Travel Boycotts: Should We Boycott Countries On Political Grounds?

In August 2017, I joined a group tour to North Korea. I received a fair amount of stick for this, as many people were upset with my decision to travel to a country whose government has been accused of committing human rights offences.

I appreciate these comments probably came from good intentions; to boycott a country is to take a stand and show that you will not tolerate injustice, cruelty or discrimination. For similar reasons, tourists and travel companies alike have recently started to boycott Brunei, after they announced in March that they’ve introduced a new law whereby homosexuality is punishable by stoning to death.

“We’re proud of our open and diverse culture and we expect our partners to demonstrate the same. We do not support in any way the laws being introduced in Brunei (including on Brunei-registered aircraft and vessels). Because of this we have stopped selling Royal Brunei Airlines flights. We’ve taken this stance to add our voice to the calls on Brunei to reverse this change in the law and in support of LGBTQI people everywhere.”

STA Travel in the Independent

However, these very same people will visit The United Arab Emirates, where LGBT acts are punishable by imprisonment or death. And, in 2016, a British woman was arrested for having “premarital sex” after she reported she had been raped.

They’ll visit China, where the government restricts access to social media – an oppressive ideology that inhibits freedom of speech and the right to access information.

They’ll visit Malaysia and Singapore, where female genital mutilation is prevalent – and legal – in some communities.

In my opinion, these are all examples of human rights violations.

Where, then, do we draw a line between ethical and unethical travel?

The obvious answer would be to boycott any country which adheres to unethical practices or regimes. Tourism is important to the economy of many countries, which can make a decline in tourism a very powerful statement.

“I still think that people should not come to Burma (Myanmar) because the bulk of the money from tourism goes straight into the pockets of the generals. And not only that, it’s a form of moral support for them because it makes the military authorities think that the international community is not opposed to the human rights violations.”

Aung San Suu Kyi, Leader of Myanmar’s National League for Democracy

But of course, there’s no black and white answer. Even seemingly respectable countries such as The United States and Australia have some controversial laws and practices. If we were to boycott every country with a law or practice that could be regarded as “unethical” we wouldn’t have many places left to go.

To make a generalised decision on whether or not to travel to such countries seems short-sighted. The situation in each country is different, and I think much of it comes down to how we travel in these countries.

The main issue with travel boycotts is that its the very people who are being oppressed who are most likely to suffer as a result. The reality is that when tourists boycott, it impacts the local people far more than those in power. The family who runs a guesthouse, the independent tour guide, and the small restaurant owner are all directly affected by declines in tourism. These individuals may rely on tourist dollar for their livelihood.

It seems incredibly unfair to penalise a whole country for the actions of its government.

When we travel, we should aim to give our tourist money to the local people as much as possible. If we choose to stay in local guesthouses and eat in local restaurants, we can limit the amount of tourist dollar that lands in the pockets of corrupt governments.

Not only this, but the prying eyes of travellers can also help to expose corrupt governments and regimes. If foreigners don’t know how bad a situation is, how can we make a global effort to resolve it?

“Boycotts end up punishing people who have no control over their government.”

Dave from Dave Does The Travel Thing

During the second half of the twentieth century, international newspapers urged tourists to boycott South Africa due to the apartheid. This meant that for much of this period, South Africa’s only tourists were domestic. And yes, eventually, in 1994, the government did give in and the racial segregation ended.

But it wasn’t just the lack of tourists that caused South Africa to end the apartheid. The government collapsed when the major corporations stopped doing business with them, foreign governments imposed sanctions, and the economy was in poor health due to a huge drop in gold prices. It was a result of bankruptcy and international pressure from the big businesses and top dogs – not tourists.

Instead of boycotting a country outright, I think it’s more practical to make ethical decisions at a more micro-level. For example, I’ll happily visit Thailand but I wouldn’t ride an elephant. I’ll visit India but I won’t give to begging children. I choose to boycott businesses or activities which don’t align with my moral values, and I choose to give to local communities as much as I can.

“The ethics of visiting places like Myanmar and North Korea have previously been the subject of passionate company-wide debates at Intrepid. The majority decision has been that we don’t boycott, but that our trips include as much genuine real-life local interaction as we can, because it exposes both our travelers and locals to the reality that we are all human. We genuinely believe that travel connects people, it builds understanding, it makes us less prejudiced and more empathetic. We need more of that in the world right now.”

James Thornton, CEO of Intrepid Travel

Travelling to oppressed nations does more good than it does to segregate it. I believe it’s better for people to meet and interact with foreigners so that they may learn about alternative ideas. Using North Korea as an example; how will North Koreans ever grow to learn that Americans aren’t the devil’s spawn unless they meet them? It’s surely better for them to meet a respectful American than to have anti-American propaganda be their only source of information on them.

Travel can change not only the lives of travellers, but also of the people they meet. Engaging with citizens exposes them to foreign ideas, thoughts and beliefs – beliefs which can instigate change. Travelling has a much greater impact than staying at home and hiding from the world’s problems. Visit oppressed nations, spend your money locally, choose responsible tourist activities and open up discussion.

“We travelers have a unique chance to be something like the rivers of the world. We can gather little pieces of the lands we touch, carry them great distances and let them settle into something rich from which a higher perspective might arise. Cutting off that flow does more harm than good.”

Tim Neville, Travel Writer

I believe that if we travel in the right way and for the right reasons, we can support local people and build cultural bridges. It is surely better to contribute to the solution than to turn your back on the problem.

---

Thank you for reading! If you found this post useful, I’d be grateful if you would consider using the affiliate links below when planning your travels. I’ll make a small commission at no extra cost to you. This will help me to keep this blog running. Thanks for your support — Lauren.

Hotels – Booking.com
Hostels – Hostelworld
Flights – Booking.com
Excursions & tours – Viator
Outdoor gear – Decathlon / GO Outdoors
eSIMs – Airalo

Alternatively, you could buy me a coffee to say thanks!