As a returned Peace Corps Volunteer I can say that individual Peace Corps services outputs and outcomes vary widely and the woman who said that the main output is "soft diplomacy" is very clearly projecting here experience and outputs in PC on the whole and anyone reading this needs to know that. Some Peace Corps volunteers are specialists in technical or humanitarian fields and are acting more as professional consultants to senior or local government officials in developing countries that request these specialists. Many times these are working professionals with decades of experience in their field in the US, graduate degrees in STEM or health fields. This is a good example of how this is not soft diplomacy. Likely she is referring to the recent graduates who become PC volunteers and have little to no work experience in the "sector" they get selected for in PC. However, this lack of experience shouldn't be confused with only doing soft diplomacy during your service. What happens frequently is that a volunteer gets sent to a country, learns the basics of the language, and is then placed in a village, by themselves, as the sole "western" person who will be teaching (English, business, environment, health, nutrition, agriculture - in the native language) in that village. This is a difficult task for many reasons which I will not list here. Assuming that all work done in developing countries MUST ONLY "meaningfully affect the material conditions" of the people there is lacking in, I would say, the most important aspect of being human, the importance of meaningfully affecting the relationships and bonds we form with each other. These volunteers are not seasoned diplomats looking to spread American zeal, and are certainly not engaging in the cultural and social traditions of these peoples as an end - to Americanize their thought! Many PCVs and RPCVs take on this service as a way to learn as directly as possible what it means to live as a Kenyan, Nepali, Bolivian, etc. To learn about other people and other cultural practices from far away lands, then come home to the US and add draw on what we have learned as well. Since i know you are concerned with the "exploitation" of the host-country nationals, I'll discuss this now. We take for granted the vast array of highly or moderately efficient systems that are in place in the US that allow most of us to live day to day with little to no major issues around: food scarcity, clean air/water, corrupt government, technological infrastructure, emergency healthcare, basic healthcare, sound road and building engineering, skilled teachers, direct climate change affects, military coups, consistent electricity, efficient agricultural practices, refrigeration, transportation, etc. This list could be much much longer. These are all issues that affected me on a daily basis as a Peace Corps volunteer. Each of these areas has multiple or dozens of PCVs tackling these issues and working with local community resources to solve or mitigate the issues around them. There are material outputs that come from volunteers to work on these issues and they vary in how they are all implemented and which aspect of the problem taken on. There could certainly be more consistency with the strategy and tactical measures taken, but saying NO meaningful effect is being made simply does not apply to the large majority of work being done in the field. Measuring outcomes is one of the hardest things to do in international development work and that is true from PC up to the United Nations. But ive seen with my own eyes new libraries, new rural health posts, new health education programs put in place...etc. My two cents.
I, too, am a returned PCV (one featured in this video, in yellow with curly locs). The one "very clearly projecting." Question: how is my expressing my opinion on Peace Corps based on what I saw, experienced, and know other PCVs have seen any more "projecting" than you are by sharing your perspective? The Peace Corps is not in these countries for "sustainable development." If it were, we would have seen the fruits of the labor by way of developing countries having made real strides concerning their material conditions in the nearly six decades of the organization's existence. Unless we're going to be dishonest, we know that the majority of the countries the Peace Corps "serves" have not substantially improved, and if and when they have, there is no proof that it is because of the Peace Corps. We can clearly see that the countries, particularly the communities in which PCVs are placed, are about the same or negligibly better than when PC first arrived. Many factors point to the fact that PC is not concerned with development: 1) the fact that the professionals with skills who join are far outnumbered by the fresh out of college and/or otherwise inexperienced volunteers, 2) the fact that PC makes it difficult for PCVs to extend in their communities rather than with an in-country NGO, 3) the fact that the organization hardly gives PCVs the material resources necessary to have any lasting impact after a measly two years. Oh yea, and 4) there's also the fact that, despite PC claiming that communities will have only six years of PC, but very often place PCVs into communities long after the six years by switching the program the PCV is placed into. All the stuff you said about how difficult a PCV's job is is irrelevant to the fact that the hat Peace Corps is nothing more than an arm of US imperialism. PC is not concerned with sustainable development, and your assertions re: the complexity of the situation in the countries bolsters my point. The countries are complex, and the existing conditions and circumstances cannot be improved by a recent college graduate working in a clinic, doing a soccer club, and building a library over two years. It will also be addressed by a biologist or midwife lending their expertise to a community for two years. And yes, improving the material conditions of the countries 100% SHOULD BE the PRIMARY goal of the Peace Corps and any Western organization which purports to give aid to developing countries. Peace and friendship are great, but they are nothing when people lack safe water, school access, family planning, and sustainable farming practices. It's unconscionable that I even had to type that out. This is the US government we are talking about. There is no excuse for the lack of published studies/observations or proof of development across Peace Corps countries tied to the Peace Corps after five decades of existence. If PC wanted to show us proof of development, they could, and they would. They haven't, and they don't because there is none. Funny, there are PLENTY stats on how PCVs feel about their service, how many PCVs are in a country, and the type of "work" they do. A new library, pump, or school here or there (especially without ensuring the community will be able to fund repairs and general maintenance) is unacceptable from a program backed by the most powerful country on Earth right now. Your two cents are duly noted, and given all regard due to them.
