All for the local economy

All for the local Economy. (Kathmandu, Nation, 3 to 9 January 2005, Vol 1, nr.38, p.32)


The locals in Maoist-affected areas have already suffered a great deal from this bloody war, why make it even worse by scaring the tourists away?

Despite our government, like many others, warning against traveling in Maoist-affected tourist areas, we found those areas just about the best places to travel while trekking in Nepal. Although some safety and ethical concerns did come to our mind, we found the consequences of not going anywhere even more disturbing. Besides, the quietness of the trails and the lack of competition to find a lodge offered us good reason to travel. Our personal story might make our claim sound more logical.

While trekking with my girlfriend from Jiri to Namche Bazaar in October, we both had to pay Rs. 1000 to the Maoists and Rs. 1000 to the government. We also spent around Rs. 8000 each, which went to the local economy. None of our two meetings with the Maoists proved to be threatening or unpleasant. Our receipt from the first meeting in Kinja, in Solokhumbu, proved valid for a second encounter with them in Nunthala, also in Solukhumbu. We learned from other tourists that their experience was similar and no one had any problems and some were even lucky to escape the Maoists at all.

In Nunthala, two young Maoists asked us for our receipt. When we explained to them about our first encounter with other Maoists in Kinja, the conversation became more relaxed. I even proposed that we play a table tennis match. During our game they told me that most of the fighting in the area had taken place a year ago and that the area had become relatively peaceful since then. The conversation ended when I asked them where all the young people in the area had gone; they were among the very few young people we met during the several days of our trek. A lonely female lodge owner told us later that her husband, together with many others, had fled the region last year and still didn’t consider the area safe to return. We saw a bombed lodge and we were told that this happened when the owner couldn’t pay the tax demanded by the Maoists. According to other lodge owners, two owners of a resort in Phakding were kidnapped and released only after their wives paid Rs. 100.000 each.

Still, we couldn’t understand why our own government should advise against traveling to this area. Curiously, there seems to be an enormous difference between the safety of tourists and the safety of villagers, a point never mentioned in the foreign media or on government websites. The locals in the region have already suffered a great deal from this bloody war, why make it even worse by scaring tourists away? Is this based on some sham security or ethical concerns and thereby robbing the locals of their economic mainstay? Have I missed any reports of tourists killed, raped or tortured by the Maoists? Maybe I did, but targeting foreigners doesn’t seem to be their strategy, unlike the strategies of the insurgents in, for example, Colombia or Iraq.

The gap between the perceived and the real danger of trekking in a Maoist-affected tourist area has become high due to both internal and external reasons. Since the royal massacre in 2001 and the subsequent escalation of the Maoist conflict, it was hardly surprising to see the people depending on tourism struggle. However what added to Nepal’s woes was the overall post-9/11 stagnation in tourism. Since the 9/11 attacks, terrorism, very hard to define, and the “war on terrorism” has covered much of the international news coverage. More often then not, the outcomes of a very complex conflict are summarized as being violent acts perpetrated by “terrorists”. It’s old wine in a new bottle, though. Some governments in the West use the same Cold War rhetoric to justify their global politics. In Nepal, both the old and the new enemies are identified in the “Maoist terrorists”.

No wonder then that the average tourist is worried for his or her safety while trekking in a Maoist-affected tourist area. In recent months, the tourist, however, has begun to realize that it isn’t all that unsafe to travel in a tourist area where the Maoists charge fees. It just became another exciting story to tell at home. But then there is still the ethical issue. Many tourists started feeling ashamed or guilty of sponsoring a “terrorist organization”. Some even refused to pay while others stayed away from the area altogether due to “ethical reasons”. The ethical dilemma of paying a fee to the Maoists is a sham if you consider that by paying for a visa, you also contribute to the Royal Nepal Army, which has been accused of grave human right violations, by Amnesty International and many others. If you want to uphold high ethical standards, you shouldn’t come to Nepal at all.

While considering safety and ethical issues, one should also think of the economy. How does your decision affect all those people who depend on tourism? After all, it is they who suffer the most if the tourists stop coming. Our own balance makes this perfectly clear. For every Rs. 10 we spend, one was for the “terrorist government” (the Maoist fee), one for the “old regime government” (The Everest park fee) and eight for the people living in the area. And it’s not just the lodge owners and the shopkeepers who suffer. On and around the trail, whole communities depend on the tourist money. Porters, waiters and even farmers suffer when the local market for their products collapses. While one can hardly expect governments like ours to stand in favor of traveling to these areas, or the Maoists peacefully retreating from them, people from Solukhumbu can only hope that peace will return to their villages. With peace, safety and the money spending tourists will come as well.

(Meynen, a Belgian, traveled in Solokhumbu for two weeks in October. A year earlier he visited Nepal to collect research materials for his master’s thesis on the impact of the Maoist movement on education. His visit this time to Solukhumbu, however, was as a traveler)