May 28, 2002 - PCOL Op-Ed: Why the Peace Corps needs a Fourth Goal

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Peace Corps Library: Special Reports: Sargent Shriver calls for a new Peace Corps (11/15/01): May 28, 2002 - PCOL Op-Ed: Why the Peace Corps needs a Fourth Goal

By Admin1 (admin) on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 6:39 pm: Edit Post

Why the Peace Corps needs a Fourth Goal





Read and comment on this op-ed piece by Eritrea RPCV John Rude written exclusively for PCOL on why the Peace Corps needs a Fourth Goal and what the Fourth Goal will mean for the Peace Corps at:

WHY THE PEACE CORPS NEEDS A FOURTH GOAL*

* This link was active on the date it was posted. PCOL is not responsible for broken links which may have changed.



WHY THE PEACE CORPS NEEDS A FOURTH GOAL

John C. Rude, Peace Corps Volunteer, Eritrea (1962-64)

When the Peace Corps was founded 41 years ago, it fell heir to Wilsonian political legacies which hung over the Kennedy administration like a musty odor. Four decades is a long time. The same number of years separate the 21st century Peace Corps from the 1960s as separated the Wilson presidency from John F. Kennedy. With so much experience under its belt, and so much global change since its founding, it is time for the Peace Corps to chart a new course for its future.

The first forty years were framed by Three Peace Corps Goals: (1) to provide technical assistance to poor people; (2) to promote better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served; and (3) to bring the world home to America.

These goals resonate with – and are every bit as lofty – as the rhetoric that formed the League of Nations: “Making the world safe for Democracy.” But just as the world had had to wait 25 years for an effective United Nations to be born on sounder principles than the League, the Peace Corps today waits for a declaration of purpose that reflects its true mission, and its untapped potential.

"We made a difference!"

No single Peace Corps experience can be generalized to all volunteers, countries or eras touched by the Peace Corps. Nevertheless, there are common themes that have made the Peace Corps a unique and enduring organization. One theme borne out by historical experience is that the problems addressed by volunteer efforts have been immense – in fact, far beyond their capacity to solve, in nearly every case. This discovery alone has been worth the venture.

The facile, oft-used phrase, “We made a difference!” is a frank admission that making a dent was all that volunteers had a right to expect. Hunger, poverty and disease have grown immeasurably worse over the past 40 years. Peace Corps volunteers have witnessed these tragedies, but for all their passionate caring, they have done little to avert them. Because they were sent as emissaries from the world’s wealthiest nation, a nation perceived as having the capacity (but not the will) to alleviate global suffering, Peace Corps volunteers were viewed as complicit in the very problems they tried to solve.

Volunteers found themselves in circumstances similar to the “innocent” German citizens of Dachau. At the end of the Second World War, as the people of Dachau were required to visit the death camp on the edge of town, they could no longer cry innocence to God or their neighbors. Figuratively, Peace Corps volunteers have also smelled the stench from the ovens. Figuratively, the ashes of AIDS, ignorance, oppression and starvation have been scattered all over their immaculate clothing after they returned from overseas.

The Common Humanity that volunteers discovered

A second, even more powerful discovery of Peace Corps volunteers has been the surging river of common humanity that volunteers, as Americans, could scarcely be aware existed, until they were immersed in it. American popular culture has tried to tap and exploit this yearning, but those who have lived in the so-called developing world know that Hollywood and the media are missing the story of global suffering—as well as global resilience.

What Peace Corps volunteers understand – because they have lived in the places where one third of humanity tries to survive on $2-a-day or $1-a-day – is that laughter, late-night conversations in dimly-lit courtyards, wailing chants at weddings and funerals, and tears of loss, shared with friends who happen to be from different cultures – these humble experiences define humanity for all of us. This has been a life lesson granted to few Americans, seldom even to the best-educated Americans: that what binds people together as human beings is far more important than what tears them apart. Most volunteers, even those who revert to the middle-class attractions of consumerism, understand that ultimately these attractions are illusory. Love, suffering and courage are not exclusive traits of any society or culture -- they transcend our material world, and bind together the lives of rich and poor alike.

These discoveries–that they were witnesses, more than saviors, and that they shared their humanity with their hosts–is what gave legitimacy to the word “Peace” in the title of the Peace Corps. Who can deny that the agonies of Israel and Palestine, or of India and Pakistan, are based on arbitrary and artificial enmities? Over and over, Americans (watching on TV) hear the pleas of ordinary people whose societies are shattered by war and terrorism. “We just want to live in peace!” they say. And how, exactly, is peace to be defined? As Peace Corps volunteers have lived it, in their daily struggles among people who, with all their differences, are amazingly like themselves.

The Peace Corps Experience of four decades

With 160,000 volunteers who have completed Peace Corps service and nearly 7,000 volunteers in the field, now is the time the Peace Corps to crystallize the experience of four decades, and re-define its mission. The Peace Corps’ first director, R. Sargent Shriver, recently proposed adding a Fourth Goal to the agency’s legislative charter: “ To join with people of all societies in common cause to assure peace and survival for all.” Mr. Shriver insisted in a speech at Yale University that the spirit of the Fourth Goal is more important than the exact words.

Alternative language for the Fourth Goal has been proposed in a bill authored by Congressman Sam Farr (D-California), in a comprehensive revision of the Peace Corps’ authorizing legislation. This bill, S. ___, proposes the addition of the following goal to the original three goals (which are also slightly revised) : “To help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government.'' There may be nuances of wording to explore as the bill is debated – but again, the spirit matters far more than the words.

What the Fourth Goal will mean

In either version, the Fourth Goal may appear on the surface to be more idealistic than the original three. But consider the ways in which the Fourth Goal resonates with the actual experience of Peace Corps volunteers:

(1) The Fourth Goal recognizes that no one, whether a citizen of a rich or a poor nation, can escape responsibility. Our humanity draws us into the common struggle for progress and justice. The Peace Corps will remain on the scene as an effective instrument, but it is only one small part of a larger struggle.

(2) The Fourth Goal views the mission of peace and survival as achievable and worthy aims. It does not succumb to the cynicism of real-politik. It cannot, because the stakes are higher than they have ever been in human history. (For this reason, I prefer Shriver’s emphasis: “To…assure peace and survival…)

(3) The Fourth Goal states explicitly that peace is part of the agency’s mission. Whatever else is “real” about global politics, we must address the fact that our capacity for killing is vastly greater than our capacity for healing. The Peace Corps’ pragmatic reason for existence is solely to make healing possible, thereby make killing seem unreasonable.

(4) The Fourth Goal recognizes that the Peace Corps is not merely an agency of government or an instrument of American foreign policy. It symbolizes a cause, passionately shared by nations and individuals in every culture, in every corner of the globe. Overcoming both internal and external threats, the Peace Corps has become virtually the only U.S. program that has managed to transcend parochial politics and be universally accepted.

