help the poor, deprived people of Burma , don't give any money to it's oppressors,give it to the charities that will channel the money to buy food and medicines.

2. Won’t sanctions harm the Burmese people?

The sanctions we are calling for will cut off investment to Burma and ban a limited number of exports, such as teak and gems, from leaving the country. Three quarters of Burma’s people live off the land, the vast majority do not work in industries targeted by these sanctions and will not be affected.

A minority of ordinary people may be affected but this has to be weighed against the fact that every day women are raped, villages are burned, prisoners are tortured, and Burma’s 47 million people further impoverished by this regime. We have a stark choice to make. To allow the regime to obtain finance that will ensure its survival, thereby condemning Burma to continued violence and impoverishment. Or to make a concerted effort to cut the regime’s financial lifelines while limiting the effects on ordinary people. The first strategy is a surrender to tyranny; the second is a struggle for the freedom and prosperity of a whole nation.

Burma campaign

As mentioned earlier I had simply been instructing the OP to read into additional debates on travelling to Burma, introducing the said poster to think about his journey. You then posted "Shame on you". In my mind that is rude as I was not encouraging the journey but rather the consideration of whether the trip was good or bad.

Since you want to further your point (in large red lettering) I ask this:

Can you highlight any time in the last 50 years where sanctions have led to the downfall of a military regime? I cannot think of any.

Also why, if sanctions against Burma have not worked in the past, should we continue them instead of opening a dialogue or taking military action?

I am a strong opponent of economic sanctions as they rarely seem to be effective in doing anything but impoverishing the poor and needy.

[Gonzo the Face]

Some of the posters on this thread remind me of the old anti-abortionist philosophy......

"I'm going to save you, if I have to kill you to do it, no matter what your want".

How can people be so blind as to think the junta is into everything. They are into a lot, but not everything. The small things are not of any interest as there is not enough financial reward for the effort. And my friends that covers the back packer..

Staying in the small places does put some money into the hands of the little people... Should we be so blind and arrogant in our beliefs as to say "the little people should starve just so I can say I didn't give any money to the Junta..... Whats the matter with you people.

If the little you leave, can and does give a few more meals to those who have none, are your beliefs so arrogant as not to give it.

Try and put yourself in the shoes of those little people and then try and rationalize your current beliefs.

[tayto]

Can you highlight any time in the last 50 years where sanctions have led to the downfall of a military regime? I cannot think of any

South Africa.

Also why, if sanctions against Burma have not worked in the past, should we continue them instead of opening a dialogue or taking military action?

Junta don't want dialogue and the west reluctant to take military action.Sanctions not working because some people like the O.P dont believe in them

Lonely Planet, Myanmar edition,

Surely the Lonely Planet doesn't have a Burma edition.

Some of the posters on this thread remind me of the old anti-abortionist philosophy......

#Off-topic

went to the Bush junta, so, I'm used to supporting totalitarian regimes.

this proves to everyone how knowledgeable you are about the junta of Burma when you compare it to the USA.

Updated: Thursday, 9 September, 2004, 15:40 GMT 16:40 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Burma accused of sanctioning rape

The Burmese military are accused of intimidation by rape

Burma's military government has been accused of sanctioning the use of rape as a weapon against its opponents.

The Women's League of Burma says despite denials by the government, sexual violence by the armed forces remains prevalent in many areas.

"The military, mostly high-ranking officers, continued to use rape as a weapon to subdue ethnic minorities between 2003 into 2004," it said.

It alleged the most recent attack was on a girl of 12 and two other women.

It said they were working in a field on 31 July this year when they were sexually assaulted by soldiers.

Sexual slavery

The Women's League of Burma (WLB), an umbrella organisation for groups of different ethnic origin, released its report, entitled System of Impunity, at United Nations offices in Bangkok, Thailand.

It contains claims of gang rape, rape and murder and sexual slavery.

Of 26 women allegedly attacked, most were under 18, and 17 of them were raped by senior officers, it said.

WLB spokeswoman Hseng Nong said it was not possible to find out exactly how many rapes had taken place, but said those recorded were just "the tip of the iceberg".

She said rape was officially sanctioned in an attempt to suppress ethnic minorities and their campaigns for independence and democracy.

The government in Rangoon has previously dismissed accusations of state-sanctioned rape.

The regime in Burma - officially known as Myanmar - has been regularly criticised over human rights by foreign governments since the military seized power in a 1962 coup.

However, the WLB said countries near Burma must stop co-operating with the regime and push it to accept democratic reform.

Continued co-operation was "placing the lives of women and girls in Burma at risk", it said.

Edited June 25, 2006 by tayto

[gingaa]

Surely the Lonely Planet doesn't have a Burma edition.

