Focus on Jordan: Worker Rights, Human Rights, and Trade Relationships

Originally published June 27th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Jordan’s 2001 free trade agreement with the United States, hailed as a model combination of worker rights and economic development, has failed to improve labor conditions due to a lack of enforcement. The Center for American Progress hosted a panel of experts today to discuss this issue, focusing on a recently released Solidarity Center report titled “Justice for All: The Struggle for Worker Rights in Jordan.”

Thea Lee, policy director and international economist with the AFL-CIO, represented the Solidarity Center. Mazen al Ma’ayta, general secretary of the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions, joined her and provided a direct account of the labor situation in Jordan. Center for American Progress senior fellow Gene Sperling moderated the discussion, and the Center’s president, John D. Podesta, gave introductory remarks.

In his introduction, Podesta asserted that trade is an economic imperative. It is an indelible part of the global economy, and the terms of trade determine living standards around the world. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (JFTA) was intended as a model for, in the words of Podesta, “ensuring that free trade is not an economic opportunity for some and an empty promise for many.”

JFTA is the first trade agreement to include enforceable provisions for workers’ rights, a groundbreaking step towards non-exploitative economic development. Yet working conditions have not improved in Jordan because those provisions have not been enforced. “The reality,” Sperling said, “is nowhere near the ideals.”

The significant economic development in Jordan has come at a heavy price. According to Ma’ayta, development has meant sweatshop factories with abhorrent conditions, including 100-hour work weeks, forced labor, child workers, and barriers to worker organization. Foreign migrant workers, desperate for jobs, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Conditions, according to Sperling, are “almost what you would consider human trafficking.”

According to Ma’ayta, “Workers will not enjoy full protections without being organized.” This must include the migrant worker population, particularly since Jordanians are being pushed out of jobs by foreigners that will work for less pay in worse conditions. Without improvements in organized labor, the benefits of foreign investment will bypass Jordanian workers.

The speakers emphasized that the JFTA is still a work in progress. There is a desire to make the agreement work, said Lee, but “We must hold governments accountable for the promises they made.” In the global scramble for cheaper goods, access to markets, and foreign investment, decent jobs are often neglected. If the JFTA is going to be a successful model for progressive globalization, Podesta said, “In addition to agreement, there must be commitment.”

The Terrorism Index: A Survey of the U.S. National Security Experts on the War on Terror

Originally published on June 28th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

A new survey of U.S. foreign policy experts presents a surprising consensus that questions current policies and assumptions in the war on terror. The survey, conducted jointly by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine, was presented today at a panel discussion.

Featured on the panel were survey participants Dr. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, and Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell and professor at the College of William & Mary. David Bosco, senior editor of Foreign Policy magazine, joined them along with moderator Joseph Cirincione.

The survey polled 116 foreign policy experts in the first installment of what is intended as a twice-yearly Terrorism Index. Survey participants came from a range of professional and ideological backgrounds, and the results were balanced to give equal weight to those who self-identified as conservative, liberal, and moderate.

The results of the survey provide surprising insights into how experts are viewing the war on terror’s progress. Most experts believe the U.S. is losing the war on terror and that the American people are becoming less safe. Establishing democratic governments in the Muslim world is not widely regarded as a key element in winning the war on terror, and there is a general dissatisfaction with the current effectiveness of government agencies in fighting terrorism.

Questions about current U.S. national security priorities indicate that the experts believe changes are needed. Securing weapons of mass destruction is regarded as more important than fighting terrorism generally. The majority favored increasing funds to the State Department, USAID, and other soft power agencies, while decreasing funding for the military. Most experts also believe that strengthening multilateral institutions should be a higher priority. According to Bosco, the survey tells the U.S. that the “remaining challenges are outside of the military realm.”

Drawing from the survey, the panel offered a variety of conclusions that lead to a spirited debate on national security. Wilkerson noted the “incredible discrepancy in resources” between the Department of Defense and Department of State, and said “that imbalance has perhaps caused some of the problems we are facing.” He emphasized that military force cannot be the first option for all foreign policy problems. “Bombs, bullets, and bayonets,” he said, “are not the answer to terrorism.”

