Is US travel advice pro-Western and hysterical?
The US government’s advice to its citizens not to travel to China is, to some, prejudice rather than judgment. Screening of passengers leaving China would be a reasonable step to contain the spread of the coronavirus. But expert opinion was that total border shutdowns were ineffective, Rosie Spinks wrote in the New York Times earlier in February.
When the US suffered a particularly severe flu outbreak in 2017-2018, with an estimated 45-million cases and 61,000 deaths, no-one suggested banning travel. “Time and time again, destinations perceived as ‘Western’ benefit from a kind of cultural familiarity and presumption of safety that socalled foreign or exotic places do not,” she wrote.
Governments’ travel advisories do matter.
During times of uncertainty, when travellers don’t know whether to believe what they read, or when they fear that contacts at their destinations might be patriotically insouciant about the dangers involved, official advice, informed by embassy staff on the ground, seems more reliable and authoritative. But the idea that travel advisories are biased against poorer countries has a long history.
In 2013, after an Islamist attack on a Nairobi shopping mall, Kenya condemned as “unfriendly” US government advice that travellers to the country “evaluate their personal security situation in light of continuing and recently heightened threats from terrorism”.
An example of a wealthy country being treated more lightly was Australia after its recent bushfires.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in January that he had raised with the US government the country’s warnings on travel to Australia, and had succeeded in having them toned down. He thanked president Donald Trump, vicePresident Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo for taking his point that Australia is a large continent and, despite the fires, “you can still go swimming on the reef”.
But is it true that Washington invariably goes easy on richer countries? Let’s look at what the US government says about its special relation. “Exercise increased caution in the United Kingdom due to terrorism,” begins its travel advisory. “Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks.”
It adds that “with little or no warning” terrorists may attack tourist destinations, transport hubs, shopping malls, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, educational institutions, airports and major sporting and cultural events.
Is there anywhere that US tourists to the UK can safely go? Should they just stay in their hotels? No, hotels could be subject to attack too. Of course, there have been terrorist attacks in the UK, but most of the country’s 66-million residents and 38-million overseas tourists do not generally spend their days fretting about them.
GERMANY AND FRANCE
The US government has similar warnings about Germany and France, where it adds that, apart from terrorism, travellers should beware of demonstrations in Paris and other cities.
“Property damage, including looting and arson, in populated tourist areas has occurred with reckless disregard for public safety,” it says.
Where can travellers go for more measured official advice? While its government appears to blunder from one drama to the next, the UK foreign office’s travel warnings are models of common sense. says: Of“its About next-door 17-million neighbour British it nationals visit France every year. Most visits are troublefree.” You could be pickpocketed. Avoid demonstrations, but they cause only “limited disruption” to transport services. The terrorist threat is in paragraph five.
The advice on travel to China is not to go to Hubei province, the centre of the virus. Go elsewhere in China only if it’s essential. There is much more detail and nuance, as there is about other countries.
And the US? Most visits there are trouble-free, the foreign office says. Its most urgent advice: before you go, take out comprehensive medical insurance. /©
AN EXAMPLE OF A WEALTHY COUNTRY BEING TREATED MORE LIGHTLY WAS AUSTRALIA AFTER ITS RECENT BUSHFIRES