12 Dec 2008: ISS Today: The Real Impact Of Travel Warnings

12 December 2008: The Real Impact Of Travel Warnings

 

Travel warnings, especially those linked to terror threats, commonly raise more questions than answers. Instead of being regarded as a measure to prevent people from being harmed by the real possibility of an imminent terror attack, travel warnings are commonly met with suspicion and anger. This is mostly because of the inconsistencies in the issuing of travel warnings and the consequences they may have, particularly for developing countries. Travel warnings, especially when issued by powerful countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, can have a devastating impact on countries that rely heavily on tourism revenues.

 

Africa is no stranger to travel warnings, especially East Africa. However, it is abundantly clear that terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon. It has targeted a number of Western countries, including several in Europe, Asia, and of course the US. It is therefore unsurprising that African countries take issue with the double standards associated with travel warnings, which are almost exclusively reserved for developing countries – at least that is the prevailing perception.

 

Although it is understandable that countries need to warn their citizens of security threats when travelling, countries in the developing world take issue with the observation that travel warnings are not issued consistently. This is highlighted by the fact that the United States, Britain and Australia notably ‘softened’ their travel warnings to India in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, while Canada and The Netherlands went further and scrapped theirs completely. While there were no travel warnings issued by the United States against the UK in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005. At the same time Kenya and to a lesser extent Tanzania are still reminded of the 1998 US Embassy bombings. The ultimate consequences are twofold. Firstly, instead of preventing the negative consequences associated with an act of terrorism, it rather contributes to anti-Western sentiments and feelings of marginalization and frustration, not to mention poor socio-economic conditions – all of these factors are recognized as ‘conditions conducive to terrorism’. Secondly, staying away not only has a negative impact on countries that are often dependent on tourism, but fear causes intimidation and a change in perception. It may manifest in a distrust of those belonging to a specific religious or ethnic group. In other words, terrorists keep on achieving their objective: intimidate the target audience and further divide people, thus leading to more recruits, and so the vicious cycle continuous.

 

With this brief background in mind, and in light of the recent media frenzy in South Africa on the meaning of what is [wrongly] interpreted as an increasing threat of terrorism, it is necessary to briefly reassess travel warnings, how effective they are, and what they mean to developing countries.

 

Domestic and foreign security agencies conduct periodic threat, risk and vulnerability assessments on specific sub-regions, countries or areas within a country to determine and identify new trends, changing developments or areas of concern. In the case of domestic security agencies, these assessments might lead to a redirection of intelligence and security sources to deal with a potential threat to a government and/or its people. Foreign agencies on the other hand are motivated by the protection of their own interests, diplomatic personnel or citizens visiting that particular country. These threat and risk assessments can lead to travel warnings to inform citizens about the security and other risks associated with that country.

 

Domestically, in the aftermath of 9/11, the US introduced the Homeland Security Advisory System to communicate the possibility of an act of terrorism to other government departments, but also to its citizens. Based on information gathered domestically and abroad, the credibility and reliability of information is corroborated and tested against other sources and reflected through a five-tier colour-coded advisory system:

 

  1. Low or green – a low risk of a terrorist attack;

  2. Guarded or blue – general risk of a terrorist attack;

  3. Elevated or yellow – significant risk of a terrorist attack

  4. High or orange – high risk of a terrorist attack

  5. Severe or red – severe possibility of a terrorist attack

 

In addition to reflecting the threat level, the system also provides directives to government departments on how to react to the particular threat level.

 

The US system presents an important reality when dealing with terrorism: that effective counter-terrorism requires ongoing vigilance, not just short flurries of response-driven prevention activities in the wake of newly discovered threats or actual attacks. Terrorist attacks can occur at any time and place, and effective counter-terrorism requires proactive threat assessments and ongoing education to keep citizens and partners alert and prepared, without crying wolf too often, or promoting an unhealthy culture of fear.

 

Placing the effectiveness of early warning, in this case travel warnings, in context, one needs to appreciate that early warning is not an exact science as highlighted by 9/11 and more recently the attacks in Mumbai. In both these cases information was received about an imminent threat, but security forces failed to prevent the attacks. A number of realities are worth noticing. Firstly it is important to note that contrary to a work of fiction, information gathered or shared between intelligence agencies seldom provide the five W’s (who, what, where, when, why, but even more important how) needed to initiate specific counter measures. It is easy to assess information from the comfort of history. Secondly, before an incident, information is often assessed and analysed from the basis of what is known and seldom from the basis of what is possible.

 

Consequently travel warnings are issued after the incident, returning to the two primary issues: inconsistencies and negative consequences. These two concerns can be addressed by treating countries equally. For example, the life of a US citizen in Kenya should have the same value as a US citizen travelling to the UK. Greater care should also be taken in realising the impact travel warnings have within the broader framework of preventing and combating terrorism. Essentially, issuing more specific intelligence driven travel warnings will not only counter the prevailing sense of fear and uncertainty, it might even lead to better communication between countries, particularly on the need and quality of intelligence shared.

 

Anneli Botha, Senior Researcher, International Crime in Africa Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)

Â