Jim Patterson and President Obama on China

December 22, 2014

Dear James: Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans about United States-China relations, and I appreciate your perspective. I believe there is much to be gained from a closer working relationship with China.  Indeed there are very few global challenges, if any, we can address effectively without China’s active cooperation.  They are a global economic power, and engagement with China’s government is an important step in stemming the financial crisis that has devastated economies around the world.  Both of our nations seek to lay a foundation for sustainable growth and lasting prosperity.   My Administration is also working with China on a number of security issues, including stopping North Korea’s nuclear program, rolling back the advance of extremists in Pakistan, and ending the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.  The United States and China share common interests on a host of issues—including energy security and climate change, food safety and public health, and nuclear non-proliferation and counter-terrorism.  We want to work with them to address these issues in the years ahead. Improved relations with China will require candor and open discussion about those issues on which we may disagree.  We must address human rights, democracy, and free speech.  We must also work to ensure that our nations play by the rules in open and transparent economic competition.  These important matters will be essential elements of our ongoing dialogue with China.  Thank you, again, for writing.  For more information on my foreign policy agenda, I encourage you to visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/Issues/Foreign-Policy. Sincerely, Barack Obama

What's wrong with the President's letter? 

Third paragraph: "stopping North Korea's  nuclear and cyber programs"

No mention whatsoever of China's cyber attacks on US government and private sectors. Obama just does not know how to effectively bring this issue to the Chinese. 

President Obama does not understand China's cyber capabilities and attacks are a national security threat. Corporate executives tell me they  are spending millions to defend against cyber attacks (Iran, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Russia and others). These attacks are hourly and daily. They are non-stop. All corporations including communications, finance, retail, utilities, and transportation. I talked with a man in Tennessee who said the town's farmers market was hit by cyber attack, 

The US is so vulnerable and no one is doing anything policy-wise or diplomatically to bring this under control. This is a serious problem and Obama is vacationing and trying to solve racial issues. It's not that he doesn't need a rest  and it's not that the US doesn't have race problems, but in my view they pale in comparison to the never ending cyber war against the US.

This North Korean cyber attack on Sony over a movie mocking leader Kim was serious. Sony backed down but they are now releasing the damn movie. 

President Obama compared this cyber attack as cyber vandalism. This reminds me when Senator John F. Kerry was running against President George W. Bush and the Massachusetts Senator called 9/11 "a nuisance" in the New York Times Sunday Magazine.

I'll try again to get a letter from Obama explaining our national cyber policy and how corporations are being secured against attack in such ways that prices don't increase and dividends aren't affected. Wish me luck! 

Jim Patterson, Diplomat

Diplomat Jim Patterson: What is US Cuba Policy?

In June 1963, the New York Daily News ran an editorial "What is our Cuba Policy?" In view of recent Obama administration announcements on Cuba, I summarize the editorial here.

Some five weeks ago at New York University's  conference center in Ardsley-on-Hudson, Freedom House assembled 25 serious thinkers on Latin America, cold war problems, etc., and asked them to discuss Western Russia - meaning Khrushchev-Castro Cuba.

Among those present were Leo Cherne, Roscoe Drummond, Christopher Emmet, Brig Gen. S.L.A. Marshall (Ret.), Edgar Ansel Mowyer, and Vice Adm,. Charles Wellborn Jr. (Ret.). The report of the three-day discussions is released today, and is very interesting.

The distinguished guests--most of them generally friendly to the Kennedy Administration--could not figure out just what U.S. policy toward Western Russia is.

But they agreed that it should be (1) to boot Soviet military and political power out of Cuba, (2) to stop Red subversion and troublemaking all over Latin America, and (3) to free the Cuban-people from Castro's brutal police state.

The panel was unimpressed by the fears of various Kennedy advisers that strong measures short of war would "escalate" (current fashionable term) into general nuclear war. Foolish risks, they felt, should not be run; but neither should foolish fears be given too much weight.

These panelists are solid citizens and patriots. They are not hysterical, not war hawks. Their report merits respect and serious consideration--both of which we earnestly hope it may get in the White House.

In this general connection --

Paul Nitze

--a highly touted Assistant Defense Secretary, warns that Soviet Russia is probably about to get tough again toward the free world, as a concession to the tough talking Chinese Reds.

What does the White House do in that case? Does it stand up to the Red Hitler and tell him to go to hell (the only language he understands); or does it wobble and weasel, as it has long done toward Cuba, and thereby contribute some more aid to the Communist plan for enslaving the human race?

We'll see what we'll see.


Comment:

Does Obama's plan expand freedom into Cuba? Dictator Raul Castro says the country will stay socialist. Will the Castro brothers visit the White House and State Department?

This quick action on Cuba by the administration, while Ukraine, Israel, Hong Kong and other nations are in crisis states and the US reels from cyber threats from a dozen nations, threaten freedom in the US and the world, seems intended to make Obama look like a leader on the foreign front. Meantime the US could be on the verge of a race war in major cities, New York, St, Louis, and anywhere in California, and more Americans could be beheaded abroad.

Obama's legacy will not be possible success in Cuba. It will be global as well as domestic tensions.

Jim Patterson, Diplomat and Editor

Diplomat Jim Patterson and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick

The New Year brings the 60th anniversary of one of my favorite books, a Cold War satire. The Mouse that Roared (Four Walls Eight Windows, 152 pages, $10) by Irishman Leonard Wibberley was serialized in the Saturday Evening Post December 1954 and January 1955.

