CAROL MARIN: Welcome to WIDE ANGLE, Mr. Panetta.

LEON PANETTA: Nice to be with you.

CAROL MARIN: Before you were the chairman of the Pew Commission on Oceans, before you were Bill Clinton’s Chief -of Staff, before you were in Congress, you were and still are the grandson of a Monterey, California sardine fisherman. When you saw that film, did you see it through that lens?

LEON PANETTA: You can’t help but share the emotion of what that fishing family and that fishing town were going through as they faced the prospect of losing their livelihood. You know, my grandfather used to go out on fishing boats in Monterey when Monterey was the sardine capital of the world. And I think they were catching something like a quarter of a million tons of sardine[s] each year; that’s almost a billion sardines that they were catching each year.

CAROL MARIN: What year was that?

LEON PANETTA: Oh, this would have been in the late ’30s, early ’40s. And it created a whole industry for that town. I mean, people’s jobs were dependent on the fishing business, not only the fishermen, but the canneries that were set up on Cannery Row. John Steinbeck made Cannery Row famous in Monterey. The economy of that town was dependent on the sardine industry. And suddenly, in the late ’40s, the sardines were fished out, they were gone.

And you had a collapse, very similar to what happened in this Scottish community. I mean, they were down 95 percent in their cod and we lost virtually 98 percent of the sardines in Monterey. So the story that happened in Scotland is the same story that happened in Monterey.

CAROL MARIN: In that film, one of the big questions is whether or not there’s a kind of war between the fishermen and the environmentalists, between the fishermen and the government. Is that too simple?

LEON PANETTA: I think you can paint it that way, which is that environmentalists are over here, the fishing families are over here, government’s over here, and none of them are working together. But I think what all of them have to recognize is that we’re dealing with a resource that is in crisis. And that crisis is affecting everyone.

It’s obviously affecting those that care about preserving that great resource that is our ocean. It’s affecting people whose livelihoods depend on that, fishermen, and those related to fishing. Government surely has to have a concern about whether or not this industry continues to exist and whether or not our oceans continue to survive as a resource.

So there’s a common concern here that all of them ought to share. But too often, very frankly, everybody basically worries about their own turf, and they’re not considering the overall concern of what do we do to protect our oceans for the future.

CAROL MARIN: Do you think right now that people in the United States, people in Europe, people in Asia know that there is a crisis in our oceans?

LEON PANETTA: I’m afraid that that message is not getting across. And it’s understandable. Look, the oceans make up 71 percent of the Earth. Some have said that instead of calling this planet Earth, it ought to be called Oceans, because so much of it is oceans. It’s so large, and people to a large extent take it for granted that the oceans can kind of take care of themselves — it’s a big ocean. And you can’t see what’s happening below the surface of that ocean and the losses that are taking place in terms of our fisheries and the very lifeblood that is so important to our oceans. So the result is that most people kind of take it for granted. And I think we pay a price for that as a result.

CAROL MARIN: Someone suggested that if you tried to picture what happens in the oceans in those many mile-long nets, if you try to transplant that image onto the earth, if you take it into the savannahs of Africa and scraped along, that you would pull up every tree, every bush, every cougar, every panther, every elephant. And that would be the same as what’s happening beneath the water.

LEON PANETTA: That’s exactly what’s happening. And the problem is when we saw it on land, when we cut forests down, when we destroyed the land, you could see what was happening, you could see the damage to wildlife, you could see the damage that was taking place to that resource. And we responded, I mean this nation responded. Teddy Roosevelt responded and said, “Look, we’ve got to do something to protect these national treasures that we have, that ought to be protected for the future.”

A hundred years later, the same thing’s happening to our oceans. I mean, we are literally losing our fisheries — 90 percent of the large fish in the ocean are gone. Some have described this as the last buffalo hunt going on, with regards to our oceans.

CAROL MARIN: Say that one more time, 90 –

LEON PANETTA: Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans — by the large fish I mean tuna, marlin, swordfish, sharks — are gone. They’re gone. Science now is confirming that we’ve got a real crisis on our hands. There was a recent report that came out that said the diversity of our fisheries is — we’re losing it. Instead of going out and catching 10 varieties of fish, we’re now down to five. So that we’re losing our fisheries, we’re losing that great resource that was the very livelihood for that fishing family that we just saw.

CAROL MARIN: The film showed us what’s happening in Europe. Is the same thing that’s happening in Europe happening here?