Scheuer, while saying that, “We vastly underestimate the amount of killing left to do,” agreed with the idea that changes are needed in how the U.S. thinks about national security. Both experts said that the war in Iraq has made American security more difficult. “We’re the primary target,” Scheuer said, “because we’re in the way of what the enemy wants to do.” He advocated energy independence as key element in getting out of the way.

Scheuer did emphasize that “America has its future in its own hands,” but said that the security system right now is unsustainable and that changes need to be made. On that point, he seems to agree with the other national security experts surveyed. Wilkerson was certainly among that group. On our current course, he said, we are going to either “commit suicide as a democracy or spend ourselves to death.”

What Now in Iraq?

Originally published July 21, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq will not be easily improved, but to do so we must have a different plan from what currently exists. This message was delivered by a panel discussion of distinguished foreign policy experts held at the Center for American Progress.

Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress, participated in the panel. Morton Halperin, also a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress, moderated. The panel was introduced by Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta.

In his introduction, Podesta highlighted the current security and reconstruction difficulties in Iraq, drawing particular attention to the recent upsurge in violence. Criticizing the “failure to plan a post-invasion success strategy,” he said that “mistakes in Iraq have served to strengthen our adversaries and make us less safe.” Those sentiments were supported by Halperin, who said “we’re hearing less about success and more about avoiding catastrophe.”

The question of what to do next was picked up by the panelists. Gelb found the administration’s current plan unacceptable. “It’s a policy that can’t win,” he said. “It can only lose slowly.” He cited the decision to end economic reconstruction funding at the end of this year, restrictions on democracy-building nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the decreased street presence of U.S. troops as evidence of a strategy by President Bush to not “lose on his watch.”

This assessment was echoed by Korb, who drew attention to Iraq’s negative impact on broader national security goals. “We’re not at war with terrorism,” he said. “Terrorism is a tactic= We’re at war with radical jihadists, and if you stay in Iraq you’re going to make it harder to win the war against radical jihadism.” Using Iran and Afghanistan as prime examples, Korb argued that we cannot afford to have so many military resources invested in Iraq. The U.S. presence in Iraq is actually counterproductive, he said, because we are providing ready recruiting incentives for Al Qaeda. Furthermore, the quality of people in the army is declining; manpower is stressed because there is “tremendous pressure on recruiters to meet their quotas in an unpopular war.”

Korb advocated strategic redeployment, which entails a set date for withdrawal and a redistribution of our military in the Middle East to better protect America. He said that a timetable will “give the Iraqis an incentive to do what they need to do” in making political arrangements and securing the country. A commitment to leave would also, according to Korb, “diffuse part of the insurgency” since “a lot of people are fighting our troops there because they don’t believe that we’re going to go.”

Gelb favored a U.S. role in crafting a better political solution before withdrawing troops. In building Iraqi anti-insurgent capability, he said, “the answer is not more arms and better training. The answer is a government that troops will fight and die for. The key is a political settlement.” It is his hope that by being a strong and active leader, the United States can help broker a decentralized power-sharing arrangement to accommodate Iraq’s diverse factions. Iraq, Gelb said, will “end up partitioned and decentralized either by war or by negotiations. We owe it to ourselves — we owe it to Iraqis — to figure out a compromise.”

The key to both positions were the questions of how effective an incentive a definitive date for U.S. withdrawal would be, and how active a role the United States should take in shaping the Iraqi government. Both panelists agreed that a new approach is badly needed if we are to have any chance of success. “Almost anything you do in Iraq,” Gelb said, “is going to be a long shot.” But no matter what the prospects, Korb emphasized that we must make hard decisions based on “what’s best for the United States and our security.”

Pulling Together: Re-Building Economic Security in the 21st Century

Originally published June 6th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

On June 6^th the Center for American Progress hosted four economic experts for a panel discussing economic security in a modern context. Speaking on the panel were Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute; Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times and professor of economics at Princeton; Gene Sperling, former economic adviser to President Clinton and current senior fellow at the Center; and Louis Uchitelle, economics writer for the New York Times.

Central to the panel’s remarks was the idea that the dynamism of a rapidly globalizing and increasingly competitive economy challenges the American belief in shared prosperity. Sperling said that the United States is a country that doesn’t want a perpetual underclass or a perpetual elite. “A growing middle class allows for the values of this country to flourish.” But according to the participants, most Americans are getting lost in today’s economic landscape.