(5) As such, Peace Corps volunteers are part of a tapestry of courageous actions, undertaken by charities, churches, host governments and multi-lateral agencies to attack poverty, ignorance and disease. By enthusiastically joining this river of humanity, rather than standing aloof, the Peace Corps and organizations like it have vast untapped potential to make both America and the world more secure.

New Fruitful Avenues

Legislative enactment of the Fourth Goal would help to align the Peace Corps mission with the reality of volunteer experience — past, present and future. It would convey to host nations and multi-lateral agencies the willingness of the U.S. government and people to join in their efforts to alleviate global suffering. It could accelerate the ethic of service that has inspired Peace Corps clones throughout the world. Finally, the Fourth Goal would speak to the hearts of America’s restless and cynical youth, convincing many that the Peace Corps is more than a tough job or patriotic duty – it is the best and quickest way to empower people to take control of their own lives, thereby making the world a safer place.

“To join with people of all societies in common cause to assure peace and survival for all.” Adding this Fourth Goal to the Peace Corps legislation would not end the debate over the agency’s mission, but it would lead it down fruitful new avenues. As John F. Kennedy might state it, after seeing his brightest dream become a musty relic of times past: “Let us begin—again….”




“Let us begin—again….




Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; Special Reports; Speaking Out

PCOL518

.

By Dave Johnson on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 7:57 am: Edit Post

I suggest that, rather than adding a fourth goal, PC should eliminate two of the existing goals, leaving only the first. If the first goal [helping the poor]is taken seriously and funds are made available so that it is possible to undertake meaningful projects, the other goals will all fall into place.
Dave Johnson RPCV Paraguay 1989-93

By Mackie Blanton on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 9:58 am: Edit Post

“To help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government'' [Sam Farr's wording].

The principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence. The principles of peace and non-violence. This is a very tall order for a nation whose cities are teeming with adolescents who live in neighborhoods of poverty and violence. As long as we can't achieve such principles here at home, a PC stint abroad is nothing more than an overseas vacation and escape for Americans. Perhaps we should lengthen PC training so that it can begin in our urban areas and continue in a host country. Exotica is also at home.

By Curt Tarnoff on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 10:14 am: Edit Post

The Peace Corps does not need a fourth goal. The so-called three goals of its implementing legislation are explicitly intended to meet the ultimate objective of "promoting world peace and friendship" (sec. 2 of the Peace Corps Act). Isn't that enough?
Curt Tarnoff UNV/RPCV Botswana 1982-84

By Joanne Marie Roll (joey) on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 10:22 am: Edit Post

I think Sargent Shriver should start his own, privately funded foundation, call it "The Fourth Goal," and hire John Rude to run it!
But, I don't think we should give George Bush a fourth goal to play with because the first three didn't work.

By Jason Walker on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 10:31 am: Edit Post

Twice the author comments that "the spirit matters far more than the words." I disagree. Words are powerful and their interpretation is central to what actions people take. For example, who defines the "principles of international peace" and how does one work towards those principles in a way that all cultures and governments can accept? If you think about law and its enforcement, the language found in our laws, treaties, charters, and declarations forms the foundations to many of the central debates in our society. What does the right to free speech really mean?

By Leo Cecchini on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 10:53 am: Edit Post

Bravo John! I am drawn to your point about "Peace Corps" clones. Perhaps the best thing the Peace Corps can do is to be a model and inspiration for similar ventures in other countries. Maybe if there were 200 "Peace Corps" around the world we would really be able to make a difference.

By Tom Murphy on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 11:29 am: Edit Post

Wow! You folks scare me! The first guy wants to throw money at projects. You're thinking of USAID or the World Bank. The second guy thinks if we can't improve US cities to his requirements that teaching people in other countries healthcare and fish farming is a complete waste of time, "nothing more than an overseas vacation and escape for Americans". I'm sure the kid who didn't die from bad health habits this month would agree with his logic.
I liked the original message better than the legislation.
“To help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government." This is much watered down from, “To join with people of all societies in common cause to assure peace and survival for all.” That statement has potential for action and bringing the full force of former volunteers and host country nationals to bear on problems. The wording does matter. First goal: Act. Second and Third: Talk. Fourth goal: Act. And act together. United and sum more powerful than the parts. It's perfect!
Unfortunately, by what I read here, the simple clear potential will be wasted with all your other agendas and axes to grind. RPCV CAR 83-85

By Mark Treuenfels on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 1:33 pm: Edit Post

There's this story about a guy standing by the river when he sees a baby float by. It's drowning. So he jumps in and saves it. Then he sees another one floating by, and another- he keeps jumping in, saving babies... now imagine that going on forever. Well, so Peace Corps volunteers are in the business of pulling babies out of the river. But it doesn't address the root problem- Who's upstream throwing babies into the river, and how do we stop them? Seems like the 4th goal is addressing that problem.

By William Brandon on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 1:44 pm: Edit Post

Personally, I entirely agree with the aim of the proposed fourth goal (with whatever wording), but I worry about the practicality of its adoption by the U.S. Government as part of the U.S. Peace Corps Legislation.

At a minimum, that goal involves a commitment to supporting the proposed treaty banning landmines. Arguably, it also ought to produce Peace Corps support for the Kyoto agreement to combat global environmental threats and U.S. declaration of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Of course each of these items is directly contrary to current U.S. policy. This short list of examples of US government opposition to international efforts to advance peace & progress could easily be expanded.

So what would happen if Congress passed such a goal as the rhetoric of the Peace Corps? First, the level of public hypocrisy is increased, even while the goal is ignored as happens with the "purpose" statements of most legislative acts. Second, support for the Peace Corps might be reduced. All it would take is for some red-neck Senator or Congressman to point out that the Peace Corps stands for these "subversive" ideas that the President & Congress would reject if they voted on them. (Not that anybody, including Clinton, had the guts even to bring them to a vote.) Then the budget and activities of the Peace Corps, which currently enjoys pretty widespread but shallow support, would be up for grabs by those who really want to use the resources for other purposes.

A better way to accomplish this end is for the National Peace Corps Association (NPCA) to adopt the fourth goal and to use its lobbying power to push those ideas. At the meeting in St. Paul a couple of years ago, I remember that the group voted to make the passage of the anti-landmine treaty a major objective of our non-profit activity. I haven't heard of any activity to implement the resolution.

By Tom Murphy on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 1:48 pm: Edit Post

(1) to provide technical assistance to poor people - sounds like pulling babies out of the river.
(2) to promote better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served - no help
(3) to bring the world home to America - no help
(4) To join with people of all societies in common cause to assure peace and survival for all - sounds like stopping people from throwing babies in the water.

(4 watered down)To help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government. - too many words. Sounds like we're trying to get the world to accept the principle that we shouldn't throw babies in the water. The babies need action, not acceptance that what's happening is bad.

By Mark Mason on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 2:21 pm: Edit Post

Dang! Shouldn't it just be: (#4) Do the best development work you can with what you've got. ?

