Travel Boycotts: Should We Boycott Countries On Political Grounds?

Whether we choose to go someplace or boycott that place based on political grounds is a personal choice, but I'm pretty sure it's not a subject that the webmaster wants us to discuss here, tempting though it may be.

"Gone by 10 am PST", I suspect.

@ David. Why are you so convinced of this?
Rick Steves wrote a book entitled, “Travel as a Political Act”

Personally, I hope the thread stays. Mister E has initiated some of the most interesting and thought-provoking threads here. I see nothing wrong with, and in fact welcome, discussing travel as a political and personal choice. As political situations continue to change and/or deteriorate in many countries (and not just in Europe), some of us are beginning to look beyond pretty countrysides, museums and churches when contemplating possible destinations. I say bring it on.

I believe the webmaster has made it clear that the Travel Forum is not the right place to discuss "politics".

While technically this thread does relate to travel (or rather, one's reasons to travel somewhere or not), I expect it will (perhaps quickly) veer into more political and less travel-specific content. Just a guess based on past observations, I could be wrong.

And yes, of course, Rick Steves is not shy about sharing his views on political matters and other subjects that are only obliquely related to travel (or not related to travel at all). That doesn't mean we all should expect the same kind of deference when posting opinions on the same subjects here (even if we might agree wholeheartedly with most of the more provocative opinions he has publicly expressed, as I generally do). It's just a question of whether or not this is the right place for that. I guess we will see.

Not about politics. No need to mention a country, just the values that guide you. I haven't solved thr issue in my own mind, so a discussion would be enlightening for me army least. Well, if it can be done in a mature non judgmental way.

Not about politics. No need to mention a country

YET, you singled out two countries, two countries that are pretty benign in a comparative sense to say Turkey and Hungary.

This thread reads more self-promotional than it is thought provoking.

There are certain airlines that I will not fly with as they support regimes that I consider to be oppressive - even if those airlines are the cheapest option.

There are certain countries that I will not visit because I do not want to support the economies of countries that systematically oppress their citizens and are not welcoming of refugees.

In general, I say no to boycott countries on political grounds.

I have visited many countries that I strongly disagreed with their political system or leadership. Countries like Russia, China, Turkey and years ago, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland.

I believe that I have a better understanding of those countries because of my visits.

Still, I would not visit Russia today because of the war on Ukraine. I would not try to visit countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and a few others for obvious safety reasons.

Boycotting France and Italy is ridiculous, those countries are pluralistic democracies.

Since this is the position of the RS organization, I think we're on safe ground saying we should not visit the country that invades it's neighbor because it thinks their land should be part of Russia and wants to wipe out the people and their entire national identity. There's another country I will not visit because of their policy of covering up the emergence of deadly diseases.

I base my decision more on my personal security than on the politics of the country. However, there are countries that give me pause because of how they treat their citizens. I don’t have any hard or fast rules though. In general, I think it’s better for people in countries that have governments that I don’t like to be exposed to people from other countries.

If I am fairly confident the money I spend will do more good than harm

Annual tourist numbers to Cuba are high, yet the standard of living for the average Cuban resident remains abysmally low.

To me, a boycott is organized, collective group action....not simply individuals choosing to avoid a country for a number of personal reasons. For a boycott to be effective, the "offending party" is assumed to know that there is an organized group effort that is targeting it for specific reasons and it's usually public and high-level. So countries boycotting the Olympics set in Location X is one such example, pulling out the diplomatic corps out of a country is another (both are clear signals to that country that they are persona non grata).

This may seem a bit of semantics, but it does have to do with how much one really thinks their actions of avoidance will affect the target or move the needle. I don't think under-the-radar individual avoidance is anywhere as effective as a true organized boycott because the signal sent is too diffuse and not recognized by the other party (i.e. you're not hitting anyone where it hurts). But do people put their energy and efforts into such organization? Or is it just an individual exercise of sharing ideas of which countries they avoid and why?

Whether boycott or avoidance, my take is very nuanced. I don't stay away from countries for purely political reasons, it's much more granular than that. But at some point, in places where the governments are fairly elected and public dissent is protected speech, it's hard for me to make the argument that "people are not their government". Doing nothing against corrupt or incompetent or unethical political actors is a political act in itself because those things are decided by the political process, not out in the streets. So many governments do in fact reflect the populace's will or apathy. Good examples abound in US, especially at the local and state levels.