LEON PANETTA: Absolutely. We have had two commissions now dealing with the oceans. One was the one I chaired, the Pew Oceans Commission. We also had a U.S. Commission that looked at the issues involved with our oceans. And these were very different commissions, very diverse in terms of their membership, and yet both commissions came to the same conclusion, which is that our oceans are in crisis. We’re losing our fisheries, pollution is taking place along our coast. Two thirds of the waters along our coast now are being degraded, as a result of pollution. We’re seeing dead zones the size of the state of Massachusetts appearing in the Gulf of Mexico; dead zones, largely due to pollution.

We’re seeing overdevelopment along our coasts. Fifty-four percent of our population lives on 17 percent of the land. So it’s impacting on the wetlands and the nurseries for our fisheries. And lastly, governance of our oceans is a disaster. We’ve got 140 laws, 60 committees; there’s very little coordination in terms of implementing the laws that have to deal with our oceans. And so federal courts usually wind up having to deal with disputes. It’s a bad way to govern. So all of that contributes to a real crisis in our oceans.

CAROL MARIN: How much time do we have?

LEON PANETTA: I think that the good news is that we can turn it around. The bad news is that if we allow what’s going on in the oceans to continue, there will be a point at which we will lose those resources that live within the ocean. I mean, we have seen, for example, like the Black Sea, as a result of ballast systems discharging a jellyfish that was non-native to the Black Sea, it virtually destroyed all of the fisheries in the Black Sea.

That same thing can take place in our oceans. We’re seeing that begin to happen. We can turn it around, we can restore these resources, but it’s going to take leadership to do it. And right now, very frankly, that leadership is not there.

CAROL MARIN: So where does it come from, where do we get it?

LEON PANETTA: Well, I’ve often said that we govern either by leadership or crisis. Leadership looks ahead and says, “We’ve got to preserve and protect this resource for the future, for our children and their children.” If that leadership isn’t there, make no mistake about it, crisis will happen. And we’ve seen that happen, we’ve seen it happen with these fisheries. We’ve lost the cod population, we’ve lost the sardine population, we’re losing 90 percent of the big fish in the ocean. We are seeing something like 18,000 beaches closed each year because of pollution.

CAROL MARIN: We’re talking about U.S. beaches now?

LEON PANETTA: This is U.S. beaches. And the same kind of crisis is beginning to appear in other parts of the world, as this documentary has pointed out. So the crisis is there; now what we have to do is translate it in a way that people understand, that our very lives are related to what happens in the ocean, our health care, our nutrition, our economy, our recreation, our very lifeblood.

CAROL MARIN: Do you believe that the current administration or the current Congress sees it the way you see it?

LEON PANETTA: You know, there are those members who deeply believe that this is something that we have to pay attention to. But I have to tell you, in today’s world there is just not enough attention to the problems that are taking place in our oceans. As far as a priority, when you’re looking at Iraq and our economy, and the price of oil and all the other problems that we’re confronting, I’m afraid the problems facing our oceans are coming in near the bottom.

CAROL MARIN: And when you look at the EU right now trying to do what it can. … The United States has its own crisis and Asia, where a huge amount of the ungoverned fishing is going on, really doesn’t see it the same way. So even if we address it in the United States, does that do anything to fix it?

LEON PANETTA: Well, if we as a nation would take steps to first of all make the point that our oceans are a national trust — we did that in regards to our land. We don’t even have a comprehensive law, at the federal level, that says the oceans are a national trust and ought to be protected. We ought to make that commitment. We ought to develop fisheries policy that sustains fisheries for the future, so that we can rebuild those fisheries for families in the future.

We ought to deal with pollution, we ought to deal with governance and try to coordinate those policies. If we do that, then the United States, with a degree of credibility, can go to the rest of the world and say, “We’ve all got to do this.” Because oceans know no boundaries, it’s not enough for the United States to take those steps. I mean, sharks and marlin don’t understand national boundaries. We need to deal with this as a world community, dealing with our oceans. That’s the ultimate hope, that everyone will recognize that this is a crisis that has to be dealt with.

CAROL MARIN: But in these environmental concerns, disputes, crises, I think of global warming — we don’t have a national consensus on global warming. And there’s been much more discussion of that, it seems to me, than the oceans. Am I right?

LEON PANETTA: Well, there’s no question that global warming is a problem that we now look at and say, “My God, the science is real here. We’ve got a real problem here, the Earth is warming.” The ice in the Arctic is melting, we’re seeing climate changes, we’re seeing weather changes that we’ve never seen before. And yet there’s a resistance to confronting those issues. And the same thing is true for the ocean.

