It’s not just the internet, however, that distracts people.

Many years ago, for example, I remember walking into an office to see the accountant and found him playing patience on the computer.  He was to say the least a little embarrassed, but pointed out, (quite fairly), that it was still lunch time and he was taking a few moments of R+R time.  I confess that I have also occasionally fallen foul of the need to take a little r+r.

On another occasion, I walked into an office and found the Director of the company reading the newspaper.  He assured me it was actually “work” – he was keeping abreast of the latest developments in the country and his business.  I have a lot of sympathy with him as well.  It seems that I now I spend a lot my time doing just the same.  In Kyrgyzstan, where the situation can change rapidly, it is important to have an idea of what is happening – and what might happen.  Also, out here in Kyrgyzstan, it is not always easy to keep abreast of the latest developments in our business – leisure, tourism and hospitality, and I find the newsletters, blogs, podcasts etc. a valuable resource that helps to keep me active and aware.

This morning, for example, I noticed on one of the News Agency websites that I regularly visit, an item about a survey.  It was highlighted – in bold print, so that it would stand out:

“67% of top managers of the largest companies of Kyrgyzstan prefer to learn the news from news agencies”

I can understand why they thought it was newsworthy – a news agency reporting how valuable the top managers of the country’s largest companies, (the “movers and shakers” in Kyrgyzstan), rated the service provided by news agencies.  Almost three quarters of those surveyed from at least eighteen companies consulted news agencies in order to keep up-to-date on what was happening in the world outside their office – and two thirds apparently claimed to rely only on these services for their information.

I wasn’t involved ion the survey, (either because they don’t consider me to be a “top manager” or else Celestial Mountains is not one of the country’s largest company), so they didn’t ask me.  If they had then I would have told them that I also surf the news agency websites on a regular basis.  However, I would have been one of the twenty seven percent who consult a number of other sources to ensure that they are “informed”.

Less than two percent relied only on television reports for their news, which didn’t surprise me.   What did surprise me was that even less claimed to use information posted on social networking sites and blogs.  The blogosphere is quite active here.  There are a large number of people who use both Twitter and Facebook – many politicians and ministers and Roza Otunbaeva have accounts and are active users of social media to put their message across – and the local forum Diesel is one of the most widely used networks for disseminating information, opinion and gossip.

Of course, it is important, however, that we bear in mind that, what we read should be used as a guide, a source of information and analysis, and that the responsibility for what we do with that information is ours, and ours alone.  It is important to remember that reports in the press are not “gospel” – “divinely inspired” and infallible, that is, although we always hope that it will be “good news”.

Although a news agency website might be able to report events quickly, (I am reluctant to say instantly, or in real time – although I suppose that is possible) and is likely to be more systematic and comprehensive than a blog or social media, there are questions about the coverage.

I was also quite worried that so many of these influential “wheeler dealers” apparently rely on a single source for their information.  As I understand it, a journalist is supposed to seek out corroboration before they publish a story instead of relying on a single source, but here we apparently have business moguls who, (voluntarily), give the news agencies a monopoly over the vital issue of informing themselves … that is, if we believe the reported findings of the survey.

For a start, it is scrutinized and selected information.  During the run up to the April events the coverage was not as free and comprehensive as one might have hoped, or expected when compared to news coverage in the West.

Then again, they are not infallible … they can make “mistakes”.

A classic example of this came two days ago when I saw on one news agency website the following story:

German Embassy recommends to avoid travel to Kyrgyzstan

It reported that the Embassy of Germany in Kyrgyzstan has recommended to refrain from unnecessary travel to Kyrgyzstan, particularly to Osh and Jalal-Abad oblasts until the government is formed in the country. It also said that the German Embassy urged all German and EU citizens staying in Kyrgyzstan to exercise caution, to avoid crowded places and trips in night time.  Now, that surprised me, especially as the report went on to say that the advice was posted on their website on 30th November.  What had happened to cause them to change their advice?  The answer to this question seemed to be that “the Embassy has concerns that formation of the government may lead to new clashes.”

