May 14, 2004: Headlines: COS - Thailand: Speaking Out: Election2004 Kerry: Albany Times Union: Thailand RPCV H. William Batt says it's foolish to think Peace Corps can fix U.S. image

Peace Corps Online: Directory: Thailand: Peace Corps Thailand: The Peace Corps in Thailand: May 14, 2004: Headlines: COS - Thailand: Speaking Out: Election2004 Kerry: Albany Times Union: Thailand RPCV H. William Batt says it's foolish to think Peace Corps can fix U.S. image

By Admin1 (admin) (pool-151-196-115-42.balt.east.verizon.net - 151.196.115.42) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit Post

Thailand RPCV H. William Batt says it's foolish to think Peace Corps can fix U.S. image

Thailand RPCV H. William Batt says it's foolish to think Peace Corps can fix U.S. image

Thailand RPCV H. William Batt says it's foolish to think Peace Corps can fix U.S. image

Foolish to think Peace Corps can fix U.S. image

First published: Friday, May 14, 2004

"Kerry: Peace Corps can help heal Iraqi abuse damage," reads the May 9 news headline.

Is he kidding? I was proud to serve in 1962 when Kennedy first inaugurated the program. In fact my number -- they gave us numbers then -- was 460, and I proudly set off for Northern Thailand. Today, I think I'd be embarrassed to serve, unless the U.S. foreign policy agenda was a bit more enlightened.

It's not so much that it's more dangerous for Americans abroad today; those concerns always existed, mostly due to sickness and accidents. It's rather that Peace Corps volunteers are asked not to speak about policy matters; in fact, some have been dismissed for having done so.

By being silent, one is tacitly identified with American government policies. And who would wish to be identified with that policy agenda today? And how do we know that Kerry's agenda will be very much different?

We've seen a number of American foreign service officers resign their posts rather than do the bidding of the American government internationally; one of them was a guest in Albany last month as the speaker for the Unitarian Universalist Society's annual Channing Lecture.

In his resignation letter to Secretary Colin Powell, he said, "I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq." The list of those so disillusioned grows by the month.

I would gladly serve in a United Nations Peace Corps, and some Americans do so today. But, sadly, it has become very difficult to reconcile one's conscience with American government policy in the current political environment.

Kerry should not assume that he can cynically rely on idealistic Peace Corps volunteers to pull U.S. government chestnuts out of the fire.

H. WILLIAM BATT

Albany




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.

Story Source: Albany Times Union

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; COS - Thailand; Speaking Out; Election2004 Kerry

PCOL11469
17

.

By Richard B. Smith (198.81.26.8) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 9:47 pm: Edit Post

I agree with Batt. I could not serve as a volunteer today, given the world view of the Bush Administration that holds that "you're either for us or against us." That kind of simplistic analysis of the world leads to preemptive wars, prisoner abuse, and a disregard for other cultures, religions, and countries. I served with some pride in the late 60's in Paraguay; I'd come home now.

By Robert Watada (166.122.121.189) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 9:55 pm: Edit Post

I am a RPCV 1964 Peru. Last year I visited Peru twice and wherever I went, friends, relatives, and people of all walks of life expressed disgust with "Bushy" and it was impossible to disagree. Their perception of the USA is like a "Rambo". "Have gun, am right." Whatever good the Peace Corps did forty years ago in developing good will has now been destroyed. We eliminated the myth that we were CIA henchmen out to get the communistas.
We are now obsessed with a "terrorist" behind every tree, as we were obsessed with a "communist" around every corner forty-five years ago. We need to start somewhere to make a change. Bob Watada

By Joe Ciuffini (152.163.252.100) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit Post

As another early volunteer, I no longer recommend that Americans join the Peace Corps.
Simply put, the divergence between what the Peace Corps stands for and what our american government foreign policy has shown itself to be are miles apart and in many ways the antithesis of each other.

As a Peace Corps volunteer, I was represented by the best spirit of the United States in Kennedy. Today, if I were a volunteer, I am represented by George W. Bush who in his stumbling, bumbling way has made the world a less-safer place to live and has no inkling of how his actions are seen in the rest of the world. Truly, his village is missing their idiot.

Kerry may think what he wants of the Peace Corps but there is probably a thousand years of good deeds and hard work between what was and re-establishing the person-to-person relationship of the PCV and the host country national.

Ask John this one question: How many PCVs will it take to undo the effects of the depleted uranium shells that have littered Iraq for the last 14 years?

Joe Ciuffini - RPCV Ethiopia III

By Tom Bliss, RPCV Fiji 75-76 (cache-gtc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 149.174.164.7) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit Post

I don't understand why America should be ashamed of a policy of liberating millions of Iraqis from one of our generations latest tyrants. We used to ask how could we stand by and watch as ethnic cleansing took place and chemical weapons were used on innocent civilians. We used to be against dictators that used the rape of family members and torture as a normal form of interrogation.

We were once against governments that sent rewards to the families suicide bombers for killing Isreali civilians.

After 9/11 I thought we would be against a government that allowed al-Qa'eda operatives to come to Bagdad for medical treatment and to recover from their illnesses.

Today, the governing council of Iraq appointed their own interim government with a Sunni as the President, A Shiite as the Prime Minister and a Kurd as a vice president. These were not US or UN puppets or even our choices. They are taking control of their own affairs.

We chose not to follow the directions of countries or a UN that we now know were bought and owned by Saddam Hussein through bribes and sweet heart oil deals. I am not ashamed of that. Ten billion of the UN Oil for Food program that was run by the French is thought to be missing. Is there any doubt that this was the true reason for their support of Hussein and their opposition to the Iraq war.

What other country would spend billions of dollars rebuilding another country? We have re-opened thousands of schools and helping to restore the infrastructure of their country that had been neglected for years under Saddam.

What other country would sacrifice thousands of their sons and daughters to offer Iraqis a chance for democracy and freedom. We are asking nothing in return.

As a peace corps volunteer, I was in favor of helping people to be able to help themselves and thought evil was something that we were against.

America's policy of helping achieve freedom for Iraq isn't a policy that I am ashamed of.


Tom Bliss, RPCV Fiji 75-76

By Victor Vuyas (1cust69.tnt15.sfo8.da.uu.net - 65.234.197.69) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit Post

I believe the only answer for those who would willingly serve, but would rather not go wrapped in a flag, is an international volunteer organization . You may not question your intentions but that shouldn't suppose others aren't. I was forever explaining myself to those who chose to see me as a representative of my country's foreign policy. It was naive to assume I wasn't, a fact that was brought home during our termination conference, when--Peace Corps having pulled all staff out of Nigeria because they'd "lost" the country, and wouldn't have a presence after my group left--the man sent to take us through our paces revealed himself (after several drinks) to be a State Department lackey. I don't know about now, how strongly the pretense of complete separation survives, but in my day it was wrong by statute. Incidentally, he asked me not to say anything, so naturally I exposed him immediately, then refused to participate in the proceedings. Lome, Togo was only a couple of hours away.

