American thread in the Latin American Patchwork

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. In addition to being the title of a historical documentary on the construction of the Panama canal and one of the coolest character palindromes* discovered by man, this short phrase encapsulates an odd moment in history, in which the determination of a single enthusiastic man fueled a mighty revolution that led to the founding of an entire nation. Although this series of unfortunate events was one of a kind, the domineering attitude that lies at its core has characterized much of American foreign policy toward Latin America for the past hundred years.

Until the 1900s, the United States essentially followed a policy of isolationism under the Monroe Doctrine—foreign engagements were few and spread apart, as the nation followed in the footsteps of its non-interventionist founding father. In 1902, charismatic President Theodore Roosevelt put an end to this era when he boldly announced his vision for the United States as a military power exercising imperialistic control over the western hemisphere in the Roosevelt Corollary. This policy bluntly justified the U.S.’s military intervention in any Latin American state in order to prevent any other imperial power from gaining a foothold in America’s backyard.

This new and aggressive foreign policy quickly caused uneasy rumblings among the Latin American states when President Roosevelt demonstrated his willingness to prioritize American security interests over all else, even if it meant inciting a revolution and establishing an entirely new country. Following the Spanish-American war, many Americans perceived it to be in their nation’s best interest to construct an interoceanic canal through Latin America, thus establishing profitable trade routes that connected the Pacific and Atlantic and allowing the U.S. to more easily defend its Pacific holdings (i.e. Hawaii and the Philippines). When the Colombian government steadfastly refused to sell the rights to the requisite strip of land in present-day Panama, the administration, waving its metaphorical “big stick,” fomented political unrest within the state, and expediently appointed French canal investor (Bunau-Varilla) as American ambassador to the young nation. The need to fulfill U.S. security interests easily triumphed over the established regional order, as the young imperial state rampaged through its Latin American neighbors.

In the 1940s, the immense security threat posed by the rise of Hitler and other European dictators encouraged a temporary shift away from US dominance to collective security and reciprocal trade agreements. Yet this transition towards being a “good neighbor” gave away with the growing tension of the Cold War and global front against Communism. Under President Reagan, the U.S. became notorious for sending military support to revolutionary groups that sought to overthrow leftist governments. In El Salvador, America backed the military government, which became notorious for cases of human rights abuse against its citizens, in order to resist the build-up of guerrilla groups, backed by Cuba. Similar ideology-based foreign policy decisions thus perpetuated the political chaos that shook Central American states for the final decades of the 20th century.

Through the late 19th and 20th centuries, the U.S. left a mixed legacy in Latin America, one that remains in the consciousness of Latinos even in the modern era. As we observe furious calls for the construction of a “Mexican border wall” and similarly polarizing rhetoric arising from the presidential candidates, we must be wary of the painful history of aggression that such claims call to mind.

Why the US should contribute more troops to UN Peacekeeping

“More than ever before in human history, we share a common destiny. We can master it only if we face it together.”

From its inception following the devastation of the two world wars, the United Nations became the primary organization responsible for preserving international peace and security while encouraging constructive dialogue to avoid war. One of the principal tools through which the UN has sought to “keep the peace” is the international peacekeeping operation. Currently, the UN leads 16 peacekeeping missions with over 116,000 uniformed and civilian personnel on four different continents. However, the efforts of this international body continue to be hindered by the lack of military support from western developed nations, including the US.

In order to ensure that the United Nations possesses the capabilities necessary to respond to current and future crises, it is critical that the US deploy its high value military assets to provide support for international peacekeeping. For the world community, conflict-torn regions, and the United States, the potential benefits are vast. The increased military contributions of a world power such as the United States would immediately boost the legitimacy of the UN’s peacekeeping missions. Many of the current national troops originate from developing countries, and it is likely that provision of the US’s specialized military capacities and technology would allow for more effective operations tailored to the conditions in a particular conflict region. With such improved technological access and increasing peacekeeper efficiency, scholars have predicted that more developed nations are likely to increase their military support for the UN, liberating the organization from its current challenge of encouraging richer nations to contribute what is desperately needed in peacekeeping missions, instead of what countries “feel” is necessary. Finally, by expanding the number of highly-trained military personnel in the UN Peacekeeping Forces, the US can bolster the accountability of peacekeepers around the world. For several decades, the reputation of peacekeeping forces has been marred by frequent reports of sexual and behavioral misconduct among UN troops, many of whom remain in the UN Command, unpunished, due to the desperate need for troops in peace operations. Greater US involvement in peacekeeping will therefore place more pressure on troop contributing countries to recall any of their own offending soldiers, and institute stricter criteria for potential peacekeepers.

