Jaunted

There's been plenty of suffering. In 2007, pro-democracy protests by Buddhist monks swelled with popular support across the nation, but were brutally suppressed by government forces, resulting in several fatalities and scores of arrests. Last year, Cyclone Nargis ripped across the country's Irrawaddy Delta region, killing as many as 130,000 people and creating a humanitarian catastrophe that has been compounded by the government's refusal to permit outside organizations to distribute aid. (Apparently, the junta wants to hand out the food and supplies itself, so it is seen as the benevolent hand for the people, but it lacks the resources to do so effectively.)

The government in exile celebrated today's milestone from London with a pessimistic outlook for their homeland. As reported by the AP, Chairman Aung Shwe called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi - who has been under house arrest in Burma since winning a general election in 1990 - and said "Hope for the present and future of the country is totally lacking."

For its part, the military government told the "neocolonialists" of the world to mind their own beeswax.

And now, the travel angle: Is it right or wrong to visit a country like Burma (or Myanmar, depending on your home country's diplomatic protocol) as a tourist? Will your visit imply approval of the regime in power and serve to further enrich them, or can your presence facilitate communication between the cultures that may one day bring about positive change? I can certainly understand the argument on each side, but would generally lean toward visiting the country. Life is short, and I'd like to think that the Burmese spirit still flourishes amid the hardship. Agree/disagree?

Related Stories:
· Burma's Independence Day [U.S. Department of State]
· Opposition: No Hope for Future of Myanmar [Associated Press]
· Burma Travel: Jailed for Life for Not Saying a Word [Jaunted]