[quote=red kilt; 1204335]he didn't actually say anything about this in his prepared speech that was delivered.
by all accounts he made the comment and included statistics when he was responding during the discussion that followed, and naturally enough, the journalists who were there jumped on it and reported it widely and ignored everything else that was said.
the whole thing would have died if everybody hadn't jumped on the wagon and kept repeating his comments, and i include isg people in that. now sex tourism is once again a major topic for conversation and that cannot possibly be a good thing.
it can only be a negative for monger activity as more attention will now be given to unaccompanied males visiting the phils and an effort made to find out where they go and what they do. don't underestimate the influence that the us government has in this country through the power of the foreign aid given here. the phils government cannot afford to have any reduction in the level of us aid and they will be very worried by the impending cuts that the usa is foreshadowing in its foreign aid budgets. they will want to be seen to be cooperating in any research in this area.[/quote]rk you are totally correct of course in seeing the larger picture in this. however on a macro level all diplomats are told that they should never ever comment on matters of sex / sex habits / sexual culture in host countries. its diplomacy 101. the fact that his apology is mentioned in uk daily telegraph and guardian, taipei times, south china morning post, irish times and presumably every other international newspaper of merit indicates that there are very clear reasons why ambassadors should never make such comments. the comments themselves attract unnecessary attention and diplomacy (as you know better than me) is the art of not attracting attention but doing things " diplomatically". his wings were clipped and for sure he will keep his comments about sex in the philippines to himself in the future.