Yet the major question remains as to how the US and other developed nations might be encouraged to expand their military contributions to the UN Peacekeeping Forces. The stunning tragedy at Mogadishu, Somalia, in which the corpses of 18 American peacekeepers were dragged through the streets, (an incident forever captured by the movie Black Hawk Down) remains fresh in the consciousness of American leaders. If the UN truly desires increased support from the US, it will have to establish more efficient exit strategies and communication channels with peacekeeping missions. It will also have to limit its involvement to regions in which a peace accord has been reached, providing an added level of security for troops and ensuring that the UN peacekeepers will be able to serve as a non-aggressive peacekeeping force.

Until these steps have been fulfilled, it will be our role, as students in the US, to remain conscious of the issue and remind national leaders that the US must continue to strive to build peace, defend peace, and keep the peace that exists around the world.

"Jammin'" with Alexander Hamilton

     “I’m working on a hip hop album… it’s about the life of somebody who I think embodies hip hop, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.” In 2009, these words rang out from the mouth of a young Puerto Rican American playwright performing at the White House. Six years later, when Alexander Hamilton made its Broadway debut, it would become one of the most successful productions on the live stage. The musical incorporates hip-hop, R&B, and jazz to introduce the life of the youngest Founding Father. Through rap and and pop music, the play follows the ascension of the poor, “bastard orphan,” who after publishing an essay that depicted the carnage of a hurricane in his home town, is invited to New York to further his education. Through a multi-racial cast, the musical highlights the young immigrant’s interaction with some of the most familiar figures in American history—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the Marquis de Lafayette—in his rapid rise to power. The entire play is narrated by Vice President Aaron Burr, the man who ultimately kills Hamilton in a duel.

     Yet the production is truly fascinating for the empowering effect it has on readers.  According to biographer Ron Chernow, whose work inspired the development of the musical, Hamilton lived every day from the age of 14 as if the future was uncertain, leading to his incredible work ethic and political ascension. This ambition was also apparent in his political activism; he was responsible for the creation of the first fiscal system, monetary system, customs service, and central bank. Hamilton’s legacy struck an especially powerful note with immigrant Lin-Manuel Miranda, the playwright and title actor of the show. Like Hamilton, Miranda was recognized early in his career, when he performed the first version of “Hamilton Mixtapes” at a White House reception in front of the president and vice-president. There are two lessons that I drew from this unique story.

     First, life is short, so make the most of today while you have the chance. From the moment he stepped onto America’s shores, Hamilton participated actively in national politics, quickly becoming a leader in the Revolutionary War. In high school, Lin-Manuel Miranda didn’t think he fit in with the other students at his school and he struggled to compete academically with his classmates. But this struggle only made Miranda more determined to find his passion quickly and focus his efforts in the field that best suited him. After deciding on theater in his high school years, he began to take leading roles in every school performance. Though his family was not wealthy, he purchased as many Broadway albums as he could find and began to memorize them in his free time. All of his efforts converged in college, when far before any of his peers were achieving their dreams, Miranda completed his first musical production, In the Heights, which was turned into a Broadway musical and won the Tony Award in 2008.

     Lin-Manuel Miranda’s merging of modern forms of music with American history has led to a ground-breaking work in which this famous Secretary of the Treasury is seen in the context of American culture and dynamics in the present. This play redirects the eyes of contemporary American audiences to historic figures like Alexander Hamilton. In addition to being on the $10 bill, Hamilton has played a critical role in constructing American society  as we know it today, and we must continue to study and recognize historical figures in order gain a deeper understanding  of the society that surrounds us today. As any viewer of the musical Alexander Hamilton can attest, Miranda’s work has brought new meaning to the age-old idea that “those who do not remember their history, have no future.”

A Way to Unity- Mindframes School Writing Competition

I step onto the edge of the blue mat. With a quick, measured breath, I shout "taekwon!" and stride up to the wooden board holder. The referees, bearing staffs adorned with red and blue flags, stand at the center of the mat, staring stiffly ahead. From above, I can feel a hundred pairs of eyes observing my approach. Watching but not seeing, they chatter with members of their own country, each group speaking in its own tongue.  Hola's and duibuqi's, "Quoi de neuf?" and “Go USA!” ring out over the din, but few people are willing to interact with those of a different nation. People from all over the world pack the stands, but as if to assert and stand by their distinct identities, each group takes care to differentiate their portion of the stadium with national flags, banners, and brightly-colored jerseys from their country.

For a moment, I allow the noise of the crowd to fade into a subdued buzzing in the back of my mind. My breathing slows as I focus on the wooden board in front of me. Every muscle in my body is tense with anticipation as slowly, deliberately, I take a step backwards. For a lightning instant, the pressure of a thousand chanting voices and wailing air horns in the audience pushes against me, and I freeze. But with a sudden burst of adrenaline, I explode toward the target.  “Snap!” the sharp splintering of the board pierces the air, followed by a dizzying roar as onlookers rise, cheering in appreciation. In that instant, I see and hear not individual countries in the crowd, but a single community, standing and clapping together, united in the exhilaration of the moment. The discordant clashes of conversations in various foreign languages melt away, replaced by the unanimous tongue of the world community. As I gaze over the crowd, for a second, I am a part of this united nations, in which no language or cultural barriers can dent our shared heritage.