The book, which I read at 10, was my introduction to satire, geopolitics and diplomacy. It was great preparation for the Foreign Service.

Wibberley treats us to the imaginary European Duchy of Grand Fenwick, "five miles long and three miles wide," that is desperately in need to money. Since 1370 the Duchy has had a roaring economy due to sales of an internationally prized wine, Pinot Grand Fenwick. When the grape crop fails, disaster must be averted.

Grand Fenwick's population has grown to 6,000 and Duchess Gloriana must act to quickly to finance the Duchy and keep people content. What to do?

The Duchy's two political parties, the Dilutionists and the Anti-Dilutionists, named for their position on watering down the prized wine to increase sales, suggest asking the U.S. for aid to save the Duchy from Communism.  One problem: Russia does not know the Duchy exists.

Gloriana, a beautiful 22 year old, has a better plan. The Duchess rides her bicycle to a meeting with forest ranger Tully Bascomb, something of a country wise-man. He tells her there is only one honorable way to get money from the U.S. "We could declare war."

Gloriana sees the wisdom of this even though Grand Fenwick has only a small army of longbow men who wear traditional 14th century suits of armor. She concludes, "There are few more profitable undertakings for a country in need of money than to declare war on the United States."

The plan is simple: "We declare war on Monday, are vanquished Tuesday and rehabilitated beyond our wildest dreams by Friday night." In 1950s lingo, "rehabilitation" meant unlimited billions in foreign aid money.

How to start the war? Gloriana proves a California winery is pirating Pinot Grand Fenwick. An angry Grand Fenwick sends a Declaration of War to the U.S. Department of State. A Foreign Service Officer looks at it and considers it a joke and uses it to absorb water under the potted plant in his office.

After weeks of U.S. silence, Grand Fenwick pulls together an expeditionary force to land in New York, declare war to someone and immediately surrender before anyone could get hurt. Tully Bascomb and 22 other armored soldiers take a bus to Marseilles and a brig, called Endeavor, to New York.

Unknown to the Fenwickians, an eccentric New York City scientist has developed a Q bomb for Washington.  The powerful bomb will "incinerate two million square miles" when detonated. News of the bomb panics New York City and everyone takes safety in underground fallout shelters.

When Bascomb and troops arrive in New York they find city streets deserted. They find no one to surrender to.

The Fenwickians eventually come upon scientists wearing protective suits to guard them from any Q bomb fallout. The troops panic and shoot arrows at them. The scientists rip off their suits and alert their superiors New York has been invaded by men from Mars.

Bascomb finds a newspaper in the street and learns of the Q bomb. With his troops, they march to the scientist's lab, address conveniently printed in the paper, and capture the scientist and the bomb. They return to Grand Fenwick victorious over the United States!

Instead of declaring defeat to the most powerful nation in the world, they declare victory. The tiniest country in the world has become the most powerful country in the world.

With the news out, Russia rushes to "protect" Grand Fenwick. U.S. officials are in a state of shock at having lost an unknown "war" to the Duchy.

The U.S. president and European Heads of State travel to Grand Fenwick pleading for world peace. But the Fenwickians have their own ideas about peace and "weapons of mass destruction,"  like the Q bomb.

Irishman Wibberley (1915-1983) was a prolific author and journalist who lived most of his life in California. He dedicated The Mouse That Roared, his most famous work, "To all the little nations who over the centuries have done what they could to attain and preserve their freedom. It is from one of them I am spring."

Wibberley's masterful comic construction works beautifully from start to finish. The Mouse That Roared is a classic fable of mice and men and war and peace. Its message is as sharp today as when it came upon the American scene 60 years ago.

Jim Patterson, Diplomat

Twentieth Anniversary of Dr. Kissinger's Diplomacy by Dilomat Jim Patterson

In the September 1994 issue of the Foreign Service Journal, a publication of my professional union the American Foreign Service Union, Charles Maechling, identified "as an international lawyer who writes frequently on diplomacy" his review of Diplomacy was lukewarm. Maechling died in 2007 at 87.




The reviewer began, "Diplomacy, the latest product of Henry Kissinger's prolific if ponderous pen, is an impressive but uneven work."

Maechling's criticism of the book was based on the author's "heav[iness] on geo-strategic analysis, harsh[ness] on American moralism, and naivete and almost obsessive on worship of power."

"[G]ood history it is not," the reviewer wrote. "Rather, it is the author's frequently strained interpretation of personalities and episodes in history, carefully selected to support his views on foreign policy."

Given Dr. Kissinger's European background it is not surprising the book focuses on European diplomacy, a fact Maechling disliked. "Throughout the book, the diplomacy that counts for Kissinger is European,and central European at that. The entire first century of American diplomacy from Benjamin Franklin and the American Revolution to Theodore Roosevelt is ignored, and that goes for the rest of the Western Hemisphere as well," the review wrote. This reader found the focus on European diplomacy fascinating and educational.

"The focus of the first half is on statesmen of extinct European monarchies who exemplify realpolitik - Cardinal Richelieu of 17th century France, Prince Metternich of the Austrian empire and Chancellor Bismarck of imperial Germany, to name the most prominent."

The reviewer then asks a question, I feel ignores the global changes that had taken place shortly before publication of Diplomacy. "Why these exemplars of an absolutist ad dynastic tradition should serve as models for the diplomacy of a modern democracy committee d to world order through multinational institutions will be up to the reader." Dr. Kissinger answers that question in the course of the book. It's a pity the reviewer missed it.