As it happens, I was a meeting last night which was attended by a member of embassy staff, so I asked them.  The reply I got was that the embassy had not changed their advice.  The webpage had been updated at the end of last month, but these two points were not altered.  They remain as they have been for several months.  It seems that the news agency had only just seen it.

You can find the post, (in German), on the embassy website: “Current situation in Kyrgyzstan“.

I was told that the embassy had in fact issued a press release correcting the “distorted impression” that they had changed their mind.  I wonder if that will be displayed as prominently as the original article.

It was not only interesting.  I found Groundwater’s approach, his use of “glib” humour in the face of a difficult issue, both thought proving and challenging.

The article is about Mexico – another faraway place, but that didn’t put me off.  Indeed, it made me think of Thailand – and of Kyrgyzstan.

The article started by highlighting the difficult times that Mexico seems to be experiencing at the moment, (“Drug lords … appear to be killing at will. Innocent bystanders as well as each other, … Much of the Chihuahua state is a no-go zone. The city of Ciudad Juarez is about as enjoyable to stroll around as Baghdad. Police seem to have lost all control. And, to make matters worse, there was also an earthquake in the country’s north quite recently”) and then Groundwater asks, “why in the light of all this would anyone want to go on holiday there”.

A good question and one that I could identify with given what we have been through here in Kyrgyzstan this year: A revolution that cost over eighty lives, several examples of civil disorder, one of which has cost yet more lives and virtually made the Southern regions of the country an almost no-go zone.  Months of political instability and uncertainty as the Interim Government seem to flounder from crisis to crisis.  Some of this disruption is being attributed to the activities of drug lords protecting their position, influence and business controlling the transit of drugs from troubled Afghanistan into Russia and further. And, to top it all, we are also in a seismically active zone – and earthquake zone.  It sounds as if the two countries are facing situations which, if not exactly identical, are similar to one another.

It instilled in me a sense of empathy with the Mexicans in the same way as the stories about trials and tribulations in Bangkok earlier in the Spring had elicited empathy for the Thais when we were experiencing our revolution.

So Groundwater asked, why would anyone want to go on holiday to Mexico at the moment? – or, I thought to myself, to Kyrgyzstan for that matter?

One reason, he points out, that he is still planning to go on holiday is that he’s already paid for his it.

OK, that represents some sort of commitment – but I don’t think it can be as be as important a reason as all that.

Even if he hasn’t bought a package with a refund policy that allows him to cancel his trip – all is not lost if he’s taken out, (as I am sure he has being an experienced traveler and journalist), adequate travel insurance.  If the Australian Government were to issue a Travel Warning against travel to Mexico, then he would almost certainly get a refund on the money he had paid if he chose to cancel his trip.

We, for example, always recommend that our clients consider not just basic insurance cover for medical expenses, but a comprehensive policy which contains provision for situations such as the loss of belongings and documents, cancellation and delays.

To be fair, I know, however, that this is not always possible.  I’ve recently several days trying to arrange such a policy for a Kyrgyz woman travelling to Australia, and could have got one easily enough if hadn’t been for her age – 66 – the insurance company have an upper limit of 65 for their policy.   In the end, we had to settle for a policy that covered just basic health care expenses.

Even so, when it comes to weighing up the cost of the holiday – for example, let’s say, several hundred dollars – with his physical and mental health and well being, then I think the latter would normally win, hands down.

So, as he points out, the economic explanation is basically a somewhat “glib” answer to the question.

I suppose that in addition to the financial expense involved, there is also the question of the time and emotional “expenditure” he has made, (paid), in planning his trip, (the expectation and anticipation of, as he puts it, “ the food, the beaches, the culture, the ancient ruins and the tequila”), but that can always be compensated for by postponing the trip and taking it at a later date when the situation is more settled, rather than cancelling the trip altogether.