Bernstein termed the conservative vision of the economy as “You’re On Your Own,” or YOYO. That economic paradigm has lead to individuals taking on an increasing share of financial risks that are relatively low on a societal level. “The Bush administration,” Bernstein said, “is shifting economic risks from corporations and government to individuals and families.” As an alternative model he proposed “We’re In This Together” (WITT), which believes in a role for the federal government in solving large scale economic problems.

The fundamental idea is that economic security on many issues is substantially increased by “risk pooling”, or spreading individual vulnerabilities over a large group by acting collectively, something that a national government is uniquely positioned to do. Krugman pointed out that in healthcare, retirement, and unemployment, individuals are facing gratuitous risk. On aggregate those economic policy areas are more stable compared to the risks individuals face, meaning a societal model would produce a better outcome.

Responding to traditional conservative economics, which holds that decreased exposure to risk reduces individual incentives, Bernstein said, “We cannot accept any of this incentive nonsense at face value. It’s an empirical question and it’s never that simple.” For example, Canada, with its universal health care system, has added manufacturing jobs while that sector had been severely hit in the United States because companies are freed from paying for expensive health insurance.

The effects of YOYO economics have been severe. Job insecurity has become a major issue with real physical and psychological harms to the economy, according to Uchitelle. “We have reversed a long and honorable rise in job security in this country,” he said. “Men and women who have been laid off don’t want to go back into challenging jobs.” The panelists agreed that education and retraining, while important, are far from the only solution. Sperling said that we must have a better employment adjustment system to ease the impact of economic transition. On that issue, according to him, “We are worse than any other developed country.”

The panelists agreed that full employment should be the goal of the economy rather than maximum growth. “All the benefits of growth are going to the top one, the top one-tenth, percent,” said Krugman. More active and intelligent public investment, an improved universal employee adjustment system, greater company accountability for the impact of layoffs, and pro-market policies like the Earned Income Tax credit are potential steps for creating a more progressive economy.

The alternative, according to Sperling, is an economic system that will entrench a permanent elite by eliminating taxes on capital and shifting the tax burden to wage earners whose jobs are increasingly insecure. “A better economic plan would prevent the most privileged Americans from paying lower taxes on their investments than typical families pay on their wages, while encouraging savings and wealth creation for struggling workers.”

Debt Matters

Originally published July 19, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

“In America it is patriotic to help the weak and vulnerable, to stand up for those in need.” That message was delivered by North Carolina democratic Gov. Mike Easley during Wednesday’s Debt Matters conference, hosted by the Center for American Progress.

Easley was the keynote speaker of a day-long event featuring numerous experts and panel discussions. The event, designed to raise the profile of household debt as a national political issue, was highlighted by the release of a new public opinion report on the problem of debt.

John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center, opened the conference by pointing to record levels of debt, a negative savings rate, and the far-reaching implications of a heavily indebted society. Americans, he said, need “a fair shot at a financial future,” a shot they are not currently getting.

Those sentiments were supported by Easley. “Debt,” he said, “is a symptom of a larger problem.” Individuals and families are carrying a greater financial burden, forcing people to borrow increasingly larger amounts of money to pay for important fundamental services, such as education and health care. “Today, the middle class is getting deeper and deeper into debt,” Easley said, “not because they’re over-consuming, but just because they’re trying to maintain their standard of living.”

As a result, the American dream of social mobility is harder to achieve. “The foundation is now getting kicked out,” Easley said, because people have to go deeply into debt just to maintain their current position. That has serious implications for the entire nation. Our large debt burden, the governor said, is preventing America from reaching its economic potential. “This is not just about economic prosperity, but about economic security… we need an extraordinarily efficient economy,” he said, to meet today’s global challenges.

Heavy debt disrupts core American values, such as economic growth and access to education. “We know the correlation between wealth and education is indisputable,” Easley said. But “it is difficult to build talent, knowledge, and skill when our people are swimming in a sea of debt.”

The new survey, co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Public Opinion Strategies, showed that Americans think debt is a problem but don’t necessarily think of it as a political issue. “We’re looking at some very serious numbers,” said Anna Greenberg, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Eight in 10 Americans, from across the ideological spectrum, believe the debt problem is getting worse.

