Local population rights to boost economy through tourism in government restricted areas - Essay Example

LOCAL POPULATION RIGHTS TO BOOST ECONOMY THROUGH TOURISM IN GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED AREAS By Location Introduction The freedom of movement, the right to travel and the mobility rights is one of the human rights concepts that the constitutions of various countries and states respect. There is the article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 that declares the rights of a citizen to travel in their state and any other state. There are, however, some government institutions that insist on restricting tourists from their country or state due to health or cultural factors. The article is going to focus on restrictions of tourists because of the above two factors. The article is also going to have a focus on how the residents have the right to accommodate the tourists to boost their economy. Body Restriction because of Culture A countrys prime area that consists of natural and cultural interest gets assigned the status of a protected area at a national level and also international level. Therefore, much tourism takes place in these areas as the tourists are curious on why the area needs to remain protected. Countries that have protected areas usually do it to preserve their natural and cultural heritage. For instance, countries in the UAE restrict most of their sites to people who are not dressed according to their culture. The women are particularly affected by this as they are required to be in covered clothing and hijab as a sign of respect for the culture. The local population in these places has been having endless debates with the government concerning the restrictions of uncovered women in the areas. The women do not have to cover themselves as it is not part of their culture or tradition (Abbott 2006). The restrictions have led to these areas not receiving as many tourists as they would be receiving if not for the limitation. The creation of such protected areas is now the most common and universally approved means of the conserving relevant cultural heritage of the region for a broad range of human values. There are over one hundred and thirty nations that have established major legally protected areas. The areas cover nearly 5% of the world’s land surface. There are however other areas that do not have an inclusion in the legal protection areas but are still conservative areas. These fields evidently are not of equal value to the areas that have legal protection. There are people in these areas that are not happy with their government’s decisions to put the area under restrictions. The argument of the people is that they are the ones with the cultural beliefs and practices (Abbott 2006). Their beliefs and practices are the tourist attractions of the regions thus a source of economic progress and growth. Most of the countries find an advantage to have several and different categories of protected area. They cover a range of management objectives and have a lot of manipulation. They transfer human pressure to these regions to make it heavily populated and thus the pressure to have no more people in the areas. The argument by most governments is that the area is an endangered region that does not need extra people to go destroy and finish the cultural practices. There are experts that say there is a need for protection due to planning purposes. There is a level of expertise that the government requires for such planning. Thus, some developing countries now are requesting donor agencies to give them technical and financial assistance for the purpose of preparation of protected areas. The governments’ that have protected areas say that the uncontrolled number of mass tourism has always and continues to contribute to the destruction and degradation of many areas of cultural significance (Abbott 2006). The damage leads to the loss of biological and cultural diversity of the regions as well as important sources of income for the nation. The local population of these areas is thinking otherwise. They argue the cultural monuments of these areas have protection and are guided thus no harm in mass tourism. There should be a responsible approach to dealing with tourists and controlling the masses. Restricting certain areas to access of tourists is not the solution. There are policies and orders by tourism foundations that offer responsible travel and visitation by tourists to natural and cultural areas, for the visitors to enjoy and appreciate nature and the cultural features. The cultural features include both past and present features that promote conservation of the culture. They also have low visitor impact, i.e. control the number of visitors that are allowed to visit certain regions (Abbott 2006). They also provide beneficially active social and economic activity involvement by the local populations so as not to feel left out. The desire for the local community to allow access to areas that has natural beauty and cultures and ecotourisms underlying premise has a response. It is that the enjoyment of our future children and generations should not be affected in any way more so negatively by that of todays visitors in these regions. A survey revealed that many of the Western visitors consider that tourism development had enhanced the quality of life of the local communities they visit. They tourists’ visits have however also resulted in the loss of traditional, the employment systems, acculturation, and social disruption in these regions (Abbott 2006). North Korea is one of the leading countries with tourism restrictions in regards to culture. The country has a lot of restrictions on people visiting their country that many tourists opt not to go to the country (Abbott 2006). It affects the country’s economy as many tourists would love to go see the North Korean people and their culture. Restrictions Due to Health Issues Most governments restrict access of their