In 2025 and 2026, several countries, including Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Mexico, issued travel advisories due to varying degrees of crime, political unrest, and natural disasters. Jamaica faced a Level 3 advisory from the U.S. Department of State, urging caution due to violent crime and the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa. Cuba continued to carry a Level 4 advisory, primarily due to restrictions on U.S. travel and arbitrary detention risks. Haiti, already at Level 4, warned against all travel because of gang violence, kidnapping, and civil unrest. North Korea remained a Level 4: Do Not Travel country due to risks like wrongful detention and political instability. Russia’s advisory escalated in 2025 with a Level 4 warning due to ongoing conflict and military action. Mexico had Level 3 warnings for certain states due to high levels of crime, while Vietnam maintained a Level 1 advisory, considering it generally safe for travel.
Level 3 – Reconsider travel because of violent crime, limited health care and hurricane damage[1].
Avoid all travel outside metropolitan Kingston and the airport due to severe damage from Hurricane Melissa and high violent‑crime rates (Canadian advice issued Jan 2025 and updated after the hurricane)[2].
FCDO urges travellers to exercise caution; Hurricane Melissa caused heavy damage, shortages of food and water and disrupted electricity. British nationals should register and follow local evacuation orders[3].
Cuba
Level 2 – Exercise increased caution due to petty crime, rising violent crime and unreliable electrical power[4]; U.S. law prohibits tourist travel without an OFAC licence[5].
Exercise a high degree of caution due to shortages of food, medicine and fuel, petty crime and frequent power outages[6].
FCDO does not advise against travel but highlights Hurricane Melissa damage, daily power outages and shortages of food, water and fuel; travellers should monitor weather updates and local guidance[7].
Haiti
Level 4 – Do not travel due to kidnapping, violent crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest and limited health care; the advisory was reissued in July 2025 to add a terrorism indicator[8].
Avoid all travel because of kidnappings, gang violence, civil unrest and states of emergency; travel restrictions, roadblocks and limited flights are common[9].
FCDO advises against all travel; there are no British consular officials in Haiti and consular assistance is extremely limited[10]. Hurricane Melissa passed through the region, causing flash floods and landslides[11].
North Korea (DPRK)
Level 4 – Do not travel due to a serious risk of arrest and wrongful detention; U.S. passports are not valid for travel to, in or through North Korea unless specially validated[12].
Avoid all travel because of the risk of arbitrary detention and the uncertain security situation arising from nuclear weapons development; Canada has no embassy in DPRK and can provide only limited consular assistance[13].
FCDO advises against all but essential travel to North Korea due to high tensions and unpredictable security; North Korea’s borders remain largely closed and foreign nationals risk detention[14].
Russia
Level 4 – Do not travel due to the war with Ukraine, risk of harassment and wrongful detention, arbitrary law enforcement and terrorism[15].
Avoid all travel; Canada warns of armed incursions, shelling, drone strikes and other impacts of the armed conflict with Ukraine, and notes that Canadians should consider leaving via commercial flights[16].
FCDO advises against all travel to Russia because of the war, risk of detention and limited ability to provide consular support; it notes increased risk of terrorism and limited flight options[17].
Vietnam
Level 1 – Exercise normal precautions (advisory issued December 16 2024 and still current in July 2025)[18].
Exercise normal security precautions (Canada’s general advice).
FCDO does not advise against travel but warns that tropical storm season runs from May to November and that 2025 experienced higher than expected rainfall; travellers should monitor local weather reports and heed local advice[19].
Mexico
Level 2 – Exercise increased caution due to crime, kidnapping and risk of terrorism; the U.S. advisory lists several states under Level 4 (Do Not Travel) due to violent crime (e.g., Colima, Guerrero, Michoacán, Sinaloa and Tamaulipas)[20][21].
Canada advises high degree of caution overall (Level 2 equivalent) and avoids all travel to some border areas and states with high crime.
FCDO advises against all but essential travel to several Mexican states, including parts of Baja California, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Michoacán and Jalisco, due to drug‑cartel violence and kidnapping[22].
* Levels and risk‑phrases reflect advisories current on 4 Nov 2025. Where 2026 advisories exist they are noted in the individual sections. Government terminologies differ: the U.S. uses four levels (1–4), Canada labels destinations as “avoid all travel,” “avoid non‑essential travel,” etc., and the UK FCDO issues narrative warnings without numeric levels.
Level 3 – Reconsider travel (advisory dated 3 Nov 2025). The DOS warns that violent crime remains “statistically high” in Jamaica despite a decline since 2024; armed robberies and sexual assaults are common and the homicide rate is among the highest in the Western Hemisphere[23]. Tourist areas generally experience lower crime but there are still reports of assaults in resorts[24].
Hurricane Melissa: The advisory was updated after Hurricane Melissa. The storm made landfall on 28 Oct 2025 and caused widespread damage; some airports reopened for commercial flights while others remain closed. Travellers are encouraged to reschedule their trips and confirm transport availability[25]. The Black River community was heavily damaged and services remain limited[26].
Health and safety: Basic and specialised medical care may not be available; private hospitals require payment up front and may not provide specialised care[27]. U.S. government employees may not use public buses or drive between cities at night; U.S. citizens are encouraged to follow the same restrictions[28].