I mean, science agrees that we’ve got a real crisis here. Two commissions have confirmed we’ve got a real crisis here. And yet there’s a sense that well, we really don’t have to make the changes that have to be made right now. It’s not that serious. And so I guess what I’m saying to you is that right now our approach to dealing with the ocean is, we’ll wait for the crisis to get worse.

CAROL MARIN: For a lot of people in the United States, they still can go to the grocery store and buy the fish of their choice, the price is still pretty good. The crisis doesn’t seem to reach the grocery store or the American home. Why not?

LEON PANETTA: We have to make clear to the people that go to the grocery store and buy their fish there, that there will come a time when they will not be able to buy great wild fish that they currently can get. I mean, there’s going to be a time at which, you know, we may raise these fish in aquaculture or in tanks, but we will lose our wild fisheries. I mean, in a very real sense, this is the last buffalo hunt, and we are losing our wild fisheries. Now that’s number one.

Number two, if we don’t pay attention to the ocean and the pollution of the oceans, it’s going to affect not only our nutrition and our ability to get fish, it’s going to affect our health. I mean, we’re already seeing that with regards to some fisheries, that because of lead poisoning, because of other poisonings that are taking place, you can’t buy those fish. So it’s going to affect our health.

Thirdly, it’s going to affect our climate. You know, we’re seeing those climate changes take place now. And that affects everybody in this country. It’s going to affect our recreation. It’s going to affect our economy. You saw what it’s doing to that little community in Scotland; you can imagine our coastal communities, if we lose the fishermen, if we lose the economic base, it’s going to affect the economy in this country. $117 billion flows into our economy because of our fisheries.

CAROL MARIN: So do we in the United States start decommissioning vessels the way they did in Scotland?

LEON PANETTA: Well, we’ve already done some of that. When the cod industry went down in New England, we started buying the fishing boats in New England. It’s a bad way to deal with it, very frankly.

CAROL MARIN: It didn’t make a difference, did it?

LEON PANETTA: Well, [it] not only doesn’t make a difference, because the reality is that the fishermen who are then left — they buy bigger ships, they buy more technology and they basically go out and still go after the fish in the oceans. And then the small family is the one who basically gets hurt in that process. And that’s what happened here to this family, is their boat’s going to be scrapped, but make no mistake about it, there’ll be others, bigger ships that’ll take their place and we’ll still have the same problem with regards to the lost fisheries.

CAROL MARIN: Can you actually take part of the ocean and turn it into Teddy Roosevelt policy and Yellowstone?

LEON PANETTA: I think that’s the key. The key is to recognize that we have to go establish areas where the fish can replenish themselves, the same as we did with the buffalo, the same as what we’ve done with other endangered species. We’ve got to give them the time to be able to replenish themselves.

CAROL MARIN: Safety zones.

LEON PANETTA: We’ve got to create reserves, we’ve got to create sanctuaries, we’ve got to create areas where we can limit fisheries in some way. And we have to do this in conjunction with the fishermen; I mean, it’s in their interest to do that. If they want their children to be fishermen for the future, the best investment is to ensure that that fishery is there. We don’t develop policy, very frankly, that sustains the fishery for the future. Our approach to fisheries right now is single species. We deal with one species; if it’s in trouble, they go over and fish the rest of the other fisheries that are out there.

CAROL MARIN: You mean go save the salmon, but you ignore the flounder?

LEON PANETTA: That’s right.

CAROL MARIN: One of the questions that seems to keep popping up is, does the fisherman have a place in this policy conversation? Because they, the fishermen, don’t seem to feel like they’re part of the solution, or heard in the conversation. Are they wrong about that?

LEON PANETTA: I don’t think they’re wrong about that, to be truthful. I mean, I think fishermen have to be at the table. This is their livelihood, they know the fisheries. And I’m a believer that very frankly, they’ve got to be sitting at the table as you develop policy, because they have to be part of that process.

I remember when I was in the Congress, I was working on legislation to establish the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary — to try to protect that area of the coast from offshore drilling, and from other problems that might affect it. In order to get that done, I had to have fishermen sitting at the table. I had fishermen, I had farmers, I had environmentalists, I had businesspeople, chamber of commerce, I had them all at the table. As a result, they came to an agreement that this was important to do. I think the same approach needs to take place when it comes to policies involved with fisheries: you’ve got to have them at the table. They’ve got to have a stake in it, and there’s nobody that has a bigger stake in it than the fishermen and their families.