It struck me as interesting that, as a journalist himself, he went on to recommend a healthy distrust of the media … that’s my phrase, not his.  He says, “in my experience, you never really know just how dangerous a destination is until you set foot there. It’s a case of not believing everything you read”, and continues “After all, the media never run headlines like, “Nice day in Oaxaca.” Or, “Tourist meets friendly local in Guadalajara.” It’s all murdered journalists in Juarez, kidnapped American students in Mexico City and robberies in, well, everywhere, really.”

As it happens, that’s a point of view I can strongly identify with.  The journalist’s job is to report something … the more dramatic, striking or spectacular, the better.  It stands far more chance of being picked up by the editor and included in the newspaper of TV programme.  So, as well as the need to look for dramatic events and trends, there is also a tendency to ignore “Good news” or “no news” (of the “everything is normal” variety) as not meriting a mention.  Any such report would simply be squeezed out by other, more “newsworthy” happenings.

Indeed, another of Groundwater’s articles is headlined: “Why bad stories are always good”(!) where he points out that, “… things going wrong are far more interesting than things going right.”

That’s not to say that the risks being reported aren’t real or that the media reports don’t present real concerns.  They are, and they do.

On the other hand, they are just that – risks and concerns.

Groundwater goes on to consider the question of how real the risks are in reality?, how real are the concerns?  He asks, for example, “what are the chances the next victim is going to be you?” Particularly “if you play it safe and steer clear of the badlands.”

Of course, that moot point won’t be of much comfort if you do happen to end up being the next victim.  For example, if, sometimes, it seems as if airplanes seem to fall out the sky at an alarming frequency, that doesn’t stop us flying – or the industry claiming that it is the safest form of travel.  Statistically, there may be some justification for that claim, but that knowledge doesn’t help when you’re sitting in the cabin and an engine seems to go wrong and the plane lurches in the air.

So what to do?  Cancel a trip to Mexico, (or Thailand, or Kyrgyzstan), and decide to go somewhere else, even if that somewhere else happens to be home where you sit and watch DVDs instead?

That raises a question that is which I would have posed if I was in his place, but he doesn’t – although is implicit in his suggested alternative of sitting at home and watching DVDs, … and, then again, maybe he had a word limit to consider – which I don’t.

If you rule out a trip to Mexico, (or Thailand, or Kyrgyzstan), on safety grounds, then where will you go?  After all, there are dangers everywhere in the world.

For example:

• I remember being attacked by a group of skinheads in sleepy little Malvern, and there are parts of London I would want to wander through at any time of the day, yet alone in the early hours of the morning after a night on the town.
• I remember being concerned when hiring a car in Miami at a time when there was a spate of robberies involving car hijackings – rental cars driving to or from the depot near the airport.
• I have had kids attempt to pick my pocket in broad daylight in Rome.
• I remember the argument with a taxi driver trying to get me into a backstreet nightclub even though I had clearly asked to go somewhere else.
• I remember being on a cruise ship which caught fire and which everyone thought was going to sink and another sailing frantically trying to outrun the oncoming approach of Hurricane Andrew.
• I’ve sat on a plane when the pilot aborted take off because a light on his control panel failed to come on – and then decided to have a second attempt because it suddenly started to work.
• Even if you decide to stay at home and watch DVDs – then who’s to say that nothing is going to happen to you?

However, as he points out, not everyone has been put off by press reports about the situation in Mexico, (or Thailand, or Kyrgyzstan).  There are tourists in Mexico at the moment, “some of them having the time of their lives, free of violence and concerns.”  There are tourists in Thailand.  Indeed, we’ve had tourists here in Kyrgyzstan during the summer as well … I don’t know if they would say that they would claim to have had “the time of their lives” but most of them – at least, the ones that I have met – seem to have enjoyed the experience.

Also, on the other hand, although most of us don’t fall into this category, there those who thrive on visiting out of the way places and who treat with “scorn” the potential dangers.  It sometimes seems as if some of them see traveling to the world’s trouble spots as obtaining a Merit Badge.  We have even had calls asking us if we could arrange tours to Afghanistan immediately after the American led invasion.