Canada’s travel advisory (updated after Hurricane Melissa) instructs travellers to avoid all travel outside metropolitan Kingston and the airport. It notes that the hurricane caused extensive damage and that some areas lack essential services; violent crime is also a concern[2]. Canadian officials highlight the presence of gangs and firearms in parts of Kingston, Montego Bay and St. Catherine, advising travellers to avoid isolated areas, particularly at night[29].
The UK does not issue numeric levels but after Hurricane Melissa the FCDO encourages British nationals in Jamaica to register their presence and follow local evacuation orders[30]. The storm caused widespread damage to roads and infrastructure, with shortages of food, water and currency; healthcare is limited in the worst‑affected parishes (Westmoreland, St. Elizabeth, St. James, Hanover and Manchester). Airports in Kingston and Ocho Rios have resumed operations, while Montego Bay’s Sangster International Airport is running limited flights[31].
As of November 2025, no 2026 U.S., Canadian or UK advisories had yet been released for Jamaica. Given the scale of Hurricane Melissa’s damage, travellers should expect advisories to remain at Level 3 or higher until infrastructure and healthcare recover. Monitor official channels for updated advisories, especially before the 2026 hurricane season.
Level 2 – Exercise increased caution (advisory dated 7 May 2025). The DOS notes that petty crime—pickpocketing, purse‑snatching and car break‑ins—is a risk and that violent crime, including armed robbery and homicide, is rising[32]. U.S. law prohibits tourist travel to Cuba; travel is permitted only under an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licence[5].
Power shortages: Cuba’s electrical supply is unreliable; prolonged nationwide outages have occurred since Oct 2024, with daily scheduled and unscheduled power cuts lasting up to 12 hours in Havana and longer elsewhere[33]. Hotels and hospitals use generators but fuel shortages may hinder them[33].
Protests and embassy restrictions: Freedom of assembly and speech are not protected; travellers should avoid demonstrations. Embassy employees must notify the government before travelling outside Havana, which can delay assistance[34].
Canada advises travellers to exercise a high degree of caution in Cuba, citing shortages of basic necessities—food, medicine and fuel—and the risk of petty theft[6]. The cash‑based economy means travellers should bring enough cash and avoid displaying large sums. Power outages are frequent; travellers are urged to conserve water, food and mobile‑phone battery[35].
The UK does not prohibit travel to Cuba but emphasises that Hurricane Melissa, which hit eastern Cuba after battering Jamaica, caused heavy rainfall, flash floods and landslides. Infrastructure and services may be severely impacted for some time; power outages are already common[7]. The FCDO encourages travellers to monitor weather updates from Cuban authorities and the U.S. National Hurricane Center and to follow local guidance[7].
Cuba’s Level‑2 rating is relatively mild compared with other countries in this report, but several risk factors—crime, unreliable electricity and shortages of basic goods—persist. Hurricane‑related damage may influence early‑2026 advisories. Travellers should ensure they comply with U.S. regulations (OFAC) and follow Canadian and UK guidance regarding power outages and supply shortages.
Level 4 – Do not travel (advisory reissued 15 July 2025). The DOS warns against all travel because of widespread kidnapping, violent crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest and extremely limited health care. Haiti has been under a state of emergency since March 2024; crimes involving firearms—robbery, carjackings, sexual assault and kidnappings—are common[36]. Kidnappers plan attacks or target convoys and may demand ransoms; U.S. victims’ families have paid tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to rescue their relatives[37].
Demonstrations and violence: Protests, roadblocks and mob killings are common and unpredictable[38]. Gunfire exchanges occur near Toussaint Louverture International Airport; travellers have been violently attacked leaving the airport or hotels[39]. U.S. commercial flights are not operating and the FAA prohibits U.S. air‑carrier flights to Port‑au‑Prince[40].
Health care and embassy restrictions: Violent crime and organized gang activity are rampant; local law enforcement has limited capacity[41]. U.S. employees must follow strict curfews and restrictions (no public transport, no visits to banks, no night driving), and U.S. citizens should follow the same guidance.[42] (cited from earlier summary because the advisory details were truncated).
Canada advises avoiding all travel to Haiti due to kidnappings, gang violence and potential civil unrest[9]. The advisory states that states of emergency have been declared in several departments and that flights are limited. Violence, including murders, robberies and kidnappings, is common; foreigners may be targeted for ransom, and Canadians are urged to shelter in place, limit movements and avoid roadblocks[43].
The FCDO advises against all travel to Haiti and notes that there are no British consular officials in the country; consular assistance is extremely limited and must be provided from the neighbouring Dominican Republic[44]. The FCDO warns that the security situation is volatile and that travellers who choose to remain should avoid crowds and public events[45]. It also mentions Hurricane Melissa’s impact on Haiti, including flash floods and landslides[11].
Given Haiti’s deep political instability, gang violence and absence of consular support, it is unlikely that advisories will ease significantly in 2026. Travellers should expect “Do Not Travel” advisories to remain and should seek emergency travel only when absolutely necessary.
Level 4 – Do not travel (advisory dated 29 Apr 2025). The DOS warns that U.S. citizens face a serious risk of arrest and wrongful detention; U.S. passports are not valid for travel to, in or through North Korea unless specifically validated[12]. There are no formal diplomatic relations; Sweden acts as the protecting power but access to detainees may be denied or delayed[46]. The FAA has issued a notice to airmen warning of risks to civil aviation[47].
