Home » blogs » Blake Hounshell's blog

Is the Peace Corps any good?

Thu, 04/24/2008 - 11:54am

Yesterday, we published several reader reactions to "Think Again: Peace Corps," a new FP Web exclusive written by former Cameroon country director Robert L. Strauss.

Today, Howard Williams, a former Peace Corps volunteer and fellow former country director "with over 20 years experience as a development professional in 15 countries," writes in to say he is "dismayed" by the article:

Among the straw men are "The Peace Corps is a Diplomatic Weapon." Peace Corps is a diplomatic asset, demonstrating the goodwill and basic decency of Americans that, taken with the work of USAID, other U.S. Agencies, and their PVO and NGO partners, show we care about more than ourselves and that a sense of service to others is a basic American characteristic.

Equally flawed is the assertion that volunteers are not sent to where they are needed and that whole countries can be "graduated," no longer benefiting sufficiently from volunteers' service. Anyone who works or travels in the field, outside the capital with its agency offices and well-appointed hotels, knows that access to resources and experience managing them is uneven and that there are populations within most countries that can benefit from volunteers' assistance.

For example, many developing countries, Cameroon no doubt included, find great difficulty recruiting qualified teachers to serve in rural and remote sites. Peace Corps volunteer teachers will go there and show up at their classes regularly and well prepared –- something that local teachers often find challenging, given the other economic, social, and health demands they face each day. Students can count on PCVs to be there, in class, helping them learn.

Some countries with a greater overall resource base, like Romania, can benefit from American volunteers by their demonstrated sense of civic duty, resourcefulness, collegial approach to their work, and public transparency, traits that were not well rewarded under the former Soviet system. If a country director knowingly sent volunteers to assignments that were not needed, not useful, or not workable or that did not sufficiently engage the volunteers, as he claims, then he would have failed in his job as director. Complaints on that score are much akin to a ship's captain blaming the Navy for bad weather and rocks.

Denigrating generalizations about local people liking anyone attempting to speak their language and participate in local traditions, or that volunteers do not sufficiently demonstrate their commitment to service, are not supported by facts but by a condescending articulation about the nature of people, including the very volunteers he pledged to support.

Finally, the assertion that Peace Corps has an obligation to justify itself on a "development" yardstick, in comparison with other agencies, completely misses the point of what Peace Corps is. There simply is no such thing as a perfect "development" program. We used to tell volunteers, "Each aid agency has strengths and limitations and each has a unique role to play in development. Some have more money, some have national programs, and Peace Corps has people. You cannot judge one by comparing its limitations to the strengths of another -- and vice versa." I hope we will not lose sight of Peace Corps' unique contribution to local development, goodwill abroad, and Americans' understanding of the world in pursuit of making it look more "professional." If you ask any villager who they can count on to be there each day for them, you'll find that Peace Corps rates very well indeed.

Were you a Peace Corps volunteer or do you otherwise have strong thoughts on this topic? Read the article and comment below or send us your comments by e-mail. Requests for confidentiality will be strictly honored.

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

High level sniping

by departuregate on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 12:43pm

Country director v. country director is kind of funny. However, I've heard mostly bad things about the Peace Corps from the people I know who've done it. They all spoke fondly of the local people and were grateful for the Peace Corps giving them the opportunity to go, but some were unsure of how their project helped anyone in the long run and others absolutely hated the organization and didn't feel they got enough support. One even came home after 2 or 3 months because he was sent to teach English in Central Asia, instead of community organizing in Latin America, which would have been logical, given his community organizing background and Spanish skills.

Peace Corps is a Good Thing

by Lure D. Lou on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 5:09pm

As the State Department's budget shrinks and more and more places are uncomfortable or even dangerous for Americans to travel to the Peace Corps can serve a useful purpose. First of all it is a hands-on training ground for future USAID and State Department staff, it gives the volunteer a chance to do some responsible post-college work and allows foreigners to meet some young Americans -- clueless goof-balls that many of them are. But what's so wrong with that? Better than Cheney mini-me's. Every person I have met who was in the Peace Corps has retained an active interest in the country or region they were posted to and these associations can be great for citizen-to-citizen diplomatic efforts. Any effort to combat American provincialism is a good thing....it's also a great gig for people not yet ready to retire....oldsters might actually have something to teach our less resource endowed friends abroad.

