Tag: contest

william warren barbour: voice of the persecuted

Isaac Kim
The following essay was written for the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage essay contest 2023, but was not submitted. It was finalized on January 12th, 2023.

With the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the world is once again facing bloody fighting. We are forced to reevaluate the value of peace, the horror of conflict—and the plight of wartime refugees around the planet.

In these troubling times, we must look to the past to see the plight of refugees, and how we as a nation must find the courage to help them. No elected official demonstrates this courage better than William Warren Barbour: business leader, heavyweight boxer, New Jersey Senator, and an outspoken advocate for Jews persecuted under the Nazi regime.

It is important to note that the US in the 1930s was highly antisemitic. Perhaps the most vivid illustration of this hatred comes from the pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, held by the German American Bund. Said Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the Bund: “Wake up! You, Aryan, Nordic and Christians, to demand that our government be returned to the people who founded it!” (Kramer). Indeed, according to the Anti-Defamation League, “daily antisemitic violence plagued Jews in the streets of some major American cities… where antisemitism thrived” (ADL). 

Within this climate, it is surprising that Barbour chose to speak out on behalf of the persecuted Jews of Europe. Politicians accused of “Jewry” were subject to violent antisemitic accusations. During the German American Bund’s pro-Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, for instance, “The cheers turned to jeers and boos… as other speakers mentioned President Roosevelt—made to sound as though it were spelled ‘Rosenfeld’—Harry Hopkins and others who had been outspoken in their denunciation of Nazi Germany” (NYT). Dr. Rafael Medoff says that “‘…Barbour had very little to gain politically… He was not up for re-election this year. He was not Jewish. He had no special connection to Jewish refugees” (Palmer). Barbour had nothing to gain.

What is more surprising is that Barbour himself had not previously shown much emotion for the plight of the European Jews. Indeed, “During his years on Capitol Hill, Barbour was not known to have any particular interest in matters of specifically Jewish concern, nor was foreign policy his specialty. Yet the plight of Europe’s Jews aroused his humanitarian sympathies” (Palmer). 

One reason for his change of heart may be attributed to the screening of We Will Never Die, a musical pageant that raised awareness of the mass murder of millions of Jews in Europe. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Its audience members included… more than two hundred members of Congress [emphasis added]…” (USHMM).  Although Barbour’s presence at the pageant cannot be ascertained, it may be that he found sympathy for the Jews after watching it.

Whatever the reason for his change was, Barbour clearly felt very strongly about this issue, demonstrated by an astounding act in the fall of 1943, when he met with 400 rabbis participating in the Rabbis’ March on Washington, D.C. The Jewish Historical Society of New Jersey says that Barbour “… was one of a small group of senators and congressmen who… met with 400 rabbis who marched.…” (JHSNJ). 

It was no small gesture. According to the Association for Jewish Studies, “… more than four hundred Orthodox rabbis marched to the White House to plead with President Franklin D. Roosevelt to rescue European Jews from the Nazis….” (Medoff). Considering the political and social climate of the time, it was unusual for Barbour to so openly express his support for the Jewish cause. Indeed, it was a profoundly courageous decision.

Today, the march is noted for President Roosevelt’s decision to ignore the rabbis—in fact, Roosevelt was so opposed to meeting the rabbis that he “… avoided seeing the marchers by slipping out of the White House through a rear exit” (Medoff). Arthur Hertzberg, a participant in the march, said that “All of us who had been there that day left feeling very bitter…” (Hertzberg). Despite this setback, however, Barbour was determined to continue his cause.

To accomplish this, Barbour undertook the most courageous act of his political career: on October 14, 1943, he submitted Senate Joint Resolution 85 to the Committee on Immigration. The goal of the resolution was “To provide for the admission to the United States of aliens who are religious or racial refugees” (U.S. Senate). Had the resolution passed, “ …up to 100,000 victims of Axis persecution, because of religious faith or race, would be permitted to enter the United States as visitors for the duration of the war…” (New York Times). 

According to the David S. Wyman Institute, “It took real political courage for Barbour to introduce such a resolution” (Medoff). Barbour’s resolution could have hardly been politically expedient in such an antisemitic climate. 

However, tragedy struck when, just before Thanksgiving 1943, Barbour suffered a fatal heart attack. He was 55 years old. Without him, support for the resolution fizzled out, and it ultimately did not pass. 

Congress mourned the loss of a great statesman. Vice President Henry A. Wallace said of him: “In his passing the Jewish people of Europe have sustained a great loss” (Congress). Representative Gordon Canfield remarked that “Senator Barbour… aimed to add to the sum of human happiness and he did” (Congress). 