CAROL MARIN: But somewhere along the line, the governments of these nations have got to understand that it’s an emergency, correct?

LEON PANETTA: Absolutely.

CAROL MARIN: And they don’t, do they?

LEON PANETTA: No, what they’ve got to do is they’ve got to say, “We have got to come to the table, and we have got to take steps to ensure that we are going to restore these fisheries.” And they aren’t there yet. For them this is still kind of the same old political issue — you don’t want to step on people’s toes, you don’t want to offend certain constituencies. And so they are tiptoeing past the graveyard, as they say.

CAROL MARIN: You’ve had years of experience in politics on all sorts of levels. If you can’t get their attention, if your commissions can’t get their attention, then what hope do you have that someone else can?

LEON PANETTA: Well, you just can’t stop. I mean, if there’s one thing I’ve learned in politics, it’s that persistence pays off. And you’ve got to keep saying that this is a problem. You’ve got to keep making sure that the public understands that this is a crisis. You cannot walk away from this and just give up, because it’s too important. If anything, you’ve got to be able to say, “Look, 100 years ago, when Teddy Roosevelt decided that it was important for the country to protect our land, we did it, and we created Yellowstone and Yosemite and the other national parks that became something that we all treasure as a result of that. One hundred years later, we face the same kind of problems with our oceans. And Mr. President, you want to become Teddy Roosevelt, this is a place where you can become Teddy Roosevelt. You can have this country implement steps to protect our oceans for the future. And 100 years from now they’ll remember that we cared about doing something about our oceans.”

CAROL MARIN: As head of the Pew Oceans Commission, you traveled the country, you talked to all kinds of people. What most impressed you or surprised you in your dealings with people in this?

LEON PANETTA: You know, I think one of the surprises really was that the fishermen themselves, and their families, just like the two women that were out fighting to try to deal with this problem in the film, they came out and they were testifying. We had hearings at which groups of families and fishermen came there and said, “The fisheries are being hurt, we’re not making a living anymore as we used to. Our families are being affected by this. Do something, do something to restore the fisheries.”

I mean, what really surprised me is that fishermen and their families were so concerned and were there. And if that’s happening, it tells you that the crisis is real. And that more then anything impacted, I think, our entire commission because you got a sense of the human side of this equation. I mean, you can deal with the fisheries and you see what’s happening, understand the ocean, but here, this is what’s happening on land and to people and their families. And that human element is, I think, a key to trying to make people aware that this is a real crisis.

CAROL MARIN: Did you encounter some real misconceptions about the oceans?

LEON PANETTA: A lot of misconceptions. You know, as I said, the biggest misconception of all is that, oh my goodness, it’s such a big ocean, there’s so much water out there, surely it could take care of itself. Surely it doesn’t matter if a cruise ship discharges some waste into the ocean. Surely it doesn’t matter if a little pollution goes into the ocean. Surely it doesn’t matter if we lose maybe a little bit of a fishery, it can restore itself. I mean, it’s that kind of attitude that I think is the greatest concern — that somehow it could take care of itself.

And don’t forget, I mean, you’ve got a lot of people in this country that don’t necessarily live near the coast. That’s true for the world. And for them it is just a trip to the local market to get a fish. And they don’t see the larger picture that’s involved with regards to that resource.

CAROL MARIN: If decommissioning boats isn’t the answer, what is?

LEON PANETTA: The answer to dealing with this issue is to restore the fisheries, it isn’t to basically say, “We’re going to shut down that industry,” or “We’re going to move it to the big boys,” so that the big ships are going to be the only ones that operate with regards to the fishing business. The answer here is to restore the fisheries, to make them sustainable.

Let me give you an example. The lobster industry off of Maine is one of the great examples of a sustainable fishery. Why? Because they are all working together. They’ve established limits, they throw back lobsters that aren’t a particular size. They keep female lobsters and throw them back as well, because they want to sustain the lobster population. They have strict requirements on how they operate, because they know that if they don’t sustain that fishery, they’re all going to be out of business.

CAROL MARIN: What you’re saying is they have a plan.

LEON PANETTA: Absolutely, and that’s what we need to do with regards to fisheries in general. We’ve got to have a plan, and we’ve got to have the willingness to put it in place and make it work.

CAROL MARIN: Do you, in your own mind, have a clear understanding of how it got this bad?

