Forums

I mainly agree with you but I dont think the british foreign office helps by issuing warnings about the whole country after 1 isolated incident . After the Bali bombings indonesia was off limits but its 3000miles long the chances of a similar attack happening in Borneo or Papua were less than them happening here.It then means if you still decide to go you cant get insured.

I have been in a few trouble spots myself such as the Danakil depression just after the foreign office officials were kidnapped and then released., but this was my own choice and I was not encouraged by anyone or encouraged anyone else , but warnings where they are not neccessary means now I take very little notice of anything issued by the FO.

I've not been to either Syria or Iran so I can't comment on them in particular however there are many countries that have had issues at one time or another and it has not or would not stop me from going or recommending them to others. They key thing however is timing. I certainly wouldn't advise someone to visit a war zone or a country on the brink of war or civil unrest but that country in a time of peace - certainly!

I've visited countries that some might class as dangerous (or have a legacy of trouble!) however I would hope, as I would myself, that the traveller would take into account warning and do their own research! For example if the FCO strongly advised against non essential travel to that region or it was in the middle of a civil war or even as you say on the brink of war then it is just foolish!

As an example I would wholeheartedly recommend places like Kenya, Thailand, Egypt, Bali, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc - places where there has been relatively recent terrorism or civil unrest. Was it George Bush who even added Cuba to his axis of evil!

While these places are perhaps more geared to tourism than Syria or Iran danger can strike anywhere (new york or London for example). I agree with your sentiment that it is wrong to push 'danger travel' but would put more emphasis on the traveller to time their visit to these otherwise amazing countries rather than those making the recommendation.

One person's 'dangerous' place is another person's walk in the park. In this era of health-and-safety-gone-mad and the Orwellian Nanny State, is travel the last place where we can make our own choices about how much danger we want to place ourselves in?

Some travellers crave the adrenalin-rush of fear, some prefer a stress-free holiday. We each have our comfort levels, and they are healthily different, e.g. I wouldn't head to Syria at the moment because of the civil war, but I wouldn't have a problem with Iran.

Where you travel is ultimately the choice of the individual, and it's up to each of us to assess the risk (or calculate the risk, as we used to say). There is so much information easily available to the traveller that we don't need to rely on one source like the FCO any more.

As Meet The Gringo says, it's all about timing. When we sailed through 'Pirate Alley' the Chandlers had already been captured on their way to Tanzania from the Seychelles. We minimised the risk as far as possible (some of our group chose to turn back, a choice with which we heartily sympathised). We would positively advise anyone from making the trip now, in fact no private yachts have made the trip for a year in either direction, and that's because circumstances have worsened since 2010.

I think your point about being bailed out by your country, despite being warned not to go there in the first place, is a fair one. (We discussed what to do in case of capture with our families and the Royal Navy before we went.)

Hilary's article and Daisy's forum post may have been what sparked your question, but I don't agree that either incites people to travel willy-nilly into dangerous situations. This forum tends to attract the seasoned and widely travelled reader, many of whom have been to dangerous places. I believe that reading about these experiences is fascinating and informative, and appreciated by the vast majority of members. I don't in any way see it as bragging.

Surely it's a given that people do their homework about any country they visit? And armed with that research make up their own minds about whether to go or not.

The problem I see with travelers advising other travelers about dangerous places is that they can't possibly know what the latest situation is in a fast changing situation, not unless you were just there....say you went to Syria 6 months ago and you felt perfectly safe...the situation 6 months later could be vastly different, yet I see a lot of people basing their advice on what could easily be out of date experience.

I agree about timing, and that's normally what I advice..I mean there is hardly a lack of countries to choose from, why not wait a few years for things to cool down a bit and then go and see one of these places.

I also agree about the FCO brushing places with too broader strokes, but I think many people don't seem to realise that if you go to places they advice not to, my understanding is that you are simply not covered by your insurance.

I do however get the feeling that most people do not understand the risk
they are taking, if people don't trust the FCO, all they are left with is anonymous travelers and possible touts on the net enthusiastically encouraging others to go, and I still get the feeling that these people will expect rescue/evacuation. In the middle of a war zone, that's not always possible.

