Government Restriction on Tourism - Essay Example

Government Restriction on Tourism Introduction: Viewpoint Tourism is a key income earner for any given country. The income may come from both domestic and foreign tourism hence a government should not restrict tourists from accessing beautified and scenery sites within a country. The paper is aimed at explaining the factors that promotes or hinder tourism leading to restriction by governments. However, the paper will also describe in details how the government can improve service provision with enhanced security so that tourists do not compromise on the tourist’s attraction areas and the population at large. Situation or background The background of the paper is based on tourism. Being an income generating activity, every government/country would wish to have a few tourists’ attraction sites that tourists would derive pleasure. This would boost the country’s economy as well as sell the country positively in the Diaspora. However, for a government to be able to restrict tourists both domestic and foreign from utilizing the natural resources as perceived; there should be a legitimate reason to support such action (Howei, 2003, p. 12). Definition of key words in your argument The key words that would set up the base of argument includes but not limited to foreign investment, scenery and natural mythical sites, historical sites, national parks and game reserves, animal orphanages and snake parks, museums, galleries and national documentary archives. However, other than that there is myriad information related to tourist attraction sites. For instance, factors that related to government’s perception in terms of security and conservation of natural resources. These may include; poaching, ivory, terrorism which entails both suicidal bombing and grenades (Timothy, 2001, p. 15). Central point of argument The central point of argument is based on government restriction on tourism. However, this is a wide question that has to be sub divided in to numerous parts in order to elaborate on the issue. For instance, the merits and demerits of authorizing or legalizing tourism in a country should be outlined. Every country depends on its neighbors and itself hence both domestic and foreign tourism should be encouraged to boost, and create a good rapport with the neighboring countries (Laws, 2006, p. 18). Supporting the viewpoint Through tourism countries would be able to sign trade agreements so that both countries would trade with each other for the benefit of both countries. However, this would not be possible if there are no social functions where people from different countries would meet to share and exchange ideal issues for economic development (Murphy, 1985, p. 93). Any government would want trade agreements which are necessary for economic development to enable countries stabilize economically (Bindloss, 2009, p. 71). However, due to insecurity reasons for citizens and the tourist attraction sites, a government may opt to restrict movement from and to the tourist’s attraction sites. For instance, in case of an outbreak of a highly contagious disease, it would be prudent for a government to stop movement of people in order to salvage a county from such disasters (Murphy, 1985, p. 47). 1. Government decision to restrict tourism Considering how any government values tourist evidenced by government effort in beautifying and securing tourists’ attraction sites, recruitment of tourists’ security personnel and equipping them with ammunition and proper infrastructure that would attract more tourists to a country. This indicates and affirms that a government is ready to encourage and support tourism by all means hence I concur with a government decision to restrict tourism (Timothy, 2001, p. 106). i. Status of tourist’s attraction sites Perhaps the current status of the tourist attraction sites are not in order hence would derail the efforts made so far in both advertising and marketing the country’s foreign investment sources in the Diaspora. Such conditions prompts the government to halt or restrict entry into the tourist attraction sites till the reassurance of displaying positive picture of the country for the benefit of country (Timothy, 2001, p. 55). ii. Counter argument on the status of tourist’s attraction sites The government should partially restrict the sites. However, it is also possible for the government to open alternative sites so that tourists would get the whole bouquets’ instead of accessing the tourists sites partially while they pay heavily for a trip to the tourists (Holden, 2005, p. 62). iii. Refuting counter argument on the status of tourist’s attraction sites Through the ministry responsible, the government is supposed to employ workers so that the status of the tourist attraction sites would be up to date. However, tourists should be allowed to visit the sites since it in the government that has failed to delegate duties to the relevant personnel (Laws, 2006, p. 129). 2. i. Militaristic situation Further restriction would arise when the country is in war with another country and there is fear that attackers and militia would utilize the privilege to get into a country as tourists. Such situations would cause more harm than good to a country hence it is adept to admit that a government would only admit to lose economically when the economic benefits of restricting tourism are lower than disadvantages (Holden, 2005, p. 65). ii. Counter argument on militaristic situation In situations where a country is in war with other countries, there should be severe security checks to lower the risk of attacks from the backyard (Timothy, 2001, p. 68). Since enemies are likely to hibernate in through any possible loopholes of which tourists routes are, the government should not stall all development programs due to security risks but instead there should be secure means through which the country’s programs are not paralyzed by strikes (Holden, 2005, p. 49). iii. Refuting counter argument on militaristic situation The government should be able to establish strong and reliable security that protects the country from any attack. However, war is a way that a country would secure its territory hence the citizens should feel protected and operate and perform their daily chores including visiting tourists sites (Murphy, 1985, p. 37). 