It does appear we are in a season of travel warning alerts. This time, it is not just the usual case of one advanced country or the other warning their citizens of the danger travelling or visiting certain areas of interest in developing countries. Neither is the heightened frequency propelled by the developmental disparities that regulate relations between the advanced and developing nations. But one thing central to all these, has been the metastasising insecurity across the world in recent times.
Events seem to be turning the table in seemingly unexpected directions. Countries hitherto considered largely immune to the social and political upheavals that compel these alerts are suddenly and ironically, finding themselves at the receiving end.
Nothing bears this out most poignantly than the violent anti-immigration unrest in the United Kingdom, UK. Violent riots and unrest broke out in Southport, northwest England following a knife attack at a children’s dance class resulting to the death of three girls and injuring of 10 others. The incident sparked off wide protests arising in the main, from misinformation that the attacker was an immigrant and radical Muslim.
These sentiments spurred anti-immigration violent attacks on at least, two hotels housing asylum seekers. But, the violence quickly spread to more than 10 cities leading to looting and confrontation with security agencies.
The police was later to confirm that the suspect was born in Britain and his case is not being profiled as that of a terrorist.
That was after the harm had been done. The UK security agencies had a daunting challenge containing the orgy of lawlessness from the violent unrest.
In the wake of the violence, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia and India issued travel warnings to their citizens living in or intending to travel to the UK. That may be the first time in recent times that these countries issued such advisories warning their citizens of danger in the UK. Of particular interest was the travel alert by the Nigerian government to its citizens residing in the UK.
The statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs read: “there is an increased risk of violence and disorder occasioned by recent riots in the UK, stemming from the killing of three young girls at a concert. The violence has assumed dangerous proportions as evidenced by reported attacks on law enforcement agents and damage to infrastructure”.
Nigerians living or intending to travel to that country were advised to be extra vigilant, avoid political processions and rallies, crowded areas and gatherings. Generally, travel advisories are official warning statements by government agencies providing information on the relative safety of travelling to or visiting one or more specific countries or destinations.
The objective is to aid travellers make informed decisions on their proposed travel plans so as to prepare adequately for any eventualities. These may relate to potential threats as inclement weather, security, civil/political unrest or epidemic.
Apparently, because of the wide disparities in developmental levels among nations, our experience here has been in the form of such advisories regularly and disproportionately coming from the advanced nations forewarning their citizens on what awaits them in the more volatile and insecure developing countries.
Not unexpectedly, the frequency of the warning alerts and their tone has often led to official rebuttal from some of the developing countries. Nigeria has featured prominently in this regard.
In the last few years of multi-dimensional insecurity, Nigeria has been at the receiving end of all manner of travel advisories forewarning foreigners on the dangers they face living or visiting the country. During the last administration, the alerts came too often, sometimes with questionable evidence prompting the government to raise eyebrows.
One of such was the updated advisory by the US government in 2022 authorising the evacuation of its “non-emergency’ employees from Abuja “due to heightened risk of terrorist attacks”. This did not go down well with the Nigerian authorities.
The then Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed had faulted the advisory arguing on the contrary that the country was safe. He contended that every country has its own security challenge.
“Look how many school shootings happen in the US? How many senseless killings happen in the US? So have they been able to predict what’s going to happen next”, the former minister slammed back at the US authorities. That was not the only instance the former regime picked holes with travel alerts from the US and UK.
And just in November last year, the current regime had cause to take serious exceptions to a security advisory by the US warning its citizens of serious threats to major hotels in Nigeria. “The US government is aware of credible information that there is an elevated threat to major hotels in Nigeria’s major cities”, the statement read.
Though the US noted that security agencies were working diligently to counter the threats, they proceeded to warn their citizens to be vigilant at major hotels, be alert to their surroundings and review travel plans to Nigeria before checking into any hotel.
Again, the Nigerian authorities did not take kindly to this advisory faulting it for hasty generalisation. “What we have seen is that such advisories do not achieve anything other than needless panic and they can have severe adverse economic impact, not to talk of what they do to undermine the government’s efforts to attract investments”, Mohammed Idris, Minister of Information had said.
Given these, recent advisory by the Nigerian government warning her citizens of possible dangers visiting the UK cannot escape interrogation. For one, the warning seems to align with the arguments of Lai Mohammed that every country has her own fair share of insecurity. The violent unrest in the UK, illustrates that point clearly.
And for another, the alert questions the previous position of Mohammed Idris who had argued that such advisories achieve nothing rather create panic, act as disincentive to foreign investments with adverse economic consequences. How do we now situate such contention in view of the recent alert by the federal government to its citizens in the UK? Will the advisory not produce the same touted outcomes? That is the contradiction.
Ironically, as Nigeria was issuing the advisory, it also had the hunger protests that led to loss of lives and destruction of properties to contend with.
Or was the alert just issued to get even with our former colonial masters to drive home the point that the insecurity propelling travel warnings is neither limited by boundaries nor developmental disparities?
The argument that travel alerts do not achieve anything except to create panic and stifle investments is largely flawed. It did not only contradict the principles behind such alerts, but makes it more difficult for Nigeria to justify its current position in respect of the violence in the UK. Nigeria is entitled to her position. But does our national environment enjoy the stability to tilt the balance of travel alerts in our favour going forward?
There are lessons in there both for the UK and Nigeria. And the authorities in the UK have been reassuring residents of their safety irrespective of religion, ethnic or other primordial considerations.
At issue is the mortal dangers disinformation and the fanning of sentiments of ethnic and religious hue could wrought on societal wellbeing. Such sentiments have since the last elections resonated to dimensions that threaten the corporate existence of this country. The tendency has to be watched especially given its new dimension.
The government may have found an opportunity to pay back the UK in their own coins given the seeming indecent haste they relish in such alerts. But that is not all there is to it.
For a country assailed by assortment of security and existential challenges driving its citizens into the desperation of seeking greener pastures in foreign lands under any guise, such alerts pale into insignificance.
Many of our citizens residing outside our shores or seeking to do so, prefer any condition (including the violence in the UK) to the uncertainties of staying back home. That is the uncanny irony. So such alerts add up to nothing until the home front is re-engineered, secured and developed to serve the greatest good of the greatest number of our suffering people.
