Is it fair to cancel a country that does not comply with Human Rights?

To what extent is it legitimate to label an entire nation based on the attitude and behavior of a government that, in most cases, was not chosen by its citizens?

A Cancellation Culture has been growing in recent times and more and more products, brands, people, and even countries are being cancelled.

This trend is based on the principle of morality – if a certain entity (be it a person, brand or country) does not support moral values that we consider essential, then we should not follow, buy or visit the country in question.

When it comes to the experience of traveling and discovering new cultures, Cancellation Culture is related to action of certain governmentswhich not only do not comply with Human Rights, but also place their citizens under a fanatical and often oppressive regime.

But the question that arises is – to what extent is it fair to cancel a country for not complying with Human Rights? To what extent is it legitimate to label an entire nation based on the attitude and behavior of a government that, in most cases, was not chosen by its citizens?

Opinion bubbles – the cause or the consequence?

The digital era has strengthened the so-called “opinion bubbles”. Despite the romanticized idea that the world is interconnected, and that we live in the era of globalization, it’s not quite like that.

In fact, we are increasingly closer to people who share the same opinions as us, and further and further away from those who think otherwise. The exercise of walking in someone else’s shoes and trying to understand the point of view of someone who doesn’t have the same context as us is increasingly difficult.

If we stop visiting a certain country for a variety of reasons, regardless of these, we’ll just be making these bubbles bigger.

In a more extreme sense, we will be promoting the creation of multiple “North Koreas”, countries increasingly closed in on themselveswhere the space for freedom of expression does not necessarily need to be limited, but rather circumscribed within its bubble.

At a certain point, in the future timeline, we would have countries where it is not worth fighting for something better, because don’t know any better. As today, possibly, happens in North Korea.

Dialogue and communication between different nations and cultures have served as a bridge to progress and evolution. It is when we become aware of different ways of life, that we question our own and allow ourselves to change, towards something that we believe is better.

Now, if we cancel a range of countries and cultures and simply stop visiting them, we will certainly lose out as a human species and become even more egocentric and closed under ourselves.

There is a valid argument that when traveling to Russia, Iran or North Korea we are contributing to the economy of these countries. But it is also true that it is not the amount that comes from tourism that supports these regimes, as these are just crumbs in the great ingenuity that controls these nations.

Are we separating the wheat from the chaff?

Among the most varied reasons that lead us to want to cancel a country, the vast majority of them are related to its government.

We talk about countries with oppressive regimes, which more than govern their people, they want to stay in power — even if to do so they have to trample Human Rights and many other values ​​that should not be challenged.

The problem is that, by stopping traveling to one of these countries, we are not separate the wheat from the chaff.

A nation is not just about its government. Behind these arrogant regimes are peoplewho in the vast majority of cases do not identify with those who govern them and have little power to change this condition.

A nation is made up of its citizens, of its culture, history and traditions. By canceling a country, we are putting “everything in the same bag” and risking the opportunity to meet people who, because they come from such a different context, could add something to us.

Traveling is an intercultural exchange where everyone wins – those who travel, but also those who receive those who travel. To punish a government (if we are actually doing this!), we are missing the possibility of getting to know a culture made up of people who are not to blame for the actions of their governments.

Can we have double standards?

If we indeed choose to cancel countries whose governments deliberately and shamelessly fail to comply with the moral principles we consider relevant, then we should carefully analyze which countries we should exclude.

If we want to cancel Afghanistan, Iran or even North Korea, then maybe it is also fair to cancel Thailand, Turkey and perhaps even some European countries.

A Thailand, the country of temples and paradisiacal beacheswhere tourists gather daily from the four corners of the world. It is one of the most touristic countries, for a variety of reasons.

But it is also the country where Human Rights are not taken literally.

In Thailand there is a Burmese minority, called Karen. They are Burmese refugees who fled persecution in their country and sought asylum in neighboring Thailand. The ancient Kingdom of Zion welcomed them, but not in the way we would have expected.

This minority lives in restricted areas that he cannot leavewithout access to legal documentation and, therefore, the possibility of rebuilding a new life, in conditions.

In other words, although Thailand has given them asylum, it does not recognize them as citizens. The Karens do not have identification documentsthey cannot have a work contract, rent a house, and so on.

No more options, live from tourism – they allow themselves to be visited by curious tourists who go looking for the “women with a long neck”, in exchange for souvenirs that they sell, which is their only source of income. To survive, they subjugate themselves to what is a true “human zoo”.

Türkiye

Turkey, another country where, every day, hot air balloons filled with tourists rise, eager to admire the small city of Cappadocia at dawn. It’s a country culturally exceptionall, but it is also the country that, in 2017, accepted money from the European Union, in exchange for “solve the refugee problem”.

The idea was simple – bar passage to Europe and not allow them to fill our beaches in lifeboats, as they have done since 2015.

The Government of Erdogan accepted the moneybut did not use it to give these people the living conditions they deserve. Any more attentive tourist is not indifferent to the number of beggars that populate the streets of Istanbul and the main Turkish cities.

They are refugees who do not have legal documentation and therefore cannot have a regular employment contract and afford to live a decent life. They end up falling into precarious jobs, if not other human trafficking ploys. They live one day at a time, hoping to one day reach Europe.

Italy

And since we touched on sensitive subject of the Refugee Crisis in Europe in 2015, so we cannot forget the measures taken by the Greek and Italian governments.

At some point, the sea ​​rescue was simply prohibitedeven knowing that this measure went against the 2015 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which both countries signed.

This controversy became known through the case of the Portuguese Miguel Duartewhich ran . There are several accusations against the Greek and Italian governments and both countries face harsh accusations at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Is traveling good?

The travel experience is highly subjective and each of us experiences it differently. But I think there is something transversal to all travelers – traveling makes us better people. Above all because traveling leaves us exposed.

From one moment to the next, from the company of our family and dinners with friends, we find ourselves sitting on the side of the road, with a backpack, completely helpless. We are surrendered to the world.

In front of us lies a completely different realityfull of prying eyes, confusing smells, and traditions that are (often) incomprehensible to us.

Traveling exposes us to difference and, forcibly, forces us to normalize it. More than that, traveling teaches us to observe without necessarily having to judge. There is no doubt that traveling is one of the main weapons against intolerance and egocentrism.

Is canceling a country the solution?

The world is not a black and white map and the borders between countries do not delimit, and have never delimited, the good and the bad.

At this precise moment, while in Iran they are fighting for the “right not to wear the Islamic veil”, in North IndiaIslamic minorities are persecuted by nationalists and fight for the “right to wear the veil”.

The world is often paradoxical and we find situations in it that we will never be able to understand. Even more so, because we come from a Western culture that is characterized by a set of ideas and values ​​that tells other people little or nothing.

And this is a shoe that, no matter how much we travel and no matter how tolerant we are, it is difficult for us to take off. Taking off the western lens is not easyif not impossible, when the topic is Human Rights.

With no other options, traveling forces us to accept the human condition of “not understanding”, “not accepting”, “not agreeing”. And accepting this premise, while continuing to explore other coordinates and wear new cultures, is one of the great lessons we can learn of this art that is traveling.

Latest Articles by Patrícia Carvalho ()