[Peace-discuss] Travel writer criticizes State Dept's politicization of travel warnings on Bolivia

[Robert Naiman]

This item reminded me of the controversy here over UI's study abroad
program wrt Israel. I thought the faculty and students who
(successfully) objected to the UI policy were right - blindly
following the State Department's travel advisories was a lame CYA
bureaucratic response. The following item is more evidence for that
view.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

This is nice - suggests that State's travel warning on Bolivia and
evacuation of Peace Corps volunteers was out of political retaliation
rather than concern for Americans' safety.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008226237&zsection_id=268448417&slug=trpucci050&date=20081005

Sunday, October 5, 2008 - Page updated at 08:15 AM


How helpful is the State Department's travel information?

By Carol Pucci

Seattle Times travel writer

Seasoned travelers know that it pays to look beyond information
provided by the U.S. State Department on its Web site
(www.travel.state.gov) when it comes to advice on visiting other
countries.

I was reminded of this while reviewing various travel advisories on
Thailand and Bolivia where anti- and pro-government clashes have
triggered recent political clashes.

Information published on the government Web sites of Australia, Canada
and the United Kingdom tends to be more detailed, up-to-date, easier
to find and more useful in terms of specific advice for traveling in
different areas within a country.

How and when the State Department decides to issue an official warning
— a recommendation that Americans avoid travel and a critical blow to
any country's tourism industry — has always been controversial.

Critics question how much politics and economic considerations come
into play, and how frequently the government reviews the situation
once it puts a warning in place.

Indonesia, a country where many tourists travel with no problems, was
on the list for eight years until last May due to bomb attacks between
2002 and 2005. India, where more than 140 have died in bombings in
four cities since May, is not on the list.

Considering the Bush administration's deteriorating relations with
Bolivia's Evo Morales government and its close ties to Thailand — the
U.S. is one of the country's biggest foreign investors — seeking the
travelers' equivalent of a second, third or fourth opinion makes
sense.

Thailand

Political developments have been ongoing in Thailand since Sept. 2,
when anti-government protests caused then-Prime Minister Samak
Sundaravej to impose a state of emergency in Bangkok. He was forced to
resign, and his replacement, Somchai Wongsawat, lifted the decree on
Sept. 14, citing tourism concerns. On Sept. 17, lawmakers elected him
the new prime minister, setting up a showdown with protesters who
opposed his appointment.

The Sept. 2 events, while mostly limited to the prime minister's
compound and nearby areas of Bangkok, briefly shut down airports in
southern beach resorts, and caused governments around the world to
issue various types of travel advisories.

Singapore and South Korea advised against all travel to Thailand.
Other countries urged a "high degree" of caution and advised against
travel in the southern provinces of Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat and
Songkhla.

The U.S. State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs breaks down
foreign travel advice into three categories: Travel Warnings, Travel
Alerts and what it calls "Country Specific Information," a catchall
for reports on everything from health conditions to drug crime and
"minor political disturbances."

It didn't add Thailand to the 28 countries on its travel warning list,
probably the right move considering the circumstances. But neither did
it issue a travel alert, a second-tier advisory reserved for
short-term situations — storms, potential terrorist threats or, by the
State Department's own definition, "election-related demonstrations or
violence" that might pose some risk.

Travelers looking for information had to know to click through to
"Country Specific Information," go to "Thailand," and click on "Recent
Embassy Notices for American Citizens." There the government posted a
seven-paragraph report labeled a "Warden Message" from its Thai
embassy.

It noted the state of emergency and cited news reports that
transportation workers might go on strike and that schools would be
closed. It advised citizens to avoid areas where the demonstrations
were taking place and to reconfirm flights.

Not only was the information brief and hard to find, it was quickly
outdated, failing over the next several weeks to include the news that
the emergency decree had been lifted, the airports reopened and a new
prime minister appointed.

More helpful and user-friendly is the Australian Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade's Web site, www.smartraveller.gov.au.

Under the title "Travel Advisories" is a clear explanation of a
five-tier system of travel advice, noting that cities or regions
within a particular country may be at different advice levels.

Australia's advice on Sept. 2 was to "exercise a high degree of
caution" in Thailand overall and "not to travel" in the southern
provinces. It updated its report on Sept. 17 noting that the emergency
decree was lifted.

Canada (www.voyage.gc.ca) uses a four-tier rating system that also
includes region-specific advice. For Thailand, it, too, recommended "a
high degree of caution" overall and advised against travel in the
southern provinces. It updated its report on Sept. 16, noting that the
state of emergency had been lifted and air and train services resumed.
It continues to warn that "the security situation remains tense and
could further deteriorate without warning."

The UK's Foreign & Commonwealth Office (www.fco.gov.uk) breaks its
advisories into four parts: countries where it advises against all
travel, parts of countries where it advises against all travel,
countries where it advises all but essential travel and parts of
countries where it advises against all but essential travel.

Continuing to call the overall political situation in Thailand "very
uncertain," it updated its report on Sept. 10 with the news of the
prime minister's resignation and again on Sept. 15 noting that the
emergency degree had been lifted.

Bolivia

The State Department issued a travel warning on Sept. 15 advising
against all travel in Bolivia, citing an "unstable social and security
situation" as clashes escalated between opponents and supporters of
President Morales.

Then, last month, Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador, accusing him
of fomenting anti-government violence in the eastern half of the
country. Washington reciprocated by expelling Bolivia's ambassador,
moving Peace Corps volunteers to Peru and threatening to suspend
duty-free allowances for Bolivian exports.

Canada's advice to its citizens was more targeted.

It advised exercising "a high degree of caution" when traveling in the
country, but ruled out nonessential travel only in Santa Cruz, Pando,
Chuquisaca, Beni and Tarija, where most of the violence has occurred.

Its updates have been frequent and detailed. On Sept. 23, it posted
information on the progress of talks between the pro- and
anti-government groups, roadblocks and demonstrations, and on Sept. 24
reported the news that American Airlines had canceled its U.S.
flights.

Australia and the UK took a similar approach, recommending people
"reconsider their need" to travel in the specific areas affected. The
UK later issued updates including a stronger warning that people avoid
all travel in Pando where martial law was declared.

As of midweek, the U.S. State Department's travel warning — three
paragraphs of generalized information attached to two standard
paragraphs of boilerplate — contained no new updates, but referred
travelers to the embassy Web site where there was news on the flight
cancellations and the demonstrations in Santa Cruz.

If the government's advice is going to be truly helpful to travelers,
it's going to have to be better than that.

Carol Pucci's TravelWise column runs Sundays in the travel section and
online at www.seattletimes.com/travel. Contact her at 206-464-3701 or
cpucci at seattletimes.com