Hmmm, interesting thoughts. While I could agree with premises 1, 2, and 4 from Mister E, #3 gets far too nebulous to me as a guideline.

Agnes, as usual, has wise things to say. I have trouble visualizing how my travel decision makes a difference - yet if we all say that, then there is no impact.

I also like Carroll’s idea about the value of bringing outside perspectives to countries that may not get access to those. Easier said than done, though, in practicality. I remember sitting in the Seville bus station listening to a conversation between my daughter and a young man from Morocco who envied our freedom to speak our minds - good or bad - since in his country, he said, you absolutely could not speak against the king. That conversation might not have taken place IN Morocco. However, perhaps simply being there, in some instances, makes a difference.

I am wondering about periscope’s point on spending (or not spending) our dollars in a country where people are still very poor. Many countries have problems with poverty, probably often because of governmental greed or mismanagement. Would this be an example of how a decision could be made? I had not thought of using the economics of a country as a guideline.

I also appreciate cala’s insight into medical and health guidelines.

I suspect that David may be correct, in that some people will absolutely not be able to stay on topic. So the thread may disappear. However most of us have done so - so far. I hope it doesn’t degenerate into insults and name-calling.

I appreciate considering the topic, even though I don’t have answers for myself yet (nor can I provide much for anyone else to consider). Premise #4 tops my list. And lines are often hard to draw - and are constantly changing.

If where I went were dictated by the cruelty of others I would never go anywhere

If where I went were dictated by the cruelty of others I would never go anywhere

I might take a real close examination of those countries that STILL conduct public executions for being openly opposed to the ruling regime.

With all the possible countries to go in the world, it is easy to scratch out those that are known abusers.
There are some who have no ethical anchor and selfishly see themselves as a bridge between one place and another. Or at least it is their explanation of their behavior should they visit.
We can quibble about the various degrees of difference between the validity to visit certain countries. But it is overall evident to common sense that the (above mentioned) Morocco verses Russia is clear.

Tourism is sometimes the largest factor in the income of countries, and in those on the edge of political respectability visiting such a country is tantamount to an endorsement. That is what that country will see it as.

The higher end you go, as in organized tours, the more it gives credence to the acceptance of that country. And very little filters down to the regular people for those of you touting that aspect of going to such a country. Backpackers make no dent, and are often discourage by regimes. Money is the end all and be all.

In many countries the money still ends up in the hands of the government. And I would never go to a country that invades a sovereign country aka Russia.

I do think it's interesting that people talk about separation people from government as that can be a slippery slope. 1930s Germany comes to mind-even with a boycott many Americans still traveled there at the time. Right/wrong?

As I recall, the Webmaster initiated such a discussion a few years ago, travel ethics. As long as it doesn't degenerate into a abusive political left/right debate, it should be OK.

For me, it's just an implicit part of political awareness, knowing what places are within your comfort zone. But it's yet to come up as part of my travel considerations. At least internationally.

I too am bit uncomfortable with the idea of separating people from their government. Even the most repressive or abusive regimes have their share of supporters. Hitler was popular after all, and Saddam Hussein was supported by many Iraqis, as much as we liked to paint him as universally hated.

Including Canada and the US, I'm not sure if there would be any countries to visit if you wouldn't go because someone disagreed with something. I'd mentioned in Big Mike's post about Bucket Lists places that probably won't happen that I probably won't make it to China and Russia. Maybe part of it is based on political grounds, but mainly it's due to my comfort level for my personal safety.

This thread reads more self-promotional than it is thought provoking.

Yet, you've already replied 3 times.

Now that's a real interesting question but Mister E always comes up with interesting theories or things to think about. My husband will not travel to Thailand, Vietnam or China. Shows no animosity towards any of the people but I know his tour in Vietnam is the why he won't go. Never speaks of it but it is a head shake no. But the twist of the story is when we were stationed in Germany, we could not convince my father-in-law to visit. Again, no animosity but he would not return with my mother-in-law. She came but we never talked about it. My husband has no problem traveling Europe and he understands his father's side of the question.

An interesting topic…thank you MisterE.
I go to ,or avoid, countries mainly depending on how safe I will feel there.
That removes many countries from my list, including some quite easy to get to from home unfortunately.

