Where would you not travel to?

[wander_woman]

The "Would you move to Israel" thread in News/Politics made me think about how we all have such different standards for personal safety, quality of life, etc. It's interesting that places that some of us would move to or travel to in a second are places that others would never touch. If you were given a free ticket to go anywhere, are there places you absolutely 100% would not go to? Are there places you might travel to briefly but would never want to move to?

For me, the places I wouldn't set foot in now would be:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Chechnya/Ingushetia
Sudan
Liberia

That's about it. There are plenty of other places that I have little to no interest in visiting, but I don't think I'd turn down a free trip anywhere except for the above. Same goes for places I'd move to. I think I could live anywhere in the world (at least for a short time) except for the above places.

[emmjay]

I pretty much agree with your list, except I would probably go to Sudan or Afghanistan depending on the circumstances.

Additionally, right now I wouldn't go to:
North Korea
Niger
Turkmenistan

I would live almost anywhere except for the above places as well.

There are also places I would turn down a free ticket to, just because I wouldn't want to waste my vacation time.

[kalogrias]

I'd go anywhere, as long as I was given enough time to get the appropriate shots :D Except Liberia and possibly Haiti. I don't think I'd ever want to go there. But anywhere else...sure, why not?

Living...eh, again, I'm not all that picky. It all comes down to how I would live...I mean, would I randomly pick up and move to Eritrea? No. But would I jump at the chance to live in Eritrea if my job sent me there (and paid for me to live decently)? Yes, no question about it. In fact, my bags would be packed before the word "go".

BTW, I totally agree with EmmJay -- there are places I would turn down a free ticket to so as not to waste vacation time (like Cyprus...I've been there, not that huge a fan, so eh...).

[Daisy]

I probably wouldn't go to any place that the State Department has a travel advisory warning against.

A little off topic - we were planning a trip to Israel and Egypt for next spring, but after much discussion and research, we're putting it off (we coincidentially decided this before the Gaza pullout began). Now I think we're set on Thailand. :)

[pocket]

i generally ignore the state dept travel advisories and we do work all over the world. state care more about what's political than they do what's realistic. meaning that when they post something on the site it has more to do with a political position about that country and tourism than a concern for the safety of us citizens. the brits have a much more realistic travel advisory. if they don't think it's safe, it probably isn't. this is a commonly held opinion on the usefulness of those advisories from someone who works extensively in this area.

i would travel almost anywhere that wasn't in the middle of conflict, but would be more likely to hesitate where americans are targets and where kidnappng is common.

[HeatherFL]

i generally ignore the state dept travel advisories and we do work all over the world.

Me too-especially considering my mother is from one of those countries and I visit there often (Colombia and it's GREAT). The advisories can be misleading.

I wouldn't travel back to Paris. It just wasn't for me.

As for as safety reasons I also wouldn't go to:
Egypt
Bahrain
Yemen
Palestine
Oman
Kuwait
Iran
Iraq
Afghanistan
Lebanon
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
The Africa Congo (Zaire)

If the state of things changes, in the future I might visit a couple of those countries.

[emmjay]

I ignore the State Dept advisories as well. I feel like there's an element of CYA involved there - just in case something happens, no one can bitch to them later that they weren't warned.

DRC/Zaire - yes, that is a good one. I'm not that intrepid of a traveler to visit that place! :)

[MrsSmith]

I'm not interested in going anywhere in Asia.

[wander_woman]

I find the State Department advisories to be pretty pointless as well. I agree they are more CYA and political than anything else. Almost all of the countries I'd like to visit (and many that I have visited) have been on the State Dept's list at some point. It does keep American tourism down in those countries, though, which might just be a good thing. :rolleyes:

I have friends that are working in almost all of the countries on my do-not-visit list, which makes me feel like a big wuss for deeming them too dangerous to travel to. On the other hand, I have co-workers who tell me they wouldn't visit NYC because it's too dangerous. The spectrum of what people are personally comfortable with, as far as their own security, is just huge. I wonder how much of it is personality (some people are just naturally more risk averse) and how much is ignorance and/or fear of difference?

HealtherFL -- FI and I are thinking about going to Columbia next year. I'd love to talk to you about it sometime. Maybe I'll start a new thread a little later. [sorry for the digression].

[AmyE]

On State Dept travel advisories - they are legal requirements, fyi. And yes, they are CYA. (Americans will SUE SUE SUE, while Brits don't.) Appearances to the contrary, it really and truly isn't political. Some are issued on countries that are stong and fast allies, and State gets a lot of heat for it. If State tells it's own employees, for instance, that there has been a wave of robberies in one area, State MUST make that info available to everyone, and travel advisories are the mechanisms. Means State has to issue a lot of advisories to places that many State employees themselves visit and vacation in, but hey, what can you do. ALL CYA.