By Peter Beardsley (host120.209.113.250.the-spa.com - 209.113.250.120) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit Post

I share the (apparently) majority view, that the Bush Administration's policies are an international embarrassment, if not downright criminal. And Kerry, for all his good will, is surely idealistic at best, and opportunistic at worst, to say that the Peace Corps can undo the damage done by Cowboy George.

But my perspective is that of one who served in the Peace Corps (Latin America) during the Nixon Administration, another time when American foreign policy was unjustifiable in many respects, and when the president personally was an embarassment to any thinking American.

Simply put, I believe that the work we do as Peace Corps Volunteers is valuable and worthwhile, for its own sake and for the sake of the people we help, AND in exactly the way Kennedy and Humphrey and Shriver intended it all those years ago. The people we knew and worked with respected us, and even loved us, for who we were and for the contributions we made. And we came back more astute, with an educated world view that has informed our political discourse and participation, to the good of our society.

If we wait for a President who measures up to our personal standards, and whose policies make sense to us, we may wait a very long time. The Peace Corps remains a vital and valuable force. I will continue to encourage people to consider it.

Peter Beardsley
El Salvador '70-'73

By CS Hall (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit Post

I agree with H. William Batt. The good name of the Peace Corps should not be associated with the Bush Administration's war in Iraq. I understand that security of volunteers is high on the list of criteria for deciding whether or not to assist a given country. This alone should rule out sending PCVs to Iraq anytime in the near future, if at all. I understand concern about security is the primary reason the Peace Corps has not returned to Nigeria. Why would we send volunteers to a country that appears to be 1000 times more dangerous?

Clarence S. Hall
Nigeria (13) 1964-66

By Judith Alger (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.8) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit Post

Who is cynical? So you disagree with the present administration? Some in my group (1963-65) broke with PC administration during our time in our country and lived to tell about it. My only fear about inundating the world with younger versions of us is the physical danger(getting shot). That probably makes for a hard sell. What else does this guy have to say?

By Kyle Mathis (ftw-66-42-87-218.unallocated.na.fire2wire.com - 66.42.87.218) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 1:03 am: Edit Post

A few observations: Our own John F. Kennedy's brother Bobby was killed by the anti-Israel terrorist Sirhan Sirhan in the mid-1960s. In Yemen, a wonderful country in which I served, a postage stamp depicted children dancing around a burning Israeli flag. Oh, also, my neighbors regularly threw rocks at a one-eyed dog that they called Menachem Begin (although they were otherwise nice to this dog). The lesson I learned from this is that hatred of Israel is deep, long, and even acceptable in many parts of the world, including our own. Batt and Kerry disagree whether the Peace Corps can help restore our tarnished image? I think the question is egotistical. My goal as a PCV was not to be loveable and adored. It was not to be despised either. I wanted the Yemeni and Sri Lankans I met to know me as a person, warts and all. The same goes for America. I don't happen to think America's image is tarnished. People do hate us. They have for a long time. Sirhan Sirhan hated us. But if someone like Sirhan Sirhan hates us, do you think that's a bad thing?

By Leo Cecchini (0-1pool151-1.nas1.fort-myers1.fl.us.da.qwest.net - 63.233.151.1) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:50 am: Edit Post

Strange, didn't John Kennedy who launched the Peace Corps also launch the Bay of Pigs invasion and start our intervention in Vietnam? I believe the Peace Corps can stand as an example of the best intentions and desires of the American people while our government engages in other actions that are deemed necessary to protect and preserve our country.

P.S. Thank you Tom Bliss for your piece.

By Art Wester (1cust28.tnt6.ewr3.da.uu.net - 65.229.236.28) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 6:39 am: Edit Post

My wife and I served in Suriname 2002 and 2003. We witnessed a dramatic change in the attitude towards Americans;from a warm welcome and sympathy for the events of 9/11, to open hostility on the streets in 2003. But all of us in our group made the individual human connections that make a positive difference in the way that Americans are viewed. Some peoples lives and their children's lives will be better for the Peace Corps having been there. That's the purpose of Peace Corps and it will help heal some of the damage.

By Dexter Van Zile (pool-68-160-185-234.bos.east.verizon.net - 68.160.185.234) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 8:56 am: Edit Post

I am not ashamed of U.S. foreign policy.

In the long run, the Bush Administration's policies toward the Middle East will be seen as a watershed for change that had been a long time coming.

Confronting the threat of militant Islam is a hugely important task. The spread of sharia into Africa will be a catastrophe for the status of women and public health. And yet Bush is somehow the criminal.

What is really criminal is the inability of the American left to discern the threat militant Islam presents to human development. Bush has nothing to apologize for.

By JillGatwood (198.67.60.90) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 9:11 am: Edit Post

I agree with those who say that the purpose of serving in the Peace Corps is not to market the US to the world. My husband and I were PCVs in Jamaica and worked hard to be seen and treated as individuals in a place where almost the only Americans and white people they see are rich and/or are tourists. It was a real step forward when I, myself, was credited for my accomplishments and individually held accountable for my flaws rather than those features being lumped in with the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the US or the caucasian race. I was never ashamed to be an American and in fact had to go overseas to appreciate that I belong to a "culture," too.

The other goal of Peace Corps that should not be forgotten, especially now, is the opportunities that we RPCVs have to enlighten the xenophobic, generalizing, paranoid Americans we occasionally encounter that folks overseas are individuals too - including those who are Moslem.

It's a scary time. I live and work in Trinidad and Tobago now, and I wish people in the US could experience the sense of rage and helplessness many people in the rest of the world feel right now.

By Carl Benander (user-vc8f2hm.biz.mindspring.com - 216.135.138.54) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 9:19 am: Edit Post

It’s true that there is something honorable about resignation on principle. But this should never be interpreted as Gospel truth. Inasmuch as I long ago found out that there are others just as sincere as myself that had diametrically opposite opinions, a fact that made epithets like “war criminal” etc not only unproductive but anathema to any useful dialog.
I just returned from a two week vacation in Kenya, where I had served for 2 ½ years, leaving ay the end of 2000. My welcome was warm beyond belief and I felt that I had never left. It is true that a few expressed concern about the treatment of prisoners and I was quick to point out the difference between our country and the Arab world. I agreed that this was deplorable to virtually all Americans but that it was the work of a few people who were being publicly brought to justice, and that they would be punished for their deeds.
I asked them where was the outrage in the Arab world at the beheading of the American man? Where was the public trial of the perpetrators? We have evil people in our country, too; and we make mistakes as a country, too. But we are a decent and honorable nation who tries to do the right thing as we see it. If it were not so, why would all the masses be trying to get into our country?
Carl Benander
Kenya 1998-2000

By James Tully (batak.avelnet.com - 82.147.136.99) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:52 am: Edit Post

As a currently serving volunteer, I take particular exception to Mr. Batt's feeling "embarrassed to serve" today. I understand he might be embarrassed by a U.S. Foreign Policy that is beyond his control. But isn't today an opportune time to venture out in the world, settle in a foreign community, and show people that Americans aren't just what you see on the news or hollywood movies.

