Violent Destinations
In February 2008, my wife and I were supposed to travel to Nairobi for a friend’s wedding. You see a wedding is not like a funeral, months (sometimes years) of preparation and planning go into the whole affair like the life of those involved (especially the bride) depended on that one day. We had planned long before the now infamous elections of 2007 and post election violence that followed that we will both be in Kenya for Irene’s wedding. My presence in particular was important because it was supposed to be kept a secret and was supposed to be a pleasant surprise (hopefully) to the lovely couple, who are both great friends of ours. As the wedding day approached, news of the killings and violence in Kenya continued to stream through our tube much to our disappointment. For once Victoria became a regular follower of the newscasts. D-day was fast approaching as more and more scenes of violence continued to be played out in front of our eyes. Every after News at Ten, we looked at each other and discussed the risk that would be faced if we were to go to Nairobi. We continued to receive reports from our friends in Nairobi indicating that all was well, which was a direct contradiction of what was being portrayed on the International News Channels. At the back of our mind we knew that what was being reported is the security situation in the less affluent parts of Nairobi which would not be much of a problem if we went to Nairobi since we were sure that none of the day’s events would go to any of those areas.
Yet even with our knowledge of Nairobi, we still could not make a firm and positive call to go, often drifting off in thoughts like ‘what if anything happens, the whole world will be saying how stupid we were with all this information available’. I continued to scan around for information and it was during this scavenging for information that I stumbled on this site 'Forbes list of the world's most dangerous destinations for 2007'. The list included Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burundi, Pakistan, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Côte d’Ivoire. Hmmm, interesting list I thought before I read this;
‘Other countries make our list mainly because of crime. Neither Liberia nor Haiti is technically at war, but rampant criminality can make parts of these countries feel like war zones……. Though Nigeria doesn’t make our most dangerous places list (there’s a lot of competition), it is a hot spot in danger of worsening this year’
With information like this, I thought, one does not need a travel advisor.
Now, to be sincere, with the exception of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and probably Haiti, I would have jumped on a plane to any of the remaining destinations (more than half) without even flinching. And yet here I was worried about Kenya, that did not even appear on the list. I was interested in learning more about who decides about the most dangerous countries to travel to and how these decisions are arrived at. The Forbes magazine explains that it uses statistics including crime and civil unrest, and assigns each country a rating of one to five, with five being the most severe.
While I agree with some of the destinations, there is an obvious contradiction to me, for some of them. It seems to me that what might be called a dangerous destination by a Westerner is not necessarily dangerous to me. Similarly, a dangerous country might have a high murder rate, but as a tourist this might not necessarily be a dangerous place to visit. Some countries may very well have some areas that might as well be in a war zone but for the average traveller, these places are very small and easily avoidable (take the case of Uganda in the last 20 years yet Uganda occasionally appeared on this list if you look at the ranking of the previous years). I've seen Jamaica, Brazil and South Africa listed as some of the most dangerous countries in the world and like one reviewer said “It is a bit silly, since all are popular tourist destinations and out of the millions that visit few come home with any life threatening problems”. I have been to South Africa countless times and I have not witnessed or been a victim of any incident, yet I was in Barcelona for 3 nights and witnessed a mugging in a street in full view of every one.
It is after situations like these that I pitied, the Western travellers who rely on this information for travel and business, a good bit of it is useless. That notwithstanding, I think it would be a nice idea to stay away from countries that end with ‘stan’ in their names for now. Just look at the list and see how many they are.
Yet even with our knowledge of Nairobi, we still could not make a firm and positive call to go, often drifting off in thoughts like ‘what if anything happens, the whole world will be saying how stupid we were with all this information available’. I continued to scan around for information and it was during this scavenging for information that I stumbled on this site 'Forbes list of the world's most dangerous destinations for 2007'. The list included Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burundi, Pakistan, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Côte d’Ivoire. Hmmm, interesting list I thought before I read this;
‘Other countries make our list mainly because of crime. Neither Liberia nor Haiti is technically at war, but rampant criminality can make parts of these countries feel like war zones……. Though Nigeria doesn’t make our most dangerous places list (there’s a lot of competition), it is a hot spot in danger of worsening this year’
With information like this, I thought, one does not need a travel advisor.
Now, to be sincere, with the exception of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and probably Haiti, I would have jumped on a plane to any of the remaining destinations (more than half) without even flinching. And yet here I was worried about Kenya, that did not even appear on the list. I was interested in learning more about who decides about the most dangerous countries to travel to and how these decisions are arrived at. The Forbes magazine explains that it uses statistics including crime and civil unrest, and assigns each country a rating of one to five, with five being the most severe.
While I agree with some of the destinations, there is an obvious contradiction to me, for some of them. It seems to me that what might be called a dangerous destination by a Westerner is not necessarily dangerous to me. Similarly, a dangerous country might have a high murder rate, but as a tourist this might not necessarily be a dangerous place to visit. Some countries may very well have some areas that might as well be in a war zone but for the average traveller, these places are very small and easily avoidable (take the case of Uganda in the last 20 years yet Uganda occasionally appeared on this list if you look at the ranking of the previous years). I've seen Jamaica, Brazil and South Africa listed as some of the most dangerous countries in the world and like one reviewer said “It is a bit silly, since all are popular tourist destinations and out of the millions that visit few come home with any life threatening problems”. I have been to South Africa countless times and I have not witnessed or been a victim of any incident, yet I was in Barcelona for 3 nights and witnessed a mugging in a street in full view of every one.
It is after situations like these that I pitied, the Western travellers who rely on this information for travel and business, a good bit of it is useless. That notwithstanding, I think it would be a nice idea to stay away from countries that end with ‘stan’ in their names for now. Just look at the list and see how many they are.
Comments