Canada’s advisory is succinct: avoid all travel to North Korea because of the risk of arbitrary detention and an uncertain security situation due to the country’s nuclear‑weapons program[48]. Canada has no resident diplomatic mission; Sweden provides consular assistance and its ability to help Canadian citizens is extremely limited[49]. Travellers have no right to privacy; their movements and communications may be monitored and personal belongings searched[50]. There are serious shortages of food, electricity and clean water[51]. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula can increase suddenly, especially around nuclear or missile tests[52].
The FCDO advises against all but essential travel to North Korea. It notes that although Pyongyang may seem calm, the security situation can change quickly and foreign nationals have been detained for alleged violations of local law[14]. North Korea’s borders have remained largely closed since the COVID‑19 pandemic; some embassies remain shut and tourist routes into and out of the country are limited[53]. British consular support is severely limited; travellers are advised to join organised tours and follow tour operators’ instructions[54].
North Korea’s isolation and unpredictable security situation mean that Level‑4 and “avoid all travel” advisories are unlikely to change in 2026. Travel remains extremely risky, and travellers should respect international sanctions and avoid any unauthorized entry.
Level 4 – Do not travel (advisory dated 8 May 2025). The U.S. warns against all travel to Russia due to the war with Ukraine, the risk of harassment or wrongful detention by Russian security officials, arbitrary enforcement of local laws and terrorism[55]. U.S. citizens currently in Russia are urged to leave immediately because the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has limited staff and consular services and cannot guarantee assistance[56]. Russian officials have harassed, questioned and detained U.S. citizens and denied them fair treatment[57]. Drone attacks and explosions have occurred in Moscow, St Petersburg and other cities; the terrorist group ISIS‑K claimed responsibility for the 2024 Crocus Music Hall attack that killed 130 people[58].
International Travel Information: The U.S. country information page reiterates that travellers should not travel to Russia because of the war, risk of wrongful detention, arbitrary enforcement of laws and terrorism[59]. It notes that the Russian government has restricted consular access and may force dual citizens into military service[60]. Peaceful assembly and free speech are not protected; participants in protests may be arrested[61]. U.S. citizens should assume that electronic devices are monitored and that local authorities might access personal data[62].
Canada’s advisory warns travellers to avoid all travel to Russia due to the impacts of the armed conflict with Ukraine and the risk of terrorism[63]. Drone strikes, shelling and explosions have occurred both near the Ukrainian border and within major cities[64]. Canadians in Russia are urged to consider leaving by commercial means and to maintain a low profile[65]. The advisory notes that the Russian government may conscript dual citizens and restrict financial transactions; Canadians may not be able to access funds while in Russia[66].
The FCDO advises against all travel to Russia because of the risks arising from its invasion of Ukraine, including security incidents (drone attacks and Russian air‑defence activity), lack of flights and the limited ability of the UK government to provide support[67]. It highlights the risk of British nationals being detained, including for activities that occurred outside Russia, and warns that the UK has limited capacity to assist detainees[68]. The FCDO also notes the risk of terrorist attacks and warns dual nationals that Russian law prevents those who have received conscription notices from leaving the country[69].
There is little indication that the war in Ukraine or Russia’s domestic security situation will improve in the near term. Travellers should expect Russia to remain subject to Level‑4/“do not travel” advisories in 2026. Any changes will depend on the evolution of the conflict and domestic policies on consular access and civilian safety.
Level 1 – Exercise normal precautions (advisory issued 16 Dec 2024 and still current in July 2025). The DOS simply recommends that travellers enroll in the Smart Traveller Enrollment Program (STEP) and monitor the country security report and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance[70].
Canada generally advises travellers to exercise normal security precautions in Vietnam. Standard precautions include being aware of petty crime (pickpocketing in tourist areas) and following local laws.
The FCDO does not advise against travel to Vietnam but notes that the tropical storm season runs from May to November. In 2025 the country experienced higher than expected rainfall; travellers should monitor local and international weather updates and follow local authorities’ advice[19]. The FCDO provides general guidance on safety for women, LGBTQ+ travellers and solo travellers, and recommends obtaining appropriate travel insurance[71].
Vietnam is currently the least risky destination among the countries covered. Unless unexpected security or health crises arise, Vietnam will likely remain at Level 1 (U.S.) and “exercise normal precautions” (Canada) in 2026. Travellers should nevertheless stay informed about weather‑related disruptions and health advisories.
Level 2 – Exercise increased caution nationwide due to crime, terrorism and kidnapping[72]. The DOS warns that violent crime—homicide, kidnapping, carjacking and robbery—is widespread and that the U.S. government has limited ability to assist travellers in many parts of Mexico[73]. U.S. government employees are subject to restrictions: no travel between cities after dark, only authorised taxi services and no travel alone[74].
Do‑not‑travel areas: The advisory lists certain states with Level 4 – Do not travel due to severe crime and kidnapping. In Colima, targeted homicides and kidnappings occur; bystanders have been injured and U.S. citizens have been kidnapped[20]. Guerrero experiences violence from terrorist organisations and gangs, with roadblocks and travel restrictions[21]. Michoacán, Sinaloa and Tamaulipas also have widespread crime and violence, leading to prohibitions on travel[75].
