What’s your beef with New Mexico?
Most of it is very safe, at least from human threats. The desert heat, lack of water, and rattlesnakes are another matter. 
I’m not aware of anyone ever arguing that Americans should be immune to prosecution in other countries. But when the punishment crosses over into something that we would hold to be inhumane (like torture and 15 years of prison for stealing a poster worth maybe $2) I think it is perfectly fine for the US Government to try to reach a fair solution in the interest of the American and arguably our country as well.
There’s something missing from this discussion: how many Americans have traveled to foreign countries and gotten into trouble there? Now, how many have we gone to extremes to retrieve?
I know that it isn’t ALL of them, because I’m reading in the news for every one of these stories, that the families had to work like crazy to get someone important enough in our government to pay attention, that ANYTHING was done.
I'm asking whether this thread is based on an incorrect assumption, that we ALWAYS or even MOSTLY do this retrieval-at-all-costs stuff.I did clinicals in the Four Corners are, and arrived 8 months after the 1993 hantavirus outbreak. Lots of people asked me, “Are you really sure you want to go there?” and I replied, “There are lots of terrible things that can happen to me here in the upper Midwest.”
I was fine, and it was learned later that Sin Nombre Disease is largely a summertime ailment; I was there in February and March.
Would you at least make an exception for journalists, who are there (“there” being in these places deemed dangerous) trying to discover and report on the truth? What about people traveling for humanitarian reasons?
And what about Americans who live in, rather than visit, foreign countries? I’ve lived in Muslim countries for about 21 years - the majority of my adult life - and spent another five living in countries that were “dangerous” in the sense that sophisticated medical care (for example, in the event of an auto accident or other mishap) was virtually unavailable. At all times, I was arguably helping to “making America great” by contributing, indirectly, to American diplomatic efforts showing that the US and its citizens are generous, full of good ideas, and worthy of emulation and friendship.
While results are difficult to measure precisely, I’m sure that the work I did, along with that of thousands of others, of course, has contributed to:
[ul]
[li]increasing stability in other countries, thereby minimizing the likelihood that America will get dragged into intervening in unstable political situations[/li][li]decreasing the need for future foreign aid by helping countries to manage their own infrastructure, governance, poverty reduction programming, etc.[/li][li]encouraging foreign students to study at US institutions of higher education (and keep in mind, mostly these are full-paying students that help support US colleges and enable them to offer more scholarships to deserving American students)[/li][/ul]
And I haven’t even touched on all the people working in the private sector. Surely they are helping Americans by creating markets for American goods and services abroad.
Ih short, Americans living in foreign countries, dangerous ones included, contribute a great deal of both tangible and intangible benefits to the US. I’d hate to think I’d be totally bereft of any support whatsoever from my Embassy if I got into trouble abroad that was not of my own making.
Whilst self-sacrificing, some of these speculations cast a lurid light on American self-image and expectations of how the rest regard them.
No doubt many Guatemalan peasants see the efforts to smash their drug trade with profound gratitude; and Cambodian office-workers like America’s support of Hung Sen ( 32 years and still going ! ) and other Khmer Rouge vets; and every ordinary Uzbek rejoiced when old Hillary relaxed sanctions on the late president, it would be paltering with the truth to suppose that furriners who individually meet or are affected by Americans admire their good ideas or wish in any way to emulate them.
I don’t think think she was necessarily extolling American foreign policy but rather pointing out that everyday contributions there might build diplomatic and economic bridges between two cultures, which has been my experience as well. People have not hesitated to give me their blunt assessments of American foreign policy, and some go even further than that. And yet I’ve found that the vast majority of ordinary people can distinguish between individuals and their government’s policies.
In any case, her point is that we shouldn’t abandon people who travel in ‘dangerous’ countries and I thought the post offered a number of good reasons why. Beyond that, I would simply say that this is why foreign service exists – that is their job. Even people who travel to dangerous countries fully cognizant of the risk pay taxes, and some of those tax dollars go to the foreign service. They should not be in a position to decide who is more worthy of bringing home and who isn’t. All Americans abroad she receive the same level of diplomatic services to the extent that this is possible. At the same time, a foreign traveler has to understand that it’s probably easier to help an American in a country where we have normalized relations and easier access to that individual.
[QUOTEi]
…if I got into trouble abroad that was not of my own making.[u/QUOTE]
How was this anything BUT trouble of his own making?
Plus making things better for America in some other land isn’t helping the locals, sorry. It’s helping America! Saying, “Oh but it all has side benefits for them!”, is entirely disingenuous. And you must admit, for all their lofty stated goals and achievements Americans have indeed been often guilty of bring instability as much as the reverse, and ‘development’, is much more often in their interest than the locals.