citizens to disaster-stricken areas, or to regions where there are public health threats. When a person visiting a foreign country or a tourist has health risk due to infection with a disease that is contagious, the concerned government quarantines the person. The government thus restricts their movement for the sake of their citizen’s safety. There are rights of any person traveling to another country for the purpose of touring the country. The rights of the travelers might, however not happen because of the government’s decision control and preservation of their environment from persons with health problems (Upshur 2003). The above rights of a tourist shall however not have any restrictions except those the law provides. They are necessary for the protection of national security and public health. They are consistent with the other rights of tourists recognized in the present Tourist Organization Covenant (Bayer 2002). The Charter on immigration of people recognizes the right of a person to leave and return to his/her country at will. It applies as long as there are no concerns of national security or public health threat. Health care by any government should be for everyone, including the tourists. The countries that decide not to allow citizens into their country due to health issues do not want to handle taking care of the foreigners. These governments also are afraid of disease spreading to their people/ examples of health problems include influenza and HIV/AIDS. Most nations are afraid of these diseases spreading to their populations. The downside of such restrictions is that no tourist whether sick or not would like to visit such a region. The local population and their businesses suffer due to this kind of set up. A disease like HIV/AIDS is not contagious, and these countries should stop such restrictions. The testing of tourists at airports, before they are allowed to travel, is not reasonable enough (Duckett 2001). The local population should get an education on the harm of engaging in unprotected sex instead of trying to control the disease by disregarding tourists. It is understandable how difficult it is to care and treat the native-born population plus foreigners when dealing with contagious illnesses. It should however not be a reason for restricting tourists as diseases spread regardless of people immigrating into a country or not migrating. The cost of health care services to the people is enormous, and the money from tourists would help boost the economy thus income for health care services. The immigrants pay their taxes, and the tax money could be for health care (WHO 2005). The HIV/AIDS epidemic led to many countries coming up with travel restrictions. It was an effort to prevent the virus from crossing their borders. There was mandatory screening before a person would cross the boundaries to another nation. Most of the countries have lifted the ban, though there are still a few others that still have restrictions on HIV-infected persons. These countries are going against the World Health Organization policies on people living with HIV/AIDS (Hoffmaster and Schrecker 2000). The restrictions are harmful to the local population’s economic growth. One of the fears concerning health care is that governments might put into effect certain restrictions on people’s personal liberties that are unnecessary and do not need implementing restrictions. The restrictions on disease control of diseases such as influenza might cause the government to extend the limit past the end of illness crisis (APHA 2014). These governments might also end up enacting restrictions that do not help in decreasing the influenza transmission. It is wrong because the aim of restricting the tourists was to keep the disease under control. The local population ends up suffering in such a situation. Closings would thus not meet the desired and appropriate standards for either proportionality or necessity. Moreover, it is important to put in mind the cost of policies that are restrictive. The costs would be borne mostly by the population with the fewest resources, the local population. It means that social distancing actions by any government have distributive justice implications. There is another worry about the government using social distancing of their people in a discriminatory fashion. The government might be distancing its population from other people of a particular ethnic community or religious beliefs and use disease prevention as an excuse. Conclusion Social distancing of a certain community or country due to their cultural and health care reservations is not the best idea for the local population. A government that might have reservations about its culture or its health care system should come up with different ways of control. Restricting tourists into their countries or regions does not help the local population grow economically. References Abbott, LF 2006, “The Legal Protection of Democracy & Freedom: The Case For A New Written Constitution & Bill Of Rights”, British Democracy: Its Restoration & Extension. American Public Health Association, APHA 2014, “Influenza: A report of the American Public Health Association”, Journal of the American Medical Association 1918;71:2068. Bayer, RF 2002, “The limits of privacy: Surveillance and the control of disease”, Health Care Analysis. 10(1):19–35. Duckett, M 2001, “Migrants’ Right to Health”, UNAIDS. Hoffmaster, B and Schrecker, T 2000, “An Ethical Analysis of the Mandatory Exclusion of Immigrants who Test HIV-positive, in Canadian”, HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review, Volume 5, Number 4. Upshur, RE 2003, “The ethics of quarantine American Medical Association”, Journal of Ethics Virtual Mentor. World Health Organization, WHO 2005, “Avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans; The Writing Committee of the World Health Organization Consultation on Human Influenza A/H5”, New England Journal of Medicine. 353(13):1374–1385. Read More