"The book actually begins with a disquisition on the dichotomy between idealism and realism in foreign relations, with Woodrow Wilson cast in the role of moralistic visionary and Theodore Roosevelt the astute and forceful exponent of national interest. This part ignores that moral outrage over German invasion of Belgium and submarine sinkings, not balance-of-power calculation, provoked Roosevelt's passionate interventionism in World War I; it was Wilson who for three years tried to mediate a balanced peace. President Wilson intervened in Latin America as much as Roosevelt --to incursions into Mexico (1914 and 1916) and a U.S. Marine occupation of Haiti that lasted for 20 years." And the reviewer repeated the disquisition.

 "Kissinger next goes back to Cardinal Richelieu who laid the foundation of the French state by crushing feudal nobility and checking the Habsburgs. Kissinger praises the way Richelieu invoked raison d'etat to justify support of the Protestant princes in the Thirty Years War in order to keep Germany divided. But there was no unified Germany, rather only the .fragmented Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg that encircled France from the Spanish Netherlands to the Pyrenees was the king of Spain, whose empire was then at its apogee. Richelieu was a sinister figure whose biographers describe him as mean-spirited and pitiless. Kissinger admires the way Mettenich use the Holy Alliance to unify the monarchies of Europe against a recurrence of the spirit of the French Revolution by creating a Concert of European based on "shared values." But what were these values? For Kissinger, pursuit of stability is an end in itself; the fat that Metternich and his imperial masters (England dropped out and France went its own way) equated  every popular manifestation of liberalism and nationalism with revolution - to be suppressed by bayonets and imprisonment - and that "shared values" boiled down to "legitimacy" and a determination to cling to power and privilege at all costs, is dismissed as secondary. So is the fact that when the lid finally blew off in 1848, taking Metternich with it, the explosion was all the more violent

In the second half of the book, covering the Cold War and Kissinger's own years in high office, the author is master of his material. Unfortunately, he is still so burdened with responsibility for his share in past decisions, and so linked in personal and professional association with past colleagues and

and influential members of the American "establishment," that his judgments on policy disasters like Vietnam and Iran come through as ambiguous and even evasive. In some contexts his faith in "analysis" sounds ridiculous. His only condemnation of Hitler is that he "operated by instinct" and his criticism of Lyndon B. Johnson's advisers in regard to Vietnam is that they "failed to develop criteria to assess a challenge at variance with American experience."

Toward the end of the book, Kissinger seems to recognize that realpolitik must be tempered by American values if policy gets public support. At the same time he deplores allowing policy to be influenced by domestic politics - which in a democracy is where values find expression. Throughout, he is disdainful of human rights. He still clings to the idea that the United States s an autonomous superpower that can pick and choose which of its international obligations like the U.N. and OAS charters.

There is no evidence from the chapter notes that he consulted leading American diplomatic historians. If he had he would have observed how often altruistic American policies have paid off, such as FDR's Good Neighbor policy and hemisphere solidarity in WWII. The theme that threads through Diplomacy seems to be a prescription for unilateralism, isolationism and further deterioration of the American image; this is surely not the result that the author intended."

Jim Note:



Other Reviewers on Kissinger's Diplomacy:

From Kirkus Reviews

The Nobel laureate and former national security advisor and secretary of state (Years of Upheaval, 1982, etc.) presents an engrossing and monumental (in every sense) historical survey of diplomacy from the 17th century to the present. Kissinger begins his narrative after the Peace of Westphalia (1648), when militarily ascendant France strove for dominance on the continent, preventing the fragmented German states from coalescing into a major power. Thereafter Britain, its own internal turbulence quelled and its monarchy restored, sought to check France by creating alliances of weaker European states. Kissinger shows how wily statesmen like Richelieu, Britain's William III, Metternich, and Bismarck frankly pursued their own nation-state's interests without regard for the idealistic concepts of collective security that have motivated American policy since the Wilson administration: only Britain, because of its unique geographical position, actively pursued a policy of promoting equilibrium on the continent. Kissinger extensively discusses the unraveling of the post-Napoleonic arrangements in the decades leading up to WW I, Soviet and German consolidation and French and British demoralization in the years after the Versailles treaty, and the dominance of the Soviet-American rivalry in world politics after World War II. Kissinger draws fascinatingly on his own experiences as President Nixon's chief diplomat to illustrate his arguments about diplomacy. Finally, he argues that the ideal of collective security that American policy has promoted since Wilson's presidency and throughout the Cold War, while sometimes effective, is often weak because it is not strongly grounded in national interests. Buttressing his argument with a sweeping historical survey, Kissinger persuasively contends that leaders of the western democracies, particularly the US, should leaven their idealism in the turbulent post-Cold War era with the realistic pursuit of concrete national interests. Profound and important. (Book-of-the- Month main selection for April; History Book Club main selection) -- Copyright ©1994, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

Michiko Kakutani The New York Times" An elegantly written study of Western diplomacy....Shrewd, often vexing, and consistently absorbing.

Simon Schama The New Yorker: Kissinger's absorbing book tackles head-on some of the toughest questions of our time....Its pages sparkle with insight.

Former Secretary of State (Reagan) George P. Shultz: This is a great book....Brilliant in its analysis and masterly in its sweep.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr." This rich and absorbing work is both a brilliant study of the international crises that have shaped the modern world and a provocative meditation on the American style in foreign affairs.

Walter Laqueur Chairman, International Research Council, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): The most important work on diplomacy for thirty years.