Canada advises travellers to exercise a high degree of caution in Mexico due to high levels of criminal activity, including violent crime and kidnapping. It recommends avoiding non‑essential travel to certain northern and Pacific states and border areas where drug‑cartel activity is prevalent. Travellers should avoid driving at night, use regulated taxis and avoid displaying signs of wealth. (Details summarised from Canada’s advice because lines were not directly quoted.)
The FCDO advises against all but essential travel to several Mexican states. For example, it warns against travel to the city of Tijuana in Baja California, except for airside transit and specific toll roads[76]. It advises against non‑essential travel to the state of Chihuahua except for certain cities and toll roads[77]. The FCDO also warns against travel to Sinaloa (except for Los Mochis and Mazatlán)[78], Tamaulipas (except specific highways and border crossings)[79], Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and other areas due to drug‑cartel violence and kidnapping[80].
Mexico’s security environment remains complex. While tourist areas such as Cancún, Playa del Carmen and Mexico City attract millions of visitors, cartel‑related violence and kidnappings continue in certain states. Unless there is a significant improvement in security, Level 4 advisories for high‑risk states are likely to persist in 2026. Travellers should consult the latest U.S., Canadian and UK advisories for state‑level restrictions and avoid travel to high‑risk regions.
This report highlights how government travel advisories in 2025 responded to natural disasters (Hurricane Melissa), armed conflicts (the Russia–Ukraine war), political instability (Haiti and North Korea) and violent crime (Mexico and parts of Jamaica).
Jamaica, Cuba and Haiti: Hurricane Melissa prompted updates to travel advisories and underscored the vulnerability of Caribbean infrastructure. Jamaica moved to Level 3 (U.S.) and Canada advised avoiding most travel due to hurricane damage and crime[25][2]. Cuba remained at Level 2 but travellers were cautioned about power outages and shortages[33]. Haiti’s situation remained dire, with Level‑4 advisories due to kidnapping and civil unrest[36].
Russia and North Korea: Both countries were subject to “do not travel” advisories. Russia’s designation arises from its war with Ukraine, risk of detention and terrorism[55][81]. North Korea is closed to most travellers, with severe risks of arbitrary arrest[12].
Vietnam: Despite heavy rainfall in 2025, Vietnam remains safe for travel and is rated Level 1; travellers should monitor weather updates during the tropical storm season[19].
Mexico: The country as a whole is at Level 2, but several states carry Level 4 “do not travel” warnings due to cartel violence[20]. The UK and Canada issue similar state‑specific cautions[22].
As of November 2025, most advisories for these countries remain in force. No 2026 government travel advisories have yet been published for the countries reviewed. Travellers should continue to monitor official sources because new advisories—particularly for hurricane‑prone Caribbean nations and conflict zones—are likely in early 2026.
In 2025, a surge of cyberattacks on European airports brought to light the vulnerabilities that exist in digital infrastructures vital to global aviation. Key incidents included ransomware attacks and data breaches affecting multiple airports, resulting in significant disruptions. The most notable incidents occurred in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, and Ireland, where a series of attacks compromised critical systems like check-in and boarding operations, affecting millions of passengers. Heathrow Airport, Brussels Airport, Berlin Brandenburg, and Dublin Airport were among the primary targets, all of which were impacted by cyber incidents linked to third-party service providers. These breaches not only affected airport operations but also involved the exposure of sensitive government data, highlighting the growing intersection of cybersecurity and national security in the aviation industry. The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) and other governing bodies have stressed the urgency of strengthening aviation cybersecurity to protect both public safety and economic stability.
The Rise of Cyber Threats in European Airports
A Growing Threat Landscape
Over the past few years, the aviation industry has increasingly come under attack from cybercriminals, state-sponsored actors, and hackers exploiting vulnerabilities in the sector’s digital ecosystem. Airports, long seen as high-value targets due to their role in managing large amounts of passenger data and their complex networks of operations, have increasingly become key targets for cyberattacks.
The attacks in 2025 were not isolated incidents; rather, they were part of a broader, more concerning trend. The increasing interconnectivity of airport operations, from ticketing systems and baggage handling to flight control systems and security checks, means that the industry is more vulnerable than ever to cyber disruptions. Cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT) devices, and other digital technologies are essential to modern airport operations, but they also present new opportunities for attackers looking to exploit weak spots in digital security.
The European Union has recognized the growing risk and has made cybersecurity in the aviation sector a priority. However, the rapid pace of technological change means that cybersecurity strategies must constantly evolve to keep up with the latest threats. As a result, government agencies and private sector players are working together to address the cybersecurity challenges facing European airports in 2025.
United Kingdom: Heathrow Airport
One of the most significant attacks of 2025 occurred at London Heathrow Airport, one of the world’s busiest airports. The disruption was caused by a ransomware attack that targeted the systems of Collins Aerospace, a third-party vendor that provides check-in systems for airports globally. The breach resulted in widespread delays and cancellations as airport staff were unable to access crucial data for flight check-ins and boarding.
Heathrow, which serves millions of passengers annually, was forced to implement emergency measures to manage the situation. The attack was confirmed by government sources, who noted that the breach compromised not just airport operations but also sensitive government data related to airport security. The UK government, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), launched an investigation to determine the full scope of the attack and to identify vulnerabilities in third-party vendor systems.
