In recent years, North Korea flirted with the idea of opening itself up to the world as a tourism destination. In 2004, a delegation from the Pacific Asia Travel Association led by Neil Plimmer was invited to investigate the possibility and prospects of developing a viable tourism industry in a destination that remains a mystery to most of the world. Plimmer’s task force expressed guarded confidence that tourism offered some hope for North Korea to engage with the world, develop the country’s economy and to provide gainful employment for many thousands of its citizens. The reported nuclear test has, for the time being, rendered the possibility of tourism as a vehicle for economic growth in North Korea a shattered dream.  North Korea’s actions have, if anything, increased its deep isolation globally and have alienated North Korea within its immediate region.

From a tourism perspective, the North Korean actions have created a source of instability in the North Asian region, which is harmful for tourism. By contrast, South Korea has developed a thriving economy and its tourism industry has been an outstanding success story. The potential security and economic implications of an uncertain situation on its northern border is no doubt causing grave concern to the Republic of Korea.  China, with the Beijing Olympics a mere two years away and with every intention to capitalize on the Olympic tourism dividend before during and after the games, must be concerned about the perceptual implications of a questionable political environment on is doorstep. Japan, the only country in the world to have directly experienced the horror of atomic weapons dropped on its cities, is now being forced to re-evaluate its entire approach to militarization which in turn would cause concern to its neighbors. The Eastern extremity of Russia, which also borders on North Korea, shares the regional concern of the potential destabilization North Korea’s actions will have engendered.

This author is not in the predications business, but it is clear that the tourism industries of Eastern Asia need to develop a series of contingency plans to deal with the possible security and economic implications of North Korea’s actions and the international responses to North Korea’s policies. Contingencies for economic fluctuations, political instability and increased military tensions and negative perceptions arising from the above should be amongst those the contingencies examined. This is not to suggest that all or any of these scenarios will eventuate. With North Korea’s “nuclear rabbit out of the hat,” there remains a possibility that North Korea may feel “empowered” to resume a diplomatic talks with its regional neighbors and the United States of America.  The travel industry needs to tread warily in the current situation and avoid the understandable temptation to label the current situation as a crisis.

It is unfortunate that North Korea’s myopic version of communism and its nuclear ambitions have all but excluded the possibility of tourism as a bridge for peace and as a vehicle for economic development. Vietnam, China and Cuba are three countries that have clearly demonstrated that communism and tourism not only co-exist but tourism is now a core economic factor in all three countries.  Tourism is clearly not going to be a solution for the current impasse between North Korea and the world but it does have the possibility of offering an opportunity for engagement between North Korea its regional neighbors and the wider world.

David Beirman is the director of Struan & Associates Tourism Crisis and Recovery Specialists.