Thanks for this.

It largely corresponds with my own experiences and the information coming through. I feel little worry for my own safety in that being on foot and with camels tends to lighten the concern of being hijacked in any way; my experience also is that the rebels are way more angry with the governments and their agencies than with individuals.
Regardless, it is looking increasingly difficult for me to operate in Northern Mali. Out of the question in Northern Niger. The main reason for my hesitation in Mali is the difficulty in getting my camels out of Niger and into that country; I am getting nowhere trying to move the animals out,whether I do it or someone else does. This means I will just be starting in Algeria; I am really not overly concerned about the situation there, and I agree with keeping my movements low key.

I remain slightly skeptical about 'Al Qaeda' presence. Dissatisfied, socially and economically disadvantaged people will go to great lengths to express their anger and outrage at being marginalised. That this is immediately interpreted as religious based terrorism is partly due to the fact that international media are quick to report it as such, leading in turn to those with a vested interest to claim responsibility for it. The fact that the attacks tend to occur around areas where the socio-economic imbalance is most obvious, eg: Algiers, would suggest a closer parallel with the Casablanca bombings - which were not percieved within the country to have anything to do with Al Qaeda, but were widely interpreted externally as being exactly that. I realise it is a bit of a moot point - if bombs are going off then it is largely irrelevent who sets them or why. Nonetheless, it would be an explanation as to why there is collaboration between them and the Tuareg - both locals with the same gripes.

As many travellers in the region would be aware, it is not overly common to come across hardline or antagonistic muslims in the Sahel or Sahara, so I find it a bit of a stretch to think that there are rampant cells of Al Qaeda in the region. However, this is a personal opinion, and one I realise most media outlets disagree with.

The reality is definitely that there is rather less than stability in the region as a whole. Again, I am inclined to think this poses little danger to the independent traveller, but actually getting permission through to do the travel in the first place remains the hard part....

Paula

__________________
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time

[QUOTE=constanttrek;195016]
"I remain slightly skeptical about 'Al Qaeda' presence. Dissatisfied, socially and economically disadvantaged people will go to great lengths to express their anger and outrage at being marginalised. That this is immediately interpreted as religious based terrorism is partly due to the fact that international media are quick to report it as such, leading in turn to those with a vested interest to claim responsibility for it....."

Its worth commenting on the Al Qaeda story, partly because it does relate to safety issues in the region. I see the perspectives on Al Qaeda as follows: The Algerian government has interests in making the link between the fundamentalist insurgency and Al Qaeda because the Algerian Government has been fighting the insurgency since the annulment of elections in 1992, largely without the sympathy or help from the west. By making the link between the fundamentalist insurgency and Al Qaeda, the Algerian government now stands to benefit from western resources which are being dedicated to the Al Qaeda question - e.g. the American base being built or already built in Tam and the recent news that the EU is now getting involved in region-wide security (see thread elsewhere on the Sahara forum). I have written this bit as impartially as I possibly can. I have a muddled personal view on the rights and wrongs in the Algerian case, esp in relation to the 1992 elections.

The insurgency in Algeria would most likely have continued with or without the post 911 events. But the insurgency has probably intensified because of the solidarity with the broader Al Qaeda mission, possible additional intelligence and possible additional resources which Al Qaeda more broadly have accumulated. I dont have much evidence for this, but it makes sense logically.

I do think that the net effect of a loose Al Qaeda affiliation across the region has been to decrease the security of westerners travelling in the region. In the last decade, the only 3 events somehow involving westerners in the Algerian desert that I know about (2003 mass abductions, 2008 Tunisia-Algeria-Mali kidnapping and a much shorter lived event near Arak where some Swiss guys - I think - were forced to drink out of a muddy puddle once their captives discovered whiskey in their truck!) have involved kidnappings and have made some kind of a link to Al Qaeda at some stage.

The uprisings in the north and occasional outbursts in Tam and Djanet in recent years seem to be more local politics which have minor consequences for tourists. The hits on Algerian army and frequent bombings are much more the work of the fundamentalist but again, all these have mercifully had little connection to desert tourists.

So all in all, the issue for travellers in Algeria is v.occasional but quite consequential kidnapping. In the last decade I dont know of any examples of robbery (different story in Niger of course - its been routine there).

Finally, the link with Al Qaeda does have consequences for the desert tourist whatever way we might see Al Qaeda, particularly if you are travelling on a UK passport. Put bluntly, I would NOT fancy being at the hands of kidnappers when I was relying on the UK diplomats to straighten things out. They have few connections and very limited history in the region. In the Iranian-GB navy saga in 2007, the UK had a tough time knowing how to proceed. It would be no different in North Africa. In these sort of cases, hostage taking is resolved through some 3rd party that does have connections in the region and comms then have to work through several parties - taking an awfully long time (that's the bit I dont fancy).

I think Al-Quaeda has become a red herring in many places, including this discussion.

Paula's issue is that Niger won't allow her to take her camels out of Niger and into Algeria. Algeria is fine with her trekking.

In Niger, Al-Quaeda has no known ties to the Tuareg rebels do they? If i were in Paula's shoes, I would not worry about the Tuareg rebel activity in Northern Niger...their activity typically doesn't involve tourists. Unless somebody has recent proof to the contrary.

My worry would be Algeria and their ability to control Algerian rebels. BUT if the Algerians commit to Paula that the route she proposes is safe, does Paula have reason or evidence to doubt the Algerian gov't to the contrary?

My dealings with the Algerians have been limited compared to Chris and Yves and many others, but they are serious, don't mess around and are worthy of trust in terms of security, no?

__________________
edde
93 BMW K75s
www.motoedde.com

The Austrians held captive in N Mali for the last 4 months must be wishing it was all a red herring.....

Richard,
Again, they were kidnapped in Tunisia and smuggled through Algeria to get them into Northern Mali. The Algerian gov't and the Tuareg rebels there had no part in this(unless somebody can provide verifiable evidence aside from hypothetical conjecture). The gov't and the Tuareg rebels have more to lose involving themselves in something of this nature. Now the GSPC...they're another story...they're looking to gain more stature and a purported allegiance with Al-Q may help them from a media perspective, but in reality...its probably not worth much.
Paula's issue is Northern Nigeria and Algeria...the Al-Quada link is not there...unless of course George W said so...and we all know how often he's right about that stuff

__________________
edde
93 BMW K75s
www.motoedde.com