The Politics of Travel Warnings

Travel Blog  •  Jim Benning  •  08.01.05 | 11:38 AM ET

The Seattle Times’ Carol Pucci asks a great question: Why did the recent London bombings result in only a “brief and restrained” travel advisory from the U.S. State Department, while the terrorist attack in Egypt prompted a much more strongly worded advisory? Could it be—gasp—that politics are involved? It’s not a new question, but it’s as relevant as ever. Any traveler who has spent more than a few minutes studying State Department pronouncements for various countries could come up with numerous perplexing inconsistencies.

The State Department, of course, denies politics are involved in its travel warnings. But others aren’t so sure. “[I]f the State Department issues a travel warning, Tony Blair would be on the phone to President Bush pretty quickly, saying ‘Hey, what are you doing to our economy? We’re supposed to be best allies,’” said Jim Grace, CEO of InsureMyTrip.com. Pucci comes down hard on the State Department. “It’s questions like these that prompt many travelers to weigh the State Department’s advice against what other governments tell their citizens,” she writes. “The information posted on Canadian, Australian and New Zealand government sites was more complete and up-to-date and still is.”



No comments for The Politics of Travel Warnings.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.