And I'd probably avoid Iraq at the moment, but the rest of the world is pretty much fair game!!

[pocket]

but it's different when you are working there. your office is ina secured compound, your housing is in a secured compound, you have daily security briefings and you only travel in a secure vehicle. tourists are much more visible and much more vulnerable. i would go a lot of places for work that i wouldn't go for fun.

ETA - Everything State does is political.

[tenofcups]

I'm in a kind of unusual situation in that, as a travel writer, I HAVE been offered free tickets and fully paid hotel, meals, expenses, etc. that I have turned down because I didn't feel that the places were safe at the time. I don't cover "news," just travel options and there were a few times that I felt that it wasn't safe and there was no reason to jeopardize my safety for that kind of piece.

Places I've turned down:
- Dominican Republic when we had just sent our troops to Haiti -- they're two separate nations on one island land mass, and while there was no real reason to suspect there would be problems in the DR too, it just didn't seem worth it. Apparently all the other writers who were already scheduled to go also refused and they cancelled the trip and rescheduled a couple of years later, when I did go.

- Amazon rainforest trip -- sounded fascinating but I was leary of the people planning it and that seemed a little too much "adventure travel" for my taste (although I have gone to the Galapagos Islands and on safari in South Africa)

- The beaches of Croatia when there was all the military action in Bosnia and Herzegovina

I also did not go to visit a friend when she was in the Peace Corps in Papua New Guinea. I'd thought I would go, but she--who had traveled all over the world and knew that I had too--strongly advised that I NOT visit her unless I was going to come at the same time as her brother in law. When a feminist through and through tells me not to go without a man to protect me as, to quote her, "gang rape is the national pasttime here," I respect her opinion.

Places I wouldn't go now: Most middle-east countries, including Egypt, which is my number-one dream trip, any of the African countries experiencing civil war and/or tribal warfare, South American countries where there's political unrest.

[HeatherFL]

HealtherFL -- FI and I are thinking about going to Columbia next year. I'd love to talk to you about it sometime. Maybe I'll start a new thread a little later. [sorry for the digression].

LOL you threw me off for a second. I was thinking Columbia, South Carolina since it's with a "u" not Colombia, South America since it's with an "o"! (Hey I've been there too! Really nice people LOL!) Long week and it's only Teuesday!

You are welcome to touch base with me anytime. It is a beautiful place with amazing food, culture and people. I actually posted a link to my pics in another thread (Favorite tropical destinations.)

~H.

[Vishenka69]

Places I wouldn't go now: Most middle-east countries, including Egypt, which is my number-one dream trip, any of the African countries experiencing civil war and/or tribal warfare, South American countries where there's political unrest.

That pretty much sums it up for me. Unless my life/well-being would be in danger, I'm all for going anywhere.

[Daisy]

Since I feel a bit flamed -

Countries currently on the State Department Travel Advisory List:

Sudan 08/05/2005
Bosnia-Herzegovina 08/01/2005
Algeria 07/21/2005
Somalia 07/21/2005
Uzbekistan 07/01/2005
Kenya 07/01/2005
Iran 06/30/2005
Iraq 06/28/2005
Congo-Kinshasa 06/24/2005
Nepal 06/24/2005
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 06/20/2005
Afghanistan 06/09/2005
Haiti 05/26/2005
Nigeria 05/20/2005
Saudi Arabia 05/17/2005
Indonesia 05/10/2005
Yemen 05/06/2005
Colombia 05/04/2005
Lebanon 04/21/2005
Central African Republic 04/19/2005
Pakistan 03/25/2005
Kyrgyzstan 03/24/2005
Philippines 03/23/2005
Zimbabwe 03/16/2005
Liberia 03/03/2005
Côte d'Ivoire 02/08/2005
Burundi 12/07/2004

While I agree that it's political as to why these countries are named here, there are very legitimate safety reasons for them. I've been to Haiti, I'd like to go to Nepal and I will visit Israel in the future (IL's are there), but I can wait until I feel better about it. I can't see spending money on and giving vacation time for a trip to a place that isn't relatively safe / doesn't like Americans / has semi-regular bombings in public places, etc. I want to enjoy my trips and feel safe on them! I just think this list is a good indicator of these places. Furthermore, I've known many people (mainly relatives and some friends) that have lived and worked in some of these countries that I know will never go back because their experience and the conditions were so unpleasant.

Just my $.02.

