Birding Abroad and Politics. (1 Viewer)

The thread on Israel raises an interesting question. In my experience as a guide abroad, very often (believe it or not) I have found persons in the group having little or no interest in the culture/politics of the country they are visiting. The birding being the sole aim and focus, nothing else.
For example in the case of a country with appalling human rights I wondered just how many of you would ignore your conscience if it were for a desperate tick, knowing that by supporting tourism you are helping support the regime there. Not a simple question I know, but quite pertinent in todays world and increase in ecotourism.

JP

JP,I have often thought if you put "SOME" birders in an aircraft hanger full of the birds from a country of choice,that is all they would be interested in.Country, people, customs etc."leave it out"
John

jpoyner said:

For example in the case of a country with appalling human rights I wondered just how many of you would ignore your conscience if it were for a desperate tick, knowing that by supporting tourism you are helping support the regime there. Not a simple question I know, but quite pertinent in todays world and increase in ecotourism.

JP

Click to expand...

Good point, John. But another valid argument is if people didn't go there and witness these things and relate these horror stories to other people, how would anyone ever know what was actually happening?

Tom.

I am with you Tom which is why i emphasised only some birders,having been around a little myself,I enjoy experiencing new cultures,good and bad.

John

PS.Tom did you receive my PM re Scotland and my results?

John

jthatch555 said:

PS.Tom did you receive my PM re Scotland and my results?

John

Click to expand...

Sorry John, I didn't get it. I've just PM'd you though.

I am a very "political" person with strong opinions (very much "anti" the current U.S. administration/policies), but when I go birding I leave my political views at home, unless someone actually solicits my opinions.

I should think, however, that if one goes to a country with a bad human rights record you are not necessarily "supporting the regime," you are supporting at least some of the people there and you are bringing your eyes and ears to educate yourself as to what is going on in that country. If there are abuses that you observe, perhaps this can motivate you to speak out about these at home upon your return.

I certainly don't see taking a birding trip to a country with a problematic regime as necessarily an "endorsement" of that regime, UNLESS there is a clearly organized boycott/embargo of that country. If you decide to go to that country anyway under those circumstances, you are, implicitly, taking a stand on the boycott and the issues related to it.

I, for one, would jump at the chance to go birding in Cuba, despite my own government's long-term embargoes against this nation and its attempts to prevent American tourists from going there. And yes, it would be taking a stand on this issue, definitely.

A good question!
This is a complex issue and regimes have to be taken on a case by case basis. Tourist infrastructures cost big bucks such as are only available to the corrupt coterie of cronies that run such places. Money may 'trickle down', but there are a legion of cases, as I understand it, where the price paid by the indigenous poor is simply too high (e.g. forced removals, pollution, etc). Tourist dollars may improve living standards, but they also help entrench those in power. Even if some of the poor do gain from a tourist presence, this does not wholly balance the fact that by going there you do de facto give your support to and enhance the legitimacy of such regimes. So what if 30,000 people have marched through the streets of, say, London to protest about some oppressive dictatorial regime when 200,000 of their compatriots are content to sit you your beaches and fill the coffers of you & your pals?

The argument that if we go there we can be a witness to the evils of the regime strikes me as both naïve and self-serving. Naïve since many of the worst examples of oppression or corruption aren't on view to tourists - even adventurous birders. Witness, for example, the way in which western liberals in the 20s & 30s returned from Soviet Russia full of praise for the Stalinist regime. I've talked to many birders who've visited countries with vile regimes and do you know what, all they talked about was the birds. Self-serving since you get to see the birds and cover yourself with a fig leaf of respectability by the pretence that your testimony will somehow make a difference. It won't. I don't know of any well travelled birders who have been fired to join human rights campaigns as a result of their experiences abroad. I won't say such people don't exist, merely that I've not met any. I don't need to visit one of these fouler abusers of human rights to know about them - Amnesty International et al can tell me in more detail than I care to know and somewhat more authoritatively than odd yarns from a birder's trip. OK there may be exceptions. Arguably Cuba, for example, might have a less oppressive regime if large scale western tourism had been a feature of life there for the past 30 years. By going there we might be helping to bring about a change. However, in my view the unpalatable fact is if we do visit such countries then we do in some degree lend them our tacit support.

As an aside, I would add that I am always astonished by those who refuse to go to Cyprus and Malta because of the maltreatment of birds on those islands, happily take themselves off to more exotic countries with appalling human rights records without the slightest hesitation.