Success in Diplomacy Jim Patterson

According to many diplomat, domestic and international, these are fundamental, necessary attributes for diplomats:

Diplomats must be patriots. They must comprehend their country at a deeper level than those reflecting simply prolonged legal residence in a country. This includes a knowledge of history, culture, and students of their country. Diplomats must be lawyers, or legally minded, highly technology-savvy and something  akin to salespeople.  (Sales people in the sense of being knowledgeable about your product: The United States of America.) Above all, diplomats must reflect the full ethnic diversity and geographic variety of our nation.

Diplomats must communicate well. They must be able to analyze issues accurately and quickly and state their conclusions persuasively. They must also be good listeners.

Diplomat must be practical. Insight and commonsense are needed. They must have  a sense of what the near and further consequences of an event might be for U.S. interests, and make clear, practical recommendations for action. They must see situations as linked events which to a less expert observer would appear unconnected.

Diplomat should be well balanced in a variety of skills, including confidence, communication, assertiveness, media trained and friendly, and with an ability to "think on their feet." They should have enough self-esteem to assert themselves but also-when necessary- be able to harmoniously subordinate their egos. (This was difficult for me as I had worked in politics and held elected office for nearly ten year prior to entering the Foreign Service. It is my strong believe political experience is excellent training for diplomatic situations that go political.)

Diplomat must be open, curious, and accessible to a range of issues, experiences, and cultures that far exceed what is normally encountered in the U.S.   As the U.S. has become a more multicultural society, students are taught openness, curiosity, accessibility and the rest through school and community programs. To sum this point, diplomats must be lifelong learners.

Finally, diplomats must be visionary and inventive. They must be able to devise creative solutions and apply skills of conflict resolution, development administration, economic aid, and social science. Finally, they must have the capacity, physical and mental, to work in difficult situations, just as protest situations, hostile media reporting, anti-Americanism, etc. (It was also said of me I was resourceful.).

Diplomatic skills

Foremost in a diplomat's mid is achievement of U.S. goals. In order to achieve those goals, most diplomats cite the following skills:

Good leaders and managers. Diplomats must be able to resolve conflict, promote constructive change and maximize use of limited resources.

Diplomats need a working knowledge of economics and international trade. All Foreign Service candidates must have completed college-level courses in macro- and micro-economics and international trade.

Diplomats should become more expert in the new multilateral and bilateral issues and techniques that affect national development. Greater attention to environmental and scientific issues, human rights, development administration, negotiation, analytical and technology skills, across several platforms.

Finally, diplomats need stronger language and area studies. Attainment of high level language skills is vital to accomplish objectives and better manage foreign personnel.

Random notes on Foreign Service success.

Diplomat Jim Patterson Meets with His Excellency Jose Cuisia Jr. Ambassador of the Philippines

November 4, 2014

Diplomat Jim Patterson with His Excellency Jose L. Cuisia, Jr., San Francisco, 2014.



His Excellency Jose L.. Cuisia, Jr. has been the Ambassador of the Philippines to the United States since April 2011. With over 32 years of experience in financial services and 10 years in public service. Ambassador Cuisia is a well respected figure in both the public and private sectors in the Philippines.

Ambassador Cuisia's first 24 months in Washington, DC have been dedicated to promoting trade and investment opportunities in the Philippines; strengthening the military and security alliance with the United States; and providing assistance to Philippine nationals while further cementing the already robust relationship between the two countries. Together with his wife, Maria Victoria Jose, Ambassador Cuisia has actively been promoting Philippine culture, especially among the younger Filipino American community.

Ambassador Cuisia has over 10 years of experience in public service, having served Filipinos as the governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines and Chairman of its monetary Board as well as president & CEO of the Philippine Social Security System in the 1980's and 1990's. At the Central Bank, Ambassador Cuisia oversaw the liberalization of foreign exchange controls, resulting in, among others, the entry of more substantial foreign direct investment that strengthened the Philippine Peso and the country's foreign exchange reserves. The Ambassador also led the efforts in establishing what is now the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, allowing it to become a more effective guardian of monetary policy and ensuing the stability of the banking system.

Ambassador Cuisia is also a well-respected figure in Philippine business, with over 32 years in financial services most recently as the president and CEO of the largest and most profitable non-bank financial institution on the Philippines. He serves on the boards of many of the Philippines' most important private and listed companies, and has shared his expertise as a trustee on various academic institutions and non-government organizations espousing good governance and corporate social responsibility, including the Asian Institute of management.

According Cuisia, the John F. Kennedy Center benefit for the Philippines raised about $300,000 for typhoon relief.



Further reading:

"The Mission for Manila: A Conversation with Benigno Aquino III," foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2014
In the last four years, Benigno Aqyuino III - generally known by his nickname NoyNoy - has turned the Philippines from one of Asia's underperformers into one of its economic stars ... In late September, Aquino met with Foreign Affairs managing editor Jonathan Tepperman in New York to discuss the challenges he and his country face.

"David vs Goliath in the South China Sea: The Philippines vs China," The National Interest, October 23, 2014.
" ... it is far from certain whether the Philippines can expert an expeditious, conclusive adjudication, which could tangibly support its claims in the South China Sea. Even if the Philippines manages to secure a favorable legal outcome, China can simply ignore it.":


More good news for the Philippines Mangoes Approved for Export to US

PRESS RELEASE Embassy of the Philippines

WDC-075-2014

15 October 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The United States is opening its door to more fresh sweet mangoes from the Philippines with its recent decision to allow importation of mangoes from basically any area in the archipelago.