[HeatherFL]

It was not my intention to flame anyone. I was just writing that my experience in one country on that list has been nothing but positive. My mother is from that country, I visit it often. I have never encountered an Anti-American sentiment nor have I ever felt unsafe in Colombia.

A lot of my friends have visited countries and lived in countries I myself listed. They often tell me how the media in the U.S. twists how things really are and their experiences have been nothing but the opposite of what is described in the news. It's sad to me that people (including myself) miss out on what could be incredible travel experiences because of the media.

There are also very legitimate reasons not to drive into certain areas of my hometown (Miami). But that doesn't mean I'm going to avoid it altogether because there is a concetrated area of crime in what I consider to be an awesome city.

I grew up with the Colombian culture so I understand that I identify with it in a way that others don't. I speak the language there, my family lives there and it is just part of my life. I would imagine there would be a feeling of uneasiness if one didn't have that in their favor.

~H.

[emmjay]

Daisy, I agree with a lot of what Heather said (except that I'm not Colombian!). And I do use safety reasons to decide where to go but I don't even consult the State Dept list because I don't know what is legitimate, what is being blown out of proportion, and what is CYA. I just don't want you to feel that I was flaming you since I do base "where I wouldn't go" on a lot of the same reasoning that you described in your second post (I just don't use that particular list).

In fact, my husband and I were planning on going to Nepal in 2003 but we didn't go because we felt it was too risky. At the same time, I have been to several places which had warnings/"public announcements" at the time, and several times instances actually occurred while I was there. I still feel that the chance of being in the exact spot as a bombing or whatever is pretty small. I guess for me it's a balance between how much I want to see a place, and how serious the situation is in the country.

Sort of OT - I haven't been to the Middle East but I have to say that the worst anti-American sentiment I've ever experienced has been from people from other "first world" countries, for lack of a better term. Not that it's ever been that bad - more annoying than anything else. Anyway, if I wanted base my trip on going to a place with less antipathy toward Americans, I would go to Morocco before I would go to France.

[AmyE]

I think the bottom line is that people should check out information that is available, and then make their own decisions. Travel is great, but if you are going to be really stressed and unhappy, then you are probably better off waiting to do that particular trip at another time or visiting somewhere else. And everyone has different comfort zones, and different definitions for what info might be useful to them. For example, if someone has never travelled overseas before, they may wish to make their first trip to a country that isn't on the State list. But if you really want to go to,say, Nigeria, then you might want to read the advisory (or completely ignore it, if you prefer), get your polio shot, and bon voyage -have a great time. As others have pointed out, it makes a HUGE difference if you have local contacts to show you around, speak the language, know what places are considered dangerous, etc etc. And there is no way of knowing if you'd get mugged overseas or a block from your own house in the good ol' USA.

(Pocket - just to clarify, I know a family that has been with State for more than 30 years, has served in 11 countries, mostly in the developing world, and never lived on a secure compound. Those are only for certain middle eastern countries. Otherwise, the diplomats live in the city like the rest of the population.)

[Rose]

I'm in a kind of unusual situation in that, as a travel writer, I HAVE been offered free tickets and fully paid hotel, meals, expenses, etc.

What a fun job!

[MrsSmith]

I can't see spending money on and giving vacation time for a trip to a place that isn't relatively safe / doesn't like Americans / has semi-regular bombings in public places, etc. I want to enjoy my trips and feel safe on them!

Would you go to New York, LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, etc? There are random acts of violence in those cities every day and innocent people are hurt and killed. It doesn't always happen in 'bad' neighborhoods either.

My thought on the issue is that there are differences in your comfort level and what you perceive as safe. People from all over the world travel to our country each day because of its perceived freedom and wealth. They don't know until they get here how it actually is. When I go abroad, people often think that it is wild and violent over here. We are arrogant and don't follow the law. There are too many people in the cities to control there is total chaos in some places. This is what they see on their television screens. But is that true in your neighborhood? Probably not.

I'm not attempting to negate all validity of the state department. I'm just not the person who takes all of my information from the government.

[pocket]

I really don’t think you were being flamed. I’m not saying that state only considers political reasons for their travel advisories, but that since they have a diplomatic mission, everything they do must be considered politically. I guess I was talking about a really hostile environment, when I mentioned the secure compound. I was thinking of our Afghanistan office. I wouldn’t travel there for pleasure, but if I traveled there for business we would have all of the amenities I described above. Of course it wouldn’t be routine in, say, Chad or Spain. Actually I do think they live in a compound in Chad. It depends on where you are. My parents live in the Philippines and just got back from a 4-mo stint in Indonesia. Neither of those places are really dangerous, but they are on that list. I wouldn't decide not to go to the Philippines because of that list - in fact, my sister just went on sunday.