Belgium: Brussels Airport
Brussels Airport, the busiest airport in Belgium, was also impacted by the same ransomware campaign. This attack targeted the same vendor system that was exploited in the Heathrow incident, leading to similar disruptions. The Belgian government confirmed that the attack severely affected both passenger processing systems and airline operations, leaving travelers stranded and causing long queues at security checkpoints.
The attack on Brussels Airport raised concerns about the growing risks of digital supply chains in critical infrastructure sectors. ENISA pointed out that the airport’s reliance on third-party vendors for essential services like check-in counters, baggage handling, and flight scheduling left it vulnerable to cyberattacks. These incidents brought the issue of cyber resilience in aviation to the forefront of European cybersecurity policy discussions.
Germany: Berlin Brandenburg Airport
In Germany, Berlin Brandenburg Airport also faced disruptions as part of the same cyberattack wave. Although the airport did not experience the same level of widespread outages as Heathrow and Brussels, the incident was still significant. The airport’s IT systems were compromised, leading to delays and confusion for passengers. German authorities confirmed that the breach was linked to the ransomware campaign, which exploited vulnerabilities in the vendor’s system.
The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) in Germany issued a statement urging airports to adopt stronger cybersecurity protocols and to enhance their ability to respond to digital threats. The Berlin Brandenburg attack was a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within Europe’s airport systems and the importance of robust, proactive cybersecurity measures.
Ireland: Dublin Airport
Finally, Dublin Airport, though impacted to a lesser degree, was still caught in the crossfire of the ransomware attack. The Irish government confirmed that while the disruptions were not as severe as those experienced in other countries, Dublin Airport had to implement emergency protocols to secure its systems and mitigate further damage.
The breach raised important questions about how national security agencies should coordinate with airports to manage cyber risks. The attack on Dublin was a wake-up call for smaller European airports that might not have the same level of resources as major hubs like Heathrow or Brussels. The incident reinforced the importance of strengthening cyber defenses at all airports, regardless of their size or international significance.
Government Responses and Mitigation Efforts
Following the cyberattacks in 2025, European governments and aviation bodies recognized the need to act swiftly to mitigate future risks. In response to the incidents, several measures have been implemented to improve airport cybersecurity:
Enhanced cybersecurity regulations: European governments are working to strengthen regulations on cybersecurity in airports, ensuring that airlines and airport operators meet strict digital security standards.
Collaboration with cybersecurity firms: Airports are increasingly collaborating with cybersecurity firms and experts to detect and neutralize cyber threats before they cause significant damage.
Investments in cyber resilience: The European Union is investing heavily in cybersecurity infrastructure to bolster the digital defenses of airports across the continent. These investments include upgrading security systems, conducting regular cybersecurity audits, and implementing more advanced threat detection systems.
Cybersecurity training for airport staff: Many airports have implemented staff training programs to ensure that personnel are aware of the latest cybersecurity threats and can respond to incidents more effectively.
International cooperation: The European Union is working with international bodies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Interpol, to share information about cyber threats and improve overall security in the global aviation sector.
The Future of Cybersecurity in European Airports
Looking ahead, the landscape of airport cybersecurity in Europe will continue to evolve. As airports become more reliant on digital technologies, the risks of cyberattacks will only increase. To mitigate these risks, airport operators, governments, and vendors must adopt a holistic approach to cybersecurity.
The key to safeguarding the future of European aviation lies in cooperation between stakeholders and a strong commitment to developing cyber resilience at every level. The need for a more comprehensive and unified approach to cybersecurity in airports has never been more critical. As the aviation industry continues to grow and expand, robust cybersecurity protocols will be essential to ensuring that airports remain safe and operational in the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats.
The Sulaimani International Airport is set to reconnect with European destinations, marking a major development in regional aviation and trade. After more than two years of restricted operations due to a flight ban imposed by Turkey, this decision signals a renewed chapter of collaboration and accessibility between Sulaimani and Europe.
The airport’s director, Rebaz Mohammed, confirmed during a press conference that direct flights from Sulaimani to European countries will commence soon. His announcement came as the region celebrated the reopening of Turkish airspace to Sulaimani, an event that has been highly anticipated by local officials, travelers, and businesses alike.
This reopening is being viewed not merely as a logistical update but as a significant geopolitical and economic milestone for the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. It marks the end of a period of suspended connections that had hindered mobility, commerce, and tourism across the region.
Historical Context of the Flight Ban
The flight ban, which lasted over two years, was implemented amid heightened tensions between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Ankara had accused certain political factions within the region of offering tacit support to PKK militants, leading to strained diplomatic relations.
This prolonged suspension of flights created challenges for both residents and enterprises dependent on Turkish connections. The lack of air routes disrupted trade, hampered tourism, and increased travel expenses for thousands of passengers who relied on Sulaimani’s airport for transit.
When Turkey briefly renewed the ban in early October, it deepened frustration within the community. However, mid-October saw a positive reversal when the ban was lifted again, paving the way for diplomatic and economic normalization. The resumption of air travel between the two regions has since been celebrated as a step toward restored cooperation.
The Symbolic First Flight
In the early hours of a Monday morning, Sulaimani International Airport received its first incoming flight from Turkey after the long suspension. The aircraft, symbolizing renewed partnership, later departed carrying passengers back to Turkey—completing a full round trip that signaled a new beginning for bilateral air travel.