However, as for fixing America's public image, the Peace Corps has about as much a chance of that as curbing world hunger or the AIDS epidemic. The Peace Corps, in my opinion, was not created to change the world in such profound ways. It is a grass-roots organization, designed to improve the lives of one volunteer and one community at a time. At a time when soldiers in Iraq outnumber PCVs world-wide at least 15 to 1, it will be quite some time before we can heal the wounds of an unpopular war.

James Tully
Bulgaria 14 2003-

By Rene Castro (66.116.64.210) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit Post

I agree with P.Beardsley.

Kerry isn't saying that the Peace Corps can "fix" U.S. image, but that it is one of many efforts that can "help" to heal Iraqi abuse damage. And, I agree with him.

I served in Micronesia from '90 - '92. Though I too was regarded initially with suspicion, "CIA" etc., they eventually began to see me, yes, as an American, but also as an individual. We were both able to overcome our stereotypes of one another. And isn't this what the Peace Corps is all about?

Though I think it's important to take a stand, and I don't agree with Bush's policies either, I don't think the Peace Corps is the appropriate place to take that stand. I struggled daily with the Persian Gulf war while serving, but I felt it important to separate the hegemony of US policies from the spirit of Peace Corps. Today, I encourage all my friends and students to join. It was the best decision I ever made. And, at this time, aren't efforts like the Peace Corps more necessary than ever?

Rene Castro
Micronesia, Ponapei, 1990 - 1992

By Thomas Rice (149.142.201.254) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit Post

I agree with Mr. Tully.

While I am more than embarrased by my country's foreign policy--I am ashamed--I was likewise (but to a much lesser degree) embarrased and ashamed by much of what my country did during my service under President Clinton.

One of the many nice things about this country is that I can still claim it as my own even though I am in disagreement with (so much) of it's policy.

This was a fine line to walk in the late 90s, however it was a line that I was proud to walk. It is important for our hosts to know that democracy means that a plurality of views is accepted. In fact, the Bill or Rights means that it is encouraged. Not simply in favor of the invasion of Iraq (under deceptive pretenses), nor simply against the righteous deposition of a tyrant, the American public holds very nuanced views--nuances that are best examined at the individual level.

Thomas Rice
Dominican Republic (1994-97)

By Phil Lilienthal (205.188.116.11) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit Post

It's easy to be a PCV when there is an administration of one's liking. Sort of like cheering and wearing thge team hat when your favorite team is doing well. Noone wants to be out in front doing making a fuss when the Wizards can't sink a basket or when the Redskins can't get a touchdown. The key to remember is that we are going there as Americans and, yes, when there's an administration we don't like, we have to fend off questions and make sure the HCNs know that we are individuals and can still serve the people without endorsing our government.

By Phil Lilienthal (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.116.11) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit Post

It's great to have an administration that we can support as PCVs. When we don't, does it invalidate our work abroad? Do we stop rooting for the Redskins or the Orioles just because we think they're not doing well? We are a little embarrassed to wear the team colors, but our hearts are still in the right place.We can serve the people without endorsing our government's policies. It's not as much fun, but why deny HCNs the manpower and exchange they need because the wrong person is the President?

By Paul Rigterink (20.4.15.69) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit Post

I believe that the Peace Corps has a great deal to do with America's image given these are the only American's that many people in less developed countries meet. If the "Peace Corps" was to bring "peace" or improve "America's image" we have not succeeded yet. Blaming President Bush (or Senator Kerry) for "America's image" is naive. Robert Young Pelton's book "The World's Most Dangerous Places" describes the groups who are responsible in many cases.
I believe that a lot of people in the world are frustrated and need help from Peace Corps volunteers. I believe we should encourage people to join the Peace Corps.

Paul Rigterink
Colombia
RPCV 1964-1966

By Robert Locke (130.86.22.35) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit Post

Kerry is right only if Kerry wins the election November. Bush is an aberration, and if we replace him, we can begin one by one and in groups (which is what the Peace Corps is all about) to rebuild America's image and to get the world back to respecting our country for the good that we can do, and that many of us WANT to do, which is why we joined the Peace Corps to begin with. (I was in Liberia from 1967-71, Group 13.)

We should not be content to vote Bush out of office. We should begin impeachment proceedings right now.

By Brad Smith (167.7.140.254) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit Post

What I find disturbing about Mr. Batt's remarks is not his bashing of America's current foreign policy, or lack thereof, but the overt cynicism that frames the context of his opinions. Unfortunately, I have seen this same cynicism in many former volunteers from the Vietnam and immediate post Vietnam era (60's and 70's). The cultural idealism of the civil rights movement, the Peace movement, the women's movement, and those other "liberal" causes has been replaced by a morbid apathy toward government and government's role in social issues. It is almost as if we have come to accept the Reagan mantra that "Government IS the problem".

Sorry, Mr. Batt, but I served during the time of President Carter and President Regan ('78 - '81) and as much as I admired (and still admire) Mr. Carter, America's foreign image then was not ideal either.

Throughout our history, America's international image has been shaky at best. Granted, we hit an all time high in the post WWII era with the Marshall Plan for Europe and Japan and then the Kennedy era programs like Peace Corps. History shifts. Things change. The wonderful thing about our country is its capacity for change. But all of us who have shared the Peace Corps experience know that change doesn't happen overnight, or without some groundwork to precede it. Cynicism is our enemy along with hate and apathy. No, we should not ignore the reality of our situation, but we should be willing to work to make it different. What we were, what we did, is more important than that and cannot be ignored or swept away. Cultural values like respect, tolerance, and compassion can still be taught. They are not an inherent part of the human condition and we should not expect them to be. There is much that can be, and needs to be done. Roll up your sleeves and get to it, Brother Batt! You are a former Peace Corps Volunteer, by God!

By Catherine T. Weber (modem330.dialup.elite.net - 67.118.195.30) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:36 pm: Edit Post

People my husband and I met on the streets, friends and the people we worked with told us over and over again that often they didn't like what the American government did but they liked American people. The only American people most of them had ever met were Peace Corps Volunteers. Because of Volunteers, they could separate America from the economic and political manueverings of our administrations. We need that to be true now more than ever.

