Page images

The American Friends Service Committee wishes to state its hearty endorsement of the program proposed in S. 2000 which would provide for a Peace Corps. The declaration of purpose opens the way to a new type of initiative on the part of our Government which, if successful, offers signal promise of promoting world peace and friendship.


In a manner appropriate to it as a voluntary agency the American Friends Service Committee since 1917 has been engaged in the development and implementation of action programs in both the national and international scenes which have embraced the stated purpose of the Peace Corps. From this experience, as well as concern for the increasingly pressing need for world understanding, the American Friends Service Committee strongly advocates enactment of the Peace Corps bill.

The American Friends Service Committee is gratified by the numerous opportunities which we have had to share our experience in working with young people overseas and to make recommendations to the administration of the Peace Corps established by Executive Order No. 10924, as well as to Colorado State University which undertook a special study at the request of the Congress. Many of the provisions which the American Friends Service Committee advocates are contained in the bill as presented.


Hitherto our Government has not undertaken a program such as the Peace Corps but its purposes have long been pursued by numerous voluntary agencies in a manner now proposed for the Peace Corps. With every hope that a governmental effort such as this will succeed, it remains perforce for the time being an experimental one.

Nevertheless it is our earnest hope that certain specific features of the Peace Corps which are basic in the experience of the American Friends Service Committee will prove highly successful within the Peace Corps itself. I have in mind chiefly those provisions which call for participants being (1) both men and women, (2) willing to serve under conditions of hardship, (3) as volunteers, (4) with provision for their maintenance rather than remuneration by salary. While there are other important criteria for selection, participants selected on this basis are likely to bring to the Peace Corps effort a motivation without which it cannot achieve its purpose.



The future success of the Peace Corps in promoting world peace and friendship depends in part on the motivation of the volunteers; it depends fully as much on the attitude of the Nation in supporting this important new effort. This support must be given in positive rather than negative terms; it must reflect a concern to help rather than a determination to beat others in a race for ideological support. Fewer and fewer people doubt any longer that the survival of man today depends on our turning to nonviolent measures to relieve the


tensions which divide the world. Such measures include very practical efforts such as proposed for the Peace Corps. The rapid emergence of many new nations in the world reflects the aspiration of hundreds of millions of people to satisfy their needs which arise out of the most dire conditions of poverty and ignorance.



More and more of the world's underprivileged people are themselves increasingly active in seeking their own self-improvement. Whether or not peace is secured depends in large part on the effort made by the favored nations of the world to associate themselves with the aspirations and striving of these people not only through the sharing of goods but through genuine humanitarian service which is neither selfseeking nor patronizing. Self-respect is a major attribute of personality. It may well be as cherished by nations, especially the new and less endowed ones, as by persons. The Peace Corps presents both a challenge and an opportunity to our Nation to comprehend this with an enlightened attitude. This attitude is not new for the American people. We have approached it in the ample outpouring of material aid in the aftermath of both world wars. The problems we confront today, however, call for a more profound expression of this attitude. More is expected of us by history than a generous outpouring only of our excess; sacrifice and service are required. Thus it is of the utmost importance that the purpose of the Peace Corps includes the promotion of

a better understanding of other peoples on the part of the American people.


It is generally acknowledged that not all of the humanitarian problems encountered overseas can be solved by direct Government programs alone. The American Friends Service Committee therefore advocates that provision in the bill (sec. 10(a)(1)) which authorizes the President to enter into contracts and agreements with, among others, voluntary agencies in furtherance of the purposes of the bill.

One of the finest features of our American democracy which can be illustrated abroad through the Peace Corps is a cooperative relationship between Government and private organizations. This can be achieved most effectively within an arrangement whereby the Government respects the integrity and responsibility of carefully selected private groups to carry out the undertaking, and whereby the Government does not impose limitations that run the risk of making private organizations merely its agents.

The American Friends Service Committee therefore advocates that the Peace Corps thoroughly determine the competency and integrity of any voluntary agency to carry out a nonsectarian program in cooperation with the Peace Corps. This would include careful examination of standards of personnel selection to assure that only qualified men and women would be enrolled without regard to race or creed, persons who hold a common commitment to the purposes of both the agency and the Peace Corps. Once these determinations are made, the private agency would be given full scope to make its distinctive contribution.

Thus the long established experience of voluntary agencies in selecting suitable persons to carry on their work abroad might become a resource to the Peace Corps and lessen the need for scrutiny by any Government agency of the personnel appointed by voluntary agencies. It would seem appropriate that volunteers selected by the Peace Corps and recommended to a voluntary agency for appointment by it, and individuals recruited separately by the agency, could engage in approved projects of the voluntary agency subsidized by the Peace Corps.

Since some voluntary agencies may provide fewer perquisities for volunteers than those contained in the bill, provision might be made for volunteers serving with voluntary agencies to relinquish these, especially termination pay. Thus they might serve on an equal basis with other volunteers of a private agency.



With this approach in mind, the American Friends Service Committee therefore advocates a cooperative relationship between the Peace Corps and voluntary agencies which is more in the nature of an agreement than a contract and it is pleased that the bill would foster this.