Robert Strauss and the Peace Corps...Where was Strauss?

by FlacoBob on Fri, 04/25/2008 - 1:08pm

Editor: Foreign Policy

April 24, 2008

Response to Robert L. Strauss

As a former "young" Peace Corps Volunteer in 1964, I served in Colombia as a Community Development specialist. Strauss is way off the chart about the youth of Volunteers, he seems more interested in "Building Monuments" rather than seeing the change in the Volunteers and their Host Country counterparts. The young and older Volunteers bring something special with them, something that they do not get on campus...a desire to learn about their Host Country, their language and cultural customs, and who they are. That's what Peace Corps is all about. We are not Junior USAID agents that he seems more interested in! Yes I worked in small farming projects, but it was spending time together with my Colombian neighbors that mattered most. My partner Stan Allen from Iowa and I were the only Americans to live in Sevilla, the Coffee capitol of Colombia. We built roads, schools, and literacy centers...these are "monuments" that Strauss is looking for. Yet if I were to ask my Colombian friends they would say that the value was to meet and learn about us and our families...our country. I even married a beautiful Colombian, my son was born there and it is my adopted country where I visit often. Did I build "monuments"? Who knows or cares...? Strauss seems to be a “bean counter” to put value on this dream that Kennedy had, as Americans we have had an impact on the relationship between peoples...even our enemies’ find value in what the Peace Corps Volunteer brings with them, a need to learn and share.
Robert Strauss fails to mention what is important for all Volunteers when they come home, the Third Goal of the Peace Corps..."to share the values of culture and language of your Host Country when you come home" And Former Volunteers regardless of their age bring these values with them...they all have that "fire in their belly," I felt it when I was a young Volunteer in 1964, and later saw the look on Volunteers when I was Staff in Colombia and in Puerto Rico, and then served as Peace Corps Country Director in Argentina and Uruguay. Strauss misses the point…”being a Peace Corps Volunteer is not building monuments but in who we are as individuals”...it is sharing and exchanging values, culture, and sometimes language.

Strauss should ask former Peruvian President Toledo about Peace Corps Volunteers, they changed his life as a young child. Or talk with Colombian President Uribe who has requested that President Bush return Peace Corps to his county after twenty years. Strauss may want to talk to former Uruguayan President LaCalle who would meet the new Volunteers as they landed at the national airport. Or talk with President Ortega of Nicaragua who enjoys having the Volunteers in his country. Or just talk with the people of the many places we have served in…just ask! Robert Strauss, why did you ever join the Peace Corps in the first place? Were you one of those that got by the interviews? I am looking forward to the 50th Anniversary, I am proud what we have done and the impact it has had on the world and on us as individuals. Peace Corps did make a difference in all of us…thank you Senator Harris Wofford…you made Peace Corps what it is, even if Robert Strauss doesn’t get it! It changed my life!

Bob Arias
Executive Director
Court Appointed Special Advocate
Dallas, Oregon

A few facts: The cost of ONE

by PCVRO on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 1:38pm

A few facts:

The cost of ONE YEAR of Peace Corps, all 8,000 volunteers, all staff worldwide, etc. is equal to just 12 HOURS of funding for the Iraq war.

50 YEARS of Peace Corps, with nearly 200,000 volunteers serving in 139 countries is equal to less than 25 DAYS of the cost of the Iraq war.

Which has won more hearts and minds worldwide, and done more to promote America, Americans and the greatness of our country?

Thank you President Kennedy, and each President thereafter for Peace Corps. I wish Congress was as generous with funding as each President has tried to be (Congress cuts the Peace Corps budget nearly every year).

We are serving the American taxpayer well, I believe, and the world believes so too.