Of course I’m not saying that’s so for you, but it’s naive to consider that Americans operating in foreign countries are a benign presence. History disputes this interpretation.
Also I feel it’s incredibly naive to believe that some hikers ‘accidentally’ strayed into a forbidden area. I mean, come on! In N Korea? I never buy that lame story, it just doesn’t pass the sniff test for me. At least some of these people, in my opinion, ARE American operatives. (To be clear, I’m not saying they deserve torture, death, prison!) But can we stop pretending these are all just innocents abroad!
Was that question directed at me? Because if so, I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I am not claiming anything at all about Wambier. I’m pointing out that there are plenty of Americans living abroad who are acting rationally, with good intentions, and potential benefits to the US. Does the OP, and those who agree with him, believe such people should be spurned if they get into trouble they didn’t cause? To expand, if I smuggle drugs into Indonesia - yep, as far as I’m concerned I should rot in an Indonesian jail and Uncle Sam needn’t lift a finger to help. But if my husband is falsely accused of rape by the wife of a corrupt official who is angry with me for refusing to pay a bribe, he should also be hung out to dry?
Indeed, that was my point. The benefits I listed were benefits to America. You can dispute the less tangible ones if you like, but increasing markets for American products and bringing in foreign students who pay full freight into American universities are pretty clear cut benefits to the US.
Different topic for another day.
Legitimate comments, but if they are directed at me they were misplaced. I was asking whether the OP, and those who agree with him, feel that people who openly live and work abroad should be treated the same way he wants to treat travelers. I was not making a value judgment on CIA operatives posing as lost hikers, though if people really were risking themselves in an attempt to serve their country, misguidedly or not, I sure hope the US government would try to help them out.
What did I say that led you to the interpretation I think US citizens abroad are “self-sacrificing”? A few may very well be (trailing spouses who have a “whither thou goest” mindset come to mind) but for most of us, it’s not sacrifice. Sure, there are trade-offs; my husband left a lucrative career with a Georgetown law firm so we could indulge our itchy feet. But everyone makes trade-offs to build the life they choose. I’m not looking for special sympathy for those who live abroad, merely a pragmatic assessment.
It seems like this happens a lot if the media takes an interest in the story, depending on the offending country in question, and depending on whether viewers/readers/etc perceive the victim as having done the “wrong thing”. Media reports may put enough pressure on the government to take action, but only if they are hostile to the offending regime and are “nice” to the victim.
I think you don’t see many stories like this because the media isn’t interested in most of these stories. Otto Warmbier happened to draw a lot of attention probably because he is young, educated, may not have committed the crime he was charged with, was given a ridiculously over the top sentence (whether he was guilty or not) that amounted to being held hostage by a hostile power, and Kim Jong-un draws a lot of media attention anyway… and also because the reporters know that people will inevitably ask “who would go on a tourist trip to North Korea?” I guess anger and surprise push the news cycle, especially if people are angry and/or surprised at both Warmbier and Kim Jong-un.
It’s also possible that some of those that are fetched out at great effort and cost, could indeed be working with the US government.
Or, perhaps, I think that because, ‘Christian pastors looking for converts’, just seems so, I don’t know, less than convincing maybe?, convenient?, like something out of a TV movie maybe?
Well, genuine missionaries to convert the heathen were a thing before, say WWII — and to give them their due, no matter what natural resentment the concept is natural to both us and the indignant recipients, often did a tremendous amount of good ( mostly down China way where life from 1800 - 2000 was frequently not optimal ) and even their worst efforts, since they didn’t burn heretics any more could have unintended good results
I am thinking of the South Seas where missionaries and their wives pushed naked young island girls into wearing muumuus; how awful this cultural imperialism yes indeed; but mark ! In a famous story by Somerset Maugham the tale of a lovely young couple is told in a bar by an raddled old ginger-haired sea captain and a fat old native woman, of a red-headed young sailor and his island nymph.
It is possible even ugly muumuus might be preferable when people hit 50.
However it was not for nothing the civil and military castes of the British Empire hated missionaries coming on their territories and discouraged them in any way, cos they feared natives getting stroppy at religious intrusion.
However in the famous three-handed treachery used by America to take countries, Hawaii, California, Texas, missionaries were an essential part: first they softened them with innocent missionaries; then the traders and settlers arrived, promising loyalty, then those rebelled ( for freedom !) and substituted their own government, kicking out those they swore loyalty to; they they adopted the territory to the US with the backing of US military and naval force.
So yes, sometimes they are agents, as many communists suspected in days of yore.