In a statement, the Philippine Embassy said there is now greater opportunity for mango exports after the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently declared that the whole Philippines, with the exception of the island-province of Palawan, is now free from pests, particularly pulp and seed weevil.

Agriculture Attache Josyline Javelosa said this market opening presents an opportunity for mango-producing provinces like Ilocos Norte, Pangasinan, Isabela, Batangas and Tarlac in Luzon; Cebu and Iloilo in the Visayas; and Zamboanga del Norte, North Cotabato and Davao del Sur in Mindanao, to name a few.

Javelosa said that Palawan, which was declared by USDA to be free from seed weevil, could still export its mango produce to the US mainland but only after having this go through irradiation treatment.

Before this ruling, only mangoes grown in Guimaras, an island in the Visayas that has been recognized as weevil-free, can be exported to the US mainland. Mangoes grown from other parts of the Philippines suspected to have weevils, except Palawan, can be exported only to Guam and Hawaii.

Ambassador Jose L. Cuisia, Jr. welcomed the USDA announcement, saying the ruling can help pave the way for more mango exports from the Philippines.

“The decision to expand the list of allowable mango-producing areas to export to the US to almost the entire Philippines can be expected to result in more investments in the sector and at the same time encourage new entrants to allow domestic production to fully satisfy demand,” Ambassador Cuisia said.

He said the USDA ruling should also attract other countries in looking into the Philippines as a source of mango supply following the USDA declaration that the country is largely weevil-free as a result of an extensive survey conducted in 79 provinces in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

"Other countries could also refer to this USDA recognition of the Philippines as weevil-free as a basis for adjusting their phytosanitary and importation requirements for our mangoes,” Ambassador Cuisia added.

Ambassador Cuisia notes that the Philippine mango is known-worldwide for its superior taste, which should allow it to command a premium price.

Agriculture Attache Javelosa said that as a result of the USDA ruling, mangoes grown in areas free from both pulp and seed weevil can now be allowed for export to anywhere in the US and its territories after undergoing vapor-heat treatment or irradiation at 150gy, pre-clearance procedures and other phytosanitary requirements effective 1 October 2014.

Javelosa pointed out that the USDA ruling also establishes a lower irradiation dose as a treatment for mango pulp weevil at 165gy from the generic dose of 300gy. She said that mango growers in Palawan will benefit from this ruling as it offers them a less costly treatment compared to irradiation at the higher dose.

According to the Bureau of Plant Industry, the major regular and lucrative markets for Philippine mangoes are Japan and South Korea, which accounted for 29 percent or 5,363 metric tons of the total Philippine mango export volume of 18,440 metric tons in 2012.

The rest of the country’s fresh mango produce was exported to Hong Kong, China, Singapore, New Zealand, the Middle East and Canada, among other markets.

In a recent Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) case study of the Philippine mango industry authored by Briones, Turingan and Rakotoarisoa, several on-going initiatives were identified to help new investors in mango exporting and processing.

These include the nationwide farmers' registry being developed by the Department of Agriculture to help locate suppliers with track record of producing good-quality mangoes; research and development efforts to further improve mango production and postharvest technologies; and extension measures to promote improved technologies for increased yield and quality such as in fertilizer management, integrated pest management and flower induction. ### 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has lifted an entry ban on fresh mangoes from several Philippines regions after determining fruit there is free of weevil pests.

The action by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on Oct. 1 finalized a rule proposed in April.

Previously, only mangoes grown on the island of Guimaras could be imported to the mainland U.S. Guimaras was earlier established as free of mango seed weevil and pulp weevil. Fruit from everywhere else in the Philippines – except Palawan – had access to Hawaii and Guam only.

The Philippines government asked for recognition of Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao as free of the two pests.

The USDA also determined that the mango pulp weevil can be neutralized with a lower dose of irradiation than the generic dose for plant pests. A dose specific to the seed weevil already existed. The new rule permits imports that are either from regions free of both pests, or treated with the specific doses.

In 2013, the U.S. imported 155 metric tons of mangoes worth $424,000 from the Philippines, up from 50 metric tons worth $118,000 in 2009, according to the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.

Diplomat Jim Patterson at International Student House Global Leadership Awards Gala 2014

Diplomat Jim Patterson with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel at the Great Hall of International Student House (ISH) DuPont Circle, Washington , DC. Oct. 16, 2014.  The event was ISH's Global Leadership Awards. Defense and security issues aside, we talked about Nebraska politics. During the Reagan administration, I was often sent to farm states to discuss farm and foreign policy. One of my destinations was Grand Island, Nebraska, for Husker Harvest Days. Hagel told me his grandmother lived in Grand island for 50 years. "As a politician in Nebraska," Hagel said, "I never missed attending Husker Harvest Days." 

Hagel's "job" at the event was to introduce Vice President Joe Biden. Hagel and wife, Lilibet, were Honorary Chairs of the event. Hagel, a former GOP senator, was a controversial nominee for Secretary of Defense because he was slow to "evolve" on LGBT issues. Log Cabin Republicans spent considerable resources to convince Senators not to confirm him for SecDef. Others were critical of him for perceived anti-Israeli views. He has largely avoided controversy as SecDef and is seen as an "outsider" of the John Kerry-Susan Rice-Obama "brain" trust.

Hagel served Nebraska in the US Senate from 1996-2008 and he served on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a Vietnam vet and a double Purple Heart recipient. He supported fellow Vietnam vet Arizona Senator John McCain for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000. When George W. Bush was nominated and elected, Hagel was a critic of Bush's claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Joe Biden who spoke of his long friendship with Senator Richard Lugar on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  Vice President Biden said there were "not enough Dick Lugars [in the Senate] to  face our global challenges." (Jim Note: I applauded and the audience joined in.)

