Travel Advisories: The Unnecessary Addend of Unfounded Fears

Travel advisories are usually handled by the government in a not-so-controversial manner. Of course, the government personalities express some resentment over the issuance of such advisories. But most of the time, government would take the travel advisory in a stride, enforce most of the time temporary high-alert status on usual suspects and mitigate travel advisories by featuring neutralization of terrorist leaders or capture of terrorist camps and/or retrieval of the enemies war materiel.

However, when something that could have been passed off as a regular response to security threat situation was taken in an excessively belligerent manner, certain security concerns would be undermined. More specifically, partnerships against the growing war on terror are strained and the security administration capabilities of a country is undermined.  This article looks into the concerns that are uncovered when something as trivial as travel advisory become politically critical.

Nature of Travel Advisories

Essentially travel advisories are official issuances emanating from a particular government body that provides its nationals with information regarding the relative safety of a particular destination. Essential information includes the potential risks that is inherent in a particular location, the areas where a national should exercise caution, and others. Theoretically, advisories emanate from the analysis derived from various information sources and intelligence gathered in and about the country. Travel advisories are issued to ensure that their citizens make informed choices about their travels and to make sure they are fully prepared for what they may encounter in a particular destination.

It’s Better to be Safe than Dead

The Irish Republic Army (IRA) once issued a statement that best describe the nature of terrorism.  When they failed to liquidate PM Margaret Thatcher in the famed Brighton Hotel Bombing on October 1984, IRA issued a statement that says:

Today we were unlucky. But remember: we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always

The statement simply means one thing: terrorists need not see the results of a hundred battles when they could win theirs with just one.

Security conscious nations are well aware (and may have experienced) the arbitrariness of a terrorist attack. Many of them knew [the hard way] that constant vigilance, not complacency, is the best way to prepare and prevent terrorist attack. A dead national because of an unanticipated terrorist attack, is one dead too many. This idea reflects in the manner by which they handle terror situations [and even non-terror ones that needs the expertise of counterterrorist units, e.g. apprehending kidnap-for-ransom gang and drug syndicates].

This constant vigilance, the ever-present need to ensure the safety of its citizens, is one of the primary reasons for issuance of travel advisories. Of course, one could not discount the ability of US to exert pressure on a country primarily through diplomatic means, but the case of self-preservation still prevails. The rationale behind self-preservation is simple. The government has the responsibility to provide information that could help its nationals protect themselves.

Reflection of the Government Strength and Capability

Presence of political risks like civil disturbance and terrorist threat is global; however, the capability to quell and address this risk is not. If one would observe deeper, one can see that travel advisory is not mere enumeration of natural and manmade risks. A significant determinant of political risk would be the perceived ability of the state to use its power to quell or address such risks. Travel advisories, in a way, also looks at [though implicitly] the capability of the state to address these concerns.

The recent travel advisories seems to validate the point. After all, no other than the sitting SND Voltaire Gazmin has noted that there are ‘no serious threats’ and the destination that these travel advisories have identified are ‘the usual suspects for terrorist threats’. If the SND’s claim is correct, then the travel advisory might have been raised over issues that surrounds explicit political risk. When cross-referenced with the Manila Hostage Tragedy, it could be surmised that these countries does not put much faith in the capability of the present government.

Creating an Issue Beyond the Issuances

The issue of having negative travel advisory could have been manageable if the government sees it as something to manage and not something to argue. The government could have work its way to prove the travel advisory unnecessary or excessive by using the institution. However, when the government took a combative path by slamming these travel advisories, not only did it open the government to criticisms, it also showed the weakness of the Philippine bureaucracy in dealing with similar incidents whilst potentially aggravating the security condition in the country.

On the one hand, it shows how the president is willing to undermine security by broadcasting the assassination attempt against two ambassadors to the media, something that he is ‘not sure’ if he can ‘reveal all these’. Moreover, the action of the Congress and other government institution to ask the other countries to disclose the basis for their travel advisory and or downplay such treat shows two or three things about the present government. One, it shows the blatant arrogance of certain officials to question the basis of other nations’ issuances. Two, it exposes the utter ignorance of certain officials of the government regarding terrorist and terrorist activities. And/or three, it exemplifies the audacity of certain government officials to lie about the state of security administration in the country. These things do not make any government trust the Aquino administration in ensuring the safety of its citizens. No wonder other countries followed US in issuing their own brand of travel advisories.

On the other hand, the Aquino administration might have knowingly or unknowingly undermined the security capabilities and the partnership that could have been developed by Philippines with other countries. Slamming the foreign governments for not “inform the Philippine government about such threats” and by claiming their advisories were based on “raw and unverified” intelligence reports is not exactly the best way to solicit the help. Second, baring the assassination plots to show that ‘only a few people have threats against their lives’ practically confirmed the existence of the threats. Now, not only Aquino inevitably put the foreign envoy on the defensive, this (and his subsequent coverrup) have solicited more negative impression over the state of security affairs in the country. This, in turn, has provided more impetus for people to doubt the security of the country and the capability of its government to ensure peace order and safety in the country.

Solving the Travel Advisory Dilemna

Problems like travel advisories could have been solved easily had the administration took the high road instead of lambasting these travel advisories. After all, travel advisories are not advisories, not prohibition. Moreover, essential tourist destinations like Boracay, Palawan etc. are not necessarily implicated in the travel advisory. If the government and the security sector simply stayed quiet over the issue, the travel advisory could have dissipated especially when visible efforts are made by them in ensuring that the country would be safe for locals and foreigners alike.

It could have ended amicably. Or so we thought.