Jim Patterson on the Philippine Case for Rights in South China Sea.

Two Press Releases from Philippine Ambassador Jose Cuisia, a Wharton graduate.

Note: The first was titled Relations between he two countries better than ever. The second, International Law: The Great Equalizer about the dispute with China over the South China Sea.

President Obama's meetings with the Chinese failed to provide The Philippines and surrounding nations with relief from China's claim of sovereignty over the sea.

PRESS RELEASE
WDC-001-2015
8 January 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Manila’s relations with Washington are at their highest based on how the two allies worked together during the past year, according to the Philippine ambassador to the United States.

“Our relations with the United States have never been better,” Ambassador Cuisia said in his remarks during a reception he hosted on Wednesday night for Washington-based journalists led by National Press Club President Myron Belkind.

Ambassador Cuisia said the main highlight of a stronger Philippine-US alliance was the visit to Manila in April of President Barack Obama and the signing of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

The other highlights of Philippine-US relations in 2014 were the restoration of the country’s Category I aviation safety rating; its removal from the Special 301 Watch List of countries with intellectual property rights issues; and the favorable outcome of the review on trade benefits under the General Scheme of Preferences.

“As a result of the FAA aviation safety upgrade, Philippine Airlines will now be flying from Manila to New York starting in March,” Ambassador Cuisia said. “This positive development benefits both our countries as it creates more opportunities for trade and tourism.”

Ambassador Cuisia also cited the proposed regulations that would expand allowable sources of Philippine mangoes for importation into the US as well as Washington’s support for Manila’s request for a continued rice waiver at the World Trade Organization.

In terms of economic cooperation and development assistance, Ambassador Cuisia mentioned the estimated $139 million that the US committed under the Partnership for Growth program and $434 million under the Philippine Compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

The continued positive momentum being experienced by the Philippine economy was among the top achievements of the Philippines in 2014 that Ambassador Cuisia also shared with Washington journalists.

“We are the sick man of Asia no more,” Ambassador Cuisia said, as he pointed to the expected 6 percent expansion in the country’s gross domestic product in 2014 as well as its growing competitiveness.

He said the country’s competitiveness is evidenced by improvements in its standings in the 2014 Ease of Doing Business Assessment; the Index of Economic Freedom; and the World Economic Forum Competitiveness index. In its 2014 Asia Business Outlook Survey, the American Chamber of Commerce said the Philippines has one of the most improved business climates, ahead of many Asian peers.

He added that for the first time in its history, the Philippines achieved investment grade status from all three credit ratings agencies—Standard & Poor, Moody’s and Fitch.

“This speaks a lot about the depth of institutionalization of good governance and overall political stability of the Philippines under the leadership of President Benigno S. Aquino III,” Ambassador Cuisia said. ###

PRESS RELEASE
WDC-002-2015
8 January 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Philippines said its move to seek arbitration before an international tribunal underscores its desire to define its maritime entitlements in the South China Sea in a peaceful manner.

“We have always been asked why we have resorted to arbitration. Our answer is simple. International law is the great equalizer,” Ambassador Cuisia said in his remarks during a reception he hosted on Wednesday night for Washington-based journalists led by National Press Club President Myron Belkind.

“By taking the legal route, we are showing the world that States have other viable options to resolving disputes other than in an asymmetrical negotiation where the big and militarily strong nation will dominate the smaller nation in the negotiating table,” Ambassador Cuisia said.

He said Manila sees the arbitration case as a model for other smaller States in a similar situation to consider the dispute settlement mechanisms under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or the United Nations Charter as a way of resolving disputes in a peaceful manner.

It could be recalled that the Philippines filed an arbitration case in 2013 as part of its efforts to clarify its maritime entitlements in the South China Sea and formally submitted its memorial to the Arbitral Tribunal at The Hague on 30 March 2014.

China, which had laid claim to practically the entire South China Sea, had indicated that it will not participate in the proceedings but it nonetheless published on December 7 its position paper on the arbitration case and submitted the same to the tribunal.

Ambassador Cuisia said Washington presented its own study on China’s maritime claims that supports the Philippines position on the need for peaceful clarification of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea.

“Studies such as the one produced by the US contribute to the substantive international literature that supports the primacy and utility of UNCLOS in the determination of maritime entitlements and the peaceful settlement of maritime disputes,” he said.

Ambassador Cuisia added that the recent statement issued by Vietnam on the arbitration case is helpful in terms of promoting the rule of law and in finding peaceful and nonviolent solutions to the South China Sea claims based on international law. ###

Comment: 

I agree with Ambassador Cuisia this case will be a model. Whether it will be a successful model remains to be seen.

Jim Patterson, Editor

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.