Even today, Barbour—and his courageous stand for justice—is not forgotten. The Jewish Historical Society of New Jersey states that “Senator Barbour’s actions did much to increase political and public awareness of and compassion for the victims of the genocide” (JHSNJ); the Jewish Standard called his legacy “A legacy of goodness” (Palmer). Dr. Rafael Medoff says that the Jewish community “gave thanks that in Jewry’s darkest hour, there were still men of courage who refused to be silent” (Medoff).

William Warren Barbour is a striking example of astounding political bravery at a time when such bravery was detrimental. Barbour stood up for the vulnerable, demonstrating courage for justice and empathy for the persecuted. The legacy of William Warren Barbour still lasts as one of compassion, courage, and kindness.

Bibliography

Kramer, Sarah Kate. “When Nazis Took Manhattan.” NPR, NPR, 20 Feb. 2019, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan. 

“Antisemitism in American History.” Antisemitism Uncovered, Anti-Defamation League, 27 Feb. 2020, antisemitism.adl.org/antisemitism-in-american-history/. 

“22,000 NAZIS HOLD RALLY in GARDEN; POLICE CHECK FOES; SCENES as GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND HELD ITS “WASHINGTON BIRTHDAY” RALLY LAST NIGHT.” New York Times, TimesMachine, 21 Feb. 1939, timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1939/02/21/94680980.html

Palmer, Joanne. “A Legacy of Goodness.” Jewish Standard, Times of Israel, 31 Oct. 2019, jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/a-legacy-of-goodness/.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “The ‘We Will Never Die’ Pageant.” Holocaust Encyclopedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 17 Sep. 2021, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-we-will-never-die-pageant.

“Senator W. Warren Barbour.” Jewish Historical Society of New Jersey, WordPress, https://jhsnj.wordpress.com/senator-w-warren-barbour/.

Medoff, Rafael. “The 1943 Jewish March on Washington, Through the Eyes of its Critics.” AJS Perspectives, Association for Jewish Studies, https://associationforjewishstudies.org/publications-research/ajs-perspectives/the-protest-issue/the-1943-jewish-march-on-washington-through-the-eyes-of-its-critics.

Hertzberg, Arthur. “They Day the Rabbis Marched.” David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, 7 Jul. 2004, web.archive.org/web/20070927043354/http://www.wymaninstitute.org/special/rabbimarch/.

United States, Congress, Senate, Committee on Immigration. Senate Joint Resolution 85. GovInfo,  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1943-pt13/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1943-pt13-2.pdf, 78th Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 85, introduced 14 Oct. 1943.

“MOVES FOR ADMISSION OF 100,000 REFUGEES.” New York Times, TimesMachine, 15 Oct. 1943, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1943/10/15/85126488.html?pageNumber=21

United States, Congress. “Memorial Services Held in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States, Together With Remarks Presented in Eulogy of William Warren Barbour, Late a Senator form New Jersey.” United States Government Printing Service, Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=3koYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.

is tax theft?

Isaac Kim
The following essay is the second and final draft of my submission to the John Locke Essay Contest 2023, answering the third philosophy question: “Is Tax Theft?”. It was submitted on June 29th, 2023, and won a Commendation award.

Introduction

Benjamin Franklin once remarked that “… nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” (NCC, 2022). More than 200 years later, the quote still holds up; taxes are a fundamental part of the way governments work and have been for a long time. Taxation is central to the state.

With the rise of libertarianism, however, comes the questioning of the ethics of taxation. Many libertarian thinkers, from Robert Nozick to Murray Rothbard, argue that tax is theft; Nozick notably said that “Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor” (Nozick, 1974, p. 169). This idea isn’t a new one, but it certainly has gained prominence recently. And with the increase of libertarianism in the mainstream, this idea will likely gain further traction in days to come.

Before I begin, I will define two crucial terms: “tax” and “theft”. First, tax is defined as the imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by democratically elected governments with the best interests of the people at heart. The first part of this definition is obvious; the second part, less so. Tax is only justified when levied by democracies because only they have the full consent of the people. This point will be further elaborated on later. For brevity’s sake, all uses of the word “tax” below will refer specifically to this kind of legitimate tax, unless specified otherwise.

Second, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines theft as “… the physical removal of an object … without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently” (Bernard & Thornton, 2023). This is the definition used below.

I argue that tax levied by democracies is not theft, for two reasons: firstly, because taxes in democracies are levied with the people’s consent; and secondly, because tax is meant to be used solely for the benefit of the people, without the intent of depriving citizens permanently.

