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.”