Are politics involved in the U.S. State Department's decisions on which foreign countries it targets with warnings and advisories to Americans traveling abroad?

The State Department routinely issues warnings — the travel equivalent of a code-red alert — advising against travel in certain countries it believes pose a safety threat, and lower-level "public announcements" or advisories alerting travelers to short-term problems such as terrorist threats and political unrest.

An outright warning to avoid unnecessary travel (28 countries are now on the State Department's list) can be the kiss of death when it comes to tourism, and there are other economic consequences.

Tour companies will cancel trips and cruise lines will alter routes to avoid liability and putting customers at risk. Some types of travel insurance that cover trip cancellation due to terrorism don't cover areas where warnings are in place; others kick in only when a warning is issued.

Even the public announcements, depending on the wording, can raise red flags.

Knowing this, does the State Department tend to give our foreign friends and important trading partners special consideration?

"We hear this time and time again," said Angela Aggeler, a spokeswoman for the government's Bureau of Consular Affairs.

I called to ask her why it took the State Department 14 hours after the terrorist bombings in London on July 7 to post a public announcement, then removed it from its Web site less than a week later.

The department was busy fielding calls — 5,000 an hour in the first few hours after the attack — and coordinating with the U.S. Embassy in London and other agencies in Washington, Aggeler said.

"We are a bureaucracy and unfortunately these things don't always happen as quickly as one might hope."

The advisory (no travel warning was issued) was posted at www.travel.state.gov at around 6 p.m. Eastern time on July 7 (the blasts in three underground stations and a bus started at 8:50 a.m. London time, 3:50 a.m. in New York). The announcement consisted mainly of a news report on the attacks with information on how to contact the U.S. Embassy in the United Kingdom.

This was unusual because State Department advisories are often lengthy and detailed when it comes to terrorism.

An advisory on East Africa issued a few days before the London attacks warned of al-Qaida and other extremists' actions that could include suicide operations, bombing and kidnappings at clubs, restaurants, shopping centers, churches, hotels, schools, resorts, beaches airports and seaports.

Another issued on Egypt after the July 23 bombing on the Sinai Peninsula that killed 88, including one American, went into detail about past attacks, citing the death of a U.S. citizen in Cairo in April, and reiterated advice to avoid travel in certain areas and exercise extreme caution in others.

The U.K. advisory, by comparison, was brief and restrained and focused mainly on disruptions to public transportation. It did not mention that an American was among the 56 people killed and it included no information on the history of al-Qaida's activities in London or previous terrorist threats. Five days later, the advisory was removed from the Web site.

Two weeks after the bombings, on July 21, the same day there were attempted explosions at three more underground stations and a bus in London, the State Department inserted a two-sentence mention of the July 7 attacks into the routine information posted on its consular information sheet for the U.K.

The site carried no mention of what happened on July 21.

Expiration dates

Why such light treatment when similar advisories on safety in East Africa, Malaysia, Egypt, Laos and other countries remain posted for months, and consular reports, such as the one for Spain, where Islamic extremists bombed four commuter trains in Madrid last year, usually include detailed reports on terrorist incidents and the potential for future threats?

All public announcements have expiration dates. One complaint that some countries have is that the expiration dates are set so far out, that the threat has passed long before the advisory is removed.

The State Department gave the London advisory an expiration date of July 12, and did not renew it.

"It really depends on the situation," Aggeler said at the time. "While we certainly want Americans to be vigilant and be aware that there is a continued threat, at this point, we didn't feel that a public announcement was warranted (any longer)."

The July 7 attacks in Central London were the worst since World War II. Thousands of Americans visit each year, many in the summer.

Is the long-term danger any greater in Guatemala (rising threat of armed robberies and gang attacks), where an announcement posted in May won't expire until November, or in Malaysia (kidnappings and piracy incidents) where an advisory issued in June has a December expiration date?

Or is it a case, as Jim Grace, CEO of InsureMyTrip.com, an online seller of travel insurance, puts it, "if the State Department issues a travel warning, Tony Blair would be on the phone to President Bush pretty quickly, saying 'Hey, what are you doing to our economy? We're supposed to be best allies.' "

Other government sites

It's questions like these that prompt many travelers to weigh the State Department's advice against what other governments tell their citizens.

In the days following the London bombings, this would have been useful for anyone with travel plans.

The information posted on Canadian, Australian and New Zealand government sites was more complete and up-to-date and still is.

Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which uses nine different levels of travel warnings to categorize risk, posted information on the July 7 and July 21 London attacks early on the days they occurred. Information on both remains on its site at www.voyage.gc.ca.

New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade provides guidelines for traveling in countries it deems to have "some risk," "high risk" and "extreme risk."

It placed the U.K. in the "some risk" category, after the July 7 bombings, and warned then that "further terrorist attacks are feasible and could well occur."

Detailed information on the blasts also remains on Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Web site. It continues to report (as it did on July 7) that "British authorities have warned that further attacks cannot be ruled out."

The U.S. State Department, in the meantime, continues to paint all of Europe — including the U.K. — with a broad brush, referring Americans to a public announcement called "Worldwide Caution" last updated on March 8.

The catch-all advisory draws attention to the continuing threat of terrorist actions and anti-American violence overseas, reminds citizens that demonstrations and rioting can occur at any time, and notes that al-Qaida has struck in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

"Future al-Qaida attacks could possibly involve nonconventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents as well as conventional weapons of terror, to include explosive devices," the report says.

"Terrorist actions may include, but are not limited to, assassinations, hijackings, bombings or kidnappings. These may involve aviation and other transportation and maritime interests."

Thinking of traveling anywhere soon? Don't say you haven't been warned.

Carol Pucci's Travel Wise column runs the last Sunday of the month. Comments are welcome. Contact her at 206-464-3701 or cpucci@seattletimes.com