Shortly after the fall of the Taliban tourists did start visiting Afghanistan – no, we are not involved in any of those tours.  It’s now a few years later, and whilst the situation in some parts of the country is still extremely volatile, others are more settled and peaceful and a couple of weeks ago I had a visit from someone who had just spent several, uneventful but fascinating weeks in the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan.

Others, perhaps mountaineers are the classic examples, (after all, mountaineering is a dangerous activity as it is), of people take a “little local difficulty” like a revolution in their stride, treating it simply as an inconvenience requiring some alternative planning.

Planning involves thinking ahead – considering alternatives, assessing risks and making choices which are backed by logical reasoning based on sound information.

The two sources of information that Goundwater highlights, and chooses to treat with a healthy caution, but not disdain, are press reports and government travel warnings.  Neither of which are without difficulties.  Neither tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

To be fair, both are valuable sources of information – but there are others.  The important thing is what we do with that information – the conclusions that we come, the decisions that we make based upon it.  After all, we all take responsibility for our own decisions.

So, it seems to me that Groundwater’s article, despite the headline, is not about Mexico at all, (or about Thailand, or about Kyrgyzstan).  Mexico is just “the hook” he uses to raise another, deeper, issue … how we gather the information we can trust and on which we can base our decisions.  It is summed up in two, (almost “throwaway”), comments:

• “It’s a case of not believing everything you read”, and
• “So who do you believe?”

However, the American State Department have issued a travel warning which says:

“We urge US citizens to defer travel to the Kyrgyz Republic until the security situation improves, and alert US citizens travelling or residing in the Kyrgyz Republic of the potential for further instability, … There remains a persistent danger of further demonstrations, unrest, and crime. Demonstrations could occur without warning, sometimes resulting in injury or death,… ”

Although this sounds pretty worrying, it was not as bad as I thought it would be.  In 2001, the Americans evacuated everyone in response to the 9/11 incident in New York, even though they didn’t evacuate Americans from neighbouring countries.  In 2005, virtually all the international consultants were evacuated by the UN.  This time, they have simply assisted in evacuating non essential personnel, (families and so on), but they haven’t insisted.  The haven’t said “Don’t travel to Kyrgyzstan”, instead “urging” people to “defer” their travel plans.  This will still put people off, consultants, businessmen, tourists, and cause problems with travel insurance, but I took it as a sign that although they think the situation is volatile, it didn’t warrant drastic action.

This is in line with the advice of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office: “we advise against all but essential travel to Kyrgyzstan“, and continues: “We advise all British nationals to avoid demonstrations and large gatherings while in Kyrgyzstan. Although the immediate situation in Kyrgyzstan has calmed down from two weeks ago, there is an ongoing risk of instability and there continue to be small incidents involving individual and groups of criminals.  We also advise all British nationals to continue to stay indoors after dark.”

The Foreign ministries of various governments issue travel advice to their citizens.  This is often takes the form of general advice similar to that which can be found on our website or elsewhere in this Information Pack.  (Indeed, much of our advice is drawn from these notices.)

Different countries operate slightly different systems.   Practices can vary widely between the countries, especially:

• the degree to which travel advice takes into account intelligence-based threat assessments;
• the processes by which intelligence-based information and travel advice are combined;
• the degree to which changes in assessments of terrorist threats are reflected directly in public information;
• the degree to which those operating the system acknowledge the influence of wider political and economic factors and top-level political influence;
• the attitude to host government capabilities;
• the variety of local legal and political factors (court challenges, specific legislative requirements) in shaping the context of decision-making;
• the formats used to present information and the degree of detail provided.

