HIGHLIGHTS OF FORUM ON THE AMBASSADOR THOMAS ISSUE

PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN PRESS CLUB (PAPC)

Highlights of the “Mini Kapihan” on “Ambassador Thomas – What Next?”

5PM, October 10, 2011, Intramuros Restaurant, South San Francisco

Attendance: PAPC Directors and Members; Convenors of Global Filipino Nation (GFN); US media practitioners; community leaders

Highlights:

1. The “Kapihan” started with a review of the facts:

a. US Ambassador Harry K. Thomas recently met with a group of Philippine officials and judges in the context of the human trafficking problem in the country and efforts to address it. He told the group that: “We know that 40 percent of foreign men, including from the U.S., come to the Philippines for sex tourism." He did not present any report or document as the basis for his authoritative, quantitative statement. Reacting to a challenge on the statistics he cited and broad demands for an apology, he stood firm on his position.

b. When Congressional leaders and different sectors pressed on Ambassador Thomas’ statistical basis, he referred to a report by the Dept. of Justice. The Secretary of Justice categorically denied the existence of such a report.

c. Subsequently, Ambassador Thomas sent a texted message to Dept. of Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto del Rosario apologizing for his statement and indicating that he should have provided the basis for his statement.

2. After considerable discussion, the forum participants reached a consensus that:

a. Human trafficking in the Philippines is a serious social problem that cannot be denied. It is visibly evident in major urban cities, in general, and, in particular, in hotels, malls, tourist areas and “red light districts”. The country has no monopoly over the visibility of this social ill. Even the United States, among other developed and emerging countries, has glaring evidence of trafficking, e.g., on 14^th St. and Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C. -- a few steps from the White House and a few blocks from the US State Dept.; in the Times Square area and in front of the plush hotels in New York; and along Broadway Ave. in San Francisco.

b. The existence of the social problem of human trafficking (aka sex tourism) is not the central issue in the Thomas controversy. That is admitted. That is a given in the Philippines. The central issue is: Ambassador Thomas made an irresponsible and damaging statistical statement that has no reality content.

c. Ambassador Thomas uttered two lies: The first was when he cited the 40% figure. The second was when he tried to cover his tracks by saying that a DOJ report supports his figure—which was not so.

d. His lies negatively portrayed the image of the Philippines as a sex destination for male visitors. This image impacts adversely on the national self-esteem, the regard for Filipino women and the sense of self-respect of the youth and children.

e. The lies uttered damaged the credibility and trustworthiness of Ambassador Thomas. Additionally, the otherwise harmonious relationship is lost.

f. Given the loss of credibility, trustworthiness and congeniality, the effectiveness with which Ambassador Thomas discharges his duties is in serious question. It would, therefore, be in the interest of both the US and the Philippines that Ambassador be reassigned to another post.

g. Some observers have advanced the arguments in support of Ambassador Thomas that: 1) he is well-educated (a Jesuit school and graduate studies in an Ivy League university); 2) he has depth of diplomatic experience; 3) he has made complementary remarks about the Philippine President that would reflect positively on foreign investors; and 4) he loves to dance. These arguments are all irrelevant to the central issue.

3. The “Kapihan” participants agreed that a statement, jointly issued by PAPC GFN, will be drafted for vetting with their respective constituents, finalized after taking into account feedback and distributed worldwide.