Im Hakim from the Comoros island. I pay much respect for the peace corps volunteer what they do in our countries in Africa. My question is why peace left when there is a problem in a country? Stay in peace the peace corps.
There are a few reasons why that I can share, according to what I was told when I served, and according to what makes sense to me. First, as Peace Corps volunteers are American citizens working for a US government program, not in the military, the US government will always evacuate them to the United States if a situation arises in which they are unsure they can keep them safe. This is because every US government program is funded by Congressional budgets, and any program that doesn’t tell participants they’ll be put in harm’s way and does so anyway is at risk of being defunded by Congress. Second, because Peace Corps programs mostly work in developing or transitional nations with fewer healthcare resources than the US, primarily dedicated to their own citizens’ health, in the case of COVID, leaving volunteers in their host countries would have carried the risk of overburdening those resources. I served in a community where I knew the hospital had serious problems treating respiratory ailments even before COVID; the director of the school where I worked died from a case of bronchitis gone horribly wrong. If I had served there in 2020 and contracted COVID, not only would my life have been in danger, but so would other people who needed help from an already under-resourced hospital, because there would have been a high chance of me spreading the disease to others there.
The peace corps is needed now more than anything! We all share this one thing now, no matter where we come from we all experienced this pandemic. I want to join so bad as a young 21 year old who has lost years to this pandemic I beg them to open this back up to willing countries.
Posting separately just in case :) I, too, am a returned PCV (one featured in this video, in yellow with curly locks). The one "very clearly projecting." Question: how is my expressing my opinion on Peace Corps based on what I saw, experienced, and know other PCVs have seen any more "projecting" than you are by sharing your perspective? The Peace Corps is not in these countries for "sustainable development." If it were, we would have seen the fruits of the labor by way of developing countries having made real strides concerning their material conditions in the nearly six decades of the organization's existence. Unless we're going to be dishonest, we know that the majority of the countries the Peace Corps "serves" have not substantially improved, and if and when they have, there is no proof that it is because of the Peace Corps. We can clearly see that the countries, particularly the communities in which PCVs are placed, are about the same or negligibly better than when PC first arrived. Many factors point to the fact that PC is not concerned with development: 1) the fact that the professionals with skills who join are far outnumbered by the fresh out of college and/or otherwise inexperienced volunteers, 2) the fact that PC makes it difficult for PCVs to extend in their communities rather than with an in-country NGO, 3) the fact that the organization hardly gives PCVs the material resources necessary to have any lasting impact after a measly two years. Oh yea, and 4) there's also the fact that, despite PC claiming that communities will have only six years of PC, but very often place PCVs into communities long after the six years by switching the program the PCV is placed into. All the stuff you said about how difficult a PCV's job is irrelevant to the fact that the hat Peace Corps is nothing more than an arm of US imperialism. PC is not concerned with sustainable development, and your assertions re: the complexity of the situation in the countries bolsters my point. The countries are complex, and the existing conditions and circumstances cannot be improved by a recent college graduate working in a clinic, doing a soccer club, and building a library over two years. It will also be addressed by something other than a biologist or midwife lending their expertise for two years. And yes, improving the material conditions of the countries 100% SHOULD BE the PRIMARY goal of the Peace Corps and any Western organization which purports to give aid to developing countries. Peace and friendship are great, but they are nothing when people lack safe water, school access, family planning, and sustainable farming practices. It's unconscionable that I even had to type that out. This is the US government we are talking about. There is no excuse for the lack of published studies/observations or proof of development across Peace Corps countries tied to the Peace Corps after five decades of existence. If PC wanted to show us proof of development, they could, and they would. They haven't, and they don't because there is none. Funny, there are PLENTY stats on how PCVs feel about their service, how many PCVs are in a country, and the type of "work" they do. A new library, pump, or school here or there (especially without ensuring the community will be able to fund repairs and general maintenance) is unacceptable from a program backed by the most powerful country on Earth right now. Your two cents are duly noted, and given all regard due to them.
