Banks

Anyone travelling to these destinations could invalidate their holiday insurance

There are certain spots around the globe that are considered quite risky, and travellers heading there receive guidance on safety precautions they should adopt to avoid mishaps.

However, only 55 locations feature on the ‘do not travel’ list, which has been flagged with a warning by the Foreign Office.

Anyone journeying to these places will be voiding their holiday insurance, meaning if things go pear-shaped, they’ll be left without support. Officials also caution that they could be jeopardising their safety. If you require consular assistance locally, it will likely be difficult to obtain.

For specific countries, the Foreign Office also advises against all but essential travel, implying you should reconsider any holiday plans The Foreign Office cautions: “Get advice and warnings about travel abroad, including entry requirements, safety and security, health risks and legal differences.”

It explained: “No foreign travel can be guaranteed safe. FCDO publishes travel advice to help you decide if it’s safe enough for you to travel to a particular destination. In some instances we also give information about how to reduce the risks you may face there. All environments contain some level of risk and you should consider what precautions you should take.

“You must take personal responsibility for your own travel. Only you can decide whether you should travel to a country or stay there, and what activities to take part in.”

People may face different risks due to their:

• gender
• ethnic background
• sexuality
• health

The Foreign Office has general guidance for specific types of traveller to help you understand some of these risks.

The FCDO sometimes formally advises British people against ‘all but essential travel’ or ‘all travel’ to a particular country. It said:

“Your travel insurance could be invalidated if you travel against advice from FCDO. We only advise against travel if we think the risk to British nationals is unacceptably high. For example, this could be due to:

• armed conflict
• military coups
• civil unrest
• disease outbreaks
• natural disasters

“For terrorist threats, we only advise against travel:

• in situations of extreme and imminent danger
• where the threat is sufficiently specific, large-scale or widespread to affect British nationals severely

“We may advise against travel to:

• a whole country
• parts of a country

“The ‘Warnings and insurance’ section of each travel advice page lists all the areas where we advise against travel. If you want to know about changes to travel advice for a specific country, you can sign up to receive email alerts about updates.”

FCDO advises against all travel

1. Afghanistan – “The security situation is volatile”
2. Belarus – “You face a significant risk of arrest”
3. Burkina Faso – “Due to the threat of terrorist attacks and terrorist kidnap”
4. Haiti – “Due to the volatile security situation”
5. Iran – “British nationals are at significant risk of arrest”
6. Mali – “Due to unpredictable security conditions”
7. Niger – “Due to the rise of reported terrorist and criminal kidnappings”
8. Russia – “Due to the risks and threats from its continuing invasion of Ukraine”
9. South Sudan – “Due to the risk of armed violence and criminality”
10. Syria – “Ongoing conflict and unpredictable security conditions”
11. Yemen – “Unpredictable security conditions”

FCDO advises against all travel to parts

1. Algeria – all travel to within 30km of Algeria’s borders with Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Tunisia
2. Armenia – within 5km of the full eastern border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the M16/H26 road between the towns of Ijevan and Noyemberyan
3. Azerbaijan – within 5km of the Azerbaijan-Armenia border
4. Benin – northern border regions
5. Burundi – Cibitoke and Bubanza provinces, former Kayanza province, former Bujumbura Rural province and the RN5 road north of Melchior Ndadaye airport
6. Cambodia – within 50km from the border with Thailand
7. Cameroon – Bakassi Peninsula, parts of the Far-North Region, North-West Region and South-West Region and within 40km of the Central African Republic, Chad and Nigeria borders
8. Central African Republic – against all travel except to the capital, Bangui
9. Chad – Borkou, Ennedi Ouest, Ennedi Est and Tibesti provinces, Kanem Province, including Nokou, Lake Chad region and within 30km of all Chad’s other borders
10. Congo – within 50km of the Republic of Congo-Central African Republic border in Likouala Region
11. Côte d’Ivoire – within 40km of borders with Burkina Faso and Mali
12. Democratic Republic of the Congo – within 50km of the border with the Central African Republic, the province of Kasaï Oriental, the Kwamouth territory of Mai-Ndombe Province and provinces in Eastern DRC
13. Djibouti – Djibouti-Eritrea border
14. Egypt – within 20km of the Egypt-Libya border and the North Sinai Governorate
15. Eritrea – within 25km of Eritrea’s land borders
16. Ethiopia – international border areas, parts of the Tigray region, Amhara region, Afar region, Gambela region, Oromia region, Somali region, Central, Southern, Sidama and South West regions and Benishangul-Gumuz region
17. Georgia – South Ossetia and Abkhazia
18. India – within 10km of the India-Pakistan border and Jammu and Kashmir
19. Indonesia – Mount Lewotobi Laki-Laki, Mount Sinabung, Mount Marapi, Mount Semeru, Mount Ruang, Mount Ibu
20. Iraq – advises against all travel to parts of Anbar province, Basra province, Diyala province, Kirkuk province, Ninawa province, Salah al-Din province, Sadr City and within 30km of federal Iraq’s borders with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
21. Israel – against all travel to Gaza, parts of the West Bank and Northern Israel
22. Jordan – within 3km of the border with Syria
23. Kenya – Kenya-Somalia border and northern parts of the east coast
24. Lebanon – areas in Beirut and Mount Lebanon Governorate, the South and Nabatiyeh Governorates, the Beqaa Governorate, the Baalbek-Hermel Governorate, the Akkar Governorate, the city of Tripoli and Palestinian refugee camps
25. Libya – advises against all travel to Libya except for the cities of Benghazi and Misrata
26. Mauritania – Eastern Mauritania and within 25km of the Malian border
27. Moldova –Transnistria
28. Mozambique – Cabo Delgado Province
29. Myanmar (Burma) – Chin State, Kachin State, Kayah State, Kayin State, Mon State, Rakhine State, Sagaing and Magway regions, Tanintharyi Region, Shan State North, North Mandalay Region
30. Nigeria – Borno State, Yobe State, Adamawa State, Gombe State, Kaduna State, Katsina State, Zamfara State and the riverine areas of Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Cross River states
31. Pakistan – within 10 miles of the border with Afghanistan, areas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and the Balochistan Province
32. Philippines – western and central Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago
33. Saudi Arabia – within 10km of the border with Yemen
34. Somalia – advises against all travel except the western regions Awdal, Maroodijeh and Sahil
35. Sudan – against all travel except to the Hala’ib Triangle and the Bir Tawil Trapezoid
36. Palestine – against all travel to Gaza, parts of The West Bank and Northern Israel
37. Thailand –parts of the south, near the Thailand-Malaysia border, the Hat Yai to Padang Besar train line and within 50km of the whole border with Cambodia
38. Togo – within 30km of the border with Burkina Faso
39. Tunisia – parts of Western Tunisia, including the Tunisia-Algeria border and Southern Tunisia, including the Tunisia-Libya border
40. Turkey – within 10km of the Turkey-Syria border
41. Ukraine – all regions of Ukraine with the exception of some western regions
42. Venezuela – within 80km of the Venezuela-Colombia border, within 40km of the Venezuela-Brazil border, Zulia State
43. Western Sahara – within 30km of ‘the Berm’ boundary line and areas south and east of the Berm boundary line

FCDO advises against all but essential travel

With regard to the definition of ‘essential travel’, the FCDO says: “Whether travel is essential or not is your own decision. You may have urgent family or business commitments which you need to attend to. Only you can make an informed decision based on your own individual circumstances and the risks.”

1. North Korea – “The security situation can change quickly with no advance warning”

The US economy gains jobs in healthcare and construction as other sectors stagnate, shrink.

The United States economy lost 41,000 jobs in October and November, and the unemployment rate has ticked up to its highest level since 2021 as the labour market cools amid ongoing economic uncertainty driven by tariffs and immigration policies.

In November, the US economy added 64,000 jobs after shedding 105,000 in October, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The unemployment rate rose to 4.6 percent, up from 4.4 percent in September. Because of the government shutdown in October and November, the US government was unable to gather key data used to gauge the state of the economy, including the unemployment rate for October.

October’s job losses reflected the 162,000 federal workers who lost their posts, a result of deferred buyouts of their contracts,  which expired at the end of September.

In November, there was a loss of another 6,000 government jobs. Gains were seen in the healthcare, social assistance and construction sectors. Healthcare added 46,000 jobs – higher than the 39,000 jobs gained in the sector on average each month over the past 12 months.

Construction added 28,000, consistent with average gains over the past year. The social assistance sector added 18,000 jobs.

Transportation and warehousing lost 18,000. Manufacturing jobs are also on the decline. The sector shed 5,000 jobs in November after cutting 9,000 jobs in October following a 5,000-job loss in September.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told reporters on Tuesday to expect to see more manufacturing jobs in the next six months.

His assessment was driven by growth in construction jobs and manufacturing investments, which signal job growth is on the way.

People working part time for economic reasons also rose to 5.5 million, which is up 909,000 from September.

“Today’s long-awaited jobs report confirms what we already suspected: [President Donald] Trump’s economy is stalling out and American workers are paying the price,” Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the economic think tank Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement.

“Far from sparking a manufacturing renaissance, Trump’s reckless trade agenda is bleeding working-class jobs, forcing layoffs, and raising prices for businesses and consumers alike.”

The data was released after the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 3.5-3.75 percent as labour conditions cool.

“The labour market has continued to cool gradually, … a touch more gradually than we thought,” Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said after the rate cut decision last week.

On Wall Street, markets fell slightly after the jobs report. In midday trading, the Nasdaq was down 0.4 percent, the S&P 500 was down 0.5 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 0.4 percent below its market open.

Rights groups say the demolition order, which will affect 100 Palestinian homes, is an attempt to ‘cage in’ Palestinians.

The Israeli military will demolish 25 residential buildings in the occupied West Bank’s Nur Shams refugee camp this week, according to local authorities.

Abdallah Kamil, the governor of the Tulkarem governorate where Nur Shams is located, told the AFP news agency on Monday that he was informed of the planned demolition by the Israeli Defence Ministry body COGAT.

Faisal Salama, the head of the popular committee for the Tulkarem camp, which is near Nur Shams, said the demolition order would affect 100 family homes.

Israel launched Operation Iron Wall in the occupied West Bank in January. It says the campaign is aimed at combating armed groups in refugee camps in the northern West Bank.

Human rights organisations have warned that Israel is using many similar tactics it used in its genocidal war against the Palestinian people in Gaza to seize and control territory across the occupied West Bank.

“This is part of a wider campaign that has persisted for about a year, targeting three refugee camps and demolishing or damaging a total of about 1,500 homes in the past year, and forcibly displacing 32,000 Palestinians,” said Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from the West Bank’s Ramallah.

Palestinians and human rights organisations say such demolitions are an attempt to “cage in” Palestinians and alter the geography in the West Bank, she added.

On Monday, a dozen displaced Nur Shams residents held a demonstration in front of armoured Israeli military vehicles blocking their way back to the camp. They protested against the demolition orders and demanded the right to return to their homes.

The head of the Palestinian National Council, Rouhi Fattouh, said that the Israeli decision is part of “ethnic cleansing and continuous forced displacement”, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

‘Social death’

Omer Bartov, a professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, told Al Jazeera that Israel was “dehumanising” the Palestinian population in the occupied West Bank.

“[It is creating] a growing situation of social death, which is a term that was used to describe what happened to Jewish populations in Germany in the 1930s. That is, that your population, the Jewish population of Israel, increasingly has no contact with the people on the other side, and it exists as if they don’t exist,” he said.

“It dehumanises the population because you treat it as a population that has to be controlled, and it dehumanises the people doing it because they have to think of that population as being lesser than human.”

Aisha Dama, a camp resident whose four-floor family home, housing about 30 people, is among those to be demolished, told the AFP she felt alone against the military.

“On the day it happened, no one checked on us or asked about us,” she said.

“All my brothers’ houses are to be destroyed, all of them, and my brothers are already on the streets,” said Siham Hamayed, another camp resident.

Nur Shams, along with other refugee camps in the West Bank, was established after the 1948 Nakba, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes in what is now Israel.

With time, the camps they established inside the West Bank became dense neighbourhoods. Residents pass on their refugee status from one generation to the next.

LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIF. — At a time of huge bank mergers and cries to overhaul the nation’s banking system, Kenneth A. Guenther makes sure the smallest banks in America have one of the loudest voices.

The outspoken chief executive and executive vice president of the Independent Bankers Assn. of America more often than not finds himself at odds with powerful forces pushing for sweeping changes in the rules banks operate under as well as those promoting huge mergers as a way to improve the health of the nation’s banks.

The future of the Bush Administration’s bank reforms–allowing banks to open branches across state lines, allowing banks into Wall Street and insurance activities and permitting industrial and service companies to buy banks–is growing more uncertain. Two weeks ago, the House voted down a Democrat-altered version of the bank-reform plan. A much narrower bill, largely to bolster the nation’s dwindling bank deposit insurance fund, could be approved soon, but any major reforms are unlikely right now.

In fighting the Administration, Guenther has irked some powerful people. Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady has said that Guenther “demeans his members, carrying on the way he does” in his opposition to the bank-overhaul plans.

A native of Rochester, N.Y., Guenther, 55, completed graduate studies at Johns Hopkins, the University of Rangoon and Yale University. A former Treasury and State Department official, Guenther served as a special assistant to three former heads of the Federal Reserve Board. He joined the 6,100-member banking trade group roughly 10 years ago.

Guenther’s basic point is that the deck is increasingly stacked against the small community banks. Although he has the image of a maverick, Guenther is very much a Washington insider, maintaining cordial relationships with many people he disagrees with publicly. He plays tennis with the likes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and various bank regulators–though he often finds himself at odds with them on policy.

Guenther uses blunt words to make his case. But the Washington influence shows in his dress–a formal business suit for morning meetings even at a resort hotel where everyone is dressed for golf. His populist style has made him a hero among independent bankers, while attracting criticism from those who accuse him of grandstanding.

Part of Guenther’s clout comes with his skill with the media. He is a prolific writer of letters to the editor, is quoted frequently and has strong friendships with reporters–in fact, he and his wife, Lilly, are godparents of a New York Times reporter’s twins.

Question: What future does the independent bank have in this age of banking consolidation?

Answer: There are going to be fewer big banks and medium-sized banks than smaller banks. As banks get larger, this opens up more niches for your smaller banks. Larger banks generally mean poorer services for your small business and small-time customers.

Q: Large banks would argue the opposite. They would say it will be good for customers, providing things they can’t get now.

A: With size comes regimentation. You are going to have to do things their way. There is going to be far less “high touch.” Those small banks providing high-touch services are going to have increased opportunities.

Q: What about public policy concerning mergers? You said Treasury is committed to seeing a lot of mergers. Why so?

A: Secretary (Nicholas F.) Brady wants to get the banks in this country into the No. 1 rank. But people aren’t looking at the cost of building banks to the size of the Japanese banks. Size alone does not mean a healthy, good, diversified financial system or political system. The Japanese have the largest banks in the world, but who wants their political system? Our diversified financial and economic system underlies our diversified political system.

Q: What about the argument that the big banks use , that there’s too much overcapacity? That there are too many banks?

A: There’s a very interesting study out from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that says public policy promoting consolidation is not in the interests of the banking system or the economy. This study indicates that we should not be moving in that direction.

Q: What about the argument that says the banking system is inefficient?

A: I think our banking system is remarkably efficient. I think we have still the strongest entrepreneurial system in the world. It needs some fine tuning. But we don’t have to throw it out lock, stock and barrel and adopt a Japanese model.

Q: Does it need consolidation?

A: The industry is consolidating. The question is: Is it productive public policy to force more rapid consolidation?

Q: The House for now has rejected legislation to overhaul the banking system. What does this mean for the independent banks?

A: This legislation has nine lives–it’s on its fourth now. The Administration and their big-bank allies killed a version of the bill they didn’t like and moved immediately to resuscitate another version of Secretary Brady’s big-bank reform bill.

Q: Why should people care about these proposals?

A: Everybody in the United States should breathe a big sigh of relief because the House has turned back a proposal from the Administration which would have allowed the largest commercial firms–domestic and foreign–to buy the largest banks in this country. This would have totally restructured the economic and financial system of the United States and led to an enormous concentration of economic power. That’s always bad news for John Q. Public.

Q: Why shouldn’t a bank be allowed to open a branch across a state line?

A: Our problem with that is that the Treasury Department proposed to keep “too big to fail”–meaning the Treasury Department proposed that the bigger banks continue to have a 100% deposit insurance product. At the same time, they were proposing that our deposit insurance product be reduced. That means the big banks could go across state lines, offering a superior deposit insurance product. This would have driven money out of the smaller banks of this country.

Q: Do you fear that there will eventually be some cuts in deposit insurance?

A: Everybody knows that the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) fund is hurting. Why not expand the assessment base? The foreign deposits in American banks that enjoy deposit insurance coverage do not pay deposit insurance premiums. Make everybody who has the insurance pay for the insurance. That could bring in literally billions and billions of dollars a year.