Just work your ass off in every positive way you can. That site is your home for 2 years and you should treat it that way. To much lofty talk in that 4th goal for me.

By Camellia El-Antably (leillucy) on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 2:32 pm: Edit Post

I don't know how I feel about the adding the 4th goal as stated by Sam Farr--I would be more comfortable with Sargent Shriver's version, which is much more to the point, uses simpler language and allows for more interpretation. Interpretation is important, and I think most PCV's interpret all the time, as do RPCV's--interpret goals, words, actions, ideas.

I do know that I am STRONGLY for keeping the middle two goals because of my experience, which was that I was prevented from doing much with the first goal by the organization I worked with. Therefore, the 2nd goal became very important, and I think that I was able to leave behind a different view of America than that which is propogated by TV. I am also able to speak to the misconceptions in the US about my area, and given past events, that has been very important.

Camellia
RPCV Jordan 98-00

By Tom Murphy on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 2:53 pm: Edit Post

Interesting. Mark Mason read the 4th goal as being part of the mission for the 7,000 PCVs in the field. I read it as being for the 160,000 RPCVs. Rereading it, I'm not sure now. I always thought of 1 and 2 for in the field and 3 for when home (and letters while there). So I had
1) action for 2 years
2) talk for 2 years
3) talk for lifetime
and thought
4) action for lifetime

By Dave Johnson on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 4:09 pm: Edit Post

To the serving PCV out there with his ass in the grass, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference what the people who spend their time thinking about these things do or don't do about adding words to a mantra. Dave Johnson

By Tom Murphy on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 4:24 pm: Edit Post

"Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Words and mantras have changed the world.
And RPCVs can do more for developing countries that be a support system for current PCVs. Sadly, there are currently no PCVs in my host country.

By Johann on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 5:29 pm: Edit Post

Sounds like the first three goals didn't work, so like many other government agencies/programs that failed, add more words/phases/bureaucratic terms so that it sounds more impressive to the "dumb" taxpayers. Leave it like it is. Additional goals will only place less emphasis on the ones in place. RPCV, 1962 - 64.

By Ken on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 7:07 pm: Edit Post

We should not forget that Peace Corps came into being during the Cold War and that much of the bi-partisan support was based on the notion that Peace Corps Volunteers were in the front lines of showing the world the disadvantages of command authoritarian systems. The current basis of this bi-partisanship seems to be based on perceived roles for the Peace Corps in antiterrorism. This troubles me with or without any changes in the legislation.

By Ken on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 7:07 pm: Edit Post

We should not forget that Peace Corps came into being during the Cold War and that much of the bi-partisan support was based on the notion that Peace Corps Volunteers were in the front lines of showing the world the disadvantages of command authoritarian systems. The current basis of this bi-partisanship seems to be based on perceived roles for the Peace Corps in antiterrorism. This troubles me with or without any changes in the legislation.

By jim robinson on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 12:18 am: Edit Post

WHY CAN'T WE GET ON WITH THE JOB-AND FORGET THE RHETORIC?

one of the problems in u.s. foreign policy since wilson in particular is that we can never do the simple or right thing without wrapping it up in some grandiose policy or philosophical system.
peace corps exists to do the best we can to both pull the babies out of the water and try to stop them from getting thrown in-not to advance the cause of peace but to improve the lives of the babies and the societies in which such bad action is taking place.
the recent frustration of secretary paul o
'neill as to why we don't have clean drinking water or adequate text books in africa after billions in foreign aid is indicative of the problem of both peace corps/usaid and the world bank. let's direct our attention to simple definable goals that will improve life for the poorer peoples-and worry less about the rhetoric of the fourth goal.
babies who are dying of malnutrition, dirty water, lack of basic health care and shots,etc need immediate concrete actions -not speeches or
debates like this.
let us remember some of the simplest advances like oral rehydration therapy are both cheap and almost dumb proof to implement if we simply supply and distribute and instruct villagers.
when will we learn that change comes incrementally-and that each volunteer can and will make a huge difference in some -if not many lives- just by going about his/her duties to improve life for the people we are sent to help.
they want results-not slogans.
volunteers with adequate training and appropriate technology can and will make a huge difference-but we need to commit ourselves to the basics-adequate food, clean water, proper hygiene and latrines, simple medicines and vitamins and nutritional supplements,etc.
in 1967, we closed down the schools in bihar and used them as feeding stations and saved 15,000,000 from starvation through that program, free and subsidized food grains through a ration card system and food for work programs.
we were able to provide 2500 calories with 62 grams of protein, oil and salt throught the basic feeding program. we did not reinvent a distribution system-we simply harnessed what was there and mounted probably one of the most effective and efficient famine relief programs ever.
management was used to assure that adequate supplies of food actually got to each village school to stabilize the population-since it is impossible to feed a moving population.
when drought became a problem, we deployed both peace corps volunteers and un volunteers to drill wells-and try to teach others how to drill and maintain those wells and pumps-once again to keep the population where they lived-and not having them on the move.

by not reinventing the wheel, we went from feeding 250,000 to feeding 30,000,000 in a matter of months-since all we had to manage was getting the title 1, title 2 -and some other PL480 titles food- into the programs described above.

simple, appropriate methods do work. we got the support of president johnson eventually for this amazing effort which went on quietly and effectively just as the vietnam war was being expanded very publicly.

we did not talk about a 4th goal-or any other goal but the only one that mattered --which was how to save what the embassy and the gov't of india estimated were to be 15,000,000-yes , million -casualties from stravation.

to use a bad pun building upon the babies example in an earlier post--let's not throw the baby out with the bath water-and let's re-commit ourselves to achieving simple, meaningful results-and forget the grandiose rhetoric.

jim robinson-ivory coast 64-66. USAID co-coordinator,Bihar Drought Relief Project-1967.
Founding member Friends of Ivory Coast

By Dave Johnson on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 8:45 am: Edit Post

Great post by Jim Robertson Thanks. Dave Johnson

By Tom Murphy on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 10:22 am: Edit Post

I know I should give up, but there's just such a good idea in there I hate to let it die.
There are things RPCVs can do that PCVs can't. After 2 years, I decided the biggest problem in my country was corruption. There was little or nothing I could do about that as a volunteer. As a RPCV, "joining" with others (RPCVS and host country nationals), we have a better chance of attacking problems like this.
Folks, you did great things. I love you for it. The problem I see in the three goals is there's nothing for the RPCVs to do but talk. RPCVs do more, but it's outside of the goals. You could make separate goals for RPCVs since you think adding it to the four would adversely affect current PCVs (?) but why not put it right out front. When folks leave they're dieing to do more. Not just talk, "do". Why are you against putting it in the mission? I understand your love of arguing, but the fourth goal can't hurt and it will help. Words create action.

By John Rude on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 1:12 pm: Edit Post

Thanks for all the responses. A lively debate! Just what I had hoped for...