Cathy Weber
Malawi 1994-96

By veeguy (68.112.111.154) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:50 pm: Edit Post

I'm amazed at the number of RPCV's bashing their country. Its truley disgusting.

The prisoner abuse scandal is terrible, but it does not define our country. It defines a few bad apples within our country.

If the people of the world can't see that, its their problem, not ours.

George Bush in 2004! Why change what works?

By Sarah Locke (w068.z064001034.atl-ga.dsl.cnc.net - 64.1.34.68) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 1:02 pm: Edit Post

I served for 3 years in Lesotho, about 88-90. This was an exciting time in that region as South Africa was transitioning from Apartheid to majority rule. I remember we had a Director while I was there, as well as the US ambassador to Lesotho at the time, who were persuaded to resign early after attempting to curb our freedoms of expression. Among other things, we were told, in letters, that we were not allowed to write to our congressmen. I believe that some of my fellow volunteers then sent copies of this to their congressmen. Perhaps this was one of the main factors in the decision of our director and ambassador to resign early. My point is that, while the state dept. may have liked to "control us", in the end our rights as Americans won out. It is exactly this process, like the prosecution of the prison guards that we want to share with others?
I must confess that my major motivation for Peace Corps was fun and adventure. Furthermore another confession, I learned way more from the Africans then I ever taught them even though I was there as a teacher. But the fact that I spent 3 years trying desperately to be a good teacher to my students and a good friend to my African colleagues must have made some positive difference.
Now I teach with the International Baccalaureate at an International School which of course makes me one of those bleeding heart liberals who advocates that kids be encouraged to think for themselves and form organizations like “International Students Against Landmines”. Many of my students see Peace Corps and other volunteer organizations in their future and ask my advice on how to prepare themselves for it. I do strongly encourage them. Most important, it will be a great experience for them. (If, of course, they survive it.) Also, I believe that it is isolation and ignorance of other cultures that creates the greatest enmity. It is far more difficult to hate a friendly face then an anonymous image created by a “sometimes responsible” media. I disagree with the US government on many points and yet will encourage my students to volunteer because I don’t think Peace Corps will be a direct instrument of the government. If the US government does try to tell our students how to think then I guarantee, my students will make their individual voices heard even louder in their outrage.
I strongly agree with Ernest Kendall’s points about spending more on volunteers in the field and increasing the expertise of volunteers we send. Much of this I believe should be to increase safety. Safety needs to be looked at from volunteer’s points of view and treated with flexibility. To give an example, mandating that volunteers not ride motorcycles had the result of decreasing motorcycle accidents but there was a large increase in accidents and uncomfortable incidents resulting from “hitchhiking”.
We should also admit that, while PC volunteers have done highly valuable and often dangerous work, there is little recognition of it for RPCVs. American is often, and correctly, honoring its war veterans. Afterall, they risked their lives to serve their country. PCVs risk their lives, with no protection of weapons and fellow soldiers, to serve their country! How about honoring them! Perhaps greater recognition of RPCVS would also make PC more attractive for highly skilled professionals to join Peace Corps?

By Jan G. Owen (pool-138-89-33-78.mad.east.verizon.net - 138.89.33.78) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 1:05 pm: Edit Post

I can't say that I agree with H. William Batt. We tend to forget that the Peace Corps was put into action by executive order at a time when we had just emerged from McCarthyism at home and JFDulles "brinkmanship" abroad. Sarge Shriver was the inspired heart and mind of the early Peace Corps. JFK, ever eager for good PR, was very "cynical" (to use Batt's characterization of Kerry) in his hope to win over people who might otherwise be attracted to communism. Even in that environment, the efforts of Peace Corps Volunteers were succesful in transcending the politics as usual of the day. We could do worse than hold up the Peace Corps as an example of the better angels of our selves and a hope for better relationships with others.
Jan Owen, Peru 1968

By Scott Foust (machine-245.dealertire.com - 207.180.222.245) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 1:27 pm: Edit Post

Evidently, the people in Malawi were capable of separating individual Americans from our government (per Ms. Weber) but some of our RPCV brethern cannot!

I'm most confused by Blatt's reference to the cynicism he sees in Mr. Kerry's remark. How is it cynical to think that the Peace Corps could change the world's impression of America? Idealistic? Maybe. More difficult, given current events. Undoubtedly. But cyncial?

Hasn't changing the world's impression of Americans been a part of the gig since day one? Maybe we should post the Peace Corps goals.

Agree with American policy or don't. But concede the ground by walking away? or not taking the challenge to present an alternative point of view? There's your cynicism.

Perhaps it will take a thousand years of Peace Corps hard work to repair our image abroad as one posting suggests, what should we do about that? walk away? or get started?

By Gary Walker (66.92.172.53) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 2:16 pm: Edit Post

I was a PCV in Sierra Leone from 1966-1968. I now work their as an advisor to the government of SL. Even in this small African country with deep roots to the US (negative and positive) - slavery and recent immigration of refugees; many better informed people there are polite to our excellent US Ambassador to his face but then later privately concede their disgust to me and others with the current US administration. Bush has done more to destroy the reputation of the US than anyone in my lifetime. If he were the leader of a small Balkan state and not the US he might well have been indicted for war crimes by now for launching an unprovoked attack against a foreign state without UN sanction and causing the deaths of 15,000 or more Iraqis and a 1,000 or so US soldiers. At this time I would not recommend that anyone join the US Peace Corps - try the UN Volunteer Program. If Kerry is elected, perhaps we can put the word peace back into the Peace Corps and try again. If he is re-elected, I will truly despair for my country and our collective global future.

By Craig Gardner (218.154.201.246) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 4:41 pm: Edit Post

I am amazed by the naivete of Kerry and many of those who have responded. I have lived in foreign countries almost my entire life (I am 55 years old and served as a volunteer in Sri Lanka for three years). Since my childhood days as an Army "brat" in post war Japan and Europe to the present day (I am in Korea) the United States has been personified as/by the "Ugly American", our dirty laundry, our lack of morals, and our brutality/bullying. WE ARE ALSO personified by our generosity, kindness, curiosity, humaneness, achievements, inventions and wealth. Why must we make things either "black and white?" There exists a whole palette of grays. I guess it always comes down to the way one thinks about that proverbial water glass -- half full or half empty -- rather than rejoicing in the luxury of having a glass of drinking water at all. Americans bathe in their drinking water and this will automatically have others despise, envy or emulate us. We are a proud and jealous animal after all.

By Bryan McClure (wbar1.sea1-4-5-027-042.sea1.dsl-verizon.net - 4.5.27.42) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:12 pm: Edit Post

As a volunteer in Ethiopia in the late 60's I was constantly being asked about American agression in Vietnam. When I explained to people that I didn't agree with that policy or the Israeli bombing of Cairo, they accepted me completely. American policy has never been kind to the third world. I felt used but it may be important that people know that American's are not all of one opinion. Pesonally I couldn't volunteer under the Bush regime. Instead I'm back in the streets protesting again after 40 years.