LOL! Some of us are lawyers, but it's easy to come to the conclusion we did if you pay attention, are not blinded by American exceptionalism, know even a little bit about history, and have integrity :)
As a returned Peace Corps Volunteer I can say that individual Peace Corps services outputs and outcomes vary widely and the woman who said that the main output is "soft diplomacy" is very clearly projecting here experience and outputs in PC on the whole and anyone reading this needs to know that. Some Peace Corps volunteers are specialists in technical or humanitarian fields and are acting more as professional consultants to senior or local government officials in developing countries that request these specialists. Many times these are working professionals with decades of experience in their field in the US, graduate degrees in STEM or health fields. This is a good example of how this is not soft diplomacy. Likely she is referring to the recent graduates who become PC volunteers and have little to no work experience in the "sector" they get selected for in PC. However, this lack of experience shouldn't be confused with only doing soft diplomacy during your service.
What happens frequently is that a volunteer gets sent to a country, learns the basics of the language, and is then placed in a village, by themselves, as the sole "western" person who will be teaching (English, business, environment, health, nutrition, agriculture - in the native language) in that village. This is a difficult task for many reasons which I will not list here.
Assuming that all work done in developing countries MUST ONLY "meaningfully affect the material conditions" of the people there is lacking in, I would say, the most important aspect of being human, the importance of meaningfully affecting the relationships and bonds we form with each other. These volunteers are not seasoned diplomats looking to spread American zeal, and are certainly not engaging in the cultural and social traditions of these peoples as an end - to Americanize their thought! Many PCVs and RPCVs take on this service as a way to learn as directly as possible what it means to live as a Kenyan, Nepali, Bolivian, etc. To learn about other people and other cultural practices from far away lands, then come home to the US and add draw on what we have learned as well. Since i know you are concerned with the "exploitation" of the host-country nationals, I'll discuss this now.
We take for granted the vast array of highly or moderately efficient systems that are in place in the US that allow most of us to live day to day with little to no major issues around: food scarcity, clean air/water, corrupt government, technological infrastructure, emergency healthcare, basic healthcare, sound road and building engineering, skilled teachers, direct climate change affects, military coups, consistent electricity, efficient agricultural practices, refrigeration, transportation, etc. This list could be much much longer. These are all issues that affected me on a daily basis as a Peace Corps volunteer. Each of these areas has multiple or dozens of PCVs tackling these issues and working with local community resources to solve or mitigate the issues around them. There are material outputs that come from volunteers to work on these issues and they vary in how they are all implemented and which aspect of the problem taken on. There could certainly be more consistency with the strategy and tactical measures taken, but saying NO meaningful effect is being made simply does not apply to the large majority of work being done in the field. Measuring outcomes is one of the hardest things to do in international development work and that is true from PC up to the United Nations. But ive seen with my own eyes new libraries, new rural health posts, new health education programs put in place...etc.
My two cents.
@Zach K. Thank you, Zach, for an excellent broader explanation on what really goes on in Peace Corps and how it truly benefits.
Well said!
I, too, am a returned PCV (one featured in this video, in yellow with curly locs). The one "very clearly projecting." Question: how is my expressing my opinion on Peace Corps based on what I saw, experienced, and know other PCVs have seen any more "projecting" than you are by sharing your perspective?
The Peace Corps is not in these countries for "sustainable development." If it were, we would have seen the fruits of the labor by way of developing countries having made real strides concerning their material conditions in the nearly six decades of the organization's existence. Unless we're going to be dishonest, we know that the majority of the countries the Peace Corps "serves" have not substantially improved, and if and when they have, there is no proof that it is because of the Peace Corps. We can clearly see that the countries, particularly the communities in which PCVs are placed, are about the same or negligibly better than when PC first arrived. Many factors point to the fact that PC is not concerned with development: 1) the fact that the professionals with skills who join are far outnumbered by the fresh out of college and/or otherwise inexperienced volunteers, 2) the fact that PC makes it difficult for PCVs to extend in their communities rather than with an in-country NGO, 3) the fact that the organization hardly gives PCVs the material resources necessary to have any lasting impact after a measly two years. Oh yea, and 4) there's also the fact that, despite PC claiming that communities will have only six years of PC, but very often place PCVs into communities long after the six years by switching the program the PCV is placed into.
All the stuff you said about how difficult a PCV's job is is irrelevant to the fact that the hat Peace Corps is nothing more than an arm of US imperialism. PC is not concerned with sustainable development, and your assertions re: the complexity of the situation in the countries bolsters my point. The countries are complex, and the existing conditions and circumstances cannot be improved by a recent college graduate working in a clinic, doing a soccer club, and building a library over two years. It will also be addressed by a biologist or midwife lending their expertise to a community for two years. And yes, improving the material conditions of the countries 100% SHOULD BE the PRIMARY goal of the Peace Corps and any Western organization which purports to give aid to developing countries. Peace and friendship are great, but they are nothing when people lack safe water, school access, family planning, and sustainable farming practices. It's unconscionable that I even had to type that out.
This is the US government we are talking about. There is no excuse for the lack of published studies/observations or proof of development across Peace Corps countries tied to the Peace Corps after five decades of existence. If PC wanted to show us proof of development, they could, and they would. They haven't, and they don't because there is none. Funny, there are PLENTY stats on how PCVs feel about their service, how many PCVs are in a country, and the type of "work" they do.
