Memorandum from Dunira Strategy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE TRAVEL ADVICE
1. Dunira Strategy welcomes the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee's Inquiry into Foreign Policy Aspects
of the War against Terrorism and is particularly encouraged that
the Committee has specifically chosen to examine the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office's policy on Travel Advice.
2. There was a stark contrast in advice
given to travellers by the FCO following the terrorist attacks
in the United States on 11 September 2001 and in Indonesia on
12 October 2002. Within a few weeks of 9.11, whilst vigilance
was still advised, British travellers were being positively encouraged
to return to the United States and to stand up against terrorism,
but, following the bombings in Bali, much of Asia was declared
off-limits by the FCO.
3. A difference that has sometimes been
cited to explain the variation in treatment is that, whereas in
Bali the terrorist attacks were specifically targeted at tourists,
in the United States they were not.
4. But this policy is inconsistent with
that adopted by the FCO under Robin Cook, who introduced the Labour
government's concept of an "ethical foreign policy"
and did not discourage tourism to Spain and Turkey following terrorist
attacks and specific threats against tourists and the tourism
industry in these countries.
5. This approach initially seemed to spell
the end of the policy adopted under the previous administration,
which had ruthlessly applied a precautionary principle in its
management of travel advice—sometimes needlessly undermining
the tourism industry of several poor countries, such as in the
Gambia following the bloodless coup of 1994. For many of the world's
poorest countries, tourism makes the largest contribution to GDP.
As one of the world's leading nations, the UK has a responsibility
to ensure that any advice that HMG issues concerning travel to
poorer countries is as complete as possible. It must ensure that
its travel advice does not inadvertently inflict harm on those
countries that at the same time it is trying to support through
its development programme.
6. But it is now as if the British government's
willingness to support the tourism industry of foreign countries
in the face of attacks and threats of attack by terrorists is
a function of its desire to influence the foreign policy of those
countries' governments. Thus a precautionary principle is applied
in the case of any country that has no strategic interest for
HMG. Strategic interests of course include membership (and candidacy)
of NATO and the EU, but also includes any scope for British defence
contracts, such as in the case of Burma (Myanmar).
7. Insofar as a government's foreign policy
can ever be ethical, it must at least be even-handed. This means
either that there should be greater consistency in advice given
or that there should be more information provided to the public.
8. The British consumer is intelligent and
is now able to access a huge amount of information from a wide
range of sources through a growing array of media (particularly
through the internet). The British consumer is being encouraged
by HMG to take more personal responsibility, for example in terms
of health, pensions and the environment, but HMG is not encouraging
consumers to take their own decisions about the appropriateness
and safety of their holiday plans.
9. The British tourist would be a more responsible
tourist if they were helped to make more fully informed decisions
about whether they should visit a certain country. Known security
risks should of course be reported to potential visitors through
government media, in particular the FCO Travel Advice unit, so
that members of the public can assess them for themselves. But
it can be argued that to have applied a virtual blanket ban on
travel to Asia in the wake of the Bali bomb was wrong on two counts.
Firstly it is a victory for terrorism and secondly it displays
a disregard for the development of poorer nations.
10. It can be argued that the emergence
of terrorism against tourist targets in poorer countries is in
fact a function of underdevelopment in those countries. This is
particularly true in countries like Nepal and the Philippines.
Tourists and the tourism industry are soft targets. The logical
converse—that development in these countries will diminish
the terrorist threat—indicates an argument for the promotion
of international development.
11. Insofar as tourism is now the world's
largest industry, it would be prudent to facilitate the growth
of tourism as a development strategy, particularly through the
adoption of pro-poor tourism initiatives. This whole effort can
be supported through an even-handed and informative Travel Advice
service. This will encourage British consumers to make their own
fully informed decisions about when and where to go on their holidays
and on business, whether this is to attend a tourism conference,
exhibit at an arms fair or even to play cricket.
12. The FCO is currently sponsoring a project
through the Sustainable Tourism Initiative to develop the communication
of consumer advice on responsible behaviour for British tourists
overseas through the "Know Before You Go" website and
associated media. This is likely to include advice on appropriate
dress when visiting religious sites. This is not only because
this represents good manners when visiting a foreign country,
but also because the War against Terrorism will not be won until
tourism truly becomes a mode of exchange between nations and a
tool of communication between individuals taking an interest and
showing respect for others.
Dunira Strategy
24 January 2003
| 