When time permits, I'll jump into it. (The debate, not the river.)

John Rude

By Jane Rovins on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 3:57 am: Edit Post

This proposed fourth goal seems redundant. Isn't that what the first 3 do if people actually do them?

By being a PCV and living, working (goal 1) and being active in the community and with your host family you are promoting a better understanding of America (goal 2) and every RPCV that returns to the US, intentionally or not, brings the world home to America (goal 3). By completing all 3 goals you are completing the new proposed 4th goal. You have promoted global acceptance and understanding in a non-violent way.

Let's keep things simple. What Peace Corps is and what it is about is hard enought to explain to folks, why make it harder?

By Tom Murphy on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 8:43 am: Edit Post

Correct. "By completing all 3 goals you are completing the new proposed 4th goal. You have promoted global acceptance and understanding in a non-violent way."
Yawn.
That's why I don't like the legislative wording. You can do nothing new and accomplish it. It's so much less than Sargent Shriver's words.
“ To join with people of all societies in common cause to assure peace and survival for all.”
In that statement is potential for things not done by the first three goals.

By Deirdre Johnson Botswana 1990/92 on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 9:19 am: Edit Post

The Fourth Goal is, I believe, redundant. We were/are the Peace Corps. Surely the name says it. A body of people who believe in peace and who are willing to actively work for it. If the basic principle of helping one person, one day at a time is no longer valid, then we do become just another USAID or World Bank program. Money is a solution to many problems - let's not be naive - but it is not the Peace Corps solution. We have an alternative approach. More words won't strengthen the purpose nor facilitate the approach.

By Dana Carter on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 2:25 pm: Edit Post

After having served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Sub-Saharan Africa for two years, I can hardly say that my service was a "vacation" as one response noted. This was the hardest I have ever worked, not only physically but also mentally. The only way I made it through my service was because of the friends that I made there. In fact, the greatest memories I have of my Peace Corps service are of the friendships I had with my neighbors and other women in the village. These people made my stay worthwhile and forever altered the way that I see the world.

I also remember the hardest times that I experienced, which also concerned the people in my village. Sure, having malaria, no electricity and no running water were hard to deal with, but these weren't the things that left me in tears. Being an outcast and prejudged by certain people because I was a white American was hard. Not being taken seriously because I was a white woman was hard. Being yelled at and grabbed because people thought I had money was hard. Not being able to walk down a street without being called "white" was hard.

For the first time in my life, I knew what it meant to be an outsider or a minority. For the first time I was on the other side of the table. I was the one facing racism, stereotypes and isolation. Sometimes I felt bitter and angry that I was being accosted by the very people that I was there to help. However, I also had the amazing support of my friends who kept me going and gave me the most rewarding experience abroad that I could have ever hoped for.

This leads me to the fourth goal. Yes, I can bring home a bit of Africa to my country (third goal), but what does that mean? For many RPCV's it means giving talks about your Peace Corps experience or discussions about host-country dress, food, manners, and holidays. I shared similar information about the United States while I was abroad (second goal) and felt confident that I was fulfilling the three goals. But do these activities really ever scratch the surface of cultural understanding? They are really only the beginning of cultural interchange. These are the "food day" syndrome activities. They expose us only to the superficial differences between cultures. We have to go deeper, which is really only possible with international exchanges, either abroad or in the States. We have to have communication breakdowns and misunderstandings in order to understand.

What we go through as Peace Corps volunteers can never really be understood by those who never share in the experience. I learned more about peace and toleration than I could have ever learned here in the States. The fourth goal addresses these experiences and the results of those experiences. Learning to co-exist peacefully in another culture implies much more than just walking the walk and talking the talk. It means that you let go of your previous beliefs and behaviors and allow yourself to become a different person. You change completely. The fourth goal reminds PCV's of the new person they have become. It also reminds us of the little ways in which we strove to get along with others, thereby promoting peaceful co-existence.

The fourth goal is hardly redundant. It addresses the aspects of our stay that we cannot put into words. It also addresses what we left behind. In twenty years, no one may remember that you built a latrine, but the friends you made will always remember the exchanges they had with an American. Just as we always remember them. There is more to the Peace Corps than the three goals suggest, and I feel that the fourth goal more aptly summarizes what I learned as a PCV. This is what peace is and how we achieve it. There are certainly PCV's who will not be able to understand this distinct difference, but many will.

Dana Carter (Cameroon, 1997-1999)

By Richard Denby on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 11:23 pm: Edit Post

In Shriver's statement, "survival" is the key (and ominous) word.

By G. Long on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 11:51 pm: Edit Post

First of all, people who think that the goals don't matter are just wrong. Stated goals are how an organization defines itself and proceeds upon a single course. In general, if there were no stated goals, every president with little or no concern for the origins of the organization could remold it to his caprice. More specifically, those three goals inform every single day of a PCV's life. For example, without the third goal, PC would never had instituted World Wise Schools, which is one of its best programs. Without the first one, PC would literally not exist. If they seem remote on a day-to-day basis, it is because they are so ingrained in the institutional culture that they are taken for granted. Without them, those who think that we should just get out there and work hard might not have joined up in the first place, since the organization would not have explicitly endorsed a matching interest.

The problem with the fourth goal is that it's specific idealism will inevitably collide with the three original goals. The current apolitical nature of a PCV's service encourages her effectiveness in several ways:

1) By not endorsing a political philosophy, PCVs are not bound to work with progressive parties in the community. A PCV can work with an intransigently xenophobic mayor to create a business development center that happens to increase his political standing in the village. With the fourth goal in place, the PCV would have to betray either Goal 1 or Goal 4, since he can increase technical skills OR avoid indirectly supporting hate.
2) The Fourth Goal would not be easy for a PCV to develop on a daily basis and might lead to increased frustration with her own performance.
3) The PC training infrastructure is stretched to the limit already, and for a fourth goal to be anything more than lip service, it would require at least a few seminars for trainees, which would distract them from technical training that is too often inadequate.
4) Inserting a mandate to preach any one philosophy could further stretch the PCV's credibility in the community. It's very difficult for PCVs to change peoples' way of thinking about concrete technical issues, and PCV's are too often dismissed as idealists who don't understand the harsh realities of their country of service. This problem would only be exacerbated by forcing the PCV to expound on alternative dispute resolution tactics and diversity issues. Of course, many PCVs already try to incorporate these themes into their work and life, but they are free to back off when they see that preaching diversity is having a counterproductive effect.
5) The three goals are vague and allow the PCV to aim for them as his site situation allows. The fourth is more specific and moves toward forcing a specific experience upon PCVs. Among thousands of PCVs in almost a hundred countries, this type of specificity is dangerously regimental.
6) MOST IMPORTANT. The fourth goal could force a PCV to interfere in budding regional conflicts, in essence playing a diplomatic role and encouraging a peaceful relief of tensions. Indeed, this might be the only practical opportunity a PCV would have to address the fourth goal, outside of the educational context. Needless to say, such diplomatic action would be EXTREMELY dangerous and FAR beyond the capacity of the average PCV. Situations which might not initially seem dangerous might quickly turn deadly.

