Future of Peace Corps

Since the life-altering events of last fall, many of us have wondered about the future of the Peace Corps. How will it evolve in this transformed world of terrorism and uncertainty? Within a short time after the events of September 11, Peace Corps evacuated volunteers from the Central Asian republics and Bangladesh. All of a sudden it was no longer safe for Peace Corps volunteers to be in countries that might harbor Islamic militants and terrorists. But, at the same time volunteers remain in countries with majority or large Muslim populations. Volunteers we have heard from say that things move along much as before.

In his State of the Union message of January 29, the president answered some of our questions about the Peace Corps’ future, while posing some new ones. He called for a new era of volunteerism. To facilitate this he has created, by executive order, a new organization called the USA Freedom Corps. It’s an umbrella organization that will incorporate the Peace Corps, Americorps, the Senior Corps and a new agency, the Citizen Corps, that will engage Americans in protecting the United States from terrorist attacks and help out in future catastrophes. In his speech the president addressed the Peace Corps, “we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years, and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world.”

John Bridgeland, the director of the Domestic Policy Council, will be the executive director of the USA Freedom Corps, which will be part of the executive office of the president. Two days after his speech, Bush said, “by taking him off the Domestic Policy Council and putting him in charge of USA Freedom, I am obviously making a strong commitment to the future of this organization.” Bridgeland said that the administration was seeking to increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers from the current 7000 to about 15,000, the all time high reached by Peace Corps in 1966. He also said that Peace Corps would return to Afghanistan (absent since 1979) as soon as it was safe to help in reconstruction efforts. First to go there will be Crisis Corps, experienced former Peace Corps volunteers, to respond to immediate needs, such as health care and sanitation.

Over the years there have been implied and explicit attempts to use the Peace Corps as an arm of American foreign policy. In the early years of the Clinton administration, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky proposed that the Peace Corps lose its independence as an agency and come under the arm of the State Department. This proposal was widely rejected at the time. The creation of the new organization, USA Freedom, does not suggest the same thing, but then it appears that little has been worked out on how USA Freedom will operate. On the surface it appears that Bridgeland will have responsibilities similar to those of Tom Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, to oversee and coordinate. He will report to the president and act as policy director, activity coordinator and catalyst amongst the volunteer agencies. But what sort of budgetary and policy control will he and USA Freedom have over the volunteer agencies they oversee? What level of agency independence will the Peace Corps retain?

The Peace Corps’ stated goals include promoting a better understanding of Americans on people (countries) served, and a better understanding of other people on the part of Americans. It seems to me that successful volunteers have always walked the fine line between being quiet ambassadors, providers of skills, students of other cultures and what seems implied in the president’s statements and the creation of USA Freedom. In fairness it’s too soon to know what this all means, but I think we need to stay on top of the changes in direction that will come. Will Peace Corps become a tool to combat this particular crisis, such as being used to spread American values to the Muslim world? It is of course perceived “American values” that appear to motivate many of those anxious to cause us harm. Any success in this area will require the sensitive distinction between democratic values, individual growth and development, and the culture clash of fast food, cheap t-shirts, raucous music and violent video entertainment. Peace Corps has survived and flourished over the past 41 years and enjoyed bipartisan support because it has resisted politicization and manipulation.

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps, significantly increasing budget, enlarging the scope of volunteer projects, all prompt other, more serious questions. Where is the managerial skill and leadership to accomplish this? Gaddi Vasquez was finally approved as new Peace Corps Director by voice vote in the Senate just 4 days before the State of the Union address with its dramatic Peace Corps announcements. Along with many others we opposed his nomination because of the candidate’s lack of qualifications and relevant experience. The Peace Corps has been without a Director for over a year. Peace Corps’ top two dozen managers are political appointees. By in large, these positions have also been vacant for a year. Peace Corps’ five-year limitation on employment has also decimated Peace Corps professional ranks during this time, and there have been job freezes. Peace Corps staff has had to concentrate on keeping programs going, replacing the destroyed New York regional office and dealing with the effects of the September 11 attacks on volunteers overseas. But much has remained in limbo.

The resurgence of the Peace Corps, regardless of motivation, seems to me a perfect time to work towards its rejuvenation and refocus. To grow in size and budget will require vision, competence, experience and skill. Surely its time to look at the way the Peace Corps is organized and managed. Is the five-year employment limit still relevant, or is it a way to rob the organization of much of its competence during times of political stalemate? Why so many political appointments? Why couldn’t professionals from other agencies like AID, the World Health Organization, and other respected NGOs, be hired on (not politically appointed) for their expertise? Isn’t it time to reexamine the legislation that created the Peace Corps in the first place? Let’s not let this opportunity pass by.