Are danger zones the last frontier?
One of the most frustrating things I hear on the road is when veteran travelers tell me, “Oh, this place was so much better 10 years ago.” Or 20 years ago, whenever. It’s like they want to make me feel that I arrived too late and they already grabbed all the cool local experiences for themselves.
About the only “untouched” places left are the countries on State Department watch lists. Those are the places that always have scary travel warnings about them. But sometimes bad news can be overblown. I find that almost every country’s media seems to make out that the outside world is so dangerous.
I’ve heard some terrific stories about places I’d normally hesitate to visit. Travelers have told me that Myanmar (Burma) is their favorite country in Southeast Asia, and that Colombia is one of the last great refuges from the “gringo trail” in South America. Iran and Libya are also intriguing possibilities in the Middle East.
A worthwhile read on this topic is Tony Wheeler’s Bad Lands, about his travels through these no-go zones.
Have you been to places like this? Any good or bad things to say about your experiences there?
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I recently returned from Nepal, which was described as a no-go zone, and I had absolutely no problems. You did have to work around strikes, protests, and demonstrations, but I personally found the latter two to be exciting given that I was witnessing ‘history in the making’ (I actually went to them to see what was going on). Admittedly, I went when the situation was not as volatile as it was three years ago; but then again, nothing is predictable in Nepal. However, when reading the warnings issued by the US Embassy in Kathmandu, it seemed like they were talking about some other place at times (save for the bombings that took place, which WERE scary and very real because they were often planted at the bus station that I had to stop at every day on the bus). As with any place– whether on the State Dept watchlist or not– good judgment is key to survival (which means not traveling when there is a strike in Nepal or India, when police have orders to shoot on sight, or warring factions mistake you for being part of the opposing side. The latter is more likely to happen if you blend in with the population– ie being of South Asian descent).
Also, I went to Turkey, Morocco, and Spain either before or after attacks, and I didn’t have any problems. I think the general rule is that post-attack sites are usually very safe because of the heightened security (I don’t think this rule would stand for Iraq, though).
I would also love to go to Iran, more so after I read Wheeler’s book. I’m also fascinated by Central Asia– like Turkemenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekhistan, etc– even if those places seem to have a bad rep these days.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I’ve just returned from Colombia and consider the trip to be one of the best travel experiences of my life. I was there for a month and though I spent most of my time in Mompox, I also visited Barranquilla, Taganga, Santa Marta, and Cartagena.
I’ve written an article on “Tips for Traveling in ‘Dangerous’ Places”: https://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel-blogs/2008/07/06/tips-for-traveling-in-dangerous-places/
and over at Matador’s Traveler’s Notebook, Richard McColl, a British expat who’s been living Colombia for the past five years, just published a relevant piece: Top 10 Reasons Why Colombia is Not as Dangerous as You Think:
https://thetravelersnotebook.com/destination-guides/10-reasons-why-colombia-is-not-as-dangerous-as-you-think/
September 12th, 2008 at 12:01 am
[…] a previous post, I talked about how danger zones can be turn out to be the best travel destinations. The big problem is that they’re often […]