Canada needs a Peace Corps

[scoutfinch]

It would be an excellent idea to put more funds into this noble cause  then blindly tossing our money into helping out in George Bush's illegal wars of oppression.

Someone please explain to me how the war in Afghanistan is:

(1)  illegal;
(2) oppressive; and
(3)  Bush's?

Thanks.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Actually Olga, that would be impossible

- given the dozens of UN Security Council Resolutions (any of which could have been vetoed by the Per manant Members) on the subject
- The blueprint, the Bonn Agreement is a creature of the EU.
- That NATO's involvement needs the unanimous assent of the North Atlantic Council (thus it's member countries)
- The dozens of Nations already in Afghanistan are all there with the approval of there democratically elected Parliaments/Congresses, and
- That we are there at the request of a democratically elected Afghan Government.

etc..

But why bother? those that are radical enough to make such a statement, would hardly listen to such reasoned logic.

It is easier for them to believe that GWB can subjugate the UN, bully the EU, silence NATO and cajole the entire Afghan populace than to listen to reason...

As I said above, Sigh...

 

[scoutfinch]

...they sure don't let facts get in their way, do they?

 

[Flip]

I've had a glass of wine so I may go a little far.........

If I am to take "Spirit" at face value and assume he believes what he is saying,
I might conclude that he is in agreement with the insurgents and jihadis.
I'm sure they would agree with him.

If he is in agreement with the insurgents and jihadis,
I might conclude he is an enemy of the current system of democracy
which most of us cherish.
I might conclude from what he has written, that he is an enemy of the USA.
If he is an enemy of the USA I might conclude he is an enemy of Canada.
If the above is true then I might believe he is an enemy of women and democracy.
I might believe he is an enemy of mine.

Twisted logic is fun when you get the hang of it ;D

I mean no harm or threat.
But It's time for "peaceniks" to get a little real.

The reason for the poor turnout at the rallies this weekend is that the premise is flawed.

Just like the logic above. Right "Spirit"?

 

[visitor]

There are significant differences between Canada World Youth and Crossroads  and the Peace Corp: the length of time of service and importanty: compensation. The Peace Corp (through the gov't) pays a stipend as well as interest on any outstanding student loans.  It is a great program for  the young Univ grad who wants to  give back to the world, but does not have the money to volunteer without an income. Americorp is  the companion program in the US.  I know of a lot of young US people who did not know what they wanted to do after Univ, , and got started on a career,  getting experience, making contacts and learning a language and growing up  throough the Peace Corp and Americorp.  I think we need a Peace Corp and a DND both They serve very different purposes.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/

 

[Roy Harding]

There are significant differences between Canada World Youth and Crossroads  and the Peace Corp: the length of time of service and importanty: compensation. The Peace Corp (through the gov't) pays a stipend as well as interest on any outstanding student loans.  It is a great program for  the young Univ grad who wants to  give back to the world, but does not have the money to volunteer without an income. Americorp is  the companion program in the US.  I know of a lot of young US people who did not know what they wanted to do after Univ, , and got started on a career,  getting experience, making contacts and learning a language and growing up  throough the Peace Corp and Americorp.  I think we need a Peace Corp and a DND both They serve very different purposes.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/

visitor:

You're one of the few on this thread that has made a measured, reasonable, and significant posting.

I agree with you - I ALSO think we need a Peace Corps and a CF.  They do, indeed, serve very different purposes (tactically - strategically they both further the aim of the government).

I have LONG been an advocate of "National Service" in Canada.  For those who do not wish to serve in the military - I've often thought a Peace Corps alternative should be offered.

Thanks for your thoughts - they brought the discussion back to where it belongs (in my humble opinion).


Roy

 

[Flip]

Roy and Visitor,

Thanks for bringing us back.

It's not like the Peace corp concept is an either/or argument at all anyway.

I guess we're a little defensive given the tone of some other points of view.
( In Media for example ).

CIDA could be expanded, it needs fixing anyway.

 

[a_majoor]

Several organizations have been named in earlier posts which do much of the same work as a hypothetical "Peace Corps" but without government funding and its attendant bureaucracy. In fact, I would suggest that bureaucracy and office politics would consume most of the budget and smother any potential good a government peace corps might be able to do.