LEON PANETTA: I think, like a lot of other things, there are a lot of factors that feed into this. But I think probably the worst thing of all is that we all took the resources of our oceans for granted. Fishermen, families, the economy, people who enjoy eating fish — all of us have taken it for granted. People who go to the beach, people who enjoy our coastal recreation, we have all taken it for granted, and we’re now paying the price for that.

CAROL MARIN: Today, versus, say, 50 years ago, what’s the difference in the fishing industry in the United States?

LEON PANETTA: I think we have just a very small fraction of the industry from 50 years ago — the Montereys of the world, and the sardine industries. They were out there, they were fishing, they thought there was no limit to the resource, they thought that they would be able to catch a quarter of a million tons of sardines forever. And they found out that the resource had limits. And so 50 years ago I think there was a sense, this is a limitless resource, we can do this forever, we don’t have to take steps to make sure it’s replenished. I think 50 years later, particularly the families involved with fishing and particularly the communities involved with fishing know that that’s not the case.

CAROL MARIN: You don’t see this as a crisis, you see this as an emergency.

LEON PANETTA: I do, because I don’t think we can simply yawn and say, “You know, at some point this’ll cure itself.” I think if it keeps heading in the direction it’s going, we are seeing a situation where the richest resource we have in the world, in terms of our oceans, the wildlife that’s in our oceans, the sea life, the dynamic relationship between the different living things that are part of our ocean, we’re going to see the end of that. We’re going to see the end of that. We’re beginning to see that happen with regards to some fisheries.

CAROL MARIN: I found it staggering to read that we have only charted about 5 percent of our oceans. That we know more about outer space, of which we never feel we know enough, than we know about our oceans.

LEON PANETTA: Well, let me tell you, that’s a real concern, because one of the things we looked at is if we’re going to deal with this, you’ve got to have education, you’ve got to have research, you’ve got to have the science you need in order to provide the answers that are important. This country, with regards to our oceans — and our oceans that are part of our territories are larger then our land mass — and yet when you look at our research budget, less than 4 percent goes to looking at the science of our oceans. Less than 4 percent. If we could spend billions searching for life in other planets, surely we could spend more trying to look at what’s happening to life here on this planet. And that simply is not the case right now.

CAROL MARIN: That Scottish family that saw its boat ripped to pieces didn’t have an economic alternative. There wasn’t retraining or retooling. And to the best of our knowledge, they’re back on somebody else’s boat today. Isn’t another part of this discussion that somehow we have to economically deal with the retraining, retooling of the fishermen who we’re taking out of the fisheries?

LEON PANETTA: I’m always disappointed at the way we deal with these kinds of crises. When jobs go away because of trade, or jobs go to India or China or what have you, we somehow don’t respond by saying, “Wait a minute, we’ve got to take people who now have lost their jobs and retrain them and provide the skill training and provide the kind of multitude of abilities that we need in today’s modern economy.” This is a globalized world. We’ve got to do that.

The same thing is true in the fishing industry. I mean, if we’re going to restore the fisheries, we’re going to have to sustain these families in a way that allows them to make this transition. So we’re going have to give them training, we’re going to have to give them a support system that allows them to make that transition at the same time [as] we’re restoring that resource. If we could develop the same kind of pattern that the New England lobster people have approached their resources with, the reality is that there will be a continuing resource that will allow their children and their children’s children to be able to be fishermen. And I think that’s the goal here.

CAROL MARIN: What fuels your passion on this? Is it that you’re the grandson of a fisherman?

LEON PANETTA: I was born and raised in Monterey. I was born near the coastline. And the ocean is very much a part of our whole lifeblood. It was when I was a kid, and it still is. I mean, the community that I live in relies on the ocean for its beauty, for what it does to our spirit. I think it was John Kennedy who said that “Our oceans are the salt in our veins,” and I believe that.

CAROL MARIN: Do you feel as though you’re crying into the wind, that no one’s listening?

LEON PANETTA: I’ve been around politics enough that I know that if you keep saying it enough, and if the facts support what you’re saying, as they do, that at some point there will be those who listen. If for no other reason but that the people of this country will recognize that crisis alone can’t determine the future of what happens with our oceans.

CAROL MARIN: Marine reserves are a great idea, but how realistic are they? How likely [is it that you] are going to be able to get them done?

