# Canada needs a Peace Corps



## cplcaldwell (15 Mar 2007)

Like many of us I think I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the much of the attitude that prevails in this country with regard to international affairs.

I find the attitude 'at large' to often fall into three categories in this country.

'It's not winnable and it's Bush's war
Why are we there when we could be spending money on health care
Canada's traditional role is as 'peacekeeper'

Frankly I think all of this is piffle.

_*But*_ if the approach in Afghanistan is 'defence, development and diplomacy' where's the development? In this article it is argued that Canada needs a Peace Corps. 

The Peace Corps, established in the 1960's, in the US by JFK was designed to send young Americans abroad to assist less developed nations in development projects. Often these projects were micro-level, aimed at the 'grass routes'.

It seems to me that much of the development work in Afghanistan has been successful at this 'grass routes' level. It seems to me that much of the country is relatively peaceful and now ready for a sustained push at these kinds of projects. (I am not advocating that we drop a dozen U of T undergraduates in Spin Boldak to dig wells... rather some more peaceful and perhaps less prosaic activity in a more secure locale).

_*So my question is this*_, would Canadian Youth, respond to a call, presuming they do not belong to our vocation (of arms) react to a challenge to go abroad and do some good, following the much touted Axworthian principles of 'soft power'? Is this another path that the country could follow? 

Anyway, read the article. 

Aside from maligning CDS, calling for a Feb 09 withdrawal and generally bemoaning the fact that a detainee or two has become unaccounted for, is there anything else that our countrymen (sic) should be thinking about doing other than bitching and moaning about the usual 'cause celebres' of the left-ish?


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Mar 2007)

we used to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Young_Canadians

Look where it got us..LOL


----------



## Donut (19 Mar 2007)

We've also got Canadian University Services Overseas (CUSO) which has now apparently lost it's "university" affiliation, and now takes working proffesionals, vice students.  A browse of their website (CUSO.Org) has me convinced they're another "social justice" and "Solidarity" type movement, versus actually spreading Canadian values to the developing world.

To be blunt, I doubt most Canadians have the stones to go do *anything * in Afghanistan.  Plus, we lament the "Me" Generation regularly on here...Service, in any capacity, is becoming a lost cause among Canadians.

2 Shekels,

DF


----------



## Shamrock (19 Mar 2007)

CUSO

Now that's some mighty fine fact-checking, Toronto Star.  I'm just a mouth-breathing soldier from the prairies, and even _I_ know Canada's dedication to humanitarian aid extends beyond aping Americans.


----------



## rosco (19 Mar 2007)

Such programs do exist look at:

Canada World Youth - http://www.cwy-jcm.org/en
Crossroads International - http://www.cciorg.ca/welcome.html

When I was younger I spent time in India with C.W.Y.
There was certainly a lot of intrest from other youth. It was quite competitive to get in.

I think a better question to ask would be "Should there be a governmental sponsored Peace Core?"
My Opinion: No, the N.G.O.s are doing fine.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Mar 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> _*But*_ if the approach in Afghanistan is 'defence, development and diplomacy' where's the development? In this article it is argued that Canada needs a Peace Corps.



Without Security there can be no Development, what the point in building a school if someone will just come along and blow it up, security has to come first, the only thing that will do that is bulletts down range, regrettable yes, so are both world wars, the fact of the matter is somebody's got to do it, its a dirty job, and it might as well be us. We've been peacekeeping so long this country has forgotten they pay us to make war.


----------



## Spirit of the Sixties (20 Mar 2007)

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.


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties said:
			
		

> 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.



Climb down off your soapbox...nobody's interested in that crap!!


----------



## Spirit of the Sixties (20 Mar 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Climb down off your soapbox...nobody's interested in that crap!!



Really there were plenty that seemed interested in at the rally I attended this past Saturday. But as you're one of those who I guess I owe my freedom of speech to I'll try and be more polite.


----------



## frist one (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties said:
			
		

> 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.


 Where do these people come from. They should take there crap somewhere else.We do not need to here it :threat:


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties said:
			
		

> Really there were plenty that seemed interested in at the rally I attended this past Saturday. But as you're one of those who I guess I owe my freedom of speech to I'll try and be more polite.



I'll bet very few of those who attended your "rally" are members here - and therefore couldn't be less interested in what is said here.

You are attempting to provoke ill-feelings, prompting an ill considered outburst, which would, in your opinion, justify your view of the military as "knuckle-draggers".

That's known as "trolling".

I occasionally frequent your peace-nic boards - but I NEVER participate or "troll" - that would be disrespectful to the members.

Please extend the same courtesy to us.