By the time I return dazedly to my coaches, individual conversations have re-started, and the arena is again filled with the noise of hundreds of clashing languages, as each person cheers for athletes from his own country. Yet small signs of our moment of unity remain. As I pass through the crowd, one or two of the waiting groups of athletes meet my gaze, and they smile and nod encouragingly. When I look up at the spectator bleachers, a young boy from New Zealand cheerily waves his flag at me. Towards the end of the evening, one of the Irish competitors in my division comes up to me and hands me a miniature golden pin with a carving of the Irish and American flags crossed and waving together. Receiving the small token, I am overwhelmed by a sense of gratitude for the opportunity that this event has offered me.  For the time being, however, this marks the end of the 2013 Taekwondo World Championships in Spain.

Two years have passed, and the details of this week have already begun to fade from my memory. But I know I will never forget the sensation of that uplifting moment when the board shattered, and every heart in the arena momentarily beat as one. As I write this, I glance at the two miniature flags still sitting on my desk and feel a deep thrill. If I close my eyes and listen hard enough, I can still hear the echoing cheers in the tournament arena, shouting in a language understood by people from all over the world. In the truest sense of the word, the breaking of a single wooden board became, for me, a way to unity.

The Cross in Human Rights (10.5.15)

The year is 1870. Bullets whiz dangerously through the air as French and German troops fire viciously at one another from behind tall barricades. Among the wounded soldiers, a determined young woman known as the “Angel of the Battlefield” flies back and forth between the moaning men. Affixed to her white collar is a bold red cross. On June 26, 2015, a throng of lobbyists crowded the steps to the Supreme Court building. An expectant hush reigned over the group, which was waiting for the final decision to be announced.  Many of the signs, reading “Rainbows reign!” and “Equality in marriage,” proudly depicted the image of two crossed lines topped with a circle. Again and again throughout history, the symbols of the cross and its various manifestations have appeared as proud representations of the movement for human rights.

                When one speaks of human rights around the world, it is impossible to overlook the International Red Cross, whose mission statement of “providing compassionate care to those in need” directly addresses its goal of fulfilling the basic human rights of the most deprived individuals. The organization’s trademark symbol (a red cross on a plain white background) was first used by the founder of the American Red Cross, Clara Barton, who devised the emblem while serving troops in the Franco-Prussian War. In the modern human rights sphere, the humanitarian work of the Red Cross has been critical in supporting those displaced by the Syrian Refugee Crisis and struggling to find daily sustenance and shelter.

                The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arguably the most authoritative international text on the subject, clearly states that the guarantee of human rights cannot be based upon “distinction[s] of any kind” including gender-based categories. This fundamental promise to a gender-blind application of rights has become an especially contentious issue in the past decade, as more and more countries have legally accepted the rights of homosexual individuals to engage in the equal right to marriage. (As of 2015, twenty-two countries have legalized same-sex marriage, with the first being the Netherlands in 2000.) Activists in the movement for LGBTQ rights have adopted the standard gender symbols (denoting males and females) as icons for their campaign.

                Regardless of how one chooses to interpret the cross, one will always be reminded of its most prevalent usage as the Christian Cross, recalling both Jesus’s crucifixion and the Holy Trinity. Since around 1200, when Saint Francis and his companions began living in solidarity with the poor, preaching about the holiness of a simple life, the Christian religion and orders such as the Brothers of Holy Cross have become associated with acts of goodwill and the delivery of aid to the disadvantaged. In the New Testament, alms-giving is cited as a key tenant in the Christian life.

                Yet the close association between religion and the delivery of human rights has been repudiated in several situations around the world. In North Korea, Christian missionaries attempting to provide refugees with protection have been accused of prioritizing their own religious agenda, making the victims’ conversion to Christianity a perquisite for their ability to receive aid. Other religions and indigenous belief systems that perpetuate gender discriminatory behaviors have been seen as conflicting with the fulfillment of universal human rights.

While the cross has had a long history in the campaign for human rights, several notable controversies have forced some to question its place in the movement and its ability to serve as a true champion for our fundamental rights.