LEON PANETTA: Well, it’s a tough challenge, there’s no question about it. But states like California, for example, are now in the process of developing reserves along the coast. And the way you’ve got to do it is, as I’ve said, you’ve got to have fishermen involved in the process. The science now is beginning to clearly show that where you have some of these reserves established, that there are in fact fish that are being replenished, and we are seeing stocks beginning to become healthy again as a result.

CAROL MARIN: But if the California guys are doing it, but Portland up the coast isn’t, does it matter what’s going on in California?

LEON PANETTA: You’ve got to start someplace. You’ve got to start someplace, and you’ve got to be able then to show others what the consequences are. I mean, right now, there are a lot of people that say, “We don’t believe this really works.” Well, you’ve got to prove to them that it does work. And so the only way to do that is to in fact implement some of the pilot projects that we have going on. We have some reserves, we’re getting some information from them, we’re trying to establish others. I think ultimately as long as fishermen feel like they’re part of the process, they understand that you have got to be able to protect the nurseries for the fisheries.

CAROL MARIN: But those same fisheries are the guys that are making bigger and bigger boats, using more and more sophisticated technology — sonar. … I mean, they’re scooping up whole sections of the ocean. So don’t they fight you at the same time that they argue there’s a need?

LEON PANETTA: Well, the big boys, as they say, are always going to put up a fight because they can always afford to go out and buy bigger ships and greater technologies and implement those. But it really is the kind of working-family fishermen that we saw in this film that we have to focus on. These are the middle-income fishermen who have small boats, who really go out on a day-to-day basis and really try to use the methods that — in most instances — their fathers used and their fathers’ fathers used.

Now, there is this new technology, there are real problems with some of these big ships. These ships are very sophisticated. If you look at other countries in the world, they’re developing ships that are literally factory ships. They have sonar to determine where the school[s] of fish are, they have these huge nets that can basically go down and scrape the bottom of the ocean.

CAROL MARIN: They’re staggering nets. I mean, they go –

LEON PANETTA: Oh, they’re huge.

CAROL MARIN: What, three, four, five miles?

LEON PANETTA: They can go as far as eight miles in some instances. These nets are huge. And they can gather up all kinds of fish. I mean, one of the problems we’re having with the lost fisheries is this huge by-catch, in which we’re catching all kinds of fishes that simply die as a result of being scooped up by these large nets. Look, technology is going to develop, but we have to develop some limits, we have to develop some controls on this so that we in fact can limit the by-catch. So we can limit the amount of destruction that’s going on with regards to the bottom of the sea. I think ultimately if fishermen understand that they’re going to lose their ability to have a livelihood, then they’ve got to feel that they have to make an investment in what we do to try to take care of this.

CAROL MARIN: But if we as citizens of the world, whether it’s the United States or the European Union or Asia, aren’t excited about it, aren’t particularly interested in it, don’t even know it’s a crisis, does it really matter what the fishermen think, because we’re not engaged in this conversation?

LEON PANETTA: What I have always found in politics is that if you think your survival in office is dependent on dealing with a particular problem, then you will move. And I think what these two women, the Cod Crusaders, are doing is very similar to what I saw New England fishermen do and what I’ve seen other fishermen do, which is they go to their representatives and say, “If you aren’t taking steps here, we’re going to vote against you. We’re going to kick you out of office.” And I think that’s the kind of message that people have to hear.

CAROL MARIN: So people have to scare their representatives?

LEON PANETTA: That’s right, that’s exactly right. We’ve got to be able to say to them, “This is important enough that if you don’t deal with this issue, frankly it’s going to cost you my vote.”

CAROL MARIN: You’ve had experience with two different commissions. You’re not a shrinking violet — you’ve been calling out about this. The weight seems to be against you, not for you on this.

LEON PANETTA: What I’ve always discovered is that at some point, in some presidential race, in some race for high office — whether it’s here or in other parts of the world — there is someone who basically says, “This is a problem that is not being dealt with. This is a crisis and I’m going to deal with it.”

CAROL MARIN: Makes it an election issue.

LEON PANETTA: Makes it an issue. And as a result, then, if elected, gets a license from the people to do something about the problem.

CAROL MARIN: Hot spots in the United States. If we’ve got trouble here, where would you identify those hot spots?

LEON PANETTA: Well, there are hot spots all along our coastline that we’ve got to pay attention to. Clearly New England. We’ve already seen the loss, really, of the cod industry. There are recent studies that say it is not coming back. And there have been efforts to try and replenish it. I mean, the North Bank, which is one of the great fishing grounds of the world really, is now depleted of the cod fisheries, so there’s a real problem in that part of the world.