Debt is seen as a very personal problem, which is partly why it has not become much of a political issue. Bill McInturff, co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, said “we want to help people in need, but we want to see people helping themselves.” Even still, the survey showed broad public support for better consumer protections and government education programs. McInturff, citing results that cut across party affiliation, believes that the right political leader can turn debt into an important issue. “There’s something we can do,” he said. “Our political system could address it,” but people aren’t aware of that.

Other experts throughout the day looked more specifically at a poorly understood but important issue. The hope is that through events, such as today’s conference, growing debt will not just be a social problem, but be a problem with solutions. “People need to know,” said Easley, “that if they work hard and play by the rules, they’ll have a chance to succeed.”

The Big Uneasy

Originally published Julu 20, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

What–if any–responsibilities do corporations have beyond their bottom lines? This important question was debated today at the Center for American Progress by two distinguished experts from the business world.

Susan Lee, Vice-President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, introduced the event. Leo Hindery Jr., Managing partner of Intermedia Partners VII, and Fred Smith Jr., President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, debated the issue, moderated by The Wall Street Journal Assistant Managing Editor Alan Murray.

In framing the debate, Murray describes “something very important going on in the world of corporations.” Tracing what he terms “the age of the CEO” in the 1990s through 9/11 and more recent scandals, Murray points to a growing discussion of how the power of corporations should be used in society.

Hindery, himself a former CEO, believes that corporations must be interested in more than just maximizing returns to shareholders. Citing customers, employees, and the larger community as other important factors, Hindery seeks to expand the understanding of a corporation’s purpose to “a vibrant, prosperous middle class, growing from the bottom-up, best for corporate America, and certainly best for the country.”

According to Hindery, long-term success and profitability come from “being equally responsible to multiple constituencies,” and not just to investors. He supports a government role in developing those responsibilities because “corporations are simply incapable of self-policing.” Hindery also emphasizes, citing his personal experience, that creative and hard-working executives can successfully run socially responsible businesses.

Smith challenges the idea that generating wealth is the social role of corporations, and that they should focus on what they do best. He points out that “a profitable corporation does have to look at the world it operates in,” he argues that additional social policy considerations can interfere with good business. “It’s hard enough to run a corporation,” he believes, without expecting executives to compare dollar values and moral values.

In describing the role of corporations in society, Smith points to their success in focusing on specific areas and improving society through that narrow work. “It’s a good idea that we have specialized institutions,” and in specialized areas corporations are especially good at “expanding wealth and knowledge.” Expecting corporations to solve broad social problems might be expecting them to do too much.

Smith also emphasizes the need for business to better define the public debate about their role in society. “They haven’t adequately explained to the world what their role is,” he claims. “We need to teach the rest of us to enjoy capitalism.” In his view the misunderstood function of corporations has inhibited needed investment and made it more difficult to craft good government business policy.

Both debaters agree that businesses should be profitable, should be competitive and should follow the law. While Hindery says he believes there is room for corporations to have broader concerns, Smith says he thinks business needs to “get over its guilty feelings about itself.”

No Mere Oversight

Originally published July 13, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The Center for American Progress today releases a comprehensive study of congressional oversight of the U.S. Intelligence Community, "No Mere Oversight: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence is Broken," that delineates where Congress is failing in its oversight duties and how past congressional methods, ways and means of effective oversight could be revived to correct the problems. In the study, authors Denis McDonough, Mara Rudman and Peter Rundlet explore the history of congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community and then examine how past congressional experience could be drawn upon today by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to ensure effective intelligence gathering capabilities are the norm, not the exception.

After the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and after more than three years (and counting) of lost American lives and treasure in Iraq partly because of faulty and misused intelligence, there’s no longer any doubt about the crucial importance to U.S. national security of obtaining robust, accurate, and objective intelligence. Every person in America has a stake in ensuring that our policymakers take actions based on the best available intelligence.

The collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence is a very complicated process, made more difficult because it is necessarily conducted under a shroud of utmost secrecy. It is the job of the 17 executive branch agencies that make up the so called Intelligence Community to perform these functions, but Congress has an essential role to play with respect to ensuring that these agencies have the resources and guidance they need to do their job well and within the limitations of the laws and Constitution of the United States.