Argument I: Tax isn’t theft because it’s consensual.

In all legitimate taxes, the people’s consent is crucial. After all, by our own definition, a government taking money from its citizens without their consent is robbery. Therefore, taxation can only be legitimate when taxpayers consent to give taxes and have a say in how their money is used. Only forms of government where leaders are elected by the people—that is, democracies—can tax legitimately. This is why taxes levied by dictatorships could not be considered legitimate; they tax regardless of the people’s will.

In the relationship between the people and their governments, taxation plays an especially vital role. Alex Cobham writes that “Paying tax is the glue in the social contract. When people pay tax, they are empowered to hold their governments to account for how their money is spent” (Cobham, 2022). 

But what is the social contract? Britannica defines it as “ … an actual or hypothetical compact … between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2023). It’s a compact between the government and the governed, which lays out what each side can and should do. Democracies are therefore controlled by this treaty, and the citizenry is bound by it as well. Because of this, these countries are constrained by the people’s consent.

No one understood this better than John Locke, the father of the social contract. Locke wrote that “Men … have such a right to the goods … that no body hath a right to take their substance … from them, without their own consent: without this they have no property at all” (Locke, 1690, p. 44.). He argued that only democracies have the right to levy taxes:

This [tax as theft] is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists … in assemblies … but in governments, where the legislative is … in one man, as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still … it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority … for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people … without such consent … he thereby invades the fundamental law of property … (Locke, 1690, pp. 44-45)

Representation also matters because it determines how much one should pay. Adam Smith wrote that “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of government … in proportion to … revenue which they respectively enjoyed under the protection of the state” (Smith, 1776, p. 777).

So, tax in democracies is levied with the consent of the people; therefore, it doesn’t fulfill the first part of our definition of theft.

Argument II: Tax is used solely for the people’s benefit.

The second part of our definition, taking “… with the intention of depriving the owner … permanently” (Bernard & Thornton, 2023), is equally as important as consent. This intuitively makes sense. For instance, if your friend borrows $20 from you, promising that he will pay you back, but loses it, it would be strange to accuse him of theft because there was no intent to deprive you permanently.

Therefore, we must examine the intentions and effects of tax to determine if it inherently has the will to take from the people permanently. James John Jurinski writes that “The primary goal of taxation from biblical times … has been to raise revenue for the government … the government spends income tax revenues on ‘public’ goods and services …” (Jurinski, 2012, pp. 2-4).

The state taxes to raise revenue for itself, and uses it on public works and services. Clearly, public expenditure doesn’t harm but helps the public. Consider tax-funded law enforcement. What would happen if it were abolished? With no one left to enforce the law, an exponential increase in crime is likely. And profit itself could not be made without such uses of tax; without police, businesses wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves.

Tax itself upholds and protects profit; it gives back to the people more than it takes. Its intent isn’t to permanently take; rather, it’s to protect the people and to make sure they continue to profit from their labor.

For further information, we turn again to Locke, who demonstrated this relationship with an analogy: “… but yet we see, that neither the serjeant, that could command a soldier to march … where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money…” (Locke, 1690, p. 45).

Locke shows that tax can only be spent for the good of the nation, not for personal enrichment. A sergeant can command his troops to certain death for the country, but he can’t take their money for himself; similarly, the state can tax for the good of its citizens, but not for the personal profit of the leaders themselves. Tax can only justly be used for public purposes, not for private ones.

Hence, governments are limited in levying tax by quantity, as Smith showed; procedure, as only democracies can justly tax, as Locke demonstrated; and purpose, as its purpose should be to better the nation’s citizens (Kimball, 2018). So tax carries both the consent of the people and the intent to give back to and protect them. It cannot be theft.

Counter-arguments

Many counter-arguments could be made against these two propositions. One is that there is no social contract. This is a common line of attack: Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan, for instance, write that “… there never has been a social contract … the social contract envisioned by modern progressives is precisely not an agreement at all … and the terms are in no way clearly spelled out” (Davies & Harrigan, 2019).

This can be refuted by observing the frameworks of modern democracies. Consider their constitutions, such as that of the United States. They lay out what the government can and cannot do; as these constitutions are the basis of these governments, the government’s side of the social contract exists.

And consider the fact that citizens themselves can modify this contract, such as by amendments. The very nature of this ability to change implies that the citizenry is a party to the contract. Therefore, the people’s side of the social contract exists. From these two observations, we conclude that the social contract is real and binds government and citizens alike.