By Ron Kuhlmann (192.59.99.9) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 5:37 pm: Edit Post

I was a volunteer in the Philippines 1968-70. At that time Vietnam was in full swing and the presence of non-military folks was an accepted and positive balance to the hoards of servicemen based in the Philippines and on R&R. When in Manila, we were often mistaken for military and there were comments made in the dialect. However, once identified as a PCV, the attitude changed and almost everyone responded favorably.

We may be Americans, but primarily we are people and if we only can present ourselves as emissaries of a policy, we are all doomed. Most of the world hates US foreign policy but Americans as people remain popular. To shun that role of a positive counterimage is to allow the Bushies complete victory.

By melissaluce (cf2.c004.g4.mrt.starband.net - 148.78.245.12) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 9:06 pm: Edit Post

I'm not interested in whether or not the Peace Corps can improve America's IMAGE. To hell with image, what about CHARACTER. I would like to examine how we can improve America's character, policies, and impact in the world. I think the Bush administration policies are destructive on political, environmental, and spiritual terms. But to be fair, I'm hard-pressed to find any government in history that hasn't started out as or hasn't become corrupt and self-serving.

I don't know if caring people serving in the Peace Corps can offer the world something positive or not, or whether having a handful of Americans doing so would improve America's character. It seems tho' that "the people" need to do something to balance the power of governments. And if I can use my government's programs to help me in that goal, I don't have a problem with that. I'm currently nominated to a position in agriculture for 2005 ("somewhere in Asia")and my hope is that I can get involved on a personal level with people across the globe, just as I hope to interact with people everywhere on a personal level, and by doing so help us remember that we're all in this together. If we "the people" of this world can find a way to work together without anyone having power over another, we might find a way to live in peace.

It's an impossible task, and I know I sound incredibly idealistic and unrealistic, but I don't see another choice, or any other reason to live. I don't want to serve in the Peace Corps to improve my country's image, and I sure as hell don't want to support Bush policies, but I do want to become better informed on the effect my country's actions have on the rest of the planet. I do want to connect with people from a different perspective. I do want others to know that America isn't a homogenous gun-toting cowboy nation, that there are Americans who disagree with Bush. I want them to know that even if many people disagree with the US government, so-called democracy supports the powerful first. I'm hoping my serving in the PC will forward those goals and not show compliance with US policies. My concern is if indeed I need to keep my mouth shut on political issues. Is that really and currently Peace Corps policy? I'd love to hear more on that from RPCVs.

By RPCV (50.42.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.42.50) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit Post

melissaluce states: "My concern is if indeed I need to keep my mouth shut on political issues. Is that really and currently Peace Corps policy? I'd love to hear more on that from RPCVs."

Read the volunteer handbook - see political expression. If you don't like it and cannot live with it, don't become a PCV. There's a difference between a PCV's personal discussions with host country nationals and fellow PCVs (in which you should make it clear that your expressions is PERSONAL) and what you express publically. Public advocacy for or against US policy or that of the host country risks your being seen as officially expressing a political position on behalf of PC. This in turn could compromise the PC program in-country and could also place your fellow PCVs at risk.

PC is a NON-POLITICAL organization and for good reason! Yes, this is a difficult position to maintain and must constantly be reinforced by staff and by each PCV in his or her service, but it is necessary. Every PCV has to deal with the "CIA rumours", however, host country nationals come to know the PCVs individually and are able to separate the PCV from any government officials or foreign policy that might be unpopular in their country.

By Cap Baxter (ip68-0-115-84.tu.ok.cox.net - 68.0.115.84) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit Post

I served proudly as a volunteer in Kazakstan 97-99, and can assure you the Peace Corps can't change the world. However, those volunteers with realistic...not idealistic attitudes, who served all know we had a positive influence on in country nationals we came in contact with.

Many of us must remember we (not me of course!) elected Bill Clinton to 2 terms. I don't agree with all the Bush administrations policy, but believe the alternative is a much more frightening scenario. I've worked in the oil fields of Alaska, and much of our current dependence on "foreign" resources is due to the lack of vision by the previous administrations. Namely Democratic. I say open up ANWR to drilling. It is a mere thumb print, in the vast "Last Frontier" To those who protest, put that idealistic liberal opportunistic attitude behind you, and get a job.

I would much rather have a president in office with a moral christian compass.

By Robert Krug (dialup-4.245.78.115.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net - 4.245.78.115) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit Post

RPCV Batt's attitude seems to take the tone that "If I don't like the game, I will take my ball and bat and go home." I served in the Phillipines from 82 to 85. At the time I thought Ronald Reagan was a terrible President, but have since had a change of heart. John Kerry doesn't have the backbone to be an effective leader. However on this one issue I would tend to agree with John Kerry. What better ambassadors abroad than rank and file Peace Corps Volunteers?

By Leon A. Cloutier (69-24-10-194.dial.ncia.net - 69.24.10.194) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit Post

After reading about the "Murder in Tonga", and the many comments by PCV's and RPCV's about American foreign policies, one wonders if the Peace Corps is what it was intended to be. First the story about Tonga was very disturbing because it shows me how government bureaucy will do anything to cover their butts! That RPCV should have been jailed for life for murder of another person. Aa far as American foreign policy is concerned, I'v never been in favor of the State Department,no matter who is in the White House. They have gotten us into more messes than what their worth. Under no circumstances do I want our government to turn over the situation in Iraq or anywhere else to the UN. Remember your history. The UN hasn't worked together since the Korean War, and that was only by a mistake by the Russians by not being at the Security Council meeting when they voted to enter the war. The main reason France, Germany and Russia was against us going into Iraq because they had to much interest there and didn't want to loose it! Follow the money trail. Where was the UN when over 2 million Cambodians were slaughtered by Kymer Rouge?
I served two years in Iran as a PCV and about a year on a private contract and got to know the Iranians and the moslem religion. Of course, this was during the Shaw's time. He was trying to bring his people into the 20th. century, but was butting the mullars of the moslem religion. The mullars wanted to keep the people deaf, dumb and blind to the rest of the world. It is diffinitely a male dominated society and women are kept restricted in what they can do. Democracy in the moslem world is a threat to the power of mullars and that is why they do not want it to happen.
I do not condone the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners, but we haven't seen any outcry from the Arab world on the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq either. Americans and others have a tendacy to forget that there over 3,000 Americans and other foreign nationals who were killed on September 11,2001! By the way, it is also my birthday and I don't like to be remembered of it. Aa the only super power now in the world, we have certain responsibilites if we like it or not. We can not put our heads in the sand and hope everything will disapear.
While serving as a PCV I had to endure the questions was I a CIA person or not. I did not and still do not believe in getting into our government policies with the local people. I was there to do a job to help the people set up a marine lab on the Persian Gulf and to study its environment. We, our group of PCV's, made many friends and hoped to enrich their lives and ours too. My fiancee came to Iran and we married,and our first son was born there. It was an experience that I will never forget. Peace Corps should always stay that way and keep out of the politics of our government and the host country. RPCV Iran 1974-76.