Go with the NGO solution

 

[Roy Harding]

Several organizations have been named in earlier posts which do much of the same work as a hypothetical "Peace Corps" but without government funding and its attendant bureaucracy. In fact, I would suggest that bureaucracy and office politics would consume most of the budget and smother any potential good a government peace corps might be able to do.

Go with the NGO solution

I disagree.  As I stated earlier, a government Peace Corps works towards a government's strategic goals.  Such is not the case (nor SHOULD it be the case) with NGOs.

Please don't try to equate CIDA with the concept of a Peace Corps.  I've worked with those CIDA folks - it wasn't fun, it wasn't easy (and I WAS a bureaucrat!), and it wasn't productive.

I think the idea of National Service - either Military or Peace Corps has merit - that's where the foreign aide dollars need to go.

I understand the attraction of NGOs - but I've also worked with some of THOSE b*****ds - that wasn't fun or easy either.  When they weren't berating us for simply being there, they were crying at us because we hadn't "protected them" (after they failed to tell us where they were going).

Don't get me wrong - I've met some inspiring and wonderful people in both CIDA and various NGOs - but they were the exception - as fed up with the bureaucracy of their organizations as I was.

I think a Peace Corps may be worth a look (INSTEAD of, not as WELL AS, CIDA).


Roy

 

[Flip]

If CIDA were reorganized by retired military people......

Like the commissionaires. ;D

Government usually equates to bureaucracy( in my book anyway ).

I think the military is a relative exception, by necessity.

National Service(mandatory) may have had resonance 45 years ago, but I think
it would be a tough sell now.

Just a thought.........

 

[Roy Harding]

If CIDA were reorganized by retired military people......

Like the commissionaires. ;D

Government usually equates to bureaucracy( in my book anyway ).

I think the military is a relative exception, by necessity.

National Service(mandatory) may have had resonance 45 years ago, but I think
it would be a tough sell now.

Just a thought.........

Don't know where you got the "CIDA reorganized" idea - I didn't say that - I said get rid of CIDA.

You're right about Government and bureaucracy - you're also right about the military trying to avoid it (hell - I spent 22 years working "around" the bureaucracy!) - why shouldn't a Peace Corps ALSO be an "exception"?

I don't understand your reference to the Commissionaires - can you elaborate?

You're right - National Service MAY have had resonance 45 years ago - but it didn't.  Please inform yourself regarding the conscription crises of BOTH World Wars.  It was a tough sell THEN, and I'm SURE it'd be a tough sell now.

I picked the term "National Service" out of the air - one needn't assume that all the details would be the same as the original British model.  Ask the Swiss what they think of the concept of "National Service", ask the Israeli's, ask the Fins.  I don't think it's a BAD concept - I think it has its' attractions and deficits - but I think it's worth CONSIDERING.

Making obviously obtuse remarks regarding an idea is not a refutation of that idea - it's an admission of ignorance and small mindedness by the one making the remarks.

I don't think you're particularly obtuse, Flip - I think you were just being "flip" on this particular occasion.


Roy

 

[Flip]

Sorry Roy,

Just kicking it around a bit.

The Commissionaires are a group of retired civil servants who do things
like manage parking and direct traffic so that you don't have to pay cops
to do it. 

If retired military people wanted to manage it, a Peace Corp. would have a
fighting chance.

I took your "National Service" a bit to literally I guess.
And yes, of course national service is a good thing.

Since University is mostly paid for by the Provinces anyway, the federal
government could cover tuition  in return for "National Service".

My though about CIDA was simply that since it's clearly already broken,
fix it thoroughly.  Include "Peace Corp." functions. And then we have an agency
that works.

Less obtuse?
 

 

[Roy Harding]

Sorry Roy,

Just kicking it around a bit.

The Commissionaires are a group of retired civil servants who do things
like manage parking and direct traffic so that you don't have to pay cops
to do it. 

If retired military people wanted to manage it, a Peace Corp. would have a
fighting chance.

I took your "National Service" a bit to literally I guess.
And yes, of course national service is a good thing.

Since University is mostly paid for by the Provinces anyway, the federal
government could cover tuition  in return for "National Service".

My though about CIDA was simply that since it's clearly already broken,
fix it thoroughly.  Include "Peace Corp." functions. And then we have an agency
that works.

Less obtuse?
 

Don't be sorry - it's a sign of weakness. 

I'm still not sure what you meant by the reference to the Commissionaires - but let it lie - it's not important.