Another argument is that there is no consent because citizens can only choose how much they pay, not if they should pay that all. If a robber lets you choose between him stealing $100 or $1000, both options would still be theft. But the premise that citizens cannot choose to give nothing is mistaken. One of the tenets of the social contract, after all, is that both sides must be bound by it. If one side violates the contract, the other side is no longer bound by it. If the state becomes tyrannical, the citizen has a right to revolution. Rebellion against taxation is permissible under the social contract if it strays from its duty of serving the people. 

Others argue that taxation ends up harming the citizenry, and suggest the privatization of tax-funded services. This is mistaken, as Lake Larsen writes: “… privatizing schools has resulted in … some of the lowest literacy and mathematics levels in the country … Based off changes we’ve already seen …  privatizing sectors of the government will only result in unhappy citizens …” (Larsen, 2019).

Another comes from citing examples of poor taxation, of which there are many. Opponents note unnecessary subsidies given to industries such as big agriculture and big oil, both of which are paid with taxpayer funds, or huge sums of tax seemingly wasted; for example, Axios shows that the US spent more on its military in the previous year than the next ten countries combined (Lawler, 2023). These examples certainly seem daunting.

However, it’s equally important to note examples of good taxation policies as well. Thanks to taxpayer funding, infrastructure like roads, bridges, railroads, and airports are free to use and well-maintained. Education, such as the K-12 system and state colleges, is funded by tax. Britain’s NHS, as well as US government-funded vaccine research during COVID-19, are examples of leaps being made in public health services stemming directly from taxpayer money.

Ultimately, the crux of the arguments of the anti-taxation thinkers comes down to libertarianism, a “… philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value” (Boaz, 2023). Libertarian ideals regarding the role of the state are in opposition to our current system of representation and to liberty itself.

Many libertarians have a deep-seated skepticism of government and its actions; a distrust of the state is one of its core tenets. Consequently, taxation, a system with the consent of the populace and the unique means to help them, becomes a dangerous example of theft. Their alternative is the privatization of tax-funded industries; the “expansion” of freedom through the choices of citizens replacing public services; and the encouragement of the free market’s purported efficiency. All of these lead to an argument that the people shouldn’t pay taxes at all.

These positions are incorrect. The state is the only body that can effectively protect and help its citizens. Privatization, as shown by Larsen, has not and will not lead to more efficiency or cost reduction. 

Furthermore, the results of tax prove that benefits are clearly returned to citizens for their money. Effective public services, as well as the existence and efficacy of infrastructure, prove this. Likewise, police agencies and courts, both of which are funded by tax, uphold the safety and liberty of the people. Ironically, the libertarian ends up losing his liberty by choking out its funding.

Conclusion

The debate around the ethics of tax is old. From the evidence presented, I conclude that tax in democracies is not theft, because it inherently entails the consent of the people and because it does not take permanently from the people, but rather gives back in the form of safety, service, and liberty. 

References

Bernard, T. J., & Thornton, W. E. (2023, May 19). Theft. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/theft

Boaz, D. (2023, May 19). Libertarianism – Self-Ownership, Rule of Law, and Free Markets. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics/Historical-origins

Cobham, A. (2022, March). Taxing for a New Social Contract. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Taxing-for-a-new-social-contract-Cobham

Davies, A., & Harrigan, J. R. (2019, May 2). There Is No Such Thing as a Social Contract, but so What? Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-social-contract-but-so-what/

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2023, April 24). Social contract. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract

Jurinski, J. J. (2012). Tax Reform: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues) (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO.

Kimball, M. (2018, December 16). John Locke: Legitimate Taxation and other Appropriation of Property by the Government is Limited as to Quantity, Procedure and Purpose. Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2018/12/16/john-locke-legitimate-taxation-and-other-appropriation-of-property-by-the-government-is-limited-as-to-purpose-procedure-and-quantity

Larsen, L. (2019, November 6). Taxation is not Theft. The Western Howl. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://wou.edu/westernhowl/taxation-not-theft/

Lawler, D. (2023, April 24). U.S. spent more on military in 2022 than next 10 countries combined. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/global-military-spending-2022-us-china-russia-list

Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government (1st ed.). Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7370/pg7370-images.html

McLure, C. E., Neumark, F., & Cox, M. S. (2023, June 1). Taxation. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/taxation

NCC Staff. (2022, November 13). Benjamin Franklin’s last great quote and the Constitution. The National Constitution Center. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/benjamin-franklins-last-great-quote-and-the-constitution

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell Publishers. https://archive.org/details/0001AnarchyStateAndUtopia/mode/2up

Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.207956/page/n5/mode/2up

van der Vossen, B. (2002, September 5). Libertarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

민주평화통일 자문회의 샌프란시스코협의회 주최 평화통일 웅변대회 (대상)

Isaac Kim
The following speech was delivered on April 29th, 2017, as an entry to the San Francisco Peaceful Reunification Speech Contest, a contest whose primary topic is the issue of Korean reunification. It won first prize.