That's a good post, Liz, however, I do tend to agree with Matt in that there does seems to be a rise in the promotion of travel to these places. I had a problem with Wanderlust once, where they carried a (small) piece about travelling in the Wakhan Corridor - that panhandle that extends north east from Afghanistan. It was being touted as the safe place in the country, yet it was the same place where, a few months later, a NGO worker and her 'crew' were stopped and shot in the road.

Unfortunately, not everyone is a seasoned traveller who weighs up the odds and risks before they go, and there are people who would consider such promotion from the media as being safe. I think Matt's right in that the media should start thinking less about their advertising revenue and start carrying more disclaimers.

Take Timbuktu - there are still plenty of ads for visiting there, despite a spate of kidnappings and killing over the last couple of years.

On the other hand, this is coming from a guy who lived in Afghanistan for a year directly after the fall of the Taliban. It was still very dangerous, yet I had a blast (no pun intended!) I don't know if that supports my argument, or completely obliterates it. Either way, 'warzone' tourism seems to me to be an ever-increasing section of the market - I suppose, as Liz says, it depends on your own perception of risk and reward. Just don't start complaining if you end up in a warzone and in trouble.

I guess I'd feel more comfortable going with an organised tour to some of these places than if traveling alone...as I'd expect them to have the latest information on where to go, and where not to go and have good links with the locals there....as a lone traveler...you can often have no idea and easily head somewhere where you currently shouldn't.

I suppose books like Dom Joly's Dark Tourist (see Peter's masterful interview) could be accused of promoting dangerous tourism, and I agree that the zeitgeist seems to be pushing the boundaries. I still feel it is up to the individual to do current research, even if going in a group. And yes, Matt, you're absolutely right, relying on out of date information is foolhardy.
@ Pluck :-)

My comments have nothing to do with this site Liz.

I read Dark tourist and really enjoyed it, and I don't think his dark tourist places he went where dangerous...not unless tensions between Hezbollah & Israel are at breaking point in Lebanon.

I'm more talking about the people that head towards Libya when it was quite clear that things were likely to kick off, going to Syria with what's going on there...and lastly like Libya...going to Iran at the moment.

I just don't see the point of all that extra risk when you can wait until it's cooled down and then go. There are plenty of other places to choose from in the mean time.

It's actually quite difficult to get the right information though...governments are going to err on the side of caution...and travellers are going to err on the side of adventure and old information.

Mattyboy!

I reckon this is the bottom line:

Fundamentally nobody should ever expect that they have 'right' to be rescued by anyone. This is even the case with hillwalking in Scotland for example or having a heart attack in the middle of Princes Street.

Since people don't seem to widely appreciate this, and often think the FCO will be there to bail them out, I do think it is irresponsible to promote travel widely to certain places (Here here sergeant_pluck re the Wakhan Corridor, Afghanistan)

However, I don't think it is always irresponsible to go there if you have researched carefully, been honest with your self, and have prepared your own rescue strategy.  If there is war, your presence as a tourist is not going to add anything to the situation and I think you need to be big enough to say 'not this time'. Of course there are many brave souls that should be commended for going in to dangerous places to report on atrocities (e.g paul wood in syria) or carrying out aid work, although they do also sometimes take risk which are too brazen. On the other hand travel to some of the worlds more marginalized places can be positive by raising awareness, contributing the the economy and giving people positive contact with the outside world. If more people went to Iran we might not be in this mess in the place.

So right now personally? Syria no, Iran yes.

Just read of journalist Marie Colvin and a French photographer's deaths in Syria today - very saddening. I cannot imagine any tourist will visit the country. It is horrendous to see what's happening there - such a beautiful place with lovely people (but not government...)

Just read that too.  What a tragedy.

I've got a big bee in my bonnet over journalists in war zones. I hate this so-called CNN effect. Over the years, it seems as if journalists have been involved in a  constant game of one-upmanship, to see who can get closer to the front line. I find it unnecessary and ridiculous - I'm quite prepared to journalists to file their reports from a safe zone away from the fighting, but I see no need for them to be in a town which is being shelled. I used to be a soldier, and have escorted journos in war zones, and it's a real pain in the arse, having to babysit some fat sweaty journo while some other bastard is using my nuts for target practice.