A retort to J Bryar (Grafton, Vermont)

Please keep in mind that my opinions about the Peace Corps are based solely on my experiences here in Mauritania. I cannot speak for all volunteers and do not claim to know their experiences. Many Peace Corps volunteers around the world have remarkable services. There are others, however, who constantly struggle through their two years. It is important to understand both experiences and is something that I cannot offer: this post is biased.

I have come to the realization that there exist at least two different and opposite camps in the Peace Corps organization. There are those, like me, who think that the institution should be changed and improved to better fit the needs of volunteers and host countries, and there are others who think that the Peace Corps is fulfilling its original purpose and hence should not be modified. In response to my post [At the midpoint: opinions on the Peace Corps], J Bryar made several good comments, and at first I began to doubt my originally held opinions. But upon further reflection I came to the conclusion that most of J’s statements are too idealistic and impractical.

Let me count the ways.

The Peace Corps from my experience, tends to emphasize cultural exchange too heavily. An “extended encounter session between the peoples of the U.S. and host country” may sound nice, but is it worth our while? Does it help anyone? And who benefits? I would think Americans, both volunteers and the political establishment, reap more from this exchange than do host countries. We volunteers are young, many lacking experience both professional and life, and this is an opportunity for us to better understand not only ourselves but also the world at large. For some, this experience will serve as a foundation for future international or political work. The mere existence of the Peace Corps, moreover, demonstrates American good will on the international stage at a time when such a thing is severely in need. The host countries, on the other hand, get to meet Americans, yes, and maybe enjoy the fruits of a handful of simple grassroots projects and community educational sessions if they succeed, but overall the benefits are nothing substantial.

In his comments, J cited the Chinguitti hospital as one of the positive impacts Peace Corps volunteers have had in Mauritania. I admit that the work some volunteers do is not insubstantial. After spending some 19 months in this country, however, I have yet to encounter one successful volunteer initiated project that has lasted through the years. And yes, many volunteers do provide language, technical and business skills classes that would otherwise be unavailable to host country nationals. However, little follow-up is ever done to ensure that these skills are utilized afterwards or if people find them useful in the first place. This is true in general of the institution itself. The true impact of the Peace Corps on host countries sadly cannot be assessed because the organization does not evaluate the activities of its volunteers and their consequent effects on host countries.

Regardless of what the objectives of the Peace Corps were at it’s beginning, it is important to realize that the times have changed. A two-year “encounter session” doesn’t cut it anymore. The world is a much smaller place than it was in 1961. In fact, one-half of the encounter session has already usually happened before volunteers ever get into their host countries: with the spread of radio and television, host nationals are evermore increasingly aware of American and European cultures. Also, over the past few decades, developing countries have become flooded with (mostly ineffective) aid organizations, causing their citizens to develop a “we are poor and deserve donations, so give it to us” mentality. This is one reason why volunteer-led grassroots projects in Mauritania consistently fail. In such a world climate, it’s important and necessary for the Peace Corps to reevaluate its mission and approach in order to be more effective.

In my opinion, for example, Mauritania needs a more effective Peace Corps organization, one that takes into account the not only needs of the country but also the technical expertise of its volunteers. This especially applies to Master’s International volunteers, like myself, who join the program expecting to apply their graduate level classroom lessons to real world situations. This, however, does not happen. There have been several cases where community needs and volunteer skills were only vaguely considered before volunteers were haphazardly placed into their sites without clearly defined jobs or projects. Consequently, whatever greater impact the Peace Corps could have had remained untapped.

Next, I feel it was offensive of J to state that many volunteers join the Peace Corps with the “arrogant naiveté of a 19th century missionary.” This is not true. I, for example, joined the Peace Corps to do work. I imagined myself working hard side-by-side with host country nationals, hands dirty and face dripping with sweat, and coming back home at the end of the day blissfully exhausted. I did not join the Peace Corps to spend two years of my life shooting the breeze with my friends and neighbors. I joined for the same reason that many people volunteer in the United States, to make a difference for the better.

Finally, I personally intend to pursue a career in international public health. The lessons that I have learned here in Mauritania about development work and how international aid organizations work have been invaluable. I appreciate my Peace Corps service up to date but wish that it had been more. I am indeed, at this point, more than halfway done with my Peace Corps experience. If I am wise and lucky, I will do great and good things in my lifetime, but come August 2008, the Peace Corps, for me, will come to an end.

In addition, there is a great op-ed piece in the New York Times regarding the Peace Corps and its current state, written by the former Peace Corps Country Director of Cameroon. He does a better job of arguing than I do. I urge anyone who’s interested to read it. The name of the article is “Too Many Innocents Abroad” by Robert L. Strauss.


Coming up next: RNN is pleased to present to you our Sunday Night Movie “Nobody Puts Baby in the Corner”. Dakotta Fanning stars as a single mother who must race against time, global warming and horrendous traffic to save her child from three major tornados, an end-of-the-world-like hurricane, and an Al-Gore-look-alike serial killer! Will she make it? Stay tuned…