|By Admin1 (admin) on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 6:37 pm: Edit Post
White Paper - The New Mandate for the Peace Corps
|By Joanne Marie Roll (joey) on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 8:10 pm: Edit Post
NO! Congress should not turn over the RPCV
community to the NPCA! The NPCA is a small group
of partisans, which I would join in a moment if
they didn't keep coming up with these grandiose
ideas of "capturing" the Peace Corps experience
and then apparently claiming that they somehow can speak for all of us. They don't speak for me!!!
I don't want my tax money to go to empower
this organization. If they would restrict their
goals to reflecting the experience of their own small membership; then, I would gladly support
some of their programs..which appear to be worth
while. I don't understand their eagerness to be annointed.
|By joyce howard on Monday, February 11, 2002 - 3:36 pm: Edit Post
In the annals of reinvention ideas for the Peace Corps, this one has got to be the most vacuous, jargon-laden, and silly - against strong competition. There is not one new idea in the paper, and several old, bad ones are pumped out again.
The NPCA simply has no credentials, has no demonstrated experience or proficiency, and has not established itself as a thoughtful, independent voice about what the Peace Corps does or should be doing. Neither apparently, have Hibbard and Landrum, who obviously have both dated views of the Peace Corps and inflated views of their own insight into what the organization needs (mainly, more input from them and other RPCVs!) Platitudes abound, but what actually do they propose other than having congress give them a platform they've never been able to build themselves and money for new activities that they deem worthwhile?
The organization is already basically staffed with over 90% RPCVs, many who've been in-and-out for decades. The organization is still overwhelmingly white, and the 166,000 number is a big inflation (it counts anyone who ever entered training - those who actually completed service is only about 60%). Though the majority of PCVs are now women, historically - particularly when Landrum and Hibbard actually were in the PC - it was overwhelmingly male. Their and the NPCA's views on "strategic planning" for future generations are the last thing the PC needs.
The PC's great strength is new blood, not retreads who seek to remake it as they wish it had been when they were PCVs.
The Congress should not direct scarce money away from supporting new Volunteers to finance the jaunts and meetings of throwbacks who appoint themselves experts. Sure the new Director has zero credentials, but the Deputy Director is head-and-shoulders above Landrum, Hibbard, and anyone else the NPCA has ever had in charge.
|By Jennifer Hayes on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 6:19 pm: Edit Post
The power of the Peace Corps lies in the credibility of its volunteers as apolitical representatives of peace and friendship, of sharing and learning. Hibbard and Landrum's new mandate would erode this credibility by further politicizing its volunteers and putting the organization's strategic direction under the influence of a largely non-representative interest group. Under their scenario, I fear that support for Peace Corps in foreign countries would dwindle, as would interest in serving on the part of quality potential volunteers. The US has plenty of existing development and foreign policy organizations "to serve the international interests of America"... the armed forces for one, which could stand focusing more on strategic relationship-building with foreign countries. Leave Peace Corps and its volunteers to fill the niche they fill so well-- expanding the threads of friendship and mutual respect at a grassroots level, across borders but beyond politics.
|By Jeff Hay on Thursday, February 14, 2002 - 6:16 pm: Edit Post
The White Paper does echo of ghosts of Peace Corps visions past.
I believe that Peace Corps can improve and expand its presence while maintaining its goals, and that there is plenty of room for discussion and debate. But Peace Corps is ultimately a grass-roots organization and best served by concrete and focused initiatives. Visions inspire when offered sparingly, but for the reality of the environment Peace Corps operates in, they do little to contribute to the realization any of the ideas described.
To my mind, any actions designed to transform Peace Corps need to start as measured, specific plans, much like Peace Corps service. Peace Corps needs to focus on recruitment, practices to support volunteers in this new era of safety and security, identification of resources that will coordinate more effective programming and training, as well as resources for developing twice as many viable and sustainable sites for potential Volunteers.
Progress on any of the above would carry Peace Corps down a true path of transformation. It would require labor and small, periodic gains, but the great accomplishment that is Peace Corps has always been made up of the thousands of modest accomplishments of the volunteers. A new vision for Peace Corps should be built on the same solid foundation.
|By ktgaudette on Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 2:44 am: Edit Post
When will the US/US Peace Corps promote the national right to development?
NATIONS HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP!!
(Not just individuals/communities/micro-enterprises/multinational companies
The UN General Assembly has passed a resolution supporting the national right to development. And so it was at the Group of 77 Meeting held in Havana, with governments accounting for 80% of the population of the planet. The event was not covered by US media. Suggestion...do a Web search (many Web sites)and then do a News Story search (any stories?)