But it is overall evident to common sense that the (above mentioned) Morocco verses Russia is clear.

Just to be clear, treemoss2, I was not comparing Morocco to Russia. Simply relating a personal experience perhaps (somewhat?) related to the thought of personal interactions.

I appreciate the consideration of the community here. Despite bringing up the notion of politics, I see this thread as more about ethics (Stan, you nailed it). As long as that remains the tenor of this thread -- and not the politics of specific countries -- we'll keep it.

Depending upon how sensitive your filter is, your travel could be very limited because like the people in every nation on earth, governments aren't perfect.

WEBMASTER, That was the intent. Thank you.

And Cala, then you understand why I mentioned Italy and France.

Just to illustrate if you look hard enough, or too hard, there is something wrong with every place.

I think about my personal safety in the first place and further agree with geovagriffith. You can learn indeed way more with visiting countries having governements with questionable ethics and so forming a better opinion than being depended on what your tv-screen at home, your national media has to tell. Travelling with an open mind enriches your life way more than travelling around with prejudices and looking for confirmation of the opinion you already have before arriving, it won’t make you much wiser. So again if my personal safety is okay I don't see in general a reason to avoid or boycot a country for being unethical. But if there is a risk of seeing or experiencing physical violance it will make the place / country lesser attractive and a reason for not going.

Ignorance is perhaps the largest contributor to miss understandings. It also helps those who control the narrative stay in power. Traveling to a country is a good way for the. traveler to learn about the country and the people they visit as it is also a good way for the people in the visited country to learn about the visitors and thier culture.
This is a two way street that helps each other understand the other and to show both the traveler and the locals that other ways and options exist.
I have often thought that many (most?) of my fellow citizens would benifit greatly from traveling around the world. They would learn that different does not inherently mean worse (nor does it always mean better). And that just because something is done differently does not mean it is wring or inferior or bad.

At the same time it spreads knowledge to all those involved.

In countries that are questionable for various reasons i believe that this increased knowledge will someday help them improve. Knowledge that things can ne different is often key to changing them.

And while I wont get into my country is better/worse than yours argument, i will say that there is not any country that has a perfect understanding of any other country so expanding knowledge and learning to appreciate each other more can only help.

And i think this This cross pollenization of understanding and knowledge far outweighs the potential downside of contributing money to any give countries government

So for me i chose based on interests and if i feel save traveling thier.

I think this is such a subjective topic, and as Stan said, deals with comfort zone issues. In general, I think that many countries that have a large number of human rights violations are also those where safety is a concern. So I look at both of those issues when deciding where to travel. When I traveled to Turkey, there were some cultural and gender issues that were uncomfortable to deal with (for example, I could not share a bus seat with a man); yet the people there were the friendliest I have ever encountered in my travels. So I felt perfectly safe when I was there.

I went to Russia (and several other countries) in 1975 as part of a 4-H Ambassador program. Yes, it was eye-opening and very educational to see some of the good & the bad first-hand.

And five years ago, I went to Cambodia to work as a volunteer to help prepare an elementary school that’s providing good education in a weak area.

Otherwise, my opinion probably varies a lot from others, but my own litmus test is that I don’t bring tourist money to places that I personally cannot respect…and that applies to more than politics.

I think I'm with our Dutch friend Wil, personal safety of the most vulnerable person in my group, my young teen daughter, is by far my primary concern. And then over that a sometimes overlapping issue, how much ability do I have to move on my own and do things on my own?

Those two standards can have a tendency to cut out problematic regimes, some of them anyway.

And then after that, there are a lot of different people even in the sh****est countries. I might avoid some places sometimes because there are certain people I don't want to look at and have to think about too much. I live in Seattle, but don't have to travel too far to get to some towns where there are concentrations of neo-Nazis for instance. I find them hard to ignore, so I generally just pass through those places.

A problem I think too is that most states, being flawed mass organizations, have some dirty aspects, including nearly every country in Western Europe. How deep am I supposed to look to find problems that make that place a no-go for political reasons? What's my cutoff? How much harm has to be happening in how many ways? I'm not sure if I can articulate a personal standard for this, and if I can then my political choices about where to travel become arbitrary, and then I wonder if I'm just virtue signaling when it's convenient.