This advice usually revolves around making sensible preparations before departure and whilst away from home, such as:

• taking out adequate travel/medical insurance
• checking the current, up-to-date- Travel Advice
• checking on any health requirements
• making sure the traveler has sufficient funds available during their trip
• keeping those funds safe
• checking their passports are valid, and
• obtaining any necessary visas
• avoiding any involvement with drugs, child sex abuse, etc., and
• respecting the laws of other countries

In addition there is usually country specific Travel Advice.  In most cases this consists of background information on countries, (called a “Country Profile” by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and “Consular Information Sheets” by the US State Department).  It will include general points: information about unusual immigration practices; health conditions; minor political disturbances; unusual currency and entry regulations; crime and security information; drug penalties; specific cultural or safety issues that case histories highlight as needing attention and, (of particular importance), contact details for the relevant consular/diplomatic representative in the country.

Such factsheets are usually limited to factual descriptions of the country … they are aimed at informing the traveler of the current situation and leave the traveler to decide for themselves about their travel plans   There is often one about every country, or administrative region in the world.

They also issue announcements called: “Travel Warnings” or “Travel Advisories”.  These are usually specific to a country of a region – but Global warnings are also issued from time to time – especially related to threats from Terrorism.  The purpose of these documents is to offer more than just information – as their name implies, they offer “advice” or “warnings”.

They are usually issued, or updated, in response to a crisis erupting, or when information is available about a particular threat.   As such, not every country is the subject of a Travel Warning.

Travel Warnings will be accompanied by Press Releases or Public Announcements.  These may include additional information to that contained in the Travel Warnings … which tend to be written to a general “formula”.  These may be reported in the general press, or the trade press, but generally they are not.  You can, however, usually find a link to the latest announcements on the website of your foreign ministry.

It is easy to mistake the advice as being patronizing, (for example – in the case of advice for travelers with disabilities, the traveler may already be aware of the issues covered… but then not every person reading the advice will be experienced), or over cautious – as in the country specific advice where it advises against travel to a region even though the region is quiet and peaceful.  For example, both the US State Department and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office have, for many years, advised against ALL travel to Tajikistan.  This hasn’t stopped citizens of both countries visiting Tajikistan … including some diplomats, (we’ve provided services to some of them!)

It is important, therefore. to appreciate a little about the nature, history and purpose of the warnings, how they are arrived at, and to interpret carefully what they actually mean.

The legacy of Lockerbie and Bali

The importance of Travel Warnings is intertwined with major terrorist events.

One is the fate of flight TW104 – from London to New York – on which a bomb had been planted that exploded over the Scottish village of Lockerbie, killing everyone on board and several people on the ground as they were struck by falling debris.  Apparently the CIA had received some information and issued a warning – but this was vaguely worded and not widely distributed.  When this was eventually revealed, the criticism – especially from relatives of the victims – was considerable.

Another was the bombing of an area of Bali frequented by many tourists.  Once again, it appears that the intelligence services of several countries were aware of the threat – but the information was not widely disseminated … and was deemed to be misleading.

There is also controversy surrounding the intelligence which was available before the events of September 11^th,, 2001.   It is argued in some quarters that sufficient information was available to the Security Services so that preventative measures could have been taken which might have saved lives.

Purpose:

The aim of this advice is to ensure that travellers are well prepared, before departure.  It is designed to help travellers make informed decisions about travelling abroad, and to avoid trouble by providing information on threats to personal safety arising from political unrest, terrorist activities, lawlessness, violence, natural disasters, epidemics, demonstrations and safety issues.

Sources:

Usually the information is drawn from a number of sources, (including, where it is country specific, diplomats located in the country concerned).  It is usually reviewed on a regular basis – but a developing crisis can result in more frequent updates being issued.  Hence, you should always seek the latest information.

Decisions about what to include in a travel warning are not taken lightly.  There will be a case history behind every sentence.  The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade actually quote a number of “True Stories” on their website in support some of their statements.

Of course, like in this information pack – new situations (or case histories) mean that advice is constantly being added … meaning that travel advice notices tend to grow longer and longer …

Interpretation:

It should be remembered that, except from the rare occasions when travel to particular countries or regions are prohibited under national law, governments do not instruct travelers not to visit a country.

The advice which is issued may vary from: expressing that caution is needed, to considering deferring travel to a country, or avoiding all but essential travel to a region or advising against all travel to a region/country.

It is, however, a matter for the individual traveler to decide.  For example, despite serious warnings from the US State Department against traveling to Uganda, in 2003 about 100,000 Americans visited the country.  One US consular official is reported to have to have commented that the US does not try to prevent its citizens from visiting a listed country, adding “If people decide to go despite the warnings, we wish them well and offer to be of service if needed,”

As one of our clients said on one occasion concerning particularly strongly worded advice from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office about avoiding all but essential travel to the border regions of Kashmir in Pakistan, (with supplementary comments about security measures which should be taken): “It would see foolhardy to disregard such advice”- even though he felt, from previous experience and other advice he had received, that his visit was likely to be uneventful.

Effect:

Holiday firms often take such advice into account when deciding whether or not to cancel, a particular tour, but – unless travel to a country/region is actually prohibited by national law (which us very rare), the final decision is theirs and theirs alone.  It is the same for the individual (or independent) traveller.  Ultimately, it is your decision – and your responsibility.

The existence of a Travel Warning can affect your travel insurance and the refunds policy adopted by various tour firms, airlines etc..

The existence of a travel warning can have a significant effect on the tourist industry in the country concerned.

Here in Kyrgyzstan, the area to the South and West of Osh has been the subject of travel warnings from several countries advising (ranging from advising especial caution, avoiding all but essential travel to avoiding all travel to the region) since the events of 1999 when Muslim extremists crossed the border with Tajikistan and took a number of hostages.   As a result, virtually all tourists – except, perhaps, the most intrepid Western tourists – have refrained from traveling there.  This has affected the local service providers, most of them very poor, depriving them of an important source of additional income.

Diplomats responsible for issuing a Travel Warning/Advisory are well aware of the “knock on” effects of strong advice, such as against “all travel” or “all but essential travel “  to a particular region.  However, trade or political considerations cannot, ultimately, be allowed to influence the advice.  The safety of their own citizens is the paramount concern in these cases.

Our Recommendation:

Travelers should consult their foreign ministries for advice.  It is possible that they have information which is more up-to-date than that which is to be found in guide books.  (Most operate websites, and some have a telephone call-service.)

You may also want to consult what the foreign ministries of other countries are advising.   Sometimes there are differences between the advice given by different governments – for example: following the events of September 11^th 2001, the American State Department not only warned against travel to Kyrgyzstan they also advised those Americans already in the country to consider leaving, but governments of European Union countries did not.  These variations may arise from differences of perception, or specific information that threats exist against citizens of particular nationalities.

Also, you should be aware that existence of a Travel Warning can affect your travel insurance and the refunds policy adopted by various tour firms, airlines etc..  As details of policies vary, you should talk to your insurance cover, or the insurance policy of your tour operator/agent, and you consult the appropriate company about your particular case.

However, advice is exactly that – advice.

• Read it carefully.
• Remember that a Travel Warning, by its very nature, is likely to be negative.
• Look for specific, precise, points.
• In particular, look at the date of the notice … if it is more than a couple of weeks old – ask for an update.
• Where points are couched in general terms, try to obtain further information.  A recent trend is for additional information is sometimes being offered as clarification and/or justification.  Sometimes this is helpful – but not always.
• Obtain as much, up-to-date information as possible … from different sources.  But, remember that every source, including us, has its own perspective and “vested interest”.  The diplomat wants to avoid potential difficulties – for the tourist (and for the diplomatic service?) and although, as a tour company, we don’t want to lose business – it is NOT in OUR interest for a tourist to encounter difficulties having followed OUR advice.  It is better for us in the long term for a client to defer a visit, and eventually have a successful trip, than to undertake one where problems arise.  (We will give clients the best advice we can at any given moment – even if this results in a cancellation.)

IF IN DOUBT – THEN ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION! – we say this, even if it means following the advice contained in a travel warning and deferring your visit to the Kyrgyz Republic.