Final Paper: An Analysis of the Case of Kenneth Bae from the Perspective of Religious Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and a Proposed Solution

            The United States historically has honored the religious rights of its citizens, a tradition which Martha Nussbaum characterizes as the "fixed star" of American legal history (Nussbaum 21). The recent case of Kenneth Bae’s missionary action, labor camp imprisonment in North Korea and the subsequent diplomatic developments could be viewed in line with the constitutional preservation of religious rights. Yet in this specific case, the US’s protection of these rights clashed with its national foreign policy, forcing the US government to prioritize the right of its citizens to engage in religious practices such as proselytism over the sovereignty of foreign countries in managing religious activity internal to their borders. To circumvent a situation in which the US is obliged to value the constitutional rights of its citizens over foreign jurisdiction, I claim that the US government must establish a focused policy regulating the behavior of its citizens in delivering evangelistic aid to third world countries.

            On December 21, 2012, the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK announced that it had arrested Kenneth Bae, a Christian missionary and naturalized US citizen from South Korea, for “committ[ing] crimes aimed to topple the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (Taylor). Mr. Bae had connections to evangelical organizations such as the Joseph Connection and Youth with a Mission, and as the founder of the Sino-based tour group Nation Tours, had travelled through the country fourteen times previously without incident (Taylor). During past trips, Bae along with members of his tour group visited orphans and provided aid to North Korean citizens, in addition to singing Christian songs, and hosting public worships designed to “allow for the walls [of religious repression] to come down in North Korea" (FlorCruz). Upon entering the city of Rason in 2012, Bae was tried for planning the “Jericho Operation,” a campaign to infiltrate and convert 250 North Korean students, and he was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor (FlorCruz). The US government responded swiftly and disparagingly to Bae’s arrest, stating that he had “no reason to be detained” and that he “should be released immediately,” a message it reinforced by sending North Korean Human Rights Envoy Robert King to negotiate Bae’s release (US Vice President Joe Biden). North Korea arbitrarily rescinded its invitation to Ambassador King, and nine months later, the US managed to secure Bae’s release when it dispatched Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a second diplomatic overture to the regime. This is not the first time the US government intervened to negotiate the release of an American missionary that had run afoul of the DPRK’s strict religious laws; most recently in May 2014, Jeffrey Fowle was arrested for leaving a bible in a North Korean nightclub and was released a month before Bae (Baker and Gladstone).

The freedom of conscience in humanitarian aid versus the right to proselytize

            While Kenneth Bae was primarily arrested as a consequence of his proselytizing activities, he was motivated to repeatedly enter the DPRK by a desire to deliver humanitarian aid to the North Korean citizens, a compulsion which I will analyze alongside his evangelistic intentions. It is commonly accepted that humanitarian aid, fundamentally, is a matter of human rights. This is evident from the viewpoint of the individual needing assistance in North Korea or other third-world countries, who through the aid, gains full access to "component rights" such as the right to life, food, health and medical services (Pietropaolo 4). Yet given that individual aid workers provide charity due to a personal sense of sympathy and moral duty, the distribution of humanitarian aid can also be considered an aspect of the donor’s right to freedom of conscience. The ability to provide humanitarian aid to those living in third world countries, and therefore act according to one’s conscience is firmly entrenched in the universal right to freedom of conscience, which is expressed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

            Evidence drawn from aid-giving practices around the world show that religiously-motivated groups are more inclined to deliver charity than non-religious ones, in light of the spirit of generosity and care for one's neighbor that are central to the practices of many major religions (Schnable 3). Regular involvement in international humanitarian aid is stimulated by the “diffuse cultural ambience” that characterizes religious communities and also exposes members to greater opportunities for almsgiving (Schnable 2). Especially in developing regions in Latin America, missionaries of religions such as Christianity that operate with a “preferential option for the poor,” raised awareness on the plight of the lower classes and opened the way to charitable contributions from the international community (The Guardian Global Development Students Speak). Furthermore, the lack of returns or rewards that a donor receives for his contribution in third-world countries means that those motivated by an external, usually religious cause constitute a significant number of the charitable workers in these areas. Due to the tendency for religious groups to bring humanitarian aid to third world countries, it has been common for the delivery of charity to be associated with, to the extent that it is even indistinguishable from, the religious proselytizing activities of missionaries.

The provision of aid to third world countries by missionaries with proselytizing intentions has historically caused much controversy. This takes place when a religious group’s evangelical objectives interfere with, or are manifested in the distribution of humanitarian aid. Some Christian evangelists from South Korea, situated in China across the border from North Korea, have been known to openly state that their ultimate goal of helping North Korean refugees is to inform them of God, even establishing the defectors’ conversion to Christianity as a prerequisite for their protection and safety (Jung 151). Furthermore, such a manifestation of the foundational religious goal of converting non-believers in aid delivery can lead to a perception of the giving of humanitarian aid as treading on a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of religious practice in third world countries. This distinction becomes significantly harder to perceive in North Korea’s convoluted legal norms, where foreign missionaries must pay close attention not to the nominal guarantee of the right to freedom of religious belief in the state Constitution, but to the implemented and practiced governmental attitude toward religious practice and external religious influences. The North Korean Constitution in essence is unfavorable toward the religious practices of foreign missionaries in the DPRK, due to its purely superficial protection of religious rights (Constitution of the DPRK, Art. 68). One can speculate that Mr. Bae was unaware of the situation of religious freedom in North Korea, which requires government approval, which, in itself, is unfavorable to religious missionaries.