A new library, pump, or school here or there (especially without ensuring the community will be able to fund repairs and general maintenance) is unacceptable from a program backed by the most powerful country on Earth right now.
Your two cents are duly noted, and given all regard due to them.
Im Hakim from the Comoros island. I pay much respect for the peace corps volunteer what they do in our countries in Africa. My question is why peace left when there is a problem in a country? Stay in peace the peace corps.
There are a few reasons why that I can share, according to what I was told when I served, and according to what makes sense to me.
First, as Peace Corps volunteers are American citizens working for a US government program, not in the military, the US government will always evacuate them to the United States if a situation arises in which they are unsure they can keep them safe. This is because every US government program is funded by Congressional budgets, and any program that doesn’t tell participants they’ll be put in harm’s way and does so anyway is at risk of being defunded by Congress.
Second, because Peace Corps programs mostly work in developing or transitional nations with fewer healthcare resources than the US, primarily dedicated to their own citizens’ health, in the case of COVID, leaving volunteers in their host countries would have carried the risk of overburdening those resources. I served in a community where I knew the hospital had serious problems treating respiratory ailments even before COVID; the director of the school where I worked died from a case of bronchitis gone horribly wrong. If I had served there in 2020 and contracted COVID, not only would my life have been in danger, but so would other people who needed help from an already under-resourced hospital, because there would have been a high chance of me spreading the disease to others there.
The peace corps is needed now more than anything! We all share this one thing now, no matter where we come from we all experienced this pandemic. I want to join so bad as a young 21 year old who has lost years to this pandemic I beg them to open this back up to willing countries.
Good reporting. Good story about volunteering in the Peace Corps! Amazing. Thank you so much! We need this volunteering efforts!
Posting separately just in case :)
I, too, am a returned PCV (one featured in this video, in yellow with curly locks). The one "very clearly projecting." Question: how is my expressing my opinion on Peace Corps based on what I saw, experienced, and know other PCVs have seen any more "projecting" than you are by sharing your perspective?
The Peace Corps is not in these countries for "sustainable development." If it were, we would have seen the fruits of the labor by way of developing countries having made real strides concerning their material conditions in the nearly six decades of the organization's existence. Unless we're going to be dishonest, we know that the majority of the countries the Peace Corps "serves" have not substantially improved, and if and when they have, there is no proof that it is because of the Peace Corps. We can clearly see that the countries, particularly the communities in which PCVs are placed, are about the same or negligibly better than when PC first arrived. Many factors point to the fact that PC is not concerned with development: 1) the fact that the professionals with skills who join are far outnumbered by the fresh out of college and/or otherwise inexperienced volunteers, 2) the fact that PC makes it difficult for PCVs to extend in their communities rather than with an in-country NGO, 3) the fact that the organization hardly gives PCVs the material resources necessary to have any lasting impact after a measly two years. Oh yea, and 4) there's also the fact that, despite PC claiming that communities will have only six years of PC, but very often place PCVs into communities long after the six years by switching the program the PCV is placed into.
All the stuff you said about how difficult a PCV's job is irrelevant to the fact that the hat Peace Corps is nothing more than an arm of US imperialism. PC is not concerned with sustainable development, and your assertions re: the complexity of the situation in the countries bolsters my point. The countries are complex, and the existing conditions and circumstances cannot be improved by a recent college graduate working in a clinic, doing a soccer club, and building a library over two years. It will also be addressed by something other than a biologist or midwife lending their expertise for two years. And yes, improving the material conditions of the countries 100% SHOULD BE the PRIMARY goal of the Peace Corps and any Western organization which purports to give aid to developing countries. Peace and friendship are great, but they are nothing when people lack safe water, school access, family planning, and sustainable farming practices. It's unconscionable that I even had to type that out.
This is the US government we are talking about. There is no excuse for the lack of published studies/observations or proof of development across Peace Corps countries tied to the Peace Corps after five decades of existence. If PC wanted to show us proof of development, they could, and they would. They haven't, and they don't because there is none. Funny, there are PLENTY stats on how PCVs feel about their service, how many PCVs are in a country, and the type of "work" they do. A new library, pump, or school here or there (especially without ensuring the community will be able to fund repairs and general maintenance) is unacceptable from a program backed by the most powerful country on Earth right now.
Your two cents are duly noted, and given all regard due to them.
These women should be lawyers. I didn't think an argument against PC could be made, lol
LOL! Some of us are lawyers, but it's easy to come to the conclusion we did if you pay attention, are not blinded by American exceptionalism, know even a little bit about history, and have integrity :)
so why you traitors not telling the news but your telling the weather ever 10 mins!
That peace corps money should be going to reparations