3. i. The fear of extinction A government may wish to restrict tourism so that the few breeds of animals and other living examples of tourism attractions would regenerate. Through interaction with people and other animals it would affect their progress in a way or the other especially disease infection and a government would not imagine losing the breeds (Murphy, 1985, p. 29). ii. Counter argument on the fear of extinct When considering government restriction on tourism, the fear of extinction should not be a cause. This is because the government is able to arrange for breeding programs to increase the population of the affected breeds. However, since the breeds may be sophisticated, tourists should be authorized to visit the sites under the supervision of government personnel to avoid any contamination or close contact with the breeds (Bindloss, 2009, p. 77). iii. Refuting counter argument on the fear of extinction It is impossible for tourists to have pleasure when tourist’s attraction sites are depleted since it would be useless and meaningless for them to travel specifically to destroy the natural beauty of either their country or a foreign country. Therefore, taking the fear of extinction as a reason to enable a government restricts some tourist’s attraction sites is indistinguishable (Laws, 2006, p. 92). 4. i. Terrorism Issues of global concern like terrorism and terror groups are among other factors that would compromise security of a country through tourism especially when terrorists target countries which host their rivals (Bindloss, 2009, p. 30). For instance, the war on terror between the USA and the Al-Qaida group, may affect tourism for many countries (Bramwell, 2004, p. 86). ii. Counter argument on Terrorism The government should train security personnel with the latest terror detection mechanisms so that the security personnel would be able to handle any alarm with due care. However, there should be plain cloth detectives to ascertain that the country is safe for both citizens and foreign tourists (Holden, 2005, p. 42). iii. Refuting counter argument on terrorism It is possible that terrorists are able to access any country while posing as tourists, but it is impossible to restrict tourists from visiting the tourists attraction sites due to fear of terror. In fact, terrorists can apply myriad ways and tricks that are never thought of just to access a country (Holden, 2005, p. 73). Restating the viewpoint The key point to note when arguing about government’s decision to restrict tourism is splendidly showcased when considering that a government is run by a selected group of intellectuals mandated to direct a country to prosperity (Howei, 2003, p. 106). However, the elected members are subject to re-election hence they are perceived to perform within their jurisdictions. Any decision derived without opposition is for the benefit of the country hence I concur with the government’s decision to restrict tourism following security threats that abound the country in discussion as stated above (Murphy, 1985, p. 50). Restating the main argument and supporting evidence The main argument is based on government decision to restrict tourism despite the high demands and benefits that would be derived from engaging in tourism. The major opportunities in the tourism sector includes but not limited to foreign exchange, bilateral and multilateral trade, and exchange of developmental treaties between countries involved in business (Howei, 2003, p. 102). However, to support the argument let’s consider a situation when a government is able to produce natural gas but there is no expertise and resources to perform the task, through tourism, the tourists would have an idea which could be molded and shared between governments to arrive at a consensus. Hence, a project that would act as an economic boost to the country would be commissioned from mere talks and mythical narratives (Timothy, 2001, p. 210). Suggestions and recommendations It is recommended that a government should consider both positive and negative effects of any decision so that a viable and productive decision is adopted for the benefit of the majority. However, in a country, people should work with the government to analyze any situation both positively and negatively to enhance overall economic development. A country would not consider decisions that would compromise the security of her people at the expense of economic development (Holden, 2005, p. 118). It is recommended that government should not elucidate to people all issues that prompt such adverse decisions to restrict tourism posing the security risks involved in letting everyone informed of the government decision (Bindloss, 2009, p. 105). Conclusion Considering the government’s decision to restrict tourism in a country would be viewed as weird but in a common interactive argument, it is adept to support a government that restricts the tourism industry from operation. In the real sense, it is prudent not to question the government on the reasons as to why such decisions are made, but instead keenly envision the factors which are not limited to the situations within and around the country other than security risks involved. The main issue as to why a government is put into place is to support and govern its people hence it would be in appropriate for a government to allow businesses which would disrupt security compromising the laws in a country’s constitution. Nevertheless, a government being within the same country would not risk in any way to allow ill motive populace into a country for economic development. The country would better rely on humanitarian assistance rather than compromise citizen’s lives within the country and in the Diaspora. Therefore, a government is encouraged to exercise full control of events within the country for the benefit of her people irrespective of the effects and picture on the global scope. References Bindloss, J. 2009. 2nd Edi. Northeast India. New Delhi- India: Lonely Planet. Bramwell, B. 2004. Coastal mass tourism: diversification and sustainable development in southern Europe: Aspects of tourism. New york: Channel View Publications. Holden, A. 2005. Tourism studies and the social sciences. London- UK: Routledge. Howei, F. 2003. Managing the tourist destination Frank. London- UK: Cengage Learning EMEA. Laws, E. 2006. Tourism crises: management responses and theoretical insight. London- UK: Routledge. Murphy, P. E. 1985. Tourism: a community approach. New York- USA: Routledge. Timothy, D. J. 2001. Tourism and political boundaries: Routledge advances in tourism. London- UK: Routledge. Read More