Roy


----------



## Mike Baker (20 Mar 2007)

+1 Roy. Spirit of the Sixties, if you want to stay on this board, don't start trolling. I am sure most people on here respect your belief, and we have our own beliefs, and I am sure you won't be able to change it, so don't try to.


----------



## Spirit of the Sixties (20 Mar 2007)

Actually Roy I'm well aware that not all persons who wear uniforms are knuckle draggers as you put it, and I'm sure you find that term as distasteful as I do the term "peace nik."

As for trolling as you call it, yes I'm more than familair with the term and I assure you that is not my intent. I came here through a seach hit on the rallies and have spent a few hours reading what you have to say here. Obviously I disagree with much of "your" take on world events but that I would think you would agree is my perogative.


----------



## MediTech (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties,

I notice that your signature says something to the effect that we should support our troops and bring them home.  How about supporting the people of Afghanistan?  You're a result of the "me, me, me" generation.  You know what, it's not always about us.  Those people need our help.  It is our obligation and duty as citizens of this world to help those in need and to be defenders of the weak.  

Secondly, if support is so great to bring our troops home then why did only 150 people march down the street here in Victoria on March 17th?  

Please stop trolling here.  You're entitled to disagree with us but you're also entitled to keep it to yourself if you're only going to troll.  Comments like the one you made about President Bush are nothing but the words of a troll.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties said:
			
		

> Actually Roy I'm well aware that not all persons who wear uniforms are knuckle draggers as you put it, and I'm sure you find that term as distasteful as I do the term "peace nik."
> 
> As for trolling as you call it, yes I'm more than familair with the term and I assure you that is not my intent. I came here through a seach hit on the rallies and have spent a few hours reading what you have to say here. Obviously I disagree with much of "your" take on world events but that I would think you would agree is my perogative.



It is indeed your perogative Spirit of the 60s, feel free to leave at any time though if you feel you can't deal with the real-time, life-experiences of the posters of this forum.

You may have hit (why does acid spring to my mind with that??  : ) upon this site accidentally; but it is Army.ca not Gimmesomeofwhatyoursmokingtoday.ca

The Librarian
Army.ca Staff


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (20 Mar 2007)

Med.Tech said:
			
		

> Spirit of the Sixties,
> 
> I notice that your signature says something to the effect that we should support our troops and bring them home.  How about supporting the people of Afghanistan?  You're a result of the "me, me, me" generation.  You know what, it's not always about us.  Those people need our help.  It is our obligation and duty as citizens of this world to help those in need and to be defenders of the weak.
> 
> ...



Well put, let me add on, we're still there at the request of the Afghan government, yes thats right, they want us there. and as for your March rally whatever, It wasn't much my family and walked by after a kids CBC production at the Mac you were all huddled under a building to avoid the rain.


----------



## MediTech (20 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> Well put, let me add on, we're still there at the request of the Afghan government, yes thats right, they want us there. and as for your March rally whatever, It wasn't much my family and walked by after a kids CBC production at the Mac you were all huddled under a building to avoid the rain.



They're fair weather warriors. ;D  They should come on a field exercise with us in the pouring rain and mud and see how vocal they are after.


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties.  I don't respect your beliefs at all.

You are the type of person who will protest no matter what, just keep on following the crowd.  You know what would happen if we pulled out of Afghanistan?  You would be first in line protesting against the government because we aren't doing enough for the people there. 

Not all the world's problems can be solved with a hug, sometimes military action is required and if you think otherwise perhaps you could find a Jewish friend who can explain to you that it was indeed military action that ended the horrors of WWII. 

Again this is army.ca  

NOW if I could get an account on Gimmesomeofwhatyoursmokingtoday.ca I would be a happy man   8)


----------



## cplcaldwell (20 Mar 2007)

Sigh.

Perhaps if the topic continues to spiral it should be locked. 

Much thanks to Spirit of the Sixties for the 'hard left rudder'


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Mar 2007)

<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling&r=f">*trolling *</a>


> Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning.



For further clarification, this is trolling:


			
				Spirit of the Sixties said:
			
		

> 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.*



P.S> "*than *blindly ..." and you're an educator?


----------



## scoutfinch (20 Mar 2007)

Spirit of the Sixties said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Mar 2007)

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 (20 Mar 2007)

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


----------



## Flip (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

visitor said:
			
		

> 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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> If CIDA were reorganized by retired military people......
> 
> Like the commissionaires. ;D
> 
> ...



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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Sorry Roy,
> 
> Just kicking it around a bit.
> 
> ...



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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

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 (21 Mar 2007)

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.


----------