This inaugural flight carried more significance than just a passenger route—it represented the reopening of cultural and commercial bridges that had been dormant. For travelers and businesses alike, it provided reassurance that regional cooperation and connectivity were being actively restored.
Expanding Air Travel Opportunities
Currently, Turkish Airlines stands as the only carrier operating between Turkey and Sulaimani. Nonetheless, the airport administration has announced plans to diversify airline partnerships in the near future.
Rebaz Mohammed indicated that negotiations are underway to introduce more affordable airline options, ensuring competitive pricing and greater accessibility for passengers. The director also mentioned that four weekly flights between Sulaimani and Istanbul are currently scheduled, with expansion plans under consideration.
Such diversification efforts are expected to make Sulaimani International Airport a more dynamic hub for regional and international travel. For a city seeking to strengthen its role in global aviation, these developments highlight a commitment to modernization and inclusivity in air travel.
Economic and Strategic Significance
The re-establishment of air routes is projected to deliver substantial financial and economic benefits to both Sulaimani and Turkey. The return of direct flights will boost tourism, facilitate business exchanges, and streamline logistics operations across key industries.
Experts within the Kurdistan Region have emphasized that these flights will help attract investors, as improved accessibility makes the city more appealing for trade and commerce. Additionally, the increased mobility of people and goods between Turkey, Iraq, and Europe could reinvigorate cross-border trade activities that had been hindered by the previous ban.
Airline representatives and local officials alike view this as an essential step toward economic integration. The move aligns with broader regional ambitions to position Sulaimani as a strategic transit point linking the Middle East with Europe.
Regional Cooperation and Stability
The decision by Turkey to reopen its skies toward Sulaimani has been interpreted as an indicator of shifting diplomatic dynamics in the region. Improved transportation links often serve as a barometer of political stability and mutual confidence.
For the Kurdistan Region, this development suggests a gradual restoration of trust between Ankara and local authorities. Political analysts argue that sustained air connectivity could foster ongoing dialogue, which in turn might help de-escalate tensions over issues related to the PKK.
Such developments also contribute to Turkey’s regional policy objectives by supporting economic engagement as a tool for diplomacy. The move reflects a mutual understanding that cooperation through trade and infrastructure can yield more lasting peace and prosperity than isolation.
Implications for Travelers and Businesses
For ordinary travelers, the reopening of these routes marks the return of convenience and mobility. Sulaimani residents will once again have the opportunity to access European destinations directly, avoiding the need for indirect transfers through other Iraqi or regional airports.
The potential inclusion of budget airlines will make travel more affordable, allowing more people to visit family members abroad, pursue education, or explore business opportunities. Moreover, the tourism sector is expected to experience revitalization, as European visitors find easier ways to reach the Kurdistan Region.
Businesses that rely on imports, exports, or international meetings will benefit from reduced transit times and operational costs. With air freight options also likely to increase, regional industries could see new avenues for efficiency and expansion.
The Broader Impact on the Kurdistan Region
The reopening of Sulaimani International Airport marks more than a transportation milestone—it represents the reactivation of the Kurdistan Region’s role in international connectivity. Airports are often gateways to global engagement, and this renewed accessibility enhances Sulaimani’s standing as an emerging regional hub.
Economic diversification has long been a goal for the Kurdistan Regional Government, and improving air infrastructure directly supports that agenda. Better air links will encourage foreign direct investment, promote tourism, and create new employment opportunities in aviation services and related industries.
Furthermore, as Sulaimani moves closer to establishing direct flights to European countries, the city’s identity as a bridge between East and West becomes more pronounced. The flow of people, culture, and commerce across continents will enrich both the local and regional economy.
The transformative move toward digital and wallet-based payments across Southeast Asia has brought a wave of convenience and frictionless transactions—but with it comes a growing potential for tourist bill-shock, hidden surcharges and payment-fraud risk. As countries like Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia accelerate their shift to cash-less societies, mobile wallets, QR codes and mobile-first payment platforms have become dominant modes of transaction for both locals and travellers. At the same time, payment-fraud reports and concerns about transparency in cross-border or tourist-facing payment models are mounting. This article explores the dual reality of the region: the impressive adoption of digital payments on one hand, and the emerging vulnerabilities for foreign visitors who may pay more—or fall victim to scams—under the banner of digital convenience.
The region’s wallet-ecosystem is surging. In Indonesia the QRIS system logged explosive growth—users and merchants soared, with cross-border QR links to Thailand and Singapore emerging. In Vietnam mobile wallet acceptance and merchant infrastructure jumped significantly in 2024, positioning new payment behavior at the heart of the tourism transaction experience. 2C2P+1 Thailand continues to expand its national wallet-infrastructure, influenced by official programs and merchant adoption of QR and app-based payments. chubb.com+1 Tourists arriving in these markets bring expectations of “tap‐and-go” payment convenience. Yet the reality includes a mixture of coverage gaps (many smaller vendors still cash-only), unfamiliar local wallets, and payment environments where surpreaching fees or transaction irregularities can emerge.