By Daniel (63.159.136.16) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:37 am: Edit Post

Melissa Luce,

If there is a handbook on what you can and can't say, you have to wonder who wrote it and why?

As Peace Corps Volunteers, were are Americans. People from other countries love that we have freedom of speech and are able to speak about politics. I would agree with other posts about saying it is your own opinion. However, I don't agree with have to mince words to fit what the Bush Peace Corps wants or for a Republican, who feels they can't express themselves in a Kennedy Peace Corps.

A Rule book on "How to express yourself as an American is not appropriate".

I served during the first Bush administration. I had no problem telling most important intellectuals I was supporting and voting for Michael Dukakis. I still like Michael and if I were in the Peace Corps now, I would act the same. Today, I would tell people in my village I worked with Howard Dean and I don't agree with George W. Bush on most issues. By being able to express who you voted for, support in a policy and or don't like shows american does have a democracy and it works. I think that is an expression of democracy in countries like I served.

The handbook that Peace Corps writes has been changed so many times to fit the policies of the period. The Staff members wh write this mumbo jumbo are the same folks during the 1990's to present who hurt the program by not revealing how many cases of violence happened to volunteers. 2,800 times since 1997.

I would venture to argue that if they stopped writing the mumbo jumbo policy books and worked on quality programming such as funding a site correctly if the volunteer needs it, having more than one volunteer at a site, working on a handbook to have supervisors do better site surveys and follow up, and much more.

Instead, the "policy of the government" has to translated into their little book, so the appointees and career sycophants can go out and find people who express themselves and fire them for not representing the best Peace Corps volunteer. Well, I think you get the drift, it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo when start pointing to the handbook.

When I served there was nothing in the handbook which mentioned safety or training for conflict with foreign elements at your site. Where was that in the handbook?

By Daniel (63.159.136.16) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:43 am: Edit Post

Melissa Luce,

If there is a handbook on what you can and can't say, you have to wonder who wrote it and why?

As Peace Corps Volunteers, were are Americans. People from other countries love that we have freedom of speech and are able to speak about politics. I would agree with other posts about saying it is your own opinion. However, I don't agree with have to mince words to fit what the Bush Peace Corps wants or for a Republican, who feels they can't express themselves in a Kennedy Peace Corps.

A Rule book on "How to express yourself as an American is not appropriate".

I served during the first Bush administration. I had no problem telling most important intellectuals I was supporting and voting for Michael Dukakis. I still like Michael and if I were in the Peace Corps now, I would act the same. Today, I would tell people in my village I worked with Howard Dean and I don't agree with George W. Bush on most issues. By being able to express who you voted for, support in a policy and or don't like shows american does have a democracy and it works. I think that is an expression of democracy in countries like I served.

The handbook that Peace Corps writes has been changed so many times to fit the policies of the period. The Staff members wh write this mumbo jumbo are the same folks during the 1990's to present who hurt the program by not revealing how many cases of violence happened to volunteers. 2,800 times since 1997.

I would venture to argue that if they stopped writing the mumbo jumbo policy books and worked on quality programming such as funding a site correctly if the volunteer needs it, having more than one volunteer at a site, working on a handbook to have supervisors do better site surveys and follow up, and much more.

Instead, the "policy of the government" has to translated into their little book, so the appointees and career sycophants can go out and find people who express themselves and fire them for not representing the best Peace Corps volunteer. Well, I think you get the drift, it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo when start pointing to the handbook.

When I served there was nothing in the handbook which mentioned safety or training for conflict with foreign elements at your site. Where was that in the handbook?

By RPCV (66.171.41.61) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 1:19 pm: Edit Post

Excerpts from the handbook regarding PCVs' apolitical and nonsecular roles:

Note: All PCVs should read the entire handbook BEFORE accepting an invitation to serve. Know what's expected, be informed (don't rely on erroneous interpretations and rumors). Found this at www.peacecorps.gov, and a hard copy is sent with invitee info packet.

-------------------------------------------------

"Political Expression, Legal Status, and Official Agreements:

Volunteers may discuss their role in the Peace Corps with a media representative; however, they
should notify their program managers of such a discussion before it takes place. Volunteers may
write articles for publications that are to be cleared with their program managers and are not used for personal financial gain.

Volunteers should not participate in political activities or manifestations. Volunteers may express their opinions on U.S. politics as their own individual opinions, and not as representatives of Peace Corps or the U.S. Government.

Volunteers do not have diplomatic immunity. They are required to work and live according to the
local laws.

Volunteers may practice their religions, but are forbidden from proselytizing."

By RPCV (66.171.41.61) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 1:24 pm: Edit Post

Excerpts from the handbook regarding PCVs' apolitical and nonsecular roles:

Note: All PCVs should read the entire handbook BEFORE accepting an invitation to serve. Know what's expected, be informed (don't rely on erroneous interpretations and rumors). Found this at www.peacecorps.gov, and a hard copy is sent with invitee info packet.

-------------------------------------------------

"Political Expression, Legal Status, and Official Agreements:

Volunteers may discuss their role in the Peace Corps with a media representative; however, they
should notify their program managers of such a discussion before it takes place. Volunteers may
write articles for publications that are to be cleared with their program managers and are not used for personal financial gain.

Volunteers should not participate in political activities or manifestations. Volunteers may express their opinions on U.S. politics as their own individual opinions, and not as representatives of Peace Corps or the U.S. Government.

Volunteers do not have diplomatic immunity. They are required to work and live according to the
local laws.

Volunteers may practice their religions, but are forbidden from proselytizing."

By Sigurd Andersen (dialup4812.wnskvtao.sover.net - 216.114.178.241) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 3:21 pm: Edit Post

Bush's pre-emptive approach to all matters scares me.

I'd like to focus, though, on the idea of international service. One of the greatest values to me of Peace Corps service was the opportunity to experience peoples and cultures quite different from what I'd known to that time. If the US could truly and humbly contribute to building an international Peace Corps (UN would be a natural home), it could make for (compared to current US Peace Corps):
a much richer mix (teams with participants from around the world!),
potentially a wider range of activities undertaken,
potentially a more stable organizational direction (not at the whim of whatever administration is in power)

If it is to take the bad taste out of the mouths of much of the world, the US needs to eat humble pie, to offer its services to the world, directed towards efforts that would have the assent and encouragement of people outside US borders.