As Americans are learning every day, effective congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies run by the executive branch is critical to protecting our national security as well as the values of freedom and openness on which our country was founded. Recent news headlines that the National Security Agency is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans without the knowledge of key congressional committees underscores the need for Congress to serve as the American public’s watchdog in overseeing intelligence agencies.

Congress must ensure the U.S. Intelligence Community has the resources it needs to identify terrorist threats at home and abroad while also ensuring that intelligence operations are conducted consistent with the law and the Constitution. Alas, Congress today has been negligent on both scores — with profound implications for the safety and security of America. The consequences of faulty pre-Iraq war intelligence are mounting daily in the Middle East and around the world just as the United States must unite the world behind efforts to stop Iran from charging headlong into production of nuclear weapons material.

The United States & Colombia: What comes next?

Originally published July 18, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Colombia has made great strides in recent years, and the special relationship it has with the United States must be updated to reflect the changing needs of a work still in progress. This was the largely agreed upon consensus of a distinguished panel of experts hosted by The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress today.

The Center was honored to welcome former Colombian president and former ambassador to the United States, Andrés Pastrana, who delivered the keynote address. Pastrana was introduced by John Podesta, president and chief executive officer of the Center for American Progress, and joined on the panel by Rep. Sam Farr (D_CA). Also on the panel were Isaac Lee, editor-in-chief for Page One Media; Nelson Cunningham, managing partner at Kissinger McLarty Associates; and Russell Crandall, professor of Political Science at Davidson College. Dan Restrepo, director of The Americas Project, moderated.

Pastrana broadly outlined the state of U.S.-Colombia relations, focusing on the strong mutual support relative to other South American countries and the progress made since the implementation of Plan Colombia in 2000. Recent free and fair elections, he said, show “the resilience and determination of the Colombian people” in the face of an often violent past. “Plan Colombia has produced many benefits,” Pastrana said, pointing to more professional and effective security forces, economic growth, and successes in combating the drug trade. “U.S. support has been a critical component,” he said, in Colombia’s improvement.

Making a point that was supported by the other panelists, Pastrana said that an important shift in the U.S.-Colombian relationship is needed. Colombia is the third highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and in the past that aid has been largely focused on security. This is important, as Pastrana pointed out, because without security, social progress cannot occur. But, he said, “we need to get more investment in the social side.” Pastrana also expressed hope that progress could be made this year on a free trade agreement, so that economic growth will allow Colombia to pay for its own development. “We don’t want aid,” he said, “we want trade.”

That assessment was echoed by Farr, although he was pessimistic about a free trade agreement being finalized this year. Cunningham agreed, pointing out that “we’re not where we thought we would be with a Colombian free trade agreement.” The hope was expressed that, when an agreement does eventually gather momentum, there will be bipartisan support for mutually beneficial trade.

Farr was more optimistic that support exists for a shift in aid. Colombia originally became an issue for Congress because of the war on drugs, he said, but in recent years there has been growing awareness that a more comprehensive approach would be more effective. “Colombia is in this very delicate transition right now,” he said, and successfully navigating that transition means “less support for the military and more support for the domestic agenda.”

Crandall added that, although targeted at the drug trade, Plan Colombia has been successful in improving the state of Colombia generally. The U.S. took risks, he said, in supporting Colombian security forces, and those risks seem to have paid off. He sees evidence that “engaged U.S. involvement assistance can make a difference.” But he also cautioned that, however important U.S. aid is, if Colombians “want to save their own country, they have to do it themselves.”

That will not be an easy task, despite an improved security situation. Lee, referring to the leftist rebel groups — the FARC and the ELN — that have caused so much disruption, said “they are contained, but the war is not over.” Pastrana added that even today “all Colombians are suffering violence.” While supporting the paramilitary demobilization process that is under way, Pastrana emphasized the need for transparency in that process, and was hopeful that national reconciliation could occur through a formal process. With continued support from the United States that adapts to changing needs, Colombia can continue to progress. “The challenges,” said Lee, “are the execution of Plan Colombia and the paramilitary process.”