China's foreign policy states that:
"The current international political-economic system is unjust and irrational, and counter to the interests of the 3rd World nations.
As long as US Policy is part of the Problem, rather than part of the Solution, then many in the 3rd World cannot help but see US Peace (Freedom?) Corps Volunteers as PR people for an unjust and irrational--and unsustainable--system.
Sierra Leone (1968-1970)
Shanghai Maritime U.
|By W. TIMMONS on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 12:41 pm: Edit Post
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"If it ain't broke, fix it until it is."
The Peace Corps isn't broke and never has been.
Niger IV (1965-67)
|By Mike Dillon on Wednesday, March 06, 2002 - 1:06 am: Edit Post
There is no REAL National Peace Corps Association, just a group of returned volunteers trying to be one. The true essence of being an ex volunteer is to go back to our communities and carry our experiences into our work and relationships. We don't need no stinking badges (nor an organization).
Please don't let the few self appointed NPCA partisans take over directing Peace Corps direction or policy.
|By Leo Cecchini on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 8:47 am: Edit Post
Those who have replied to this so far seem to overlook the fact that until now most Americans did not know that the Peace Corps still exists. It took President Bush's call to double the number of PCVs to reintroduce the Peace Corps to the American public.
Why does the idea of utilizing the energy and commitment of RPCVs to work with the Peace Corps itself scare so many? All RPCVs know that we carry that Peace Corps spirit with us and we continue to want to do what we can to make the world a better place. Why not let RPCVs work where possible with the Peace Corps to do the job?
|By Donald Round on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 12:28 pm: Edit Post
The influence of the PC is the aggregate of the myriad interactions between vols and locals over the course of each vol's 2 years in country. So-called "targeted use" of the PC for blatantly political ends will work against the positive results of Americans - whose views are not typically 'pro patria' in a jingoistic way - working and living for extended periods for concrete, largely apolitical purposes.
|By Ken Hill on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit Post
The “New Mandate” has fostered useful dialogue on the future of Peace Corps. This discussion needs to be continued because there is much in the "New Mandate” that is troubling. “New Mandate” ideas have also been proposed in the form of legislation which, if enacted, would be highly deleterious to Peace Corps.
Excessive detail in legislative guidance threatens Peace Corps non-political, independent status and complicates its ability to respond to situations as they arise around the world. By agreement between Peace Corps, the White House and Congress, Peace Corps traditionally operates with relative independence within general guidance and oversight provided by the Administration and Congress. The “New Mandate” legislation would negate these important agreements. Peace Corps programming and operating policy should not be legislated nor Peace Corps appropriations earmarked.
Traditional Peace Corps programs place high priority on responding to the requests of Host Countries. This is a basic Peace Corps tenet and a key to much of its success. Peace Corps programs and the roles and responsibilities of Peace Corps Volunteers should be determined on a country by country basis in cooperation with Host Country governments. The “New Mandate” proposes that too many of these decisions be made in Washington which would weaken Peace Corps, not improve it.
The legislation proposes an official role in Peace Corps operations for a private, membership organization - NPCA. It would also require Peace Corps to fund various “third goal” NPCA activities that are not now being performed nor funded. This constitutes a form of handout for NPCA and an unreasonable constraint upon the use of Peace Corps funds. Aside from the troubling legal implications, this creates an improper role for the NPCA and would result in its dependency upon Peace Corps. Neither the Peace Corps nor the NPCA should be adjunct to the other and NPCA should have no official role in Peace Corps.
Peace Corps leadership and alumnae – including the NPCA - should oppose the “New Mandate” legislation! It will not strengthen the Peace Corps nor make it more effective, quite the contrary. It’s time to re-think the “New Mandate” and most important, to resist the idea of any related legislation!
|By Diana Ackerman on Tuesday, June 04, 2002 - 9:23 am: Edit Post
Regarding recommendations to congress for a new mandate for Peace Corps;
How about providing grants for RPCV's to obtain specialized Masters Degrees to help bridge the gap between the American/International Islamic community, and the American community. i.e.-a masters program in Arabic for those RPCV's who have serviced in Arabic speaking/Muslim countries.
I am just waiting for this opportunity.
RPCV Tunisia 1994-1996
Speaker of Tunisian Arabic
|By Sahliya (126.96.36.199) on Monday, January 14, 2013 - 12:45 pm: Edit Post
Barry, it may be convenient to get The Herald by e-mail but I HATE all the shitnifg back and forth to read articles. Oh well, I guess horse riders hated the automobile and by the way, why can't I find a public telephone anymore?