One documented risk is surcharges and hidden fees linked to digital payment usage. A travel-payment guide for Southeast Asia notes that while card and mobile payments are increasingly accepted in destinations like Thailand and Vietnam, “plenty of merchants impose surcharges” or guest users may encounter unexpected amounts—especially when payments are denominated in local currencies with large numeric values (e.g., Vietnamese dong) where a simple mistake can lead to overpayment. BCD Travel Further, a payments-industry deep dive reveals that mobile wallet and QR transactions involve multiple layers of cost (merchant processing, cross-border conversion, wallet‐to‐merchant fees) which may translate into higher costs for users, including tourists not familiar with the local ecosystem. 2C2P+1
Another key vulnerability is fraud and scam risk within the digital payment space. A Chubb article on digital payments highlights that Southeast Asia expects a gross transaction value of roughly USD 1.5 trillion by 2025, and underscores the emerging “trust gap” as scam and fraud operations pig-gyback on mobile-wallet growth. chubb.com In Thailand for example, many online payment frauds have been tied to mobile/QR transfers and the central bank has introduced caps and stricter identity verification rules to counter the problem. AP News While not exclusively tourist‐facing, these mechanisms demonstrate how the payment architecture can be manipulated and how foreigners using unfamiliar wallets may be more exposed.
The issue of dynamic pricing or differential charging for foreign tourists via mobile/QR payments remains less documented, yet the structural risk is present. Many payment providers and merchants set different surcharge rules for “card/QR payments” vs cash, or apply premium conversion rates for foreign card users. Although I did not locate a comprehensive study in 2024-2025 that systematically measures how much more tourists pay when using mobile payments in Thailand, Vietnam or Indonesia, travel-payment guides caution that “when making contactless payments in Vietnam … it is very easy to over-pay by a factor of ten or more” if the payment amount is mis‐entered or a foreigner fails to verify the displayed total. BCD Travel For tourists, unfamiliar with dong values, QR app language or hidden merchant fees, the risk of paying more than intended is real.
From a tourist-vulnerability perspective, the combination of factors elevates the risk profile. Visitors may arrive expecting cashless convenience but face local wallets not optimised for foreigners, merchant surcharge policies not clearly disclosed, foreign-currency conversion markups, and increasing QR-fraud threats. Tourist environments (markets, street food vendors, smaller hotels) may support mobile payment but may also retain cash-only options, leading to a mix where “digital payments” might look easier and cheaper—but in practice cost more. A travel-guide source warns that travellers should “always make sure you have cash on you in case you cannot pay by card or mobile payment”. BCD Travel
Regulatory responses in the region show awareness of the problems, but also indicate the complexity of enforcing tourist-friendly payment transparency. For instance, Thailand’s central bank’s decision to cap daily online transfers for new mobile banking users stems from concerns about massive scam losses—over three thousand cases per month and losses in the tens of millions of dollars. AP News While this refers to domestic fraud, it signals how lax or complex payment ecosystems can create vulnerability for anyone—including travellers. Meanwhile, research shows merchants in Vietnam are rapidly embracing mobile wallets and alternative-payment infrastructure, but have varying degrees of readiness, which may translate into inconsistent payment experiences for tourists. 2C2P
Bringing the evidence together: while there is no definitive study showing that tourists in Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia are systematically exploited via mobile payments (for example via targeted “tourist surcharge” by mobile app), the structural environment indicates strong potential for unexpected hidden payments, fraud risk and payment confusion that can lead to tourists paying more than locals or facing bill-shock. The combination of high mobile-payment adoption, merchant surcharge practices, foreign-currency conversion issues and QR-fraud risk creates a payment ecosystem where tourists must exercise caution.
From a practical viewpoint tourists in these markets might protect themselves by verifying the payment amount before tapping, checking whether a surcharge applies for mobile/QR payment (as opposed to cash), using familiar or widely accepted wallets, and maintaining a cash backup. The travel-payment guide’s explicit warning in Vietnam that “with dong prices including many zeros, it’s easy to over-pay by a factor of ten or more” underscores the need for diligence. BCD Travel In mobile-wallet environments that accept cross-border users (e.g., Indonesia’s QRIS system that supports foreign tourists in some cases) the convenience is real—but so is the need to check exchange rates, conversion fees and surcharge policies. Wikipedia+1
In conclusion, the surge of digital payments across Southeast Asia’s tourism markets holds enormous promise for convenience and financial inclusion—but it also carries significant risk for tourists. The shift to mobile wallets and QR payments is real and accelerating in countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. At the same time, tourists face a payment environment with hidden fees, merchant surcharges, currency conversion complexities and rising fraud risk. Although the evidence does not yet show organized, systematic “tourist-targeted mobile payment exploitation” in 2024-2025, the structural conditions for such exploitation exist and travellers would be wise to approach mobile payments abroad with awareness and caution.
In 2025 the race to attract the global band of digital nomads has sparked a regional showdown in Southeast Asia: the Philippines launches a dedicated digital nomad visa, Indonesia expands its remote-worker visa but with heavy restrictions, and Vietnam moves ahead with a long-term Golden Visa aimed at investors and remote professionals — each with distinct rules, eligibility hurdles and tax implications. The result is a landscape of visa friction, taxation ambiguity and rule shopping, forcing remote workers to weigh lifestyle appeal against legal complexity while countries jockey for economic benefit.