All in all, I think it's a noble idea, but that it has more place in the position statements of more theoretical lobbying organizations (like the RPCV organizations) than in daily grassroots development which is designed to be as responsive as possible to community needs. Its political orientation and specificity would be contrary to the nature of the organization, and would in fact have negative effects.

By Yuen-Hao Huang on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 1:29 am: Edit Post

The proposed 4th goal sounds right for an organization whose mandate is truly global. But the Peace Corps is not the "International Peace Corps" or the "United Nations Peace Corps." It is the Peace Corps of the United States.

As long as Peace Corps is a US government agency funded by American taxpayers and staffed by American volunteers, then any rhetoric about "global acceptance" and "principles of international peace" will necessarily be viewed in the minds of many as window dressing for thinly veiled US foreign policy.

One thing that troubles me about the ostensibly noble intent of expanding the Peace Corps' mission is the apparent lack of sensitivity to how such language will be perceived by host nations and societies. Aren't Peace Corps volunteers simply in the business of helping developing communities find solutions? Should PCVs start getting into the business of promoting social and political outcomes--no matter how noble such outcomes are in our minds? If Peace Corps sticks to its first goal, can't we TRUST people in their respective countries to CHOOSE and adopt their own home-grown principles of international peace?

The rest of the world is already increasingly skeptical about US "idealism" and so a 4th Peace Corps goal runs the significant and unecessary risk of politicizing volunteers who struggle every day to simply help people help themselves.

As far as other parts of the proposed legislation, do we really want more Congressional oversight of Peace Corps? More Congressional oversight always comes when programs are specifically proposed and funds are earmarked in legislation. And what's this business about government comment and western values? Such language opens the door for all sorts of political meddling in Peace Corps activities. Sorry to sound so alarmist, but legislation is always a blunt instrument.

RPCV Mongolia '96-'98

By Tom Murphy on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 9:55 am: Edit Post

Wow! The last few entries have completely changed my mind. (And here I thought I was rigid in my thinking now that I'm in my forties!)
First, I would like to thank Dana Carter for her entry. It brought me back twenty years and reminded me how I felt Peace Corps is so much harder for women due to the lack of respect I saw in my country. There was more respect for me as a first year teacher with terrible French than a second year woman teacher who was a college French major.
G. and Yuen-Hao brought up great points against the fourth. Although I love the fourth, there was something that bothered me about it that I couldn't figure out so ignored. They brought it out, big time. Peace Corps is the kids (not always) who just want to help. Everyone else in the world is pushing their agendas at the third world. The PCV simply wants to build a school. We're not missionaries (who I love and respect) who have a Bible in one hand and medicine in the other. I have nothing against that approach, its just not ours. And talking Peace can be a lot more dangerous than talking religion (which is also dangerous). The wording will not translate well into other cultures leaving suspisions in governments around the world. And our PCVs will take it to heart and do political things that the young will do never believing the concequences they can bring down. Lets keep our mission simple and our PCVs safe. CAR 83-85

By Harlan Russell Green on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 10:42 am: Edit Post

I am more worried about Bush's attempt to double the size of the Peace Corps than any fourth goal. We experienced that in Turkey, and its one reason we got kicked out in 1971. Too many ill-trained vols without clear goals were put there for political reasons (NATO member, etc.). I think our fourth goal should be to foster in-country volunteer corps that can replace us! We are only successful if our work is continued after we leave.

I agree with many of the above that our work itself exemplifies Schriver's proposal already. Maybe he's trying to head off the obvious politicization by the current administration in putting it under a 'Freedom Corps'. What better peacemaking example is there than serving others? Working also with Cesar Chavez (United Farmworkers Union)in California, I realized we can only promote peace by our own example!

Harlan Green, Turkey V (1964-66)

By Harlan Russell Green on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 10:45 am: Edit Post

I am more worried about Bush's attempt to double the size of the Peace Corps than any fourth goal. We experienced that in Turkey, and its one reason we got kicked out in 1971. Too many ill-trained vols without clear goals were put there for political reasons (NATO member, etc.). I think our fourth goal should be to foster in-country volunteer corps that can replace us! We are only successful if our work is continued after we leave.

I agree with many of the above that our work itself exemplifies Schriver's proposal already. Maybe he's trying to head off the obvious politicization by the current administration in putting it under a 'Freedom Corps'. What better peacemaking example is there than serving others? Working also with Cesar Chavez (United Farmworkers Union)in California, I realized we can only promote peace by our own example!

Harlan Green, Turkey V (1964-66)

By JonathanTurvey on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 4:54 pm: Edit Post

A fourth goal huh? “To help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government.'

When I first heard of this it sounded interesting but something didn't feel right. It took me a while to figure it out but here's why I think it's a bad idea: This fourth goal is unequivocally in response to the September 11th attack. Like it or not we are representatives of The United States of America. In response to 9/11, how can we espouse 'principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence' when OUR response has been to rain bombs down upon Afghanistan, prop up drug-funded warlords, continue to bomb Iraq, support Israel in its illegal occupation of the West bank and its unconscionable invasion thereof? How can Peace Corps Representatives of the United States preach non-violence when we live in the most violent society in world history? When our country tries to impose "Pax Americana" with a military capability so far beyond that of any potential foe? It's not that I don't support the goal, it's just that I feel it politicizes the Peace Corps experience with a goal that we really can't live up to at home. The level of hypocrisy would be too hard to explain away and I think it would SERIOUSLY impact the credibility of the Peace Corps - would we not become unwilling foils for an American propaganda effort? The Peace has stood for 40+ years because on an individual level, each of us has been able to attain each of the three goals - independent of what our government has been doing. How many times in your service did you say, "I don't agree with my government - here's what I'm here to do....goals 1-3. With goal 4 we will be asked, "How can you say that - yours is the most violent society on earth." And they'll be right.

By Cynthia McNeal on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 9:41 pm: Edit Post

To me the fourth goal is directed at that 160,000 returned volunteers – myself included. On a larger scale the fourth goal really should be the goal of all Americans --to support peace and the survival of mankind. To promote peace and survival – we need to help people have a better life (clean water, food,) – hope for the future and a belief that things will be better for their children. With a better life, terrorism would be reduced and greed would decrease.

Most of my neighbors could care less about the rest of the world as long as it doesn’t affect them directly like 9/11 did. I am frustrated and disheartened. I don’t know what I can do. Sure I started a local food bank (yrs ago) and sponsored a local bike drive for (Pedals for Progress, an organization started by a RPCV that ships used bikes to third world). But that’s not even a tiny dent. Africa is worse off today relative to the rest of the world than it was 30 yrs ago when I was in Ghana.