I like your idea about covering tuition fees with "National Service" - I hadn't thought of that one - brilliant!

You make sense with your suggestion of "fixing" CIDA by adding the "Peace Corps", but I think the attempt would be aborted by the existing bureaucracy.  You need to do away with CIDA TOTALLY, and stand up the "Peace Corps" in it's stead - that's the only chance the concept has of surviving.

Yes - much less "obtuse" - I think between us we could come up with a good concept - you'll need "bureaucrats" - I can do that, and we'll need "operators" - you can do that, being a civilian would give you a "non-military" point of view.

We're alright, partner - occasional sparks are the mark of a good relationship.


Roy

 

[enfield]

I'm not sure why everyone is holding the Peace Corps up as something amazing- I've spent a fair bit of time with them in Africa, and they were pretty much useless. They were like any other group of young western people in a warm sunny place - full of good intentions, but also with money that goes farther, freedom from parents, etc. They had little to contribute to development as they had no skills. A Fine Arts or History degree is great, but doesn't mean much in a small village in Africa where the problems are health, water and agriculture. As much time and resources are spent on the health, safety and welfare of these American youth as on development projects making it. Having spent a lot of time around the development community in Africa, Peace Corps is essentially regarded as being the bottom of the pile of development agencies.

I understand the appeal, and organizations like Peace Corps and Canada World Youth - that specialize in sending untrained young people to developing countries - are great organizations, but they do far more for the youth participating in them than they do for the locals. The youth participating learn a lot, and have an amazing experience, and maybe make some small differences locally but they are not development tools. 

The Developing World does not need more labourers, more hands, or amateurish english teachers. That is about all that Peace Corps, and similar organizations, provide. The Peace Corps is a group of young Americans with the best of intentions, but with very little to actually contribute. How many young people have skills that are actually needed? Are they Doctors? Engineers? Nurses? Do they have a skilled trade? nutritionist? experienced farmer? Idealism and good intentions are fine, but they don't help anyone. 

Someone earlier derided CIDA, Crossroads, and CUSO for only sending skilled professionals and not students overseas. This is exactly the required model. Pouring unskilled youth into developing regions doesn't do much, but placing a few key professionals into these countries can make a world of difference. The problem, I think, likes in that exactly the same skills and trades are in demand overseas as in Canada - doctors, skilled tradesmen, nurses, etc. Do we want to send these valuable people overseas, or keep them home to meet our needs?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I used to be against conscription, but now I wonder if might not be an excellent glue to bind our diverse nation together with a shared experience. Some nations use a lottery system where your number is picked by random so they military is not swamped with to many people. Malaysia also has corp of unarmed national service types that wear a uniform but perform a variety of tasks such as emergency response to disasters, security and public information stuff.

 

[Staff Weenie]

The cold, hard, republican side of me likes the national service idea of Starship Troopers - If you're not willing to serve/sacrifice for the state, then you've got no right to vote.....

I think Enfield is very much correct - the Peace Corps and similar organizations do far more for the persons who go overseas with them, than for the regions they go to aid.

But - There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and each element has its benefits. The Peace Corps motivates young people - even if they don't end up contributing greatly, they will keep with them forever the thought that there are parts of the world far less fortunate than them. And, maybe later as adults, they will consciously or subconsciously allow it to guide them in things such as voting, philanthropy, etc where they can assist in enabling future change.

Govt Orgs such as CIDA have the potential to (note my wording here...) apply far greater resources as part of a focused national, or even multinational effort. They can also apply human resources with high degrees of specialization. However, they are often paralyzed by bureaucratic processes.

NGOs can often get into areas that the other two won't go into. That said, I've often noted that they can be highly wasteful, very partisan, and so suspicious of other efforts as to prevent the adoption of a coherent aid strategy. As an example, I've heard of numerous cases now of MSF personnel living it up in 4 to 5 star hotels, driving brand new Land Rovers, and basically doing sweet f*@k-all. Aid is big $$$, let's not kid ourselves here - some of these folks are in it for the cash.

For my .02 - the keys are health care and education, delivered in a coherent, cohesive strategy, as part of a long term approach - pouring dollars into corrupt lands, or throwing in scads of well-intentioned teens or NGOs is a band-aid solution at best. It makes us feel good that we've done something, and when the public loses interest in Craphole X, they move the aid somewhere else.