“Korean Lover! Isaac!”
제 별명은 바로 Korean Lover랍니다.
학교 친구들과 선생님께서 걸어다니는 대한민국 홍보대사라고 제게 붙여준 별명이랍니다.

한국에서 태어나 두 살 때 미국에 와서 살고 있는 저는 책 읽기를 아주 좋아합니다.
그리고 집에서는 한국말, 밖에서는 영어 두 가지 언어를 모두 잘 사용하고 있습니다.
저는 특히 한국 역사에 관심이 많습니다.
역사책을 많이 읽고 인터넷에서 사진이나 영상을 찾아보면서 한국 역사에 깊이 빠지게 되었습니다.
또한, 역사를 좋아하는 한국학교 친구와 역사 속 인물의 역할 놀이도 하며 더욱 재밌게 역사 공부를 하고 있습니다.
요즘 특별히 즐겨하는 역할 놀이는 독립군 놀이입니다.
김 구 선생님, 윤봉길 의사로 변장하고 태극기를 흔들며 ‘대한독립만세!’를 외치면 그때의 가슴 벅찬 감동이 생생하게 느껴집니다.
그러면서 마음 한편에는 직접 한국의 역사 유적지를 찾아가 내 눈으로 보고 싶다는 생각이 날로 커져만 갔습니다.

그런데 그 꿈은 지난 여름 방학을 맞아 드디어 이루어졌습니다.
저는 두 달 동안, 평소에 가고 싶었던 역사 유적지를 마음껏 다녔습니다.
경복궁과 덕수궁, 국립고궁박물관, 강화도, 경주, 수원화성 등을 열심히 둘러보고 왔습니다.
직접 눈으로 확인한 유적지의 모습은, 사진으로 보던 것과는 많이 달랐습니다.
강화도 고인돌은 옆에서 봤더니 알파벳 대문자 T처럼 보여서 재밌었습니다.
조선 왕릉 주변을 지키는 무인상은 꼭 돌하루방처럼 생겨서 인상적이었습니다.

수원 화성을 방문했을 때는, 화성을 둘러보고 있던 외국인 관광객들이 영어로 된 안내문이 부족해
궁금해하는 모습을 보고 도와준 일도 있었습니다.
그들에게 수원 화성을 누가 지었고, 어떻게 만들어졌는지 영어로 설명을 해주자 매우 만족해하며
고맙다고 했을 때 정말 뿌듯했습니다.
그 때 해외 시찰단과 함께 화성을 둘러보시던 수원 시장님께서 저와 외국인들의 모습을 보시고는
다가오셨습니다.
그리고 이것저것 물어보시며 칭찬해주시고, 수원 시청으로 한번 놀러 오라고 초대해 주셨습니다.
시장님이 미국에 방문하시면 저에게 연락을 하신다고도 하셨습니다.

학교 친구들이나 주변 사람들에게 재미있는 한국 역사를 많이 알려주고 싶지만, 친구들은 아직 한국 역사에 큰 관심을 보이지 않습니다.
한국을 아시아의 작은 나라, 전쟁의 위험이 있는 나라라고만 생각하고 있는 것 같습니다.
저는 사람들이, 이렇게 아름답고 긴 역사를 가진, 훌륭하고 찬란한 문화유적지가 많은 대한민국을 잘 모르는 것이 안타깝습니다.그래서 최근에는 친구들이 한국에 대해 관심을 가질 수 있도록 여러 가지 방법을 시도하고 있습니다.
역사 만화책을 만들어서 보여주기도 하고, 학교에서 태극기를 그려서 친구들이 이게 뭐냐고 물어보면 알려주기도 합니다.

제 마음 속에는 작은 꿈의 씨앗이 점점 자라가고 있습니다.
바로 한국을 널리, 그리고 바르게 알리고 싶은 꿈입니다.
나중에 커서 역사가나 외교관이 되고 싶은 꿈도 생겼습니다.
아마도 전 세계에 한국을 널리 전하라고 제가 미국에 사는 것 같습니다.
여러분, 저는 전 세계인들에게 한국을 전하는 어린이 한국홍보대사랍니다.
이십년 후에는 진짜 대사가 되어 대한민국을 더욱 널리 바르게 전하겠습니다.
지켜봐주세요. 감사합니다.