The RPCV has a voice that should be united behind the fourth goal without the politics of US govt. As Dana said, “What we go through as Peace Corps volunteers can never really be understood by those who never share in the experience. “ But can’t we as collective RPCV inspire American to think more globally and ‘be their brother’s keeper” wherever he/she is?

What are you all doing to promote the “survival of mankind”?? I’m not being sarcastic. I really want to know. I’m frustrated.

By From Ned Seligman on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 9:18 am: Edit Post

> Dear Cynthia - This is not the answer for everyone, but pull up 'www.stepup.st' and check out my answer. All the best to you in your search - Ned (Seligman)

By Will Alexander on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 10:25 am: Edit Post

> Cynthia McNeal speaks my mind.

By Steve Manning on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:21 pm: Edit Post

John, Great op-ed article! In my opinion, part of the reason for a fourth goal is to help prevent Peace Corps from becoming a stagnant, hidebound organization looking to the past for its inspirations. All three of the original goals were fresh and inspired when put forth, but I don't think most volunteers gave them a thought most of the time because they were internalized. But sometimes recently I have felt that activities, especially among returned volunteers, are so self-consciously third goal oriented that it is more like jumping through hoops than anything else. Thus I feel adding at least one new goal per decade is a way of keeping the organization fresh and up-to-date. I actually look at the fourth goal as being a general goal for humanity, not UNIQUE to the Peace Corps but one that hardly any person of good will could argue with, and one which the Peace Corps is in a unique POSITION to cotribute to in a big way. It does go beyond the original three, but I do not think it means that volunteers in the field would be expected to self-consciously proselytize about it, or change their behavior because of it, any more than earlier volunteers did that or do that with the second and third goals.

By Susan Buchanan on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 5:40 pm: Edit Post

Dana and Cynthia said it beautifully.

This legislation could result in a more relevant RPCV community in the U.S., a tremendous resource that's so full of potential and largely untapped. Relevant to what end? Continuing service to our host communities. Helping the Peace Corps recruit the brightest and most talented Americans to serve. Better support for currently serving volunteers in our host communities. Battling some of the social problems and helping to foster understanding, acceptance and compassion in this country.

I think people are being a bit paranoid by extrapolating that "promoting global acceptance of the principals of nonviolent coexistence" means that our government is going to "take over" the Peace Corps and turn it into an arm of the CIA or the foreign service. The fact that Peace is in our name and not in our mission seems to have been almost a gross oversight anyway.

The nuance of the wording is actually quite interesting. It calls for global ACCEPTANCE OF nonviolent coexistence among peoples of DIVERSE cultures and systems of government. It doesn't call for the homogenization of cultures and systems of government. It calls for nonviolent coexistence, acceptance of diversity. Period. What in the heck is wrong with that?

What does the Peace Corps stand for? Nonviolent coexistence if anything at all. And Sam Farr is an RPCV, like you and me, not some right-wing Bush-ite trying to surf the 9/11 wave.

Like me, I'm sure there are thousands of RPCVs who would once again step up to the plate and give, give, give of their time, energy and talents if asked to. Kennedy isn't here anymore, but we are so fortunate to still have Shriver around, challenging us, advising us, supporting us. In all his wisdom, the man who actually developed the Peace Corps from scratch says it's now time for the agency to evolve, just as societies and cultures (even our own!) have evolved since 1961.

This debate is fantastic. It's indicative of the energy and the inspiration that all RPCVs have in common. Let's harness that energy and put it to work. If the RPCV community can't organize on its own, then I support legislation that would give us a boost and help us on our way. It's about time for something like this to come along.

Susan Buchanan
Mongolia, 1993-95
Peace Corps HQ/Communications Employee 99-01

By Will Alexander on Saturday, June 15, 2002 - 9:31 am: Edit Post

> Right on! Susan Buchanan. Your speak my mind. Will Alexander, Kenya 1979-81

By Brad Smith on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 10:14 am: Edit Post

First, Susan, lets clear up a little bit of history. Mr. Shriver did not start Peace Corps from scratch. The idea of young volunteers involved in international service goes back much, much further. It was proposed by Harry Truman (and legislation drafted) as an alternative to military service back in the 1930's! Yes, it was based on the Wilson administration's doctrines and the concept that American democracy was to be the model for an enlightened world. It was an alternative to the isolationist movement in conservative circles of that time. Isn't it amazing what a second World War and a simple concept called the Marshall Plan can do to take a good idea and draft it into a great one?

I contend that Peace Corps does not need a forth goal if enough of us are truly serious about the first three. The proposed forth goal should be our goal as a nation as outlined in our governing documents (yes, it is all there, subject to intrepretation but there none-the-less). Peaceful coexistence is a concept seen throughout the writings of those who drafted these documents. And, yes, perhaps they were not always the best living examples of these values but the values inherent in their writings resonate with us to this day. This goal, therefore, is not a Peace Corps goal, but a national goal. Living in peace and striving for peaceful coexistence is an act of pure patriotism.

As a lifelong resident of "Bubba-land" (the deep South), I also must respond to the posting that stated that goals two and three made "no difference". Sorry to burst your cynical bubble, my friend, but I have seen goal two and goal three at work, not just in my own life but in the actions and activities of other volunteers. Whether in a classroom or a boardroom, I've seen social action and an acceptance of human differences in returned volunteers that I do not see in that concentration in the general public. OK, maybe we were like that before we joined Peace Corps, or maybe we joined Peace Corps because we were like that, but there is a difference. We are not the same. Our experience is such that the patriotic themes and high sounding words have a different meaning to us. Civic responsibility takes on a whole new definition. Oh, yes, we may still be cynical. We may still disagree on what some of those vaues and concepts truly mean. But we have experienced something most American's have not. We've been the ones with our "ass in the grass" as brother Johnson so aptly put it. We've made a difference, if only in ourselves. If enough Americans, enough citizens of this globe, are thus
changed, then peaceful coexistence can be a reality.

Brad Smith
Sierra Leone '78-'81

By Leo Cecchini on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 11:07 am: Edit Post

I would like to note that, as the head of the NPCA's Peace committee, I see 165,000 plus RPCVs as the largest natural constiuency for peace in the USA. We have the respect of the peoples with whom we have worked in these many countries as well as the respect of the American people. And they all know us as having worked for noble purpose without hidden agendas. RPCVs are the best leaders for peace in the USA. It is time to take the lead.

By Joshua Busby (busbyj) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 8:47 pm: Edit Post

The Fourth Goal is a far too woolly concept to be of use operationally to guide the Peace Corps. Sargent Shriver pushed this idea in response to September 11th, but the language just strikes me as slightly anachronistic and not fully though out in terms of what implications this would have for how Peace Corps would function after the fact. Would this mean Conflict Resolution Volunteers? If it actually were adopted to guide operations, this could lead to quite serious politicization of volunteers who become pawns in some domestic conflict.