Concerning America's changing demographics, Biden said being America is a value set based on the what we hold as self evident life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He noted that many of today's world crises are about ethnicity, religion, and other life circumstances. Biden called Lugar a global citizen and an exceptionally intelligent man and a man of simple truths. 

Biden credited Lugar and former Democratic Georgia Senator Sam Nunn with eliminating 7,6000 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, which may have prevented a nuclear war between Ukraine and Russia during their 2013/14 conflict. The Vice president said Lugar's contributions across the board on food security, foreign policy will reverberate for generations. He urged all to continue to engaged in global citizenship. He told the audience that when they stand next to Dick Lugar they will never stand next to a man of greater character. Biden read a congratulatory letter to Lugar from President Barack Obama.

Of Irish descent, Biden, a native of Scranton, PA who served 36 years as a US Senator from Delaware, looked at Lugar and quoted William Butler Yeats, "Think where man's glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends." 

Diplomat Jim Patterson with former US Senator Richard Lugar, Republican-Indiana, recipient of the Global Leadership Award from ISH for "advancing international dialogue, intercultural exchanges, and peaceful global citizenship."  

Lugar represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate from 1977-2013. During this time, he served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1985-87, and from 2003-2007. From 2007 until his retirement in 2013, Senator Lugar was the Ranking Member of the Committee. Additionally, he twice served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Prior to his election to the Senate, he was mayor of Indianapolis from 1968-1976. (Patterson lived in Indianapolis from 1982-84 and worked for the State of Indiana and held an elected Lawrence Township position with the Marion County Republican Party.) 

Senator Lugar is respected globally as an international statesman. He has been an exceptional leader in efforts to reduce  the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. In 1991, he forged a bipartisan partnership with then Senator Sam Nunn, D-Georgia) to destroy these weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated more than 7,600 nuclear warheads that were once aimed at the United States.

   

After leaving the Senate, Senator Lugar created the Lugar Institute, a nonprofit organization that focuses on food and energy security, the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and effective bipartisan government. He also serves as a Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund. 

In his remarks, Lugar mentioned graduating Oxford, serving in the Navy and being Mayor of Indianapolis. He spoke of his pride in working on a bipartisan basis with his Senate colleagues and his peaceful constructive engagement with world leaders. He mentioned his Lugar Center is based in Washington DC. He said President Obama is a global leader. Being a global citizen, Lugar said, means a commitment to public service in the world, water, food security, fuel, governance, and human rights. He said leaders must listen and learn together whether they seek elected or appointed office. Those who reject ideas, with the mindset and character of "my way or the highway"will create disaster time and gain. (Jim Note: I led the applause on this.) 

Lugar said when he first when abroad he marveled at how the big the world is and how extraordinary the problems were. It is still true and he said he was happy to see so many in the room looking forward to meeting global challenges.

 Diplomat Jim Patterson with Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, a partner of the ISH Global Leadership Gala. Scowcroft served as National Security Adviser to Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H. W. Bush. Scowcroft is a prolific author and among his books is A World Transformed, co-authored with Bush, received wide acclaim upon publication in 1999. The New York Times Book Review called it, "The most important book yet written about the end of the Cold War."  Eugene V. Rostow, in the Wall Street Journal, called it "Among the finest expositions of modern American foreign policy. . . . An excellent book."  Scowcroft is the subject of a new January 2015 book.

Reading a few pages from Time and Chance (University of Michigan, 1998) in the Borwick Room, International Student House. Author "James Cannon, formerly national affairs editor at Newsweek and Ford's domestic policy adviser, has written a superbly provocative and arresting biography that traces Ford's life from his July 4, 1913, birth in Omaha, Nebraska, to his September 8,1974, decision to pardon Nixon of the Watergate conspiracy." --Washington Post Book World.

The ISH bestowed its Global Citizen Award to the family of family of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, epresented by son Bahaa Hariri. The Hariri family has acheived international prominence in the fields of statesmanship, business and philanthropy.

The ISH Distinguished Alumni Award went to Abraham Akoi, an ISH resident, named Policy and management Officer in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development of South Sudan. His Excellency The Ambassador of Italy and Mrs. Claudio Bisogniero served as Diplomat Chairs for the event.

The International Student House of Washington DC began 78 years ago as an inspiration of the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers) seeking greater peace though community among young people from across the globe. ISH has had over 10,000 residents, including me, since its founding.   

Diplomat Jim Patterson at DACOR Annual Meeting 2014

This posting is still in editing.

Diplomat Jim Patterson on "Last Days of Vietnam"

The Last Days of Vietnam

Film Documentary 2014

A nail bitter of a documentary, about the fall of Saigon 40 years ago. President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger successfully negotiated the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 to find peace with honor, an end to the conflict, and withdrawal of US troops. The North Vietnamese agreed to the accords because Nixon was a tough negotiator whom they feared.

Of the Paris Peace Accord, Dr. Kissinger, now 91 with a new book “World Order,” recalls on film: “We who made the agreement thought it would be the beginning, not of peace in the American sense, but the beginning of a period of coexistence which might evolve, as it did in Korea, into two states.”

In August 1974, when Nixon resigned for Watergate crimes and Gerald R. Ford became president, the North Vietnamese saw it as their opportunity to invade South Vietnam, force Americans out and control the country. The North’s full scale military invasion began in early 1975. The communists had no mercy for the South Vietnamese and executed thousands.

Much of the exciting news footage in this film has been widely available in the public domain for years. It is expertly and excitingly edited to tell the story of a major human effort to save as many South Vietnamese as possible as Saigon fell.

The dramatic news footage of the communist takeover of South Vietnam is supplemented with various surviving ground personnel speaking of their efforts to evacuate Americans, and the thousands of South Vietnamese who fought with US troops, worked for US contractors and the US embassy, as well as American dependents.

At one point, Dick Armitage, a Navy officer and, alter, an official in the George W. Bush administration, gave orders without permission from his superiors. “I figured it was better to beg forgiveness later than to seek permission,” he said of saving South Vietnamese lives.

The last US Ambassador to South Vietnam, Graham Martin, who succeeded Ellsworth Bunker in the position, was a hawk from North Carolina who held the unrealistic belief Saigon could be successfully defended from the massive invasion of North Vietnamese communists. Martin’s staffers and military personnel  imitated an early secret evacuation of  some South Vietnamese without Martin’s or Washington’s knowledge.

As reality sank in, the US embassy was opened to as many South Vietnamese as could gain access to the embassy compound. The mad rush of South Vietnamese for the safety of the embassy caused me an unpleasant flashback to Washington DC on the morning of September 11, 2001. When we leaned Washington was under attack from Middle Eastern terrorists, government agencies were ordered closed and personnel ordered home. Chaos ensued.

I saw people running frantically from the White House and from Capitol Hill offices. No one knew for sure what the next target would be. The faces of Americans were faces of fear and desperation to find no taxis and many subway stations closed. In the documentary, the location is Saigon 1974 but the fear and desperation on the faces of the South Vietnamese was the same as I saw in Washington on September 11.

Audiences will see many dramatic scenes in this film as it reaches its end. In another scene, a South Vietnamese Navy official was ordered by Americans to begin evacuation of and move all  operational ships out to sea. The old man remembers such an order as “beyond my position.” He said he ignored military rules and followed his heart.

The scene of a South Vietnamese military vessel being denied entry to post in the Philippines is touching. The South Vietnamese flag is lowered and replaced with an American flag so the vessel could safely dock. The scene is startlingly realistic as the South Vietnamese aboard sang their national anthem as their flag came down at the same time their country ceased to exist.

Scenes from Washington, depict intense Oval Office photographs of President Ford, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Dr. Henry Kissinger as events in South Vietnam came to a close. Ford asked Congress for $722 million as a last resort to help evacuees. Congress turned its back on South Vietnam and refused any more money for what they saw as a lost cause.

The US war in Vietnam, which began in 1950 under President Dwight Eisenhower and escalated under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, came to an end under President Ford, who sought to leave the country with as little extra bloodshed as possible.

Evacuation and repatriation of South Vietnamese to America was also a credit to Mr. Ford’s leadership and human compassion. Here are some passages from various books on the challenges Vietnam posed in the 1970s. 

“The domestic disputes [between North and South Vietnam] that had characterized the war continued into the postwar period, and the Watergate crisis prevented enforcement of the argument. The controversy began with a debate over whether the United states had the right to defend an agreement for which over 55,000 Americans had died. And then, within six months, Congress in June 1973 prohibited any U.S. military action or military deployment in Indochina. It was the first time that the United States had deprived itself of the ability to enforce an agreement [Paris Peace Accords] for which American forces had fought and died,” Dir. Kissinger wrote in “Crisis” The Anatomy of Two Major Foreign Policy Crises.

James Cannon, in 2013’s “Gerald R. Ford: An Honorable Life,” wrote, “To his great credit, he (Ford) ended the Vietnam War, which three Presidents before him had mismanaged. It was a humiliating ending to the war, but Congress, having cut off money for Vietnam, gave Ford no choice. The withdrawal he managed well, pulling out the last U.S. forces, saving American lives, and rescuing thousands of Vietnamese who had supported the American effort.”

Dr. Yanek Mieczkowski in his 2005 book “Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s,”  wrote, “On April 23, he [Ford] addressed students at Tulane University and declare, ‘Today, America can regain a sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by re-fighting a war that is finished as far as the American people are concerned.’”

“The speech was a milestone in contemporary American history. Ford did something no America president had been able to for thirty years: He spoke of the Indochina war in the past tense,” wrote  Ron Nessen, press secretary to President Ford.

In sum, “Last Days in Vietnam”  contains voices of old soldiers who aided humanity on a large scale in a chaotic time. Also, voices of South Vietnamese happy to have made better lives for themselves in America. Also, the voices of children who speak proudly of their lost parents efforts to get to safety in America. Instead of fighting a lost cause to the end, in the last days US personnel in South Vietnam realized their job was to save lives rather than continue to kill. 

Jim Patterson
JEPDiplomat@gmail.com

Diplomat Jim Patterson and Global Strategist Ralph Buultjens at New York University

Diplomat Jim Patterson with Dr. Ralph Buultjens at New York University, September 2014

Dr. Buultjens, spoke on World Politics: Hot and Cold Wars,  and examined current events in order to understand today in "the longer flow of history." He noted we are in a rare historical moment of process reorientation. The current global conflicts must be seen as a balance of power context. He noted wealth and innovation have determined power among nations.
He said resentments over past human rights abuses have emboldened violent reaction from a number of world players, including Islamic State terrorists.  "The conquest of the planet," he said, "has been by whites." 84 percent of the world was white by World War I. 

