In Switzerland as in Iraq

I work in a training centre for delegations from developing countries. A delegation of 20 Iraqis have been with us for the past 2-3 weeks. It went very smoothly so far. Until today.

This morning, there was an article in a local newspaper about them and the programme. Names were given, despite repeated requests not to do so. I was pissed off. The journalist didn't understand the Iraqi situation: Those people are risking their lives by coming here, since they might be perceived as "collaborators" back in Iraq.

The paper attracted local attention. First, some television wanted to interview them for the 7:30 o'clock news. Very delicated request because of the aforementioned reason. Second, speaking of delicate, the Israel ambassador also happened to read the article and called us. He wanted to meet with the Iraqis. Do I have to mention that there are no diplomatic relations between Israel and Iraq? That Israel is not the most appreciated country in the Middle East? It was a rather bold move from the ambassador. Most staff was enthusiastic about it.

The person in charge of the programme, after much debating, decided to give the Iraqis the choice in both cases.

1) Do they agree to be interviewed on TV?
2) Do they agree to meet with the Israel ambassador?

She went in the room and asked those two questions, being neutral on the media issue, but clearly leaning in favour of the meeting with the ambassador. Then, she and I left the room to let them debate.

It took them a good 20-25 minutes. According to the little I was seeing throught the door, it was rather intense. Not only was it a central political issue, but also a matter of perceived risk, Most of them are quite young, in their 20s. We had the feeling that they were panicked or at least very emotional about the issues.

They invited us in the room to tell us their decision. Their designated spokesman said that for the media, it would be an individual decision for each of them. The television might come, would not be allowed general shots, but could make individual or group interviews with the willing. Good idea.

As for Israel, they decided to stay in line with their foreign policy and not engage in a meeting with the Israel embassador. You could feel the tension in the room.

The staff was very much disappointed, hoping to contribute to a warmer relationship between the two countries. The outcome might be the opposite if the Israel mission is offended that their opening provoked such a cold reaction.

I think that their reason makes sense, but that it hides the real reason. I'm not sure what it is. Lack of opening? Fear? Resentment? Let's hope the Israel ambassador won't take it so bad.