Ending Child Poverty

Originally published June 15, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Governments can effectively decrease child poverty by implementing progressive policies. This message was bought to the Center for American Progress on Wednesday by The Right Honorable John Hutton, M.P. and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom.

Hutton joined Peter Edelman, professor of law at Georgetown University, on a panel entitled “Ending Child Poverty: The United Kingdom’s Commitment, the United States’ Challenge.” Using the example from Britain’s success in reducing child poverty by 17% since a government commitment to the problem in 1999, Hutton relayed strategies for success and lessons learned.

Both Hutton and Edelman agree that empowering families through work is critical for ending child poverty. Effective policies include raising the minimum wage, family tax credits, improving employment adjustment for those that lose their jobs, and increasing public investment in income equivalents like health care, child care, and housing. Implementing these policies within a framework of specifically defined targets helps to make them politically effective.

According to Hutton, the central issue is building the right incentives for work while also having a meaningful social safety net. “It’s a bad thing to have millions of people on welfare. It’s a sign of economic weakness.” It is a sign of economic strength, he said, to have full employment and a system that helps those that cannot help themselves.

Child poverty creates far-ranging consequences for society, and early intervention can prevent problems later in life. Hutton and Edelman cite education as a key area for breaking the long-term poverty cycle. Hutton noted the “important role of education in breaking down barriers to social mobility.” Ample data suggests that impoverished children are less likely to be successful in school, more likely to have low-paying jobs, and more likely to commit crimes. Tackling child poverty means developing solutions that involve all levels of government, according to Edelman. “This is not just a matter of federal responsibility, but the federal government is not doing enough.”

Hutton places child poverty within the larger context of globalization. Rapid changes in the global economy resonate throughout our societies, and we face a choice. “Do we want to progress together, grow together,” he asked, “or do we want to grow apart?” As the future character of the North Atlantic democracies is shaped, successfully tackling poverty is part of the answer. “We are a decent society,” said Hutton, “and poverty is an insult.”

Countering Pandemic Disease and Biological Terrorism

Originally published June 22, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The United States must develop more systematic and comprehensive solutions to the biological security threats facing our nation. This refrain, heard from panelists at a Center for American Progress event today, built from a report on biosecurity released at the discussion.

Panelists included the co-authors of the report, Andrew Grotto, senior national security analyst at the Center, and Jonathan Tucker from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Joining them were Laura Segal, public affairs director at the Trust for America’s Health, and David Heyman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The threats of bioterrorism and epidemic disease share many common characteristics, and according to the panel, the United States needs to appreciate those commonalities in order to create a more efficient and effective crisis response plan. “Our ability to address biothreats must be comprehensive in nature,” Heyman said, and not dependent on “stovepipe” solutions that are localized, separate, and fragmented.

Current federal plans assume state and local capabilities that do not exist, according to Segal. “If a pandemic hit,” she said, “it would bankrupt the U.S. medical system.” The panel used the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as an example of how our current public health system is inadequately prepared for sudden shocks. With improved communication and cooperation across all levels, the situation would improve, but currently “there is no standard across systems” according to Heyman.

For biothreats, “the best defense,” Grotto said, “is a good public health system.” In the event of a crisis, hospitals and local health departments are the first line of defense. Right now a complicated system of diverse public and private institutions creates significant interoperability problems. The U.S. must develop synchronized federal, state, and local systems to create a truly comprehensive approach for diminishing biothreats.

The need for a comprehensive plan is important on an international level as well, because, as Heyman points out, “Bugs don’t know political boundaries.” Effectively implementing international health standards, especially in developing countries, is important to U.S. biosecurity. Effective international nonproliferation programs for biological weapons are also key. According to Tucker, research on dangerous pathogens is too open and widespread, and an international consensus on pathogen security is needed. Risks also exist from rogue scientists of former state-sponsored bioweapons programs.

Current policies are inadequate, relying on “a hope and pray attitude,” according to Segal. There is an over-reliance on a “one bug, one drug” approach that holds specific pharmaceuticals as a primary defense against biothreats. A “broad spectrum” comprehensive approach “could be more cost-effective,” especially because an improved public health system would better handle common diseases. Whether an epidemic disease or a terrorist attack, the possibility of a major health crisis means, said Heyman, “We have to take care of ourselves together.”