There’s a problem with regards to what are called the snappers and groundfish, particularly off of the Florida coastline, the Carolinas. The shrimp fisherman in the gulf themselves are concerned about whether or not they’re going to be able to maintain their livelihood. And we’ll see on the West Coast. We’ve just had restrictions on salmon fisheries that have taken place, even off of our coastline in Monterey. There are restrictions that are now holding the fishermen or limiting the fishermen in that fishery because of endangerment.

And up in the Northwest, I mean, the last frontier of fishing is Alaska. And we’ve seen some of the impacts there because — particularly because of global warming. But that’s actually a great example of where the fishermen and the scientists and the community and the state have said, “This is a vital economic resource for our state. We depend on it.” And as a result, they’re taking steps to try to restore their key fisheries. Other parts of the country ought to look to Alaska as an example of some of the steps you have to take to do it.

CAROL MARIN: Global hot spots, if you’re going to pick true problem areas in the world, where are they?

LEON PANETTA: The hot spots we’re seeing now are in the North Atlantic because we’re seeing herring and cod fisheries being affected there. We’re seeing — because of this figure I gave you, that 90 percent of the big fish are being fished out, what are called the long-line fishermen are being affected by that, particularly in areas of the Pacific. And part of the problem there is with some of the remaining fisheries that are out there, particularly in the Southeast Pacific. These are the last places that fishermen are going to, because the last resource is there. And if we don’t take steps to protect that resource, it’s going to be impacted like other areas. So areas of the Pacific — China, which also depends on fisheries, they’re losing their fisheries. They’re going to invest –

CAROL MARIN: When you say “losing,” do you mean losing as if you’re not going to ever get them back?

LEON PANETTA: Well, what’s happening is they’re just simply not catching the fish that they used to catch. Their fisheries have been diminished.

CAROL MARIN: But at some point it goes dead, doesn’t it?

LEON PANETTA: Well, of course it does, if they keep doing it. And for that reason, they’ve decided to invest a billion dollars in aquaculture, which means creating the artificial tanks in order to raise fish in an artificial setting.

CAROL MARIN: Which you don’t see as a solution.

LEON PANETTA: Well, I don’t see that as an ultimate solution, because then you’re basically saying to hell with the wild fisheries.

CAROL MARIN: And to hell with the ocean.

LEON PANETTA: Exactly. And that’s what bothers me, is you can’t just simply say, “Well, since that resource is gone to hell, why don’t we just create our own artificial resource?” with regards to aquaculture.

CAROL MARIN: Could I argue that China’s at least doing something and we’re not?

LEON PANETTA: Well, aquaculture as an industry is not going away. But for goodness’ sake, it ought not to replace the wild fisheries in the fishing industry that I think has been so much a part of our heritage and our economy.

CAROL MARIN: What will the future look like if we don’t do anything?

LEON PANETTA: I think there will come a time when, if we just simply don’t pay attention … First of all, with regards to fisheries, I think there will be a point at which our wild fisheries will be gone. I really do think that if we['ve] lost 90 percent of the big fish in the ocean, it’s not going to take much longer for that remaining 10 percent to be gone. Secondly, I think that it will affect — because of continuing pollution that affects our coastline — it’ll affect our recreational areas.

CAROL MARIN: To be clear, when you’re talking about pollution and the coastline, you’re talking in part, aren’t you, about fuel or oil by-products that our rain washes into the ocean? It’s like the EXXON VALDEZ –

LEON PANETTA: Let me give you a great figure. Right now, every eight months, 10.8 million gallons of oil — it’s the amount of the VALDEZ spill — washes into our coastal waters, because of runoff from streets and from other areas. Ten point eight million gallons of oil that goes into our sea. And it clearly affects the environment of our oceans as a result of that.

CAROL MARIN: It’s almost too much, in a way, for people to imagine, isn’t it? To be able to see it in your mind’s eye, to be able to picture what’s below that water level, or what’s washing in. I mean, we don’t have much imagination about this.

LEON PANETTA: And that’s a problem. I think what you have to do is say to people, “This is the equivalent of the EXXON VALDEZ spill,” which I think most people saw and saw the consequences of. … It’s the equivalent of that washing off into our waters every eight months.

CAROL MARIN: What I see you do in this interview is you’re constantly trying to frame it, aren’t you? You’re trying to constantly create a word picture for people to see just how bad it is.