By melissaluce (cf1.c004.g4.mrt.starband.net - 148.78.245.11) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 7:56 pm: Edit Post

Thanks to all for the information on political expression during service. I haven't received my handbook yet (haven't received invite yet), so I'll check it out online. I think I'm fine with stated policy. The type of political expression I want to participate in is of a personal nature. I guess if at some point I feel so moved to join some political movement (seems unlikely), I'll drop from service and do what I need to do.

I keep hearing such mixed views on this issue (of whether serving in the PC during an administration one cannot support does IMPLY support) --not just on this forum, but from many of my friends who are concerned that as a PCV I'll be simply a pawn of US foreign policy. I just don't know how to access or rememdy the situation. If I do decide to serve, I know I'll do my best to make it clear to the people I'm working with that I'm doing what I'm doing to try to make a connection, to increase understanding, that I don't agree with my current government's stance. Will that be enough? It does seem weird that I'm serving on the government's dime. Can the Peace Corps really be independant of a government it receives its funding from? Can it be that there are 2 (or more!)conflicting agendas that the PC is serving? And can I serve one without the other?

By RPCV (233.41.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.41.233) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:20 pm: Edit Post

Melissa -

Your motivation and thoughtful approach to service seem very solid. Give it a try, I think you'll find it is quite possible to support the PC goals and maintain your integrity -- and to create a very rewarding albeit challenging experience. PCV service is not about political activism, it's about service to one's host community and building cross-cultural relations. You'll have plenty of time for political activism in life.

PC as an independent agency expresses no political position as regards US foreign policy in-county, and the country director / staff regularly reminds the embassy folks that it is not to be used as a tool to promote policies other than those stated in the PC mission and goals. This is why it is often stated that PCVs are not government employees, although they qualify for certain employee type support.

I served during two very different administrations - Clinton and GWB and have absolutely no regrets ... In fact, I am very happy to have served during both.

By james the Gambia 1998-2000 (50-192.rcip.com - 209.210.50.192) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit Post

Hello? since when did the american government reflect the peace corps philosophy? When it wasnt bush jr in Iraq, it was clinton in Iraq, or Bush sr. in Iraq, or Reagan in grenada, or Carter in Afghanistan or Ford or nixon/johnson in vietnam, etc. etc. The US IS an empire and the only way to satisfy the endless greed of an empire is to conquer new lands and usurp resources. We do what we can as pc volunteers, but pc is more about self development than it is about development. of others. Neither Kerry nor Bush will help anything. I suggest voting for noone. I was very happy to be in the Gambia and I helped a few people and made some friends, but I also learned many valuable lessons. One is that an empire is an empire. Those that don't have power want it, and those that have it abuse it. Two- a dicatator is a dictator whether your name is sadam hussain or George Bush and if you have power you abuse it and if you don't have then you do everything in your power to get it(whether it is coup, slander, lie, cheat whatever) and three-whatever happens keep moving. haribol

By Patrick Bryson (boley-202-164.lclark.edu - 149.175.202.164) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit Post

I agree with Mr. Tully. I served in Haiti from 2000-2002 and would do it again. While I personally feel that the current administration is an international embarrassment, the good work of volunteers allows the world to see that we are not all mad cowboys. The fact that a government organization can largely transcend partisan politics in even the most tumultous times is a credit to volunteers past, present and future. My caveat to those with contrary feelings: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

By melissaluce (cf1.c004.g4.mrt.starband.net - 148.78.245.11) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 8:05 pm: Edit Post

Dear RPCV

I couldn't find the handbook you were talking about online--there's so many choices. Do you know the exact title of handbook?

Thanks, Melissa

By William T. Devney (kvalleyuser1157.kvalley.com - 206.61.184.157) on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 2:05 pm: Edit Post

RE: United Nations Peace Corps. I served in two countries as a Peace Corps-sponsored United Nations Volunteer. The first was in the Philippines at a Refugee Processing Center, the second was in the People's Republic of China. In short, the United Nations already has a volunteer branch open to American participation.

By patrick smith (ip68-100-44-39.dc.dc.cox.net - 68.100.44.39) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:27 am: Edit Post

I retransmit my 2003 message regarding PCVs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even in light of recent Iraq events I believe it remains pertinent:

PCVs could eventually serve a traditional role in both Afghanistan and Iraq once peace has been established and a stable Host Country government requests them; for now a hot war continues in both countries, not the prime location for volunteers. For RPCVs from Muslim countries who care to offer their insights (and don't choke on an educational or liaison role to the US military or US government agencies), they might offer their cultural insights, linguistic and socialization skills, and in-country experience to a number of agencies including USAID, private contractors, ngo's, and even the US military if and when such services are solicited. As an RPCV who also served in the US Navy, my Peace Corps village skills came in handy in Micronesia when conducting humanitarian and socio-economic survey work. Humanitarian relief projects are indeed part of the US military mission and the distinction between the Marine Corps and the Peace Corps under some circumstances is not that great when the goal is to assist Host Country nationals. As I read the political commentaries of other RPCVs, I note many Vietnam hangovers out there as well as resentment of the Afghanistan and Iraq situations (probably Florida 2000 also!). I caution all of us who spent time in numerous countries to reflect on the political conditions we accepted while volunteers in many non-democratic and military regimes, attempting to give our best and rationalizing our successes and failures. I also remind folks that JFK also created the Green Beret and Special Forces in addition to the Peace Corps in the hopes of optimizing the tools and contributions that an American nation can offer other countries during times of need. We all have differences as we discovered during our Peace Corps years, to realize and accept those as we undertake united efforts to improve global circumstances may require that acceptance and sometimes rationalization for a greater good once again. Pat Smith Mali 1977-80, USN 1980-1987.

By patrick smith (ip68-100-44-39.dc.dc.cox.net - 68.100.44.39) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:40 am: Edit Post

PS: addendum to my last message: I volunteered for the USNavy on Novemer 5, 1980 the day after Ronald Reagan was elected, and served seven years active duty primarily on naval ships in the Asia Pacific Region. I never voted for Ronald Reagan, but he was Commander in Chief. The military has prohibitions and restrictions against some political activities, part of the job description that similarly prohibits PCVs from engaging in direct political activities while in country. Some compromises are made when individuals identify a greater good.

By --jim (cache-ntc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.26.8) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 6:47 pm: Edit Post

"Kerry: Peace Corps can help heal Iraqi abuse damage," reads the May 9 news headline."

Upwards of several hundred billion dollars are being spent on a government policy actively running amok throughout the world; and a few million spent on Peace Corps. There is no way Peace Corps can have much impact helping to heal the damage, especially while it is still going on.

Be that as it may, I support Peace Corp's positive policies of understanding, life and construction over the NeoCon's (and Islamic Fundamentalist's) negative policies of division, death and destruction.