The Philippines has made headlines by formally instituting a Digital Nomad Visa (DNV). On 24 April 2025 the government signed Executive Order No. 86 to authorize a pilot visa scheme allowing remote-workers to live and work in the Philippines while employed by or contracted to overseas companies.kpmg.com+3ey.com+3thedigitalnomad.asia+3 The visa is set to launch around June 2025; it offers an initial validity of 12 months, renewable for another 12 months (i.e., up to two years).china-briefing.com+2Remote Rebellion+2 Eligibility criteria include being at least 18 years old, proof of remote work using digital technology, documentation of sufficient foreign-sourced income, a clean criminal record, valid health insurance, and the condition that the applicant is not employed by a Philippine-based entity.kpmg.com+1 Although the income threshold was not fixed in the executive order, commentary estimates put it at roughly US$24,000 per year (~US $2,000/month) derived from foreign clients/employment.Remote Rebellion+1 The launch of the Philippines’ DNV puts it in direct competition for remote workers seeking an island-lifestyle with longer stays and legal clarity.
Indonesia meanwhile has advanced its existing remote-worker visa regime. Under the so-called Remote Worker Visa (E33G) or similar categories, Indonesia allows foreign nationals employed by companies located outside the country to stay while working remotely.thedigitalnomad.asia+2fragomen.com+2 Key restrictions: the visa is not available to freelancers or self-employed remote workers (in many cases) — you must be employed by a foreign company.atlys.com+1 There are also nationality exclusions (e.g., citizens of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Guinea, Israel, Kosovo, Liberia, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia) under certain programs.atlys.comThe application must be made from outside Indonesia, and once within, if converted to a longer stay permit (KITAS), the applicant may become a tax resident, with attendant obligations to register locally.atlys.com+1 On the other hand, Indonesia also promotes a “Golden Visa” or “Second Home” visa that allows long-term residence of 5-10 years for investors/high-net-worth individuals.lexology.com+1 Hence Indonesia offers a path for remote workers but with constraints and potential tax/residency complexity.
Vietnam has taken a different tack. As of 2025 it does not yet offer a dedicated digital nomad visa in the same sense as the Philippines.emerhub.com+1 Instead, Vietnam is rolling out a new 10-Year Golden Visa programme aimed at foreign investors, remote professionals, high-skill talent and retirees. Announced around May 2025, the Golden Visa offers stays of 5-10 years, with a 10-year investor track, and could allow remote work without a separate work permit under certain conditions.The Times of India+1 Its eligibility criteria and investment thresholds were still being finalised in mid-2025.Viet An Law While Vietnam is popular among digital nomads (because of cost, culture, internet) the legal pathway is more indirect compared to the others.
Three distinct models now emerge: the Philippines offers a relatively open remote-worker visa; Indonesia offers remote-worker or investor visas but with employment and tax constraints; Vietnam offers a long-stay investor/talent visa that may accommodate digital nomads but isn’t explicitly marketed solely to them yet.
These variations create conflicting rules and regulatory friction: in the Philippines you can work remotely for foreign clients and live in-country up to two years under specific criteria; in Indonesia you must work for a foreign employer, cannot apply from inside the country, and tax residency may trigger; in Vietnam you must either invest or qualify as talent and a dedicated nomad-track is not yet open.
For digital nomads, the choice of destination now hinges not only on lifestyle or cost but on visa clarity, tax implications, stay duration and legal compliance. The Philippines’ upcoming DNV gives a clear target: remote work allowed, no local employment, foreign income required, up to two years stay. Indonesia gives flexibility of location but imposes tax/resident status risk and employment restrictions. Vietnam offers the longest potential stay but with higher thresholds and more investment/talent criteria.
There are also risks and enforcement challenges. For instance, remote workers relying on tourist visas in Vietnam may face legal ambiguity.evolvecoliving.io+1 In Indonesia the conversion to KITAS and becoming a tax resident can catch applicants unaware. In the Philippines the DNV pilot still has to show how the regulations will be interpreted in practice (taxation, benefit entitlements, renewals). These uncertainties lead nomads to “rule-shop” among countries, but also to possible non-compliance traps.
From the perspective of the countries themselves, these programmes form part of broader economic strategy: the Philippines hopes to capture foreign income, tourism spending and longer stays; Indonesia uses its lifestyle zones like Bali and investor corridors to deepen its global remote-worker appeal; Vietnam uses the Golden Visa to attract capital, talent and long-term residence, aligning with its ambition to become a higher-income economy by 2045. The result is competition not just for tourists but for remote-work talent.
What to watch going forward includes: how many applications each country receives; whether the Philippines DNV actually opens on time and how many renew; whether Indonesia liberalises its rules on freelancers; whether Vietnam finalises investment/minimums and allows remote-work nomads more broadly; how tax authorities react to remote-worker populations; whether digital nomads transition between countries and exploit regulatory arbitrage; and whether these visa programmes morph into full residence/permanent-resident tracks.
In conclusion, the battle for digital nomads among Southeast Asia’s Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam has reached a decisive phase in 2025. Remote workers now face a choice: pick a destination with the cleanest rules (Philippines), accept more constraints (Indonesia) or aim for the longest stay but higher bar (Vietnam). For countries, the incentive is clear: attract global talent, foreign income and investment. Navigating this terrain demands scrutiny of the fine print, not just a beach-front laptop.
Login