All that said doesn't seem at all like a bad idea to not put money into the pockets of bad people doing bad things, nothing wrong with avoiding doing that.

douglas, in my mind you nailed it, but its one thing to walk through a land and not like what you see, it is something else to take the time to ask why it is that way.

"I wont go to Benben because its an oppressive fascist government; how do i know this, because I was told so." well, Benben is a functioning democracy, although different from the one I enjoy in Arcadia, but by their choice; its a fractured country and the stern hand of the government has kept peace for 50 of the last 200 years and that is what is most important to the citizens.

I would say an okay situation for today; and in time is kept in the world community it will evolve beyond what we have in Arcadia and maybe surpass Laistrygon in its harmony and justice.

So I will keep visiting and knowing and sharing and feel like i was part of the birth of something great.

I actually do know of one country that when I visited in the '80's was peaceful and safe and the standard of living was "acceptable" but it was a dictatorship; now it is a democracy and among the most impoverished and dangerous places in the world.

The world is a twisted mess and the best we can do is try and understand the forces at work and learn from them so we make fewer of the same mistakes but be careful with judgments because without being part of the culture it is impossible to understand why they are the way they are and what is right or wrong for them.

I will never boycott a country on political grounds. I travel for two primary reasons. First, to educate myself regarding the history, culture and people of a country. Second, to enjoy myself by tasting the food, meeting the people and seeing the sights of a country. There are many countries that I would not chose to live in for various reasons, some political, just as there are several states in the USA that I would never call home. But that does not stop me from visiting those countries and states.

As mentioned, there is no right or wrong. One person's "I can't wait to go there" could be another's "I never want to go there." Whatever the decision it's right for them.

No one should be criticized for choosing to go somewhere or more importantly NOT choosing to go somewhere. Respect every person's decision.

We just posted our Ethical Travel video from our three-week Festival of Europe today. Seems very timely with this thread. Rick brings up a number of issues to consider when traveling, and Craig goes into detail about a number of issues our world faces. I personally find it really informative.

You can watch it at the link below. At that page, scroll down and you'll find it in the list of videos recorded 1/23/23.

https://www.ricksteves.com/tours/festival-of-europe-video-recordings

I'm going to tread lightly here so as not to be disrespectful to the owner of this forum. The above link, IMO, is a litany of fey equivocation and postures that enable a big company that jets privileged people around the world to continue that practice and appear to be highly ethical while doing it.

I don't dodge any of this sort of criticism myself, and to a degree there are better and worst ways to travel. And Rick Steves seems very much a decent person. But he characteristically traffics unexamined platitudes, and this video is essentially a string of those back to back to back to back.

Which is not to say these platitudes are all wrong, but rather that they are pretty clearly a self-serving rhetoric.

Others certainly might disagree, so I hope that the above is not too critical for this forum to bear. And to be clear, I would readily trade places with RS! He has a great job and has done a lot of good work.

RS has written extensively about "political travel," so what's the problem?

You name me the country and I can find some political ax to grind for not visiting. Any country.

The mean and/or corrupt government officials wouldn’t personally know any of us who did/didn’t wind up vacationing in their country. Unless you had refused a personal invitation from the ruler, chief executive or a prominent legislator, your political gesture would go unnoticed by the offending parties. Only you would know that you tried to make a difference.

Although your absence would prevent your money from going towards tax revenue in the problem destination, avoiding the country would probably affect its citizens more, at least those in the travel, food, and transportation industries. You wouldn’t be spending anything on lodging, restaurant or market meals, or getting from Point A to Point B. Of course, if several thousand of us did likewise, that would add up, but what regimes are going to suddenly determine, “Gee, we need to stop being nasty, so that tourists will flock here again. Sorry, everybody, we’re nice now, so come here on your next vacation!”

One’s personal safety might be a bigger reason for avoiding a place. But as long as there are places with a less-gray area regarding going or not, you can travel to places that don’t raise such objections.

I think the RS "Travel as a Political Act" thing is misunderstood. Its a glib way of saying what Douglas said above:

*Ignorance is perhaps the largest contributor to miss understandings. It also helps those who control the narrative stay in power. Traveling to a country is a good way for the. traveler to learn about the country and the people they visit as it is also a good way for the people in the visited country to learn about the visitors and thier culture . . . *

I've heard Rick make his presentation live, on TV, and in writing, several times now. What I got out of it is that he's not suggesting travel as a way of demonstrating or projecting your politics; rather, its informing your politics by actually seeing and experiencing a different perspective. Think of all the people who have posted about having medical issues in Europe and the care they received, and how they might think differently now about health care.

