I have a problem with the US expending great expense, in either money or political capital, in bailing these people out. There could be people who through no fault of their own get caught up in some unexpected political turmoil, but if you could easily verify that this is a Dangerous Place you’re traveling to, e.g. by checking State Department guidelines, then I feel like you should be almost on your own. Not completely; if the gov can bail you out for minimal cost, then by all means let them do it. But it involves trading significant chips, then I think you’ve taken your own risk and paid the price.
If the government does intend to extend itself for all these people anyway, then people should be forcibly prevented from travelling there. Sort of like the “too big to fail” argument. But I’m more comfortable with letting people do what they want and letting them suffer the consequences.
This country is not served by encouraging Americans to think that learning about foreign cultures, societies, governments, and places ought to consist of only visiting Paris and Tokyo.
How do you suppose you’re going to get experienced international businessmen, diplomats, historians, archeologists, aid workers, interpreters, missionaries, and spies if we strongly discourage travel to anywhere but safe countries?
Besides, these people may be risking their lives, but what is the US risking exactly? Some work and negotiations? Big whoop.
Because I had to take care of family business I had to travel several times to San Salvador that was declared the murder capital of the world in 2016.
I just avoided the dangerous areas, but speaking of suffering consequences, I met my future wife there.
Someday I will tell you about how Homer’s Odyssey played a part on my marriage, and the many sleepless nights I had knowing that she was still there. The visa took a long time to get but we finally got it.
Allowing them to go someplace dangerous is not the same thing as encouraging it.
No one goes to North Korea without being warned it’s a dangerous place for an American. Provided they are informed adults they should be permitted to go.
But I, too, question how much in the way of resources might be expended on rescues. I’m not totally opposed to it, but it shouldn’t be guaranteed, either.
In my yard in the US, you can be bitten by a black widow or recluse spider. A reasonable number of people have been shot or knifed in the US recently. Perhaps the more germane focus is people who, oh, let’s say go into restricted areas and steal things.
Yes it’s risky, especially in light of what’s happened with Warmbier (and it’s funny on some forums where they try to imply he should have known what would happen to him because of what happened to him :smack:).
But “probably die” is of course hyperbole.
5,000 westerners visit NK each year, and 100,000 Asians (mostly Chinese). The overwhelming probability is that he would return completely safe. In fact, it may well be safer than some popular destinations like Pakistan.
We all take risks in life, and unless we’re talking an active war zone (where the chance of injury or worse really is comparable to the chance of safely returning home), or serious criminal activity, the US should without hesitation do all it can to safegaurd its citizens.
As others have pointed out, you can travel to many places that are more dangerous than North Korea. But traveling to North Korea does have its hazards, and being used by their sick government as a cruel bargaining chip is one of those risks. I’ve been to the DMZ but there’s no way I’d even get close enough to risk being yanked over the border by a fanatical border guard. I don’t accept that risk, and I guess that’s what it comes down to: What are the risks, and can a person accept the outcome? Warmbier is an American citizen and the federal government should always do what it can to rescue Americans abroad, particularly in situations that are dubious such as this one. On the other hand, it’s unreasonable to expect that the US should devote disproportionate resources and attention to a single individual.
I was reading that the Warmbier family is apparently not giving the Obama administration favorable reviews in response to their son’s abduction. I would probably feel the same way if I were his family. Being detached from the situation, however, I don’t know that they should have expected more. And realistically, I doubt anything could have been done to save their son. I reach the conclusion that the North Koreans were intending on holding him and abusing him in captivity but perhaps they went too far on accident and couldn’t figure out what to do with him – either that, or they intentionally tortured him nearly to death in an effort to show the United States that it was capable of killing American captives. His near fatal injuries seem to have occurred not long after his capture.
I feel for the family, though. This must be a nightmare for them and one that won’t end for a long time. I hope it puts more pressure on China to cut them off and force them to change but I won’t hold my breath on that one.
Visitors to North Korea are going to learn almost nothing about the country. It’s a staged production. While the risk of being arrested is low, North Korea could misinterpret behavior and sentence you to years of hard labor, arrest you for a minor offense and sentence you to years of hard labor, or just outright frame you for a crime and sentence you to years of hard labor…
Recently North Korea prevented all Malaysians from leaving the country. Malaysia was one of very few countries with diplomatic ties with North Korea, until Kim Jong-Un’s brother, Kim Jong-Nam, was killed there, allegedly by North Korean agents. Malaysia “made the mistake” of attempting to question North Korean agents about the murder, which is perfectly normal and reasonable behavior. The travel ban was North Korea’s response. (Malaysia has responded in kind, which isn’t reasonable, although I hope at least a few North Koreans are enjoying more freedom than they expected in Malaysia right now.)
Would you visit a country if you knew there’s a chance every visitor from your country could be prevented from returning with no apparent deadline? What if you’re got a tour group of 10 Americans in North Korea when Trump and Kim have an argument and all of a sudden North Korea prevents them from leaving?
There are different answers for different countries, as it depends on the country. Some countries have a high crime rate, but there are usually ways to avoid that, and if there aren’t, then you shouldn’t be going to the really crime-ridden areas.
I would avoid any country that is having political problems with mine and has a reputation for kidnapping people/putting them up on trumped up charges because getting arrested (or getting beat into a coma) would cause me problems, obviously, but would cause my country problems too, and why should my country be troubled if I do something foolish?
Everest isn’t a person actively trying to kill visitors. It’s simply an incredibly dangerous place to be. I understand you’re supposed to have a license and “know what you’re doing” to even go there, so at least you’re signing a paper saying you know the risks. You could say the same thing about space travel. Space isn’t blowing up rockets, and nobody gets a political advantage if the rocket accidentally explodes.
If you’re not mature enough, at any age, to recognize NKorea is not the place for sophomoric prank behaviour, you’re not really mature enough to venture into dangerous countries.
It’s tragic what happened to this young man and his family has my sympathy. But blaming the tour operator for targeting/tempting young people is beyond silly, I think.
When you take a risk in a dangerous country, it’s all on you ultimately. Governments don’t have magic wands to reverse your foolish decisions or protect you from the consequences of your actions. Expecting them to is also pretty silly.