So, personally I would be very loathe to visit a country with a wretched record on human rights just to see the birds; some issues are more important than our obsession with matters ornithological. (I would add the caveat that if the trip served some vital conservation then it would be a different matter).
Yours in the hope I don't sound too priggish, John

jpoyner said:

The thread on Israel raises an interesting question. In my experience as a guide abroad, very often (believe it or not) I have found persons in the group having little or no interest in the culture/politics of the country they are visiting. The birding being the sole aim and focus, nothing else.
For example in the case of a country with appalling human rights I wondered just how many of you would ignore your conscience if it were for a desperate tick, knowing that by supporting tourism you are helping support the regime there. Not a simple question I know, but quite pertinent in todays world and increase in ecotourism.

JP

Click to expand...

Fair comment/s. Now can someone tell me what to do in order that by visiting Israel two or three times a year I won't be supporting the cronies in charge.?

I am a member of several Jewish conservation organisations. Stay in local B and B's throughout the country, visit places like Zvat in northern Israel to visit the artists quarter...and buy their work (I won't go on) and yet I am still supporting the government of Israel...even I'm confused now!

Enlightenment please. Or should I just stay home and moan about Blair?

John Barclay.

Why not just do whatever YOUR conscience decrees,John?
From what you say,you know the area and the problems involved,so you're probably better qualified to make that decision than any 'armchair expert' that thinks otherwise.

Grousemore said:

Why not just do whatever YOUR conscience decrees,John?
From what you say,you know the area and the problems involved,so you're probably better qualified to make that decision than any 'armchair expert' that thinks otherwise.

Click to expand...

Agreed, Grousemore...

Whilst I don't want to criticise others views, if the issue in question is about conscience at all, it is about one's own conscience, and not some collective conscience that may simply be the current vogue. (That stance works both way, by the way!)

I agree with jpoyner's original point, that some birders have no other interest in the country they are visiting, but that could of course be applied to any kind of holidaymaker - at least birders "by definition" generally don't want England Abroad!

I also agree in many ways with John C's argument. I perhaps wouldn't have used the same words or even examples, but it seems to me, John, that you have clear principles, and I applaud you for that. I wouldn't necessary say that I agree entirely with your stance (if you can understand what I mean by agreeing with the argument and not the stance!) but I would definitiely say that whilst I only have to consider my conscience and you only have to consider your conscience, we should all look deeper at our principles and understand what they stand for in all contexts - be it birding, or politics, or the food we eat, the way we dispose of waste, the clothes we buy, etc. etc. etc. and indeed etc.!

The problem with having principles, of course is you have to stick by them!

I do get your drift, I think, 'Birdman'. It's easy to take the 'moral high ground' on this issue when you don't actually have the cash to go to these distant locations! I should also have added that rather than thinking of any particular place - I didn't actually have Israel in mind when I wrote my comment - I was thinking in terms of general principles. Of course, we inevitably follow our own principles in these matters, but that doesn't mean we can't crititicise the shallowness of or apparent hypochrisy of the 'principles' that others chose to follow! John C

very well put John.

Make your own minds up. There are two birding countries i could easily visit but won't (and i've several friends of the same opinion)

you know if it's right or wrong deep down....... for most birders 'ethics' is in south-east England

http://www.amnesty.org/

I`m not baiting anyone (honest - ) but if I followed Amnesty International advice I`d have to cross the US off my holiday destination list wouldn`t I - they came out with this ridiculous statement last week -

The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on human rights and international law in 50 years

Click to expand...

mmm, so worse than Ho-chi Min in China, PolPot in Cambodia, use of Chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq, Serbian atrocities in the former Yugoslavian Republics & the Hutu - Tutsi conflict in Rwanda etc etc?

I reckon it's definitely worse than what Ho-chi Mhin did in China, Jason

Doh! Thats what you get with trying to use your barain after a lie in - i`m much better after a 3:30am start!

On a slightly different, but related, note, I enjoy travelling, and when I go abroad, I do make an effort to speak the local language (usually very badly!) and learn the customs, plus what may be deemed offensive or otherwise.

Politics-wise, even if you do visit a "bad" country, like someone mentioned above, hopefully at least the locals may get *some* of the revenue. However, I would consider visiting a country with not-so-good human rights record if the money helped conservation. It is a very difficult matter, and overall, I think I would try and avoid such a country.

I think decisions about what is right or wrong as regards visiting such a country, is best left to the individual. On a slightly lighter note, I'd be scared of putting a foot wrong and ending up on the wrong side of the human rights abuses myself!