I dont think choosing not to go to Russia or China for example, is a political statement. It's a choice based on your interest in seeing a place/culture that supports things you find morally reprehensible. And it's not always "the government". I wont travel to countries where FGM and honor killings are culturally accepted even if technically illegal.

Before throwing the first stone be sure if you or your home country is without sin too! Or in other words do some self reflection before taking someone's measure, possibly there is still some work to do. Or more in other words deciding to visite a country is should be based on the reason to feel safe or comfortable and not based on value judging.

This is a very interesting topic. When I was an undergrad, many years ago, I had the opportunity to join an educational tour of what was then known as the Soviet Union. I called our local high school girls' counselor to ask for a letter of recommendation. Well.

She called my mother, telling her that she (the counselor) would write a bad recommendation to assure I would not get a spot. My mother, God bless her, was outraged, and insisted that either Ms X write a recommendation that reflected my character and abilities, or decline to write one at all. Yes, I was accepted to the program, and am still grateful for the opportunity.

Flash forward from there 20+ years. I was the recipient of a grant that would allow me to teach in Poland for a few years. (This is still the Soviet Union, Iron Curtain, Berlin Wall era.) I had a year before the position started, so I took on an office job at our local university. My superiors knew I wouldn't be staying, and were fine with it. My co-workers? They were confused and befuddled. And concerned. "Poland? But, but... aren't there Communists there?"

Indeed there were, and once again, I treasure the experience.

Bottom line, I agree with Mr E's position. Traveling to places that are outside of our comfort zone can be richly rewarding to both the traveler, and anyone with whom that traveler interacts. Meeting and interacting with Russian citizens in the 1960s? Priceless for me, and I like to think that some minds were opened a bit among the people I met there.

And this?

This thread reads more self-promotional than it is thought provoking.

What?

After the event of Tiananmen Square, I made the political decision of not going to China, doing my part to boycott the country. Russia waging the horrific war in the Ukraine justifies my political decision to end any desire of visiting there on a tour.

This is a very thought provoking topic.

I tried to come up with a list of things that would put a country on my boycott list. Some of the things I considered:

• Does the country condone or is engaged in genocide?

• Does the government engage in torture or extrajudicial killing?

• Does the government annex the territory of its sovereign neighbours (or non-neighbours for that matter)?

• Does the government respect the rule of law for international visitors (i.e. would I personally be in threat of arbitrary imprisonment or torture)?

• Is the country authoritarian and engaged in the oppression of its own people through means that violate human rights?

I realized pretty quickly that any of these arguably apply to countries that I have happily visited, with the exception of current genocide, so my actual criteria aren't these.

I currently have five countries on my personal current no go list for political reasons. This excludes countries I couldn't go to anyway for personal safety reasons such as various failed states or the locations of active civil wars.

Two of these are directly or indirectly involved in the invasion of Ukraine. One has arbitrarily imprisoned and probably tortured fellow citizens of mine. One has an atrocious human rights record. The last is North Korea (which also has an atrocious human rights record, of course).

Clearly there is an additional criteria or a threshold I am applying to actively boycott some countries and not others, but it is really hard to determine what the general principles should be.

As a young man, I lived in apartheid South Africa. The government broadcaster would occassionally have interviews with foreign tourists , carefully selected to say that everything was wonderful- and used these as internal propaganda to show that "The world" really did understand and it was only "governments" that irrationally wanted to organise trade, sport and cultural boycotts.

I have been mindful ever since that by visiting a country, I effectively endorse whatever systems are in place.
As a result, there are several places I would very much like to visit, but under current regimes, I never will. This includes one European country that I visited some years ago before several harsh crackdowns on press, independent judiciary etc - that includes possibly the most fascinating historic city I have ever been to.

Mr E's point about grey areas is well made, but there has to be a point where no country can be visited if you seek perfection - so I suppose my criteria are a) mostly independent press and judiciary b) no systemic discrimination - obvious examples would be Extreme Islamic states where women have few rights.

Several posts did exactly what I warned against. We've redacted those, and we are closing the thread. Thanks to everyone who stayed on the intended topic.