In a program initiated by the US Embassy in Djibouti, US airmen are volunteering in a discussion group with locals who want to practice and improve their English language skills. The airmen dedicate their free time to the discussion group, and note that it gives them a connection to the locals and presumably a perspective they wouldn’t get otherwise.

One surprising yet logical concern that I’ve heard humanitarian organizations raise is that if the military becomes involved in the distribution of aid, local recipients may come to see a connection, putting later non-military humanitarian workers in the position of being mistaken for military when they have no connection to – nor support from – the military whatsoever. I have no idea if this concern exists in Djibouti. However, despite this general concern, I see a number of benefits to this situation.

Obviously locals who want to practice their English have the chance to do so, but the bigger benefit as I see it is for the airmen themselves and their mission in general. In my experience as an English language teacher, interacting with people in an informal classroom setting is a marvellous way to have normal, personal exchanges, often on an at least relatively level playing field – a benefit which many if not most other expat jobs, including military ones, simply do not offer.

In my own experience, I had the chance to speak socially with an international community member involved in the political reconstruction of Bosnia, a country where I have nearly two years of experience teaching English to adults. Our views and experiences were widely divergent, and it’s almost painful to think about how different things could have been and could be for the country if international community members in positions of authority regularly interacted with local people on a person-to-person level rather than in the standard official capacity.