Q: Does it matter whether we declare a policy saying banks are not too big to fail? In a crunch, won’t we step in?

A: (Federal Reserve Board Chairman) Alan Greenspan is about as free market as you can get. But Greenspan has testified repeatedly before the Congress that the large uninsured depositor cannot be put at risk, because if he’s put at risk in this country we will have runs (on the banks). He will take his money and put it into the Japanese banks, or German banks. What Alan Greenspan is saying is, in the moment of truth, we are going to intervene to make sure the depositors in your big banks do not get hurt, because this is essential for the stability of the system. How can you make a policy prescription to cut back deposit insurance for John Q. Public, who banks with a smaller institution?

Q: What about proposals such as $100,000 protection per Social Security number?

A: In this day and age, $100,000 is not that much money. It’s a four-year college course for a student who doesn’t go to an Eastern school. Again, you are penalizing your smaller institutions. People will put their money in your “too-big-to-fail” banks.

Q: What about allowing banks into other lines of business?

A: You are opening the door into riskier areas. If you are moving into a business you don’t know well, you are not inclined to do it well in the beginning. And the doors that they are trying to open are really quite risky. Underwriting corporate debt, or underwriting stocks is a risky business. Will the banks do it well? Will it turn out to be profitable? I think these are question marks.

Q: What are the primary problems of independent banks these days?

A. We are in a recession that is deeper than anticipated. The Fed has just cut key interest rates. . . . The other problem is that the industry went too far overboard in terms of commercial real-estate development.

Q: How healthy are independent banks?

A: The independent banks are healthier than your larger banks.

Q: Can the voice of an independent bank be heard these days?

A: It’s enormously frustrating that this Administration is listening to a very select number of voices. The Treasury Department is promoting a legislative product that benefits a relatively few number of large financial institutions. This is why we have sort of adopted the theme that the Treasury is promoting Wall Street and we are here trying to protect Main Street. There are far more Main Street institutions than Wall Street institutions.

Q: Do you think that the deck is stacked against the independent bank?

A. The deck in this Administration is stacked against the independent banks. And therefore we have put together this wide-ranging Main Street coalition: small business, retired people, home builders and farm groups working against key elements in the Administration proposal.

Q: Both you and your association have taken a lot of criticism from people like Brady and also other trade groups.

A: No one likes to be criticized by the secretary of Treasury, who is a nice man. But I’m sorry, Mr. Secretary, your policy objectives are very different than ours. Your policy objectives will make life much tougher for millions of banks and small businesses.

Q: If they gave you the banking reform bill and said write it any way you want, what would you do?

A: The problem is that this bill focused on the weakness of the deposit insurance fund. Something has to be done to strengthen the deposit insurance fund, and thus strengthen depositor confidence. Then you move from that central issue that has to be addressed and ask yourself the next question: What can you do to definitely strengthen banking and the profitability of banking? There are some things that can be done in this area. Give banks some more retail products, and again this will increase what is available to the American consumer.

Q: Do you think taxpayers are going to have to pick up any of the tab for the banking problems as they have for the savings and loans?

A: It depends on what happens to the real-estate market in California. Just like with costs of the S&L; crisis, things are escalated by what happens in California. California is such a key state.

Q: And depending on what happens here is what is going to make the difference?

A. What happens in California will make the difference. The banking industry, to remain healthy, cannot pick up the full tab if things go very bad in California. At that time, the American taxpayer would have to decide: Do we want a healthy and growing banking industry or do we force the full tab on the banking industry?

Q: In this era of megamergers, with huge institutions being created, can the independent bank compete?

A: The independent bank will compete, the independent bank will survive and prosper. We run a high-touch operation: high-tech plus high-touch. There is going to be plenty of business around for those who don’t want to deal with the impersonal, insensitive elephants.

Q: What about the argument that we don’t need all of these little banks?

A: We don’t need all these big banks running around. There are definitely too many big banks in New York City–in a declining economy and declining city. The American market is really not over-banked. It’s one of the illusions that is out there. American small business wants to deal with your smaller bank, where you get better, personalized service.

Q: What about the argument that we need bigger banks to compete with foreign banks?

A: Perhaps in some areas, that’s the case. But what the big banks have lost in this country is the large commercial lending business. They’ve lost your commercial and industry loans. Big firms earlier went to banks to get this money, now they issue their own commercial paper. So the big banks are looking for a new role, and maybe they can’t find it.