[thompso2]

I don't have a specific list of places, but I don't think I'd visit anywhere commonly described as "war-torn".

[wander_woman]

Daisy, I'm sorry you feel flamed. I really don't think that was anyone's intent. I started this thread because I was genuinely curious about how people make decisions about where not to travel to. It's perfectly legitimate to make that decision based on the State Department list and I would never tell anyone not to. I was just pointing out that I personally do not consult the list in deciding where to travel to (and I think that's what others were doing as well). I think that people who are from countries on the list or who have traveled to place on the list and had good experiences feel that the list does not present a full picture of what a country is about and are sad that others will be deterred from visiting because of the list. But, as you said, you should enjoy your trips and there's no reason to go someplace where you won't personally feel safe.

[Daisy]

Thanks ladies for your responses! :)

Would you go to New York, LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, etc? There are random acts of violence in those cities every day and innocent people are hurt and killed. It doesn't always happen in 'bad' neighborhoods either. I can't compare high degrees of civil unrest and war with these places. Unsafe neighborhoods and other random acts of violence are awful and can happen anywhere, but are different than, IMO, semi-regular bombings of buses or other busy public places like cafes, markets, etc. There is a "normal" safety level that we feel in places and one that is lower (hence we use our common sense and do research on places).


I'm not attempting to negate all validity of the state department. I'm just not the person who takes all of my information from the government.
Neither am I. I looked at this site for the first time earlier this summer when researching a trip to Egypt (of which isn't on the list). Geez.


Okay, I'm done! Happy traveling!

[lawyerlee]

I don't think I could handle India. I'm sure there are wonderful people there and amazing things to see and do, but I do think I have the guts for the differences in lifestyle.

[pocket]

Really? India is great. I don't think you'd find it to be that different.

[nylons73]

I don't fly, and I really don't like to travel, so I have no idea why I'm reading this thread, heh heh. However, I had to comment when this caught my eye..

Living...eh, again, I'm not all that picky. It all comes down to how I would live...I mean, would I randomly pick up and move to Eritrea? No. But would I jump at the chance to live in Eritrea if my job sent me there (and paid for me to live decently)? Yes, no question about it. In fact, my bags would be packed before the word "go".

Does the poster know there is like a massive WAR going on there? They are fighting with their neighboring country (also an E name, is it Ethiopia?) When I worked in congress, I attended a few forums about the huge and devistating war that is going on involving Eritrea. I find it incredulous that someone would be 'packed before the word go!' I don't think I could move to a country where such civil unrest and killing was occuring.

[wander_woman]

I didn't make the comment about moving to Eritrea, but I do understand it. First of all, the Ethiopia-Eritrea war has officially been over since late-2000 when they signed a peace agreement. Granted, everything's not all peachy there and there are certainly still border skirmishes, but they are not in all-out war (but I do agree with you that it was a horrible, very bloody war).

The disagreement about moving to Eritrea illustrates exactly what this thread is about ... different people have different expectations of personal safety, quality of life standards, etc. I completely understand your unwillingness to consider moving to Eritrea, a place with very high civil unrest. Nothing at all wrong with that. But I also understand the previous poster's willingness to move there for a job. There are plenty of "war-torn" places I would move to if the right job came along. I think it would be fascinating to live in Eritrea. Difficult, yes, but still worth it (for me). It's all a matter of personal preference.

[pocket]

wow - I'd also move to eritrea in a heartbeat! it's totally gorgeous there, the work is important and the ex-pat lifestyle can't be beat. relief work needs to happen, and someone needs to do it.

[nylons73]

Ah - thanks for the update on the war concerning Eritrea-Ethiopia! Gee, If I had only been following world-events more closely, I would have known that. :o
I guess all of those forums about the destruction and killing over there have just stuck in my brain. I still wouldn't go anywhere near there, but I do now understand why people would be more willing to move there. With the war over, the civil unrest is the only major challenge (as far as personal safety) I surmise.

Thanks again for the enlightenment!!

[sue-bert]

As a Jew, I wouldn't travel to any country thatwould deny me entry on the basis of having an Israeli stamp in my passport (even though I could gain entry by ordering a fresh U.S. passport). This list of countries includes:

Algeria
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Sudan
UAE
Yemen

I also would not visit any country which would deny me entry because I hold an Israeli passport. This list of countries includes most Arab countries (excluding Egypt & Jordan).

Other than that, I'd be up for visiting almost anywhere, at least for a short time!

sue-bert