The Ten Riskiest Countries To Visit

[george]

The ten riskiest countries to visit

For many international business travellers preoccupied with getting the job done, safety and security concerns may cover only the obvious: theft and assault.

But today's world climate poses far more serious challenges, some of which are touched on in a new report listing the 10 countries most at risk for terrorism.

Listed not by degree of risk but alphabetically, they are Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Yemen.

That compilation comes from iJET Travel Risk Management, a company that sells security, intelligence, safety and health information to corporations and individual travellers covering more than 450 world-wide destinations.

The list represents some changes from an earlier one put out by the company six months ago, according to Sarah Slenker, senior iJET security analyst.

Nigeria, Spain and Thailand have been removed from the list because of anti-terrorism steps taken by those three countries.

They've been replaced, however, by three others: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

On Pakistan, the report cites recent attempts on the life of President Pervez Musharraf, a likely al Qaeda presence in the country, a porous border with Afghanistan and an ongoing struggle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Saudi Arabia's vast size and ready access to weapons being smuggled in from Iraq and Yemen make it a hotbed for young Islamic militants despite significant gains by the government to counter them, the report said.

The analysis says Turkey's problems, highlighted by attacks in Istanbul in November, represent just the beginning of a long-term campaign to shake the foundation of one of the most secular and democratic countries in the Islamic world.

Any "turmoil-torn" countries such as Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan were deliberately excluded from the list on the theory that not many travellers are going there.

Slenker said some may be surprised to find the Philippines on the list.

Manila is a very popular traffic destination for business travellers, she said, and that area has been relatively trouble free.

But elsewhere in the country, she warned, there is well publicised turmoil from a variety of sources including al Qaeda and a high rate of kidnapping for ransom.

Moscow is a major destination for business travellers, Slenker said, and its troubles with Chechen separatists are well publicized, including the recent Moscow subway bombing blamed on them that killed more than three dozen people.

For more on iJET and its services see www.ijet.com. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade posts travel advisories at www.dfat.gov.au (click on Travel Advice).

.....

Here's another list to think about the next time a long international flight looms.

OAG says the five longest non-stop services currently operating in terms of elapsed time in the air are Singapore Airlines flight 21 from Newark (New Jersey) to Singapore (18 hours 35 minutes); Continental Airlines 99 Newark to Hong Kong (16 hours); United Airlines 895 Chicago to Hong Kong (15 hours 50 minutes); Cathay Pacific Airways 881 Los Angeles to Hong Kong (15 hour 45 minutes) and Korean Air 36 Atlanta (Georgia) to Seoul (15 hours 40 minutes).

Later this year, the airline information and schedule publisher says, Singapore Airlines will add a flight from Los Angeles to Singapore that will be longer than any of the above at 18 hours 40 minutes.

--Reuters 2004-02-29

[NedKelly]

When you look at the list above you cant help but think that there is something amiss !

My initial feeling was that I would travel to almost all of the places listed before I would travel to the US. To qualify this statement - my feelings are based solely on what I read and what friends have told me about travlling in the US.

What a wonderful world !

[TizMe]

I live in one of these 10 countries.

I am still much more scared of the drivers here than the terrorists.

[morphic]

Thailand is no safer than it was, perhaps even more dangerous. The thing that has changed is that the world in general is more dengerous than it was, and certaion countries have become more dangerous than Thailand, and have therefore replaced it, in the list.

The real question for me is, is there is a 'danger threshold' below which foreign offices should simply recommend people not to travel? Probably not. But if there was then that list would now be longer than a few years ago.

[Axel]

When you look at the list above you cant help but think that there is something amiss !

My initial feeling was that I would travel to almost all of the places listed before I would travel to the US. To qualify this statement - my feelings are based solely on what I read and what friends have told me about travlling in the US.

What a wonderful world !

Colombia, Israel and Yemen will be a no-no for me.

Kenya, I mentioned b4 my family only survived the US-embassy bombing haven taken a wrong bus. They would have been but for that mistake, on the one burned out.

I agree, however, USA is a danger. So rules in my company, not US=-trips unless unavoidable and absolutely no US-carriers for the time being.

Meetings in Bangkok, yes but not in US-owned hotels.

This just as a precaution, I do not want to face relativbes of our staff and have to explain we thought it was save. BTW, the original request came from most of plus 140 Asian staff-members.