That said, the point about the relation of this goal to the RPCV community is an important one. However, the new soon to be introduced Legislation by Dodd deals with that through the Innovation Fund which would help support RPCV-initiated projects financially. Among these ought to be conflict resolution in the spirit of the wording of the 4th goal. The NGO's that are established to distribute the funds are a more appropriate venue to incorporate 4th goal like language.

By Joshua Busby (busbyj) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 8:49 pm: Edit Post

The Fourth Goal is a far too woolly concept to be of use operationally to guide the Peace Corps. Sargent Shriver pushed this idea in response to September 11th, but the language just strikes me as slightly anachronistic and not fully thought out in terms of what implications this would have for how Peace Corps would subsequently function. Would this mean Conflict Resolution Volunteers? If it actually were adopted to guide operations, this could lead to quite serious politicization of volunteers who become pawns in some domestic conflict.

That said, the point about the relation of this goal to the RPCV community is an important one. However, the new soon to be introduced Legislation by Dodd deals with that through the Innovation Fund which would help support RPCV-initiated projects financially. Among these ought to be conflict resolution in the spirit of the wording of the 4th goal. The NGO's that are established to distribute the funds are a more appropriate venue to incorporate 4th goal like language.

By Jack Long CAR 88-90 on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 12:17 am: Edit Post

I don't know that we need a 4th goal. Maybe a rewording of the 3rd goal: "to bring the world home to America"
As a high school teacher I get the opportunity to make the world a little smaller for my students. Not just on Peace Corps Day but everyday. Every year some student will come up and ask if they will get to see my slides and hear about my 2 years in CAR (Bala mo Tom). I know it's a little thing but I also know that I plant a seed. Who knows how it will grow.

Other RPCVs do other things. Some go into public service as members of congress. Some are CEOs. Some run their own small buisnesses. Some join other aid organizations. This is the beauty of the Peace Corps.

I enjoyed reading your post Dana. Sometimes it hard to explain why the Peace Corps is the toughest job you'll ever love. It's the people and the relationships you make. We got a new teacher at our school from Africa who had a PC math teacher. You better believe you made a difference.

I wasn't real thrilled with the baby in the river analogy but here's my take. As a PCV we are powerless to stop the person puting the babies in the river, as we should be. That's not our job. We are there to help people and communities one on one. It's when we come home that we are empowered to make political changes in the world.

We all decide how we interpret the 3rd goal.

By Anita Vestal on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 10:38 am: Edit Post

The Fourth Goal is visionary... leaders follow visions of what the future could be like. Why not let our vision be for peaceful co-existence among all societies? We may not get there in our lifetime, but we can choose that path and encourage others to follow. If we want peace in the world, it begins with each one of us making a difference in our everyday lives, whether overseas in the field or home.

By Timothy Rake (trake) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 1:26 pm: Edit Post

Gee whiz, and I've been thinking for thirty years now that part of what I was/am doing as a PCV and RPCV was working for international peace and non-violent coexistence. I didn't realize that it wasn't part of the job description. How stupid of me. I guess just another case of doing "that's not my job."

With all due respect to Shriver and Rude, we don't need more language for the politicians and American public to joust at. A fourth goal on paper will not change one heart. Living peace and non-violence will only come from heart-felt conviction. Anita Vestal said it right: peace "begins with each one of us making a difference." I think, however, she's come to the wrong conclusion. Lofty language is just more fat to chew at the fence post where politicians cull the cows.
RPCV Senegal 73-75

By Patty Hamblin on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 12:12 am: Edit Post

Interesting debate and enjoyabe reading. It feels so much like my Peace Corps days when we had the time/energy to debate such things.
I just have to comment on Leo Cecchini's statement that we have "the respect of the American people". My Peace Corps experience was in an Arab country, and many of my fellow country men today do not appear to want to hear about my experience and my opinion of how Muslims are people just like us. They seem to want to stick to the stereotype of the Muslim terrorist.
I don't know if the fourth goal would change that opinion or not since 9/11, but my experience has been that the average American doens't want peaceful co-existence, unless those countries believe and act like us.
Maybe it is a sad statement of where I live, but if Leo Cecchini is experiencing something better from fellow Americans (non-RPCVS), please share. Otherwise, we need to do something.
Patty Hamblin, Tunisia 88-90

By Susan Buchanan on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 8:47 am: Edit Post

Not to quibble with you, Brad, but on the history comment...it takes a lot to turn a concept into a reality.

Shriver was there, pushing for stronger Peace Corps support long after Kennedy and Congress lost interest in it. Shriver made it happen. He brought the concept to life and helped it through its initial growing pains.

So the Truman administration proposed the Peace Corps concept 30 years earlier (and did nothing with it, I might add), and because of that, you are taking credit away from Shriver for being the founding father of the agency?

Sorry, a bit off topic but I had to respond to that one.

Susan

By Joanne Marie Roll (joey) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 11:45 am: Edit Post

And I have to respond to Susan. Your tag line reads that you served 93-95 and then worked in Peace Corps/HG. My tag line reads 63-65. I have to question your historical source "Kennedy and Congress lost interest." What? Congress expanded the Peace Corps tremendously within two years. Shriver was a competent civil servant; he turned a concept into reality...that was his job. That was what they all did during the too few Kennedy years...Space; Civil rights, Foreign affairs...it was a busy, productive time.
After the assassination, Shrive left Peace Corps to work with the War on Poverty-he was a part time pc Director and was long gone by 1966. That's when Peace Corps really began to have difficulties. I don't recall Shriver fighting for Peace Corps and/or involving himself in the developing world; a la Jimmy Carter.
I find the creation of a Peace Corps mythology with Shriver as some kind of icon, or worse, not healthy. It is understandable, however, because we don't have a documented history. There is no real peace corps library-the archieves are unaccessible. Our history is scattered; piecemeal and personal.
The power of the discussion promoted by John Rude's passionate eloquence is that volunteers rarely have an opportunity to share what it is we did. To paraphase Robert Frost's Gift Outright-from the Kennedy Inagural- what this is all about is deciding "what it was we were and what it is we are to become."
Joanne Colombia XI 63-65

By pcvkmkrueger on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 3:38 pm: Edit Post

Actually, I read the 2nd Draft of Senator's Dodd's Bill and all of the Discussion on "Does the Peace Corps Need a Fourth Goal?"on the weekend of the Reunion. I am glad that some are finally taking the Peace Corps seriously because I believe that most of the Host Countries have been and will continue to be sincere in their desire to have PCV's in their country. I do believe that "terrorism" does pose a threat to world peace and stability and that includes us, the sacred cow Peace Corps. I think that this proposal is only the first step in our attempting to deal with this altered reality. I suppose that Senator Dodd, S. Shriver and all the caring PCV's have only good intentions and want to try and find a way to cope without sacrificing PCV safety, let's say, in a Muslim country. I also feel that the principle of "peaceful co-existence" among diverse cultures is the better way to go. By stating it like this, both the PCV's and Host Country become invested in the safety issues. Karen M. Krueger RPCV Malaysia VII: Sarawak and Jamaica 52.