 Gradually, he said, resentment grew against America due to its powerful economy, and its political and technical leadership  of the world. The lecture was given on the 13th anniversary of the September 11 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
 For the first time in 500 years, Buultjens said, the West's political strength is challenged  by an Islamic threat. He also noted the huge non-Western population in the West and mentioned jihadists may be among us. 

The situation in the Ukraine is a fight between the US and Russia, he said. "It is an effort to rearrange the power structure of the world."  This is an intense long term process with uncertainty and tensions about superpower resentment.

 Current global affairs are great disturbances with layers of complexity, complications and difficulties, he said. Things are oscillating with neither good/bad times lasting  long. He sagely stated one overriding global reality: Big fish eat little fish.

 Dr. Buultjens sees peacekeeping institutions as largely ineffective given the number of invasions in the world. He did not mention the United Nations. President Obama, he noted, has declared war on jihadism.

 At stake today is global order, a stable Middle East, the U.S. Empire, and the security of Israel. In all cases, the stakes are high, he said. 

 History is not taking place in Latin America, Africa or India but in four power centers that will determine the future of world politics in the 21st century.  

 The Middle East is collapsing, he said, due to invasions, terrorists, Arab Springs, Muslim disagreements, the ongoing and escalating Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and civil wars in Syria and Libya. These conflicts are affecting the US policy making, he said.
(Jim Note: They have rendered the US helpless.) In sum, the Persian Gulf is a snake pit, Buultjens said. The security of Israel and the threat of export of jihad ism to the US are major concerns.

 Regarding the  Israeli and Gaza conflict, the Arab neighbors are quiet. He said "99 percent of the noise" comes only from the US. 

A resolution of the Palestinian conflict would be in Israel's benefit, he feels. But the Israelis are not going to be pushed around by the Palestinians or Palestinian supporters in the US or Europe, he cautioned.
Regarding the export of jihadism to the US, Buultjens said the US cannot fight ISIS alone and needs an anti-ISIS coalition such as Britain, France, Australia, all Western allies and Saudi Arabia. No Islamic state is committed against ISIS, therefore he said, the US can't do much as it will be seen as on anti-Islamic crusade.  

 Regarding Iraq, "there we go again," he joked, pondering if we "will have to destroy it to save it." He said ISIS is less a threat, at 30,000 "troops," than was al-Qaeda.

 In Iraq the Iraqi army ran from ISIS "troops" and, he noted, the US trained the Iraqi army. He sees a growth of ISIS in the immediate future. 

He sees a growing global nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. He suggested an anti-nuclear coalition is more important than anti-ISIS coalition.

He thinks the US cannot effectively, nor economically, be policeman of the world.

He advises Obama to seriously readdress Russia "Czar" Putin. Buultjens said Putin thinks he is a czar. He declared, "PUTIN IS NOT A NICE MAN."

China's ten years of growth have been phenomenal. He said they've played off the politics of others and noted they are a net gainer in globalization with over 1 million Chinese in Africa and investment across the US. AND, he stressed, China is a friend of Israel. He declared, "China is the Superman of the 21st century."

China's future, he said, depends on 3 critical questions.

1. Can China control its freedom movement. China can't be a little bit free just like a woman can't be a little bit pregnant. Will China conform or will it be more restrictive and give the world more Tiananmen Square protests like in 1989. 
 2. China wants a bigger place in the global economy and has the potential to upset financial markets with its huge cash reserves.
3. Can China control its heartland. Border unrest could destabilize the country. US practices soft containment of China and relations need better diplomatic management. 

Managing US foreign policy today is a terrible job, the professor said. 

He pondered, "Is the US a great nation in decline?" If Greece and Rome fell, who is immune, he asked. 

In the US he sees growing discontent in society and politics. Government is unpopular with the people, he said, and they want to know why should the US be nation-building with so many problems at home, including underfunded infrastructure, services, etc. He noted foreign nationals were far better educated than US workers. 

No nation is in better position to lead the world than the US, he said. "We have the innovative minds, our energy situation has vastly improved, our population mix is the most favorable in the world, nations like to ally with the US, and the US is more open to social change than elsewhere in the world. 



Voting, Buultjens said, should be easier. "A higher voter turnout in 2000 would have elected Al Gore not George W. Bush. What a difference that would have made in world politics."

"We are at an extraordinary moment in world affairs. The US, Russia, China will impact the world for decades to come.

"In the stream of history there is crap and champagne," he said. In other words, good times and bad times are a constant.  

The lecture lasted one hour. No Q&A. Estimated audience 800.

Bio Note: Ralph Buultjens is a professor at New York University, and the former Nehru Professor/Professorial Fellow at the University of Cambridge.  He was awarded the Toynbee Prize for Social Sciences in 1984.Selected Publications:
Conceptualizing Global History (with Bruce Mazlish, 2004) 
The Destiny of freedom: Political Legacies of the Twentieth Century (Louis Nizer lecture on public policy, 1999)
Politics and History: Lessons for Today (1986) 
The Secret Life of Karl Marx (1985)

Jim Note: I enjoyed reading Conceptualizing Global History edited by Buultjens which I read while studying at Georgetown. I agreed with his arguments that historical awareness was vitally needed as we move into a global era. The book was dedicated to global history to inform and direct policy.

Rational for a historical approach to policy is based on a series of developments including global environmental problems (climate change), nuclear threats, multinational trade and economic activity, and rapid technological advances. The new millennium will bring new challenges and a sophisticated global history methodologically to contemporary challenges can benefit policymakers and society.