The culture of religious liberty in the United States

            In order to fully understand Mr. Bae’s arrest and the extent to which his “crimes” could be discussed under the right to freedom of conscience and religion, it is necessary to examine his actions in the national, cultural context from which they originated. Authors Brian Tierney and Martha Nussbaum effectively engage in conversation concerning the character of the American attitude of religious toleration into which Kenneth Bae moved at age 18 and in which his missionary and humanitarian aid work to North Korea were rooted.  

According to Tierney, American history was an indirect, non-progressive story that confounded the clear message for toleration of religious beliefs and practices proposed in founding documents. Early American leaders like William Penn and Roger Williams emerged as the strongest and most forward-thinking proponents of religious toleration in their age (Penn’s conception of the liberty of thought and belief as the “natural right of all men” formed the basis on which Pennsylvania’s state constitution was later founded (Tierney 42).) Such advanced ideological conceptions were unable to curb the persecution of heretics, outsiders, and members of minority religions, however, that would be ever present throughout American history, and which Tierney believes, proves that intolerance is an unavoidable pattern in human conduct. For Nussbaum, on the other hand, religious equality and full respect for religious practices form the foundations of the American legal system, the modern understanding and application of which has evolved gradually through the experience of the American people in a diverse society. Nussbaum suggests that these pillars tie together various characteristics of the US’s national religious scene, including nonestablishment of state orthodoxy, separation of church & state, and special accommodation of religious minorities to allow for “individual religious choice” and “equal freedom...to worship in [one’s] own way” (Nussbaum 19). Nussbaum pays close attention to what she calls the “respect-conscience principle” of the American religious tradition, under which the government must “respect the fact that [different religious groups] have different religious commitments,” even when it does not believe that these beliefs are “correct, or… valid routes to the understanding of life,” opening the way for controversial practices such as proselytism (22-23). The historic occurrence of persecution and coercion of heretics that Tierney notes contributed to a “new depth of insight” into founding documents, whose meaning became deeper and more widely applicable through the American experience (357).  

Regardless of their perspectives on the course and advancement of religious liberty throughout history, both authors concur that the American tradition has been particularly advanced from inception in its promotion of a broad interpretation of religious rights. Moreover, the prescient upholding of religious liberty in the founding documents and the works of the founding fathers suggest that Kenneth Bae’s evangelistic practices were in compliance with the spirit of the religious rights enshrined in the earliest American legal instruments.

The modern-day protection of religious rights in the US and around the world was greatly influenced by the terms of the UDHR, with its protection of the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (UDHR, Article 18). Many countries have interpreted these terms as mandating a certain degree of government secularism in order to preserve free religious choice, though the manner in which they implement secularism varies significantly by country. The principle of secularism or laicite constitutes the official state policy of France, and in 2010, the French government abolished the wearing of religious face-coverings and head gear in public places, in an attempt to uphold this policy and appear “politically correct” (McGoldrick 254). This can be compared to secularism in the United States, the enforcement of which promotes a “truly equal liberty” which gives equal deference to the practices of every religion (Nussbaum 22). In terms of the yearly output of missionaries, 127,000 of the world’s 400,000 evangelists in 2010 originated from the US, while the number of French evangelists was not even mentioned in many studies (Lovering). This statistic proves that the historic tradition of protecting religious rights in the US has had a notable impact on the American interpretation and the implementation of Article 18 of the UDHR.

Then what role has proselytism played in the liberal environment of the United States? Nussbaum’s perspective on the preservation of religious liberty throughout American history and the US’s interpretation of the UDHR portray the United States as an environment generally favorable to religious practices involving proselytism. In a 1940 court case concerning the religious practice of members of the Jehovah’s Witness, the US Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the US’s commitment to defending the right to engage in evangelistic behavior; on the grounds of protecting the liberties of American citizens in the long view, the Court Justices considered the right to engage in religious proselytism essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of citizens of a democracy (Cantwell v. Connecticut).

Yet as demonstrated by the contrasting interpretations of secularism, a principle commonly derived from the terms of the UDHR, in the US and France, the influence of the culture and tradition of a country on its protection of religious rights allows for highly disparate treatments of this rights category. While exercising a right protected under American rights laws during his trip to North Korea, Mr. Bae ran into an irreconcilable conflict between the religious rights instituted in the US and the DPRK, compelling the US government to intervene in an attempt to free him and restore his rights. The liberal reading and implementation of international rights documents in the United States can therefore have consequences outside the religious context, on the country’s diplomatic and political position in the international realm.

Questions on the US government’s duty to restore Mr. Bae’s rights and secure his release

Once the US government’s upholding of the religious rights of its citizens extends into international discussions, it becomes relevant to various international agreements regarding the sovereignty of nations over their citizens overseas, including the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ratified by 177 state parties including the US and DPRK. While the consuls of member states under the Vienna Convention function to protect the interests of its citizens in foreign countries, this protection must “be exercised in conformity with the laws...of the receiving state” (VCCR, Article 36). When the citizen of a member state of the Convention is arrested or detained in a foreign country, consular officials are permitted only to converse with him and arrange for legal representation, while still respecting the authority and decisions of the receiving state (VCCR, Article 36). US actions with regards to the arrest of Kenneth Bae were therefore not in compliance with the established international agreements. Throughout his sentencing and imprisonment, the US government, through official remarks and the sending of envoys to negotiate Mr. Bae’s release, clearly demonstrated and acted upon its disapproval of the DPRK’s actions.

Certain factors allowed for Mr. Bae’s religious rights to override current US foreign policy, among them, the perception of the involved foreign country as inferior to the United States in its protection of human rights, given its poor track record in the international community. The significance of these factors in determining US actions can also be seen in the case of Saeed Abedini, an Iranian American pastor who, like Bae, was detained “on charges related to his religious beliefs,” while establishing Christian churches and creating orphanages in the repressive state of Iran in 2012 (“Detained U.S. Citizen Saeed Abedini”). In a press statement, Secretary of State John Kerry expressed that the “best outcome for Mr. Abedini” was “immediate release” by Iranian authorities on humanitarian grounds (“Detained U.S. Citizen Saeed Abedini”).

As seen in the cases of Mr. Abedini and Mr. Bae, the domestic and international position of the sending state is substantially weakened by the detainment of its citizen overseas. From an international standpoint, the presence of a hostage establishes a condition in negotiations between the receiving and sending state, for which the latter nation is forced to make concessions in order to secure the well-being and release of its imprisoned citizen. If the two countries were engaged in political or diplomatic negotiations prior to the arrest of the citizen, the presence of a hostage can be manipulated to the advantage of the receiving state in the larger bilateral discussion, with potentially far-reaching impacts on the outcome of the original negotiations and relations between the states. In order to free Mr. Abedini, Secretary of State Kerry “brought up Saeed[‘s case] every time he m[et] with the Iranians” for negotiations on Iran’s  nuclear capabilities, establishing another condition for which the US would have had to allow concessions to Iran in an already precarious dialogue situation (ACLJ). The United States have never established diplomatic relations with the DPRK, yet it was widely speculated at the time of Mr. Bae’s arrest that the North Korean state fully intended for his release to coincide with acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the regime or US compliance with its political demands (Taylor).

The situation of Americans detained abroad for continuing to carry out rights they had thought were their entitlement as American citizens also places internal pressure on the United States government for failing to fulfill its honor-bound duty to defend the Constitutional rights of its citizens. In news interviews, members of Mr. Bae’s family repeatedly called on President Obama to “push harder for [Bae’s] release” (Hancocks) Mr. Bae’s case illustrates one example of an exception in US compliance with international agreements when the religious rights of its citizens are involved. Both intervention and nonintervention in these cases lead to significant consequences for the US, due to the lack of regulatory statutes detailing the rights of missionaries working overseas.

Inadequacy of current international and national human rights instruments

A careful examination of existing national and international legal measures addressing the religious rights shared by members of the international community, however, reveals that the issues of controversial religious rights such as proselytism and the defense of such rights in a foreign-hostage situation are insufficiently and only indirectly addressed. At the most basic level, Article 18 of the UDHR vaguely outlines the universal right to "thought, conscience, and religion," which can be exercised either "in public or private," and manifested in a variety of ways: through "teaching, practice, worship, or observance" (UDHR, Article 18). Not much progress was made in 1954 by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which stated that "everyone shall be free to adhere, or not to adhere to a religion or belief" and declared the right to remain free from subjection to "material or moral coercion likely to impair [one's]...religion or belief," but also called for the freedom "to teach or to disseminate" one's religion or belief publicly and privately, without properly addressing the overlapping area of these two rights (“Draft Principles on Freedom and Non-Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices”). As previously established, such broad and open terms have allowed for UN member states to institute laws that range from near outright prohibition in North Korea to relative toleration of religious proselytism in the United States, while still remaining within the boundaries asserted by the United Nations. Meanwhile, UN instruments such as the Convention on Racial Discrimination, which could establish more definite boundaries when applied to protection of the right to evangelize and share one's faith with others, are not considered binding by UN member states. The United Nations’ legal instruments addressing the religious right to proselytize are therefore too ambiguous to be considered valid founding documents for the development of rights legislation within member states, and may have contributed to foreign-hostage situations such as that of Mr. Bae.

While the United States generally seeks to preserve the human rights of its citizens, laws concerning the rights of citizens and limitations on their religious worship and practices have instituted diverse rulings on proselytism. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit establishment of a state church and the right to freely engage in religious practice according to one's individual choice, which like Article 18 of the UDHR, does not offer a solution for a conflictual situation in which the right to practice one's chosen religion is viewed in the context of the right to evangelize, a practice that may be central to one's religion. Furthermore, Supreme Court rulings on the proselytism of members of the Jehovah’s Witness, which I mentioned above as having had a significant influence on the US’s treatment of the practice, deliver an often contradictory message. According to the decision in the Cantwell v. Connecticut court case, restriction of the right of citizens to engage in proselytism, regardless of the appearance of the action as a “rank error to [one’s] neighbor” and the proselytizer as one “resort[ing] to exaggeration,” is contrary to the spirit of a democracy (Cantwell v. Connecticut). Yet this statement was preceded by the declaration that “a State may...regulate the time, place and manner of soliciting upon its streets, and...safeguard the peace, good order, and comfort of the community"(Cantwell v. Connecticut). The state theoretically has the authority to deny protection to religious proselytism on the grounds of preserving the subjective notion of “good order” in society. Extending the scope of this reasoning to the international sphere, the burden remains on the US government to prove why generally-applied legal protection should not be extended to specific religious practices, while the North Korean government’s judgement establishes the standard against which religious practices are approved on a case-by-case basis.

Moreover, there is very little national legislation currently in place that specifies the rights, especially religious rights, guaranteed to American citizens abroad. I established above that since the ratification of the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs, US Consular officers have only been authorized to act as points of communication and support for US citizens subject to foreign legal processes of indictment and prosecution. Yet the US’s actions in seeking to overturn such foreign rulings suggest that in certain cases, the American government is compelled to defend the rights of its citizens, even at the cost of weakening its international position and breaching international agreements. The prevalence of US intervention on behalf of missionaries arrested abroad can be attributed to the specific case of religiously-motivated charity, in which restriction of the activity on religious grounds can interfere with the realization of other categories of rights, notably the right to freedom of conscience. In light of the US government’s multiple international interventions to restore the religious rights of its detained citizens, one could cite the 1940 court ruling for Reid v. Covert which “reject[s] the idea that, when the United States acts against [or for] citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights,” and other legislation detailing the rights promised to US citizens in the country (Reid v. Covert). While the US legal structure offers strong protection of the religious rights of its citizens, the changing character of its rulings regarding proselytism and its unclear stance regarding intervention on behalf of detained citizens necessitates the development of a new policy that specifies and qualifies the right of American missionaries to proselytize in foreign, third-world countries.

In order to grant necessary respect for freedom of conscience (embodied in the delivery of humanitarian aid) and religious rights (fulfillment of the foundational religious practice of proselytism), and ensure that both rights are carried out with the greatest possible freedom, I propose the development of a US foreign policy tailored to the distribution of humanitarian aid in third world countries by American missionaries. Above, I have established that charitable activities have been associated with the practice of evangelism, to the extent that the former practice is almost indistinguishable from the latter. However, it is necessary for the two practices to be seen as distinct activities, the conscientious act of aid-giving to the people of third world countries being one that is universally protected under the right to freedom of conscience and proselytism being a public manifestation of the donor’s religion. With this distinction in mind, religious groups should have the ability to engage in both aid-giving and proselytism, so long as the intention to proselytize is not merged with the intention to provide aid; in clearer terms, one’s agenda for evangelism cannot interfere with the successful delivery of aid or become a condition necessary for the people in a third world country to receive aid. It is important to note that this distinction does not prohibit American missionaries from accomplishing religious proselytism, but instead states that the evangelistic intention should not be manifested in the act of distributing humanitarian aid. A foreign country may be opposed to foreign missionaries delivering charity, or the potential for such groups to focus on an intention to proselytize. In that case, the United States government must consider the environment and take regulatory measures which constrain the ability of American missionaries to disseminate aid in particular countries. Rather than imposing an unlawful restriction on missionaries’ religious rights, this measure identifies the favorable environments in which religious groups can complete their charitable activities without fear of arrest. It will then be within the best interest of missionary groups to act according to the recommendations of the US government and respect the norms of the foreign countries in which they do practice by making a careful distinction between the act of aid-giving and proselytism. By upholding their role in the agreement with the US government and the international community, American missionaries such as Kenneth Bae will be compelled to pay keener attention to the international and diplomatic impacts of their activities.

Conclusion

            When American citizen Kenneth Bae was arrested in 2012 while leading a tour of the DPRK, the immediate public outcry over the sentence raised important questions regarding the DPRK’s reaction to Mr. Bae’s activities. While working in and delivering humanitarian aid to orphanages during previous trips to North Korea, Mr. Bae’s acts of charity were protected under the universal freedom of conscience; one can surmise that his attempts to fulfill the underlying evangelistic intention were seen to be problematic by the North Korean regime, leading to his imprisonment. The United States celebrates a tradition of religious liberty, and it was in this environment that Mr. Bae’s determination to travel to North Korea for evangelistic purposes took root, though it ultimately clashed with the religious norms established by the DPRK. I have proposed the establishment of the above policy to guide US actions in cases such as that of Mr. Bae, in light of the significant consequences that US intervention has had on the national foreign policy. Inevitably, any new policy will face opposition and difficulty in implementation and enforcement, especially when no such law has previously been established as a precedent. It is my hope that the above legislation will more clearly frame the issue of evangelism and humanitarian aid to third-world countries, while taking into consideration the greater context of US international relations.

Life-Hacking: Small Steps toward a Successful Schedule and Career (4.16.14)

“Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” But, “those that sleep now can dream, while those that do not can achieve their dreams.” Whether it is from parents, teachers, our peers, or idols in history, we live in a world of increasing pressure to be productive and successful in life. Especially with the continual rise of brilliant new entrepreneurs in the Bay Area, the expectation that we follow in their footsteps surfaces every day. In spite of this, we are never told how to succeed, and the words of role models such as Benjamin Franklin and Ban Ki Moon often deliver contradictory messages. Could there be a secret step-by-step guide to becoming a noteworthy name in history? As author Brian Tracy once stated, “Successful people are simply those with successful habits.” Take a look at the habits of five famous figures, and what it took for them to be revered.

            President Obama has inspired many Americans with his dedication to a daily workout at 6:45 A.M, but the First Lady, Michelle Obama, normally leaves the gym at this time, returning home to pack lunch for her daughters. Her workout includes forty-five minutes of cardio and forty-five minutes of strength training, and she has yet to miss more than a single day at a time. What else can we expect from the founder of the “Let’s Move!” campaign?

Adopting the lifestyle of his mother, a full-time novelist and mother of six children, Anthony Trollope believed firmly in the power of early morning inspiration, and would wake up at 5:30 A.M. to write. During this time, Trollope would sit with a watch in front of his paper, and demand of himself 3000 words by 8:30 A.M. or 250 words every fifteen minutes. At the end of his morning, he would immediately head off to a job in the postal service. Although work under such stressful conditions may seem difficult, Trollope managed to publish forty-nine novels in a period of thirty-five years, with his more famous works such as The Chronicles of Barsetshire making him the most celebrated English writer in the Victorian era.

Most heads of state keep up with the height of technology in their country: not Park Geun-hye. The South Korean president is jokingly called “the notebook princess” for her adoration of the quickly-disappearing art of note taking. From meetings with high-profile leaders, to banquets with other Korean politicians, President Park is never seen without a notepad to jot down points that arise in discussion. This habit has both pleased and annoyed fellow officials, but it allows her to be prepared to deliver remarks at all times.

Many artists will attest to the saving power of a daily cup of coffee, and composer Ludwig Van Beethoven was no different. The first order of business every morning was to make breakfast, consisting of a large jug of coffee with exactly sixty coffee beans. (He often counted out the beans one-by-one himself.) Afterwards, he would pour in an incredible amount of sugar, near filling the cup to the rim, and mix it together with a concoction of very strong, black coffee. Perhaps it was such breakfast habits that contributed to Beethoven’s brilliance at the piano, conducting, and composing, even as a deaf musician.

            Neurologist and psychologist Sigmund Freud is famous for his discoveries on the power of human dreams, but he is also known for his well-groomed appearance. After waking up promptly at 7:00 A.M. each morning, the researcher would eat a light breakfast, and spend an hour at the barber shop, trimming his beard. It was once said of him that, “[Freud possessed] a commanding air… an air of power disciplined. Even Freud’s mustache and beard were subdued to order by a barber’s daily attention.” Freud worked hard to cultivate an image that appeased his patients, and through the daily routine, he created a ritual that eventually became an essential part of this incredible life.

From artists, politicians, and writers, each of these giants possessed completely different habits, personalities, and working attitudes. So what was the secret to their success? Each of them lived strictly by a daily routine that allowed them to leave a unique imprint on the world. In order to make our contribution to society, perhaps it’s time each of us re-evaluate our lifestyles, and organize work and leisure around an unvarying time frame.