By Erica R. Hougland on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 8:20 pm: Edit Post

First of all, thank you to John Rude and Dana Carter for beautifully and accurately describing my own emotions and experiences these days. That being said, I have to disagree with your support of adding a forth goal. I'm against it for the reasons stated by G. Long, Yuen-Hao Huang and others, and don't think I need to rehash that when it's been said. But I do want to add my perspective as someone who has been serving for over a year in a Muslim country. On September 11th PCVs serving in Muslim countries were given an entirely new and unanticipated opportunity to learn from the "toughest job". And so we have. Given the never-ending propoganda surrounding 9/11, the political rhetoric, and especially the comments Bush has since made about Peace Corps, the timing of a proposed forth goal is suspicious. No, it's obvious. Peace Corps needs to be left alone, thank you. Don't romantize Peace Corps to the point where we are now REALLY going to save the world. Keep us out of this "Freedom Corps", leave the goals as they are, and put your mental energy into rethinking everything you've thought and heard and read since September 11th. It is things like this "forth goal" that has us groaning over here and wondering how we'll adjust in a country that we just don't recognize anymore.
PCV Erica Hougland, Senegal 01-03

By Maggie McQuaid on Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 2:03 am: Edit Post

John Rude's opening lines were well-written, but frankly, they pissed me off. Comparing us, even symbolically to the German residents of Dachau?? RPCV's "complicit to the very problems they tried to solve"? C'mon, now John. I wasn't out to "solve problems" in my two years in Honduras. I was there to organize and teach First Aid classes and set up feeding and rehydration programs. John, you write that "Figuratively, the ashes have been scattered all over their immaculate clothing after they returned from overseas." When I returned, my clothing consisted of two dresses and one set of underwear. I didn't see any ashes. I'm no super hero, John. I never had the power to right the wrongs of Central America. I still lack the abilities to, in your so-stirring words, "promote global acceptance of principles of peace among peoples of diverse governments".
I've been too busy in the years since my return working in child protective services for the State of Alaska, developing Spanish-language training materials for Hispanic foster parents, trying to educate the general public about child abuse, and making a good enough salary that I can donate chunks of it to Amnesty International and the Nature Conservancy. And silly me, I have been neglecting my responsibilities towards promoting world peace. John, your expectations that we Volunteers and ex-Volunteers have the responsibility, let alone the ability, to lower the world's malnutrition rate, stop the spread of AIDS AND promote world peace remind me way too much of Kipling and his poem "The White Man's Burden". We cannot do it all, and it is dangerous for us to even contemplate that it is "our" right and duty to even attempt it.

Maybe of true "Fourth Goal" should be to do what I suspect most of us are already doing and have been trying to do since our return: work hard, keep aware, and try and make some positive impacts in the immediate world around us.

Maggie McQuaid
Honduras, 76 - 78

By Harlan p Johnson on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 12:14 am: Edit Post

It makes sense to me. The simply stated 4th goal.

By bankass1 on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 8:44 pm: Edit Post

I would have to say, I agree with Mr. Long's assessment of the goal part. Getting detailed on the goals toward certain agenda's will only last for awhile. Also, the Muslim Country thing really bothers me. I don't have a problem with increasing volunteer presence to those countries. Why does it have to be our mission goal? You, also know I disagree with it because there is no assurance of resources such as two volunteers in every village for safety and prevention. I couldn't believe I found myself agreeing with Susan Buchanan on the part of the Kennedy Admin and Sargent Shriver and its history. Thanks for that input. They had alot of courage in proposing the program and implementing it. That mythology is important to alot of people "Senator Edward Kennedy said in his Democratic primary defeat, that the "Dream will live on". Idealism, I believe has been missing in government. I think Sarg. has provided that type of leadership. I may not agree with him all the time as well as my own Senator, Kennedy, but "the dream does live on in Peace Corps." There were many doubters in those days.

However, Joanne, I do agree with you about the quote from Robert Frost. I just don't think the fourth goal is appropriate without more discussion and a more generalized goal. I opt for the road not taken.

By Anonymous (rrcs-74-62-67-108.west.biz.rr.com - 74.62.67.108) on Sunday, September 17, 2006 - 3:43 pm: Edit Post

I agree to everythin

By Tom Doherty (b12webproxy09.direcpc.com - 69.19.14.23) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 2:26 pm: Edit Post

Greetings to John and others,
First time on PCOL....came across your article and healthy debate re a fourth goal for Peace Corps. Do you know where this stands now? Many good points by all whom contributed. I think it's a timely and inspirational proposal. I would support and encourage utilizing more innovative methods to impact issues in host countries such as the deployment of Peace Corps Volunteers teamed with UN and other NGO organizations where the consensus result for a community and group of individuals is realized in the short term. Succcess is a unifying catalyst to do more. The "let us begin, again..." spirit is more likely to continue onward for a successive phase of a community/nation's development work. Tom Doherty, RPCV Belize 80-82, Peace Corps Kenya Desk 82-83, Assoc/DIR Dominican Republic 87-90, Dept of State / Port-au-Prince 2006 - present. August 26, 2007

By BarbaraJROlufs (64.109.202.21) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 2:51 pm: Edit Post

Great "4th Goal" Discussion RPCVs !
Keep it up !
Turn it into action and there you go you are doing exactly what this whole Peace Corp thing was meant to do I think. We may think it was conceived by a man long ago or by a situation or a history but it may actually be from more then that.

Our new US president in a month or so will need some advise and should have access to all of us in forum to debate and consult and advise him and his staff on foreign matters as we have lived on foreign soils around the globe at the grass roots level. MaCain and Obama better know of this and be in contact with us!

We are the fertile soils of change. We, RPCVs are an outgrowth of the seeds sown in our PCV days. We have learned what is needed overseas and here, state side, in the hearts, minds, and actions of this planet's people. Together we can accomplish meaningful positive change! We are now at all walks of life and are coming together through the internet to figure out what is next! AWESOME!

The time has come to put our knowledge and experience to use ..." To help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government."

Keep taking it to your supper tables and extended families, to your communities, to your schools, to your jobs, to your counties and states, to Washington, and not hold back wondering if it is needed or too wordy or too late......

This fourth goal is not as much needed in words, on documents, and on paper as it is needed in deeds! We are the exact people to make sure it happens across the globe! It is not because we are Americans but because we are residents of this planet!

Let's Act! Let's be sure to speak out and pass on this knowledge and wisdom we share.

Let's now share ideas on how to go about THAT action:

to help promote global acceptance!

to define the principles of international peace!

to develop non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures

....within the reality of diverse systems of government

Barb Olufs, RPCV Niger 81-84, World Resident 57-08


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: