PR Faux Pas? or Refreshing Honesty

it's always refreshing to read media releases from the PM's office as they run the gamut from announcements of scrap metal sale bans to everything else under the sun... today's latest release is about cuban docs.... BUT what's the most scintillating were these 2 paragraphs:

“During the worst of the crisis in May, June and July our Cuban doctors stayed unconditionally in the villages and hospitals with the patients and the people, providing the much-needed moral, medical and psychological support,” Dr Ramos-Horta said.

“This is in contrast with American Peace Corp volunteers, who, even though there was not the slightest threat to their safety and well-being in rural areas, were given orders by the US administration to leave our country.

“The Cuban courage and commitment is also in contrast with the Japanese. JICA, the Japanese International Co-operation Agency, abruptly interrupted its co-operation in Timor-Leste, even though there was never any threat to Japanese nationals, particularly in the rural areas.”

I must say i am shocked that the PM's office being the highest diplomatic office in the country would say something like this. I'm weirdly impressed by the (naive?) display of honesty, yet slightly concerned about the effect these rather undiplomatic statements would have upon those mentioned.

Although i do agree that the Peace Corp volunteers left pretty early and really abruptly - some of them without the opportunity to say a proper goodbye to their counterparts and host families (according to my knowledge) - I think that these few paragraphs are too generalised and simplistic and very inaccurate. It was NOT the volunteers who decided to leave - it was the organisation Peace Corp which is in turn funded by the US Govt. As for JICA, it's the same. It was funded by the Japanese Govt. I, too at that time, was a volunteer funded by my country. As a volunteer - i didn't have a choice to leave or stay. If i want to respect my terms with the organisation, i have to go when the organisation says so. If i stay on, it means I am cutting my ties with the organisation and my safety nets like security, insurance, post-volunteer stipends etc might be cancelled out. For me, luckily my contract was due to end 30th May anyways and i left on 26th May.

It's not quite fair to pinpoint the VOLUNTEERS as the ones abandoning ship. The same goes for the UN. When the JICA people left, they left only 1 or 2 days BEFORE the UN declared that all non-essential international staff would leave for their safe haven - Darwin. Isn't that the same? Also, JICA for example, don't hv the same kind of security setup that the UN has to protect its workers in case things worsen. In fact, i was impressed that JICA actually booked an entire ISOS plane to get its people out together. I took that plane.

I respect the Cuban docs for staying and i have seen many of them work ceaselessly during the emergency period in the IDP camps. perhaps the PM's media unit should have simply praised them and left it at that- there was no need to 'compare and contrast.'

I also don't agree with the statement that there was no threat or danger in rural areas for foreigners. Yes, i know that many foreigners in the districts were ok, as were us all in the city. But, there were many weapons that had been distributed across the country and till now at least 200 police weapons are missing. Police men were killed in Ermera too. With the complete breakdown of govt institutions during those 2 months, can we really blame other governments for reacting this way? For Peace Corp especially, if they did not pull their volunteers out and someone got hurt or killed, how will it explain to a family in the US what happened? Yes, perhaps they over reacted or were overly cautious, but i don't think they deserve to be disparaged in a press release.

Mak ne'e deit. Back to work now.