In the week of last week’s bombings in Istanbul, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has decided to advise against all non-essential travel to Istanbul and “other major cities”. Does this not strike anybody else as extremely foolish? In the 1999 earthquake, which affected Istanbul and its surroundings, near 7,000 people died. Since then, roughly 25,000 people have died in car crashes in Turkey, with many more injured*. Natural disasters and road deaths cause just as much human suffering as bomb deaths.
Whilst the events of last week were truly terrible, it is important to get a sense of perspective. Preventing people from travelling to Turkey deprives them of one of the most valuable resources of all, tourism. Coming from Northern Ireland, I can sympathise with the devestating effects on the economy that exaggerated warnings of terrorist danger can bring, and our tourism industry is only beginning to recover now. Turkey is a good friend of both Britain and the US and a historic ally. After the evil terror that has been delivered to them, are we about to bring economic terror to them as well?
please excuse the slightly ropey figure, which is the 1999 statistic multiplied by four.
I think you make a good point. When I went to Turkey, what scared me was the fact that the death rate per vehicle mile on their roads is like an order-of-magnitude higher (vague recollection) as it is in the U.S. It would be interesting to know how many tourists have been killed in vehicle accidents there in the last year compared to terrorism.
It is also worth noting that, as horrendous as 9/11 was, the number of Americans killed in those attacks is less than the number killed every month in the U.S. in motor vehicle accidents.
After the Bali bombings of last year, the small island was devastated by the lack of tourist dollars coming in thus, as you say, wreaking economic terror as well.
It’s always seemed strange to me to issue travel warnings AFTER a terrorist attack…sort of like locking the stable door etc etc. I would imagine that a region would be safer due to the presence of swarming coppers and military personnel and the heightened security that would occur
It’s the countries/states yet to be targetted that have me more worried.
After nearly meeting my death in a cab on the corniche in Istanbul, I think the random terrorist holds little fear for me. The drivers are truly suicidal in that city.
Yes, I have to say you are many times more likely to be killed by a driver than a terrorist in Turkey. This warning certainly won’t put be off (I’ll be travelling there next Summer).
In this case, it is likely the govennment covering their ass. If something should go down, the last thing they want is loads of people screaming “but I’m a citizen of Great Britain!” and demanding to be airlifted out. And should people travel there and get into trouble, they can’t say they didn’t knowingly take on the risks and create a public relations nightmare when the embassy doesn’t drop everything to ease their fears.
It also makes people think we (well, they, as I am American, not British) are “responding to terrorism”. It would seem kind of wierd if there was a terrorist attack and everyone just continued like business as usual. Granted, this isn’t actually doing anything. But people are often more interested in keeping up appearances than anything else.
FWIW, I agree that the advisery (unless it is backed up with some evidence that future attacks are in the works) is stupid, promotes needless fear (although for some parties, an exaggerated fear of terrorism among the public is beneficial) and maligns the one secular predominately Muslim state that we can count on.