The American Friends Service Committee and the Technical Cooperation Administration (now the International Cooperation Administration) have previously entered into this type of agreement whereby for a 5-year period the American Friends Service Committee undertook a rural community development program in India. Our representatives abroad met with skepticism at first when they averred that there were “no strings” attached nor ulterior motives implied in our agreement with the U.S. Government. However, as confidence was won and the humanitarian motive of our work was accepted as our sole and bona fide purpose, those whom we were serving gained an insight into the nature of American democracy which permits this type of relationship between government and private organizations.

There is undoubtedly some skepticism and even cynicism abroad that the Peace Corps as a governmental initiative could be humanitarian in motive. American voluntary agencies can assist uniquely in the interpretation of the Peace Corps if agreements for undertaking projects permit flexibility of operation which is indispensable to creative and dynamic effort in this field of endeavor. Thank you very much.


Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much for the statement, Mr. Schneider, and thank you for the support that your organization, the American Friends Service Committee, extends to this legislation, and for your constructive suggestion relating to some of the arrangements that might need to be changed or modified concerning the private agencies and their work with the Peace Corps.

You believe that the private agencies have a role to play in this program; is that correct?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think they have a very distinctive role to play.

Senator HUMPHREY. Are you concerned over any possibility of proselytizing by the religious organizations that might be engaged in some of this charitable or technical work?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We would advocate that religious organizations cooperating with the Peace Corps in respect to Peace Corps programs in which they engage not proselytize.

Senator HUMPHREY. In other words, do I understand you to say that you feel this kind of self-discipline can be exercised, and would be exercised?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I rather think it could be. It is largely a matter of judgment as well as conscientious scruples for various religious agencies. The American Friends Service Committee, while it is a religious agency, is clearly a nonsectarian agency.

Senator HUMPHREY. Do you believe supervision on the part of the Peace Corps staff representative in any particular country would be helpful in seeing to it that in the relationships between the Peace and private agencies, particularly religious groups, the possibility of violation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state would be eliminated ?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am inclined to believe it would exert a constructive check, yes.

Senator HUMPHREY. You have read, I am sure, the articles that have expressed some concern over this relationship?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, I have. That is why I am inclined to think it is largely a matter of discretion or judgment or in come cases conscientious scruples on the part of various agencies whether or not they seek this kind of relationship with the Government.

Senator HUMPHREY. Plus supervision.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. You mean supervision in respect to proselytizing?
Senator HUMPHREY. Supervision by the Peace Corps itself.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, I take it from the way in which you have asked me the question that this would be supervision in respect to whether or not they would be proselytizing their program activities.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is correct.

Would you have any objection, for example, if the Peace Corps entered into an arrangement with the American Friends Service Committee providing that the staff representative of the Peace Corps occasionally checked your activities to make sure that you were fulfilling your contractual obligations?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We would have no objection, but please understand I speak for the American Friends Service Committee and no other organizations.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is right. That is the only one I am asking about right now.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. This is not too complicated for myself to address myself to because we are not committed in the various things we do, to proselytize. In other words, this does not impose a limitation upon us.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. You are welcome.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Michael P. Daniels, African Research Foundation, New York. Mr. Daniels.



Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Senator.

, My name is Michael P. Daniels. I appear before you today on behalf of the African Research Foundation in support of S. 2000, the Peace Corps bill.

The African Research Foundation is a voluntary, nonprofit, nonpolitical, nondenominational organization with afiliated entities in New York, London, and Africa. The foundation was organized in response to African needs for medical research, education, and services.



We do not address ourselves to the particular provisions of the bill before this committee. The bill seems well conceived to carry out the purposes of the Peace Corps. We would rather testify today on the need in Africa for what Mr. Shriver has called middle manpower, drawing upon our experience in conducting medical programs in Africa over the last 4 years.

Five years ago an American surgeon Dr. Tom Rees, made an extensive tour of Africa. He was impressed by the tremendous medical requirements of Africa and the lack of adequate facilities and programs to fulfill these needs. Dr. Rees, together with a small group of volunteers, formed the African Research Foundation which has endeavored to contribute in some measure to a solution of the medical problems of Africa. The foundation over the years has engaged in various African medical projects, including a cooperative chemotherapy research program in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika with the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, and a reconstrucitive surgery and orthopedic clinic serving all of east Africa. In addition to these projects the foundation has carried on a program of visiting specialists under which qualified doctors from the United States and Britain work in Africa for periods of 3 months to a year.



The foundation recognizes the need in Africa for long-range development programs but after several years of experience has come to the conclusion that direct and fundamental programs are needed in the field immediately if we are to meet the real needs of Africa.

The foundation has concluded that the most direct, yet simple, effective, and inexpensive method of introducing medical and educational programs in Africa is to employ the concept of mobility. This concept envisions supplying medical facilities regionally on a systematic basis—the use of fixed-base hospitals to which major cases can be transferred; mobile dispensaries, at which patients can be provided minimal therapy after operation without transfer to distant hospitals; mobile clinics; aircraft to transfer urgent cases; and a radio net with which to communicate.

Mobility permits limited personnel and facilities to have a strong impact on a large number of people, and maximize the medical services which can be provided to the vast areas of Africa. We have

« PreviousContinue »