While it has become more dangerous to travel and live internationally these days, Peace Corps as a politically neutral Cultural Exchange Program has a role, as it always has.

As individuals within an organization, we must accept a few limitations. We do not gather intelligence, we do not work covertly, we are not employees or instruments of US Policy, and our opinions remain our own. It's relatively easy to be ourselves, within an active Volunteer role. At my PC sites, my friends and coworkers had no problem understanding that, just as their government did not represent them, I did not represent mine. My views were known; however, it was clear that my views were personal, my own.

And at home, I will never ever again accept censor. Questioning and speaking-out is our patriotic duty, a sacred right and responsibility, whenever our government has lost it's way.

Thus "healing the damage" is not Peace Corps's role. PCV's role is to go and learn, living and working within another culture and society.

If our government needs to take advantage of Peace Corps and RPCV's, perhaps they should have listened to us before, rather than after getting us into this mess. We must never allow ourselves to be "used" -- we must speak out and help lead the way. That is our obligation, for what we have learned.

By battuta (158.232.86.214) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit Post

Peace Corps is a people to people organization, in the sense that it gives Americans an opportunity to work with and learn from people in other countries and vice versa. Peace Corps will never change the world's attitude towards America, the best it can do is change a host country nationals' attitudes towards the individual Americans they meet -- but only if there is honest engagement on both sides. Whatever Peace Corps's goals and objectives are don't matter. What matters is the individual volunteer. It's this one to one exchange that makes the Peace Corps experience unique, and may, in the long run make the world a better place.

Looking at macro issues don't really apply. It's the micro that counts.

By Bob Blair (63.84.60.230) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 3:59 pm: Edit Post

Peace Corps and U.S. Foreign Policy:

In 1972, when I first considered joining the Peace Corps, I was an anti-war activist (and anti-ROTC on campus activist, for that matter). I wanted, besides a chance to help in a third world country, a chance to live in and experience the third world for myself -- not via the angry speculations of then current anti-war manifestos, but first hand. My more leftist friends, offering arguments not unlike those being offered by some in this forum today, said that to join PC was to support US foreign policy including the then on-going war in Vietnam. Joining PC was selling out to Nixon and Kissinger. I went anyway...to Thailand as it turned out. And I strongly believe it was the right choice.

During our swearing-in ceremony at the US Embassy in Bangkok, I and several trainee friends wore black arm-bands to protest the recent bombing of Haiphong Harbor and Hanoi. Neither the PC office in Thailand nor the Embassy took any action against us, or even threatened any.

During my service, I was perfectly free to discuss my personal views of US war policy in Vietnam with my Thai and PCV friends, and did. When the Thai military junta fell and democracy was re-established, I was perfectly free to discuss my personal political views (quasi-socialist) with Thai friends, and did. When the democracy was temporarily overthrown, I was able to assist Thai friends, and did.

PC is about person-to-person service and better international understanding. It isn't about political activism either pro-US policy or anti. And the Thais I lived with understood that. For those who hate Bush and his administration so much they can't recall that, or won't, so be it. If they won't recommend PC to members of the next generation, so be it. I have done, do today, and expect I will continue to recommend the PC experience.

And from what I've seen, there are still plenty of post-college kids interested in overseas service with PC. I don't think the nattering nabobs of negativism, as Bill Safire would say, are going to have much luck in convincing most potential volunteers that PC is a diabolical tool of the Bush administration. But, if they want to rant, so be it. It's a free country (as, we all hope, Iraq may come to be.)

PC survived Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton. It will survive Bush II. It will certainly survive the angry, bitter, and more than a tad self-righteous ex-PCVs in this forum. Viva international service! Viva Peace Corps!

Ciao,
Bob Blair,
PCV Thailand 1972 -1978

By mike osborn (majoroz) (205.188.116.11) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 1:56 am: Edit Post

......geeeeezz.....

What a bunch of whiners. Seems to be:
1. Liberal Arts grads who can't get a job.
2. Unreconstructed flower children looking for a cause.
3. "Let's all hug each other to make the world a better place" airheads.

Get out there and open your eyes and ears, while trying very hard not to talk. Run for office. See if your views are good enough to garner votes.

As a PCV, you do what you can for the poeple who need you. Policy is not a concern. If you seem to be affected by US foreigh policy, in your role as a PCV, you may need some maturation.

Someone, here, feeling the need to vent, suggested impeachment proceedings need to begin.
Please list for us specific, outlined, high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution that were violated. Facts, please -- not whining.

I loved my service. Most of the HCN's I worked with seemed to like me and the work I did. I never felt the need to discuss US foreigh policy with them.

cheers

oz, RPCV Micronesia, 1994-96; USAF, 1958-81

By daniel (0-1pool116-179.nas7.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - 63.159.116.179) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit Post

Have you run for office?

I think you should try it. It is an eye opener Mike.

If you are an RPCV, you won't get any votes calling people flower children and airheads.

Micronesia, sounds like Beaches to me? How were they?

Daniel

By Jacqueline Pinson (207.157.252.11) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit Post

I served in Afghanistan 1975-1977. You can't imagine the concern I feel as our country is getting involved in and causing problems in foreign politics. I know that I had an influence and effect on the lives of friends I had regardless of our "political" relationships. I think that we are not supported abroad as we once were, and perhaps when Mr. Kerry is elected, once more Peace Corps and our country, will have the effect that it once had.

By RPCV 90s (3.45.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.45.3) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 12:02 pm: Edit Post

Jacquieline - PCV service still has "the effect". I note that you served during republican and democratic administrations, during the immediate aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. This was a time when America's reputation abroad was heavily tarnished and we reached a significant point of insecurity about our place in the world. Yet you feel you had a positive influence and effect in service. That's the great thing about PC.

By mike osborn (majoroz) (cache-gtc-aa03.proxy.aol.com - 149.174.164.7) on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit Post

Sure; I've run for office. Won some, lost some.
Each experience was educational.

I don't plan on winning votes from the "specific" type of airhead I referred to.

Yes, the beaches were great. Had time to explore and do lots of fishing -- I think I had the only fly rod on the island. Supplied the village with LOTS of fish.

oz

By Dillwyn J. Otis (64.179.15.16) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit Post

I agree with Mr. Batt and have been trying to send that message to the Returned Peace Crops Volunteer organization for months. PC Group #6 Nigeria 1962 - 1963 Dillwyn J, Otis

By Anonymous (32.washington-35rh16rt-36rh15rt.dc.dial-access.att.net - 12.77.54.32) on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 5:06 pm: Edit Post

hi I am a former student from liberia who benefited from a PeaceCorps scholarship from 1985-90 through Mr. Larry Halstead at present I am trying to contact him because since the Liberia war i lost track of him Plesae Help me Find him Thanks


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: