By Admin1 (admin) on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 06:39 pm: Edit
| By Admin1 (admin) on Saturday, June 01, 2002 - 06:39 pm: Edit |
Why the Peace Corps needs a Fourth Goal
| By Dave Johnson on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 07:57 am: Edit |
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 - 09:58 am: Edit |
“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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 - 01:33 pm: Edit |
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 - 01:44 pm: Edit |
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 - 01:48 pm: Edit |
(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 - 02:21 pm: Edit |
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 - 02:32 pm: Edit |
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 - 02:53 pm: Edit |
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 - 04:09 pm: Edit |
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 - 04:24 pm: Edit |
"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 - 05:29 pm: Edit |
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 - 07:07 pm: Edit |
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 - 07:07 pm: Edit |
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 |
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 - 08:45 am: Edit |
Great post by Jim Robertson Thanks. Dave Johnson
| By Tom Murphy on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 10:22 am: Edit |
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 - 01:12 pm: Edit |
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 - 03:57 am: Edit |
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 - 08:43 am: Edit |
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 - 09:19 am: Edit |
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 - 02:25 pm: Edit |
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 |
In Shriver's statement, "survival" is the key (and ominous) word.
| By G. Long on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 11:51 pm: Edit |
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 - 01:29 am: Edit |
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 - 09:55 am: Edit |
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 |
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 |
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 - 04:54 pm: Edit |
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 - 09:41 pm: Edit |
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 - 09:18 am: Edit |
> 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 |
> Cynthia McNeal speaks my mind.
| By Steve Manning on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:21 pm: Edit |
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 - 05:40 pm: Edit |
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 - 09:31 am: Edit |
> 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 |
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 |
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 - 08:47 pm: Edit |
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 - 08:49 pm: Edit |
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 |
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 |
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 - 01:26 pm: Edit |
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 |
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