However the action has now moved on to Aid work, with an equal veiling of good intentions. A few years ago, under Obama, USAid started a Twitter like app for Cuba to foster a revolt and interfere in internal politics, ZunZuneo. USAid is as suspect as the Peace Corps to the suspicious minded, yet it is essentially fulfilling the missionary position of saving souls and bodies whilst promoting personal aims. Just the name of the God was altered to Demos instead of Jehovah.
I’m less concerned with the motives of any missionaries and I’m just concerned with the danger they’re putting themselves in.
Like this group: 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan - Wikipedia
There was a picture of several of the missionaries posing under a warning sign about Afghanistan at the airport. The Wikipedia article varied a little from my recollection of concessions given up by the South Korean government… I think I can just say the Taliban tried to use the hostages for leverage and leave it at that.
Two of the hostages were executed. Most of the rest, of course, had to live in captivity and fear for their life for over five weeks. I’m not sure what you can do to stop people from doing dangerous things if they’ve got an underdeveloped sense of danger.
It does compensate somewhat the bunkerish image of your embassies and consulates. Many people whose mental image of Americans was originally pretty agressive and nasty realize that “gee, they’re just people” once they’ve met one who’s a nice person. Even your comedies give the image of Americans as very nasty people more often than as very funny ones.
Americans like the ones we had a couple jobs of mine ago, who turned the French morning ritual of greeting everybody into a hand-crushing exercise… those reinforced the notion, instead.
Anglo ranchers were missionaries? Since when? (underlines mine)
Just to be clear, you realize USAID is hardly unique in the world? I assume you include World Bank, CIDA, GTZ, JICA, ADB (both Asian and African), DFAT, DFID, the European Commission, and others in your assessment. Or are Americans uniquely evil in your mind?
you have a weirdly distorted and inflated idea of the USAID people, I doubt you have any direct knowledges…
I meet them and find them to be the bland technocratic functionaries mostly, very far away from missionaries.
the save the World missionary types, these I meet in the NGO context (secular NGO), and they are very boring and very tedious people in my opinion, but very Greenpeacey.
Hardly unique; however the World Bank although determined to force right-wing economics as a price of its support, scarcely acts as an arm of the US state to illicitly encourage regime change. As in the Cuban example I mentioned. Whilst piously pretending to do only good.
Nah, they’re not that important in the long run.
The French, Romans, British, Chin, Muslim Conquests, and a 1000 other expansive forces all do or did the same. However it is the Americans doing it more recently, so the world has to be more wary of people doing good right now.
Yes, those Anglo missionaries went to convert a region dotted with towns named “The Angels”, “Sacred Mind”, “Saint Francis”, “Saint Joseph” and “Saint James”. I guess they took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Except those starring Anna Faris.
Anglo ranchers were missionaries? Since when? (underlines mine)
[/QUOTE]
Not the ranchers. Although the Spanish Missions are more famous as sent by the Spanish and succeeding Mexican regimes to guide the struggling natives to an appreciation of Holiness, later Prottie missionaries came down to guide everyone to the Prottie truth. Particularly Methodists for some reason.
*Of special concern were the aggressively evangelistic Methodists, whom Austin called “excited,” “imprudent,” “fanatic,” “violent,” and “noisy.” Apparently it was the missionary Henry Stephenson who prompted Austin’s outburst that “one Methodist preacher” would cause more harm for his colony “than a dozen horsethieves.” *
That paper just before, says:
*Until almost the end of Mexican Texas, Anglo-Americans seeking permission to settle in Texas had to accept the Catholic faith. Moses and Stephen F. Austin, neither of whom seems to have taken organized religion too seriously, readily complied. Although baptized at birth by a Congregational minister in Durham, Connecticut, the elder Austin assured Spanish authorities in December 1820 in San Antonio that he was “a Catholic.” The son, actually a Jeffersonian Deist who was never formally affiliated with any religious body, likewise satisfied Mexican officials of his Catholicism. Sam Houston was baptized by a priest in 1833. Lured primarily by economic opportunity, early American settlers obviously could wear whatever religious garb was required. As Col. John Hawkins informed Stephen Austin in 1824, “I can be as good a Christian there [in Texas] as I can here [in Missouri]. It is only a name anyhow.” For settlers who took oaths more seriously than Hawkins, there was a solution of sorts: an affirmation of one’s Christianity usually sufficed. Stephen F. Austin apparently found it useful to assure Mexican officials that his colonists were good “Christians,” but to his credit he earnestly sought to obey Mexico’s religious laws. He repeatedly reminded prospective settlers of the law and tried to avoid trouble by keeping Protestant missionaries out of his colonies.
*
Texas State Historical Association — Religion [ in Texas ]
Missionaries of any religion or sort can often be Stormy Petrels in the Soviet sense.