Burma je vrlo specifican slucaj. Zemlja nema mnogo izvora prihoda i u velikoj meri rezim zavisi direktno od turizma i kineske pomoci, a vise od turizma. Verovatno je da bi prekid priliva novca od turizma doveo do ekonomskog kolapsa.
Evo, uploadovao sam clanak koji detaljnije govori o ovome:
http://rapidshare.com/files/271941159/Myanmar_tourism.pdf.htmlIzvod iz teksta:
"Because of its lack of monetary stability, Myanmar relies
on tourism for foreign exchange. Although the official
exchange rate for Myanmar's currency is about 6 kyats to
USSl, die actual rate of exchange can reach 1000 kyats to
USSl.'T he high unofhcial exchange rate coupled with steep
infiation makes attracting foreign currency' a top pHorily fV>r
the government. Each visitor to Myanmar must exchange
L^SS300 for Foreign Fxchange C'ertificates—a special monetar)'
unit accepted by most hotels. Additionally, Myanmar's
government profits from foreign investments in state-run
hotels by exchanging state protection and infrastructure for
foreign capital.
In 2003 alone, tourism generated over US$116 million
in investments and revenues for the economy. Despite
declining foreign investment in other fields, the hotel
industry has attracted investments totaling over US$1.06
hillion since 1988. Fora regime that spends over 50 percent
of its income on the militar)', tourism income perpetuates
its illegitimate military rule. The LfS$300 minimum spent
by every tourist in Myanmar is enough to equip a Burmese
soldier for a year."
Posto je rec o tekstu iz Harvard International Review nije moguce postaviti direktan link ka celom tekstu.
Da rezimiram-2 razloga koja cine Burmu razlicitom od Kine, Turske, Pakistana, Sudana itd.: kontrola rezima nad resursima - gotovo ceo prihod od turizma ide direktno njima, turizam je najvazniji izvor prihoda. Kina i Turska privlace mnogo turista, ali su resursi u rukama korporacija ili malih vlasnika. Pakistan i Sudan nisu turisticke zemlje.
Author