I feel a response is necessary to the Chomsky-esque comment posted yesterday. I want to make the following very clear.
I did quite a bit of self-examination, soul searching, etc. before I decided to go ahead and work for the organization that I work for. Not only is the role and utility of development subject to arguments at every extreme, but Western interest in the third world should also be closely examined. As a citizen of the world's richest, most powerful, and most aggressive nation, I had to determine whether I was comfortable representing said force, and to what ends I would be doing so.
My organization goes out of its way from the very commencement of the application process to screen out individuals who have ever been/ever intend to be part of the intelligence community. As I recall, at least two pages of the 16 or so page application concerned personal and familial three-letter affiliations, and simply stated that, depending on the level of involvement, it is necessary to wait for anywhere between 10 years and eternity for acceptance. In addition to asking my recruiter why this was so (and receiving the expected answer of "because we don't want people to think that we're all a bunch of CIA hacks"), I discussed this once with a man who had been in army intelligence during Vietnam and had subsequently turned to aid work. He went through the application process twice but never ended up joining, and now works for
Ashoka. He explained that there is likely some legitimacy to claims that individuals in my organization were involved in intelligence gathering during its infancy. Somewhere along the line, however, there was a very concrete decision to completely disconnect any ties between us and the three-letter community.
Budgetary information also indicates how ridiculous the suggestion of intelligence operations is. I'm too busy wondering why I have to pay for my own poor ass to join, literally, six other Mauritanians in a circa-1983 sedan for a five and a half hour drive to Nouakchott in early January to even take the time to report to my superiors at the CIA. The $344 million in budgetary resources available for FY 2006 (to the whole organization, not Mauritania) gets spread transparently thin just about as quickly as you'd imagine.
Hot topics in US intelligence gathering in Mauritania likely center around 1) the shifting government, and 2) Algerian terrorists, who have a tendency to leak across the border. 1: If anyone would like a copy of any of the various emails admonishing the volunteers to do everything in their power to stay away from polling stations, to refrain from all political and religious conversation with locals, and to by absolutely no means show any support for any of the parties operating in their locales (violators subject to termination), I will make it available. 2: NDB is the northernmost posting, hundreds of kilometers south of the more conservative and potentially volatile areas that would be of interest to the US intelligence community. Anything that smells of interest to the three-letter agencies generally smells like endangerment to my organization, and volunteers are yanked before they even discover a threat.
The organization does provide a reason to place US citizens into small communities it would not otherwise have a reason to "infiltrate." I know people who are convinced that there is a black helicopter following my every step, and that's fine. It probably keeps me safer anyway. But it's as far from the truth as one could get. The fact of the matter is, management is extremely laissez-faire, and as the administrative go-to guy for NDB, my rare conversations with the higher-ups consist entirely of me bitching at them to send us our mail.
There is a distrust of Western, and especially US, involvement in Africa. It's healthy, and completely understandable. First colonialism saw Europe raping the third world, and then we took our turn during the Cold War. Some of the people we supported (and subsequently, governments, policies, and actions) in an effort to stymie the spread of Communism were out and out criminals - thieves, murderers, and rapists - and people have every right to harbor reservations about our intentions. However, unsubstantiated rumor is also a way of life in the absence of credible sources of information. Having dinner with an educated neighbor the other night, he looked me level in the eyes and told me that eating the skin of a chicken will give you cancer. Right buddy, find that one in The Lancet?
But what disturbs me is that someone who
does have access to the available information could actually make that statement in all seriousness.
I resent being in any way regarded as an ignorant pawn in some kind of global spygame. I spent (and still spend) a large amount of time considering my involvement here. Yes, anything is possible. Maybe the NSA planted bugs in all my clothes and listens to the political conversations I have with locals despite the emails, but I'm not willing to take such a cynical standpoint. I have all the tolerance in the world for cynical jocularity, but if I couldn't believe that some people were genuinely interested in the well-being of others, I would have killed myself years ago.