I couldn't tell from your post whether you were being sarcastic or not, but, yes, of course the Lonely Planet has a Myanmar edition. It says "Burma" in parenthesis, in giant letters across the cover, as a matter of fact. Hope you didn't think I just made up the figures I quoted from it. You might wanna' pop in a bookstore and take a look at how the LP addresses the issue. It's much more subtle and multi-dimensional than one might expect, and has a lot of facts and figures (such as that while in 2003 the total profit from tourism in Myanmar was $25 million; the proceeds from natural gas exports were $665 million). It also says that a backpacker, on a 2 week vacation, will contribute on average about $85. The real tourist money comes from luxury travel and package tours!!

Junta don't want dialogue and the west reluctant to take military action.Sanctions not working because some people like the O.P dont believe in them

I haven't stated any opinion on the topic. Some sanctions may be useful and others counterproductive. Sanctions in Iraq, for example, which hampered the ability to purify water, are said to have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. However, many think it would ba a good idea for corporations such as Caterpillar to stop doing business with Israel.

went to the Bush junta, so, I'm used to supporting totalitarian regimes.

this proves to everyone how knowledgeable you are about the junta of Burma when you compare it to the USA.

I didn't intend that to be taken 100% literally. However, you might consider that the US is said to be responsible for more than 150,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (as well as over 2,500 US military) since the begining of the war there. Some might say that what Bush and company did to Iraq is in some ways worse than what the military junta did to Burma.

[jdinasia]

So ... you say Backpacking is good? Package tours are Bad?

and that since you aren't going to spend any measurable $$ it just doesn't matter?

Justifying the selfish desire to travel in Myanmar is kinda specious

[gingaa]

So ... you say Backpacking is good? Package tours are Bad?

and that since you aren't going to spend any measurable $$ it just doesn't matter?

Justifying the selfish desire to travel in Myanmar is kinda specious

I don't think it's soooo simplistic , don't really consider myself a "backpacker," and don't think all travel to Myanmar arises out of "selfish desire".

It would be much more accurate to say that a conscientious, socially aware traveler, who avoids government operated business may do more good than harm by visiting Myanmar. According to the Lonely Planet, about 80% of such a traveler's spending will go directly to the Burmese people, who overwhelmingly want us to visit their country.

Yes, package tours, luxury cruises, and spending at expensive hotels funnels far more money (as well as an inverse percentage) into the hands to the regime, and far less into that of the Burmese people themselves.

But even framing the debate in terms of how much money ends up in the hands of the ruling powers is too simplistic. The Burmese people themselves do not want to be cut off and isolated from the rest of the world, and overwhelmingly want us to come (at least according to the Lonely Planet, and as substantiated by the first hand reports of those who HAVE been there).

Enough on that debate. I gained more useful information in about 20 minutes reading the Lonely Planet than I have in probably hours of reading in this and other threads.

Edited June 26, 2006 by gingaa

[jdinasia]

Yes .... Obviously Lonely Planet (that has a vested interest in you buying their travel books) is a far more valid expression of commercialism ... ooops I mean social consciouslness ... than say the Nobel Laureate that was elected but not allowed to take office.

got it ...

It isn't a selfish desire to fulfill your travel plans ... it is a socially conscious travel expedition to do good for the locals ..... *cough*

[gingaa]

Yes .... Obviously Lonely Planet (that has a vested interest in you buying their travel books) is a far more valid expression of commercialism ... ooops I mean social consciouslness ... than say the Nobel Laureate that was elected but not allowed to take office.

got it ...

Since you haven't read what the Lonely Planet has to say about travel in Myanmar, you aren't in a position to dismiss it as self-interested commercialism (an obvious accusation they would be very careful not to give any justification). Better to deal with the actual arguments, and more legitimate statistics (as opposed to those fabricated by posters), than just throwing out labels (such as "backpacker" or "selfish" or "commercialism"). Can you present at least one valid argument rather than just resorting to name calling, please?

It isn't a selfish desire to fulfill your travel plans ... it is a socially conscious travel expedition to do good for the locals ..... *cough*

Sorry, things just aren't as simple as your black and white ultimatums. Keep in mind that when you find yourself putting words in another poster's mouth, it's a sign you can't counter what they are actually saying. If you'd like to have an adult debate, you can easily quote what other people actually say.

It IS rather comic that you chose to say, "a selfish desire to fulfill your travel plans," as if the mere fulfilling of a plan, or completion of a task, were the real objective. Do you really see travel in such simplistic terms, as either completely selfish or as a humanistic crusade?

[gingaa]

By me the moderators can close this thread. The debate on whether or not to go to Myanmar has been hashed out elsewhere and it's not necessary to repeat it here.

Thanks.

[Jai Dee]

Thread closed at OP's request.

/Closed