Hard to know what place is safe; Nepal, for instance
Posted on Sunday, May 4, 2008
“Heartly wel-come in Maoist base area to all the tourists. Long live Marxism, Leninism, Maoism and Prachandapath.” This was a sign painted on the wall of a guesthouse in the foothills of Nepal — a greeting from people classified by the U. S. State Department as terrorists.
Eight years ago, Nepal fell into crisis. Rebels calling themselves Maoists waged a campaign to overturn the government. Bloody violence erupted. In the midst of it all, the royal family was massacred by the crown prince.
Around the world, people who had come to love the small, landlocked mountain realm reacted with shock and sadness. Nepal was seen by many as a unique place, a mountain paradise whose citizens, especially those in the remote alpine areas, seemed to have discovered the secret of happiness despite poverty and hard living.
It was a terrible disappointment to see violence strike Nepal and a psychic slap in the face: Things were not so peaceful there after all.
Despite claims by the Maoist rebels and others that foreigners weren’t being targeted, tourists and trekkers stayed away in droves. Visitor totals, which peaked at nearly 500, 000 in 1999, fell to about 200, 000 in 2002.
Trouble skips unpredictably around the globe. Places once thought to be safe are suddenly questionable following terrible events: Bali in October 2002 when a bomb killed 202 people, including 164 foreign tourists; China a few months later with the outbreak of SARS, a sometimesfatal respiratory disease; Thailand, Indonesia, India and other countries after the 2004 tsunami; and most recently, violence in Kenya following a disputed election.
It’s the push and pull of our times. We are drawn to the world’s beauty spots and repelled by fears of leaving home.
But situations do improve. Even during Nepal’s crisis, adventure travelers rarely experienced any problems related to the trouble. In November 2006, the government and the rebels signed a peace agreement, and 2007 saw a nearly 30 percent increase in tourist arrivals over the year before. Is it time to put Nepal back on the safe list ?
The U. S. State Department says no. A travel warning remains in effect. Travel warnings, according to the department Web site, “are issued to describe long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.” Although not recommending that travelers avoid Nepal, the warning describes “continued violence... sporadic incidents of terrorism... robberies by armed gangs” and more bleak news.
Which is enough reason for National Geographic Expeditions to stay away.
“Our policy is straightforward,” says Jim Bullard, who runs touring programs for National Geographic. “If there’s a [travel warning ], we won’t go. If one is issued while we’re there, we get our people out. We don’t second-guess the State Department.” He says it’s partly for legal reasons.
“If something were to happen — even something unrelated to the events that prompted the warning — lawyers could say, ‘Didn’t you know there was a travel warning on that country ?’ It’s better to simply tell our people that Nepal is out right now because there’s a travel warning,” Bullard says.
Snow Lion Expeditions, which specializes in Himalayan adventure travel, has a different take.
“Nepal has had travel warnings consistently since June 2000, when this was heating up. We never gave up on it,” says Snow Lion president Ron Barness. “Through the whole Maoist thing, we did our best to stay aware and avoid trouble, but we never canceled a trip and we never thought we were doing anything reckless.” Information from people on the scene helped him feel confident.
It’s a different sort of decision for independent travelers who must rely on their judgment, but information is available beyond what the State Department puts out. An Internet search of news media yields a stream of reports covering events on the ground.
Also valuable is chatter on the blogosphere. The Nepal Travel Advisory Blog, written by a tour company founder in Kathmandu, is a top example. A posting on Feb. 28 noted the possible end of a violent strike that had cut off supplies to Kathmandu.
“You can still go to Kathmandu.... The hassle factor is still high. Demonstrations and strikes can flare up anytime,” reports Web logger Raj Gyawali. “You are not in danger, but... you are better off in the mountains.” Trekkers I’ve talked with recently would agree. Steven Fuller, a Wyoming photographer, spent two weeks in the mountains north of Kathmandu as an independent traveler.
“I never met anyone I could tell was a Maoist,” he reports. He saw posters and slogans plastered on walls, but he experienced only welcoming smiles, the trademark hospitality of rural Nepal. That much has not changed.
National Geographic’s Bullard has heard similar reports and believes them.
“I’d go in a minute, myself. But I wouldn’t take that responsibility for a group,” he says. Something in that sentiment, related to individual resourcefulness, hits close to the essence of adventure travel wherever you go.
INFORMATION U. S. State Department, trav el. state. gov Nepal Travel Advisory Blog, nepaltraveladvisory. blogspot. com National Geographic Expeditions, www. nationalgeo graphicexpeditions. com or (888 ) 966-8687 Snow Lion Expeditions, www. snowlion. com or (800 ) 525-8735
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online