LEON PANETTA: Well, most people in their day-to-day lives, as I said, they kind of take our oceans for granted. You have got to make them aware of the fact that one of the great vital resources of our planet is in danger, and it could affect them. You’ve got to make the crisis relate to their lives in some way — that it is going to affect their health, that it is going to affect their nutrition, that it is going to affect their recreation, that it is going to affect their economy. You’ve got to make them aware that this is not a crisis that you can simply walk away from.

CAROL MARIN: But you know people, Americans, Europeans, Asians are warned every day, 10 times a day, about cancer, nuclear threat, terrorism, global warming. You just added another one to the list, and at some point I think you’re fighting against people’s ability to absorb it.

LEON PANETTA: People who are elected to office, whether it’s in this country or anyplace else in the world, the reason they’re elected to office is to exercise a responsibility to ensure that the future of our children is better. I mean, my parents were immigrants to the country. When I used to ask my father why he came to this country, he said, “The reason your mother and I came is because we thought we could give our children a better life.” I think giving our children a better life is what everybody in this country, including our politicians, are supposed to do. This is an example where if you simply ignore what happens to our oceans, you are creating a future that is going to hurt our children and their children.

CAROL MARIN: On a scale of one to 10, Mr. Panetta, where are you, optimism versus pessimism, on getting this done, and getting it done soon?

LEON PANETTA: I’m always at five with regards to most things, because I think you can’t feel like it is just impossible. I think the facts are here, the science is here, the studies are here, we’re seeing the consequences of it. I think if we keep preaching that this is a crisis that can’t be ignored, that at some point that message will be heard.

CAROL MARIN: Give us a little tutorial on what aquaculture is. Just exactly what is it, and how realistic is it?

LEON PANETTA: Well, aquaculture is basically an artificial way to produce fisheries. And we see a lot of it; it’s happening with oysters. In the Monterey area we used to have abalone, and now what they do is they essentially have tanks that are placed in the ocean that produce these abalone on an artificial basis. They feed them and they grow them. Same thing is true, as I said, for oysters; same thing is true for salmon. They create areas that now are essentially tanks in the ocean, where they raise salmon.

And one of the dangers that has developed is that those salmon then escape, and then essentially contaminate the wild fishery salmon. We’ve had consequences of that. Secondly, the amount of feed that’s used for aquaculture actually can in fact impact on the oceans as well, because they’ve got to create all of these aquaculture facilities. So the problem is it is an industry that is growing, because of what’s happening with wild fisheries. But we clearly have got to place some standards as to how they operate that will ensure that they don’t do damage to the wild fisheries.

CAROL MARIN: They’re sort of the equivalent, in fresh water terms, of catfish farms, right?

LEON PANETTA: Yes, exactly. I mean, catfish farms are a form of aquaculture. And it’s not an industry that’s going to go away, in large measure because of what’s happening to the wild fisheries. But it is an industry that has to act responsibly, because there are dangers that could take place, that can affect the wild fisheries as a result of what they do. And the worst thing that could happen is to simply have them go ahead and do whatever they do on an artificial basis, and then contribute to the loss of the wild fisheries as a result of that.

CAROL MARIN: You seem to be arguing that it’s really an artificial way to deal with a crucial natural problem, and you don’t like it.

LEON PANETTA: It’s an artificial way to deal with it, and I guess what I’m saying is I would — at the same time that we have aquaculture — I want this country to focus, and the world to focus on how do we restore those great wild fisheries that are really the heart and soul of what we’ve always considered the fishing industry in the world.

CAROL MARIN: Do you have a blueprint of your own about how this problem could be solved?

LEON PANETTA: Well, I think both commissions made recommendations that I think policy makers have to pay attention to. The first is we need to make that overall commitment to protecting our ocean as a resource. That’s important, because you have to have that as a beginning.

Secondly, you’ve got to better coordinate policy in governing our oceans. Right now there isn’t effective coordination of those policies. We’ve got to be able to do it better, we’ve got to have coordinated policy at the federal level. We’ve got to have kind of what I would call regional policy that brings together federal, state, and local government as well as fishermen to ensure that we protect our local fisheries as well.

Thirdly, we’ve got to develop a sustainable fisheries policy. When I say that, what I’m saying is don’t manage on a species-by-species basis, manage on a basis that considers all of the fisheries and ensures that they all can restore themselves.

CAROL MARIN: Think globally?

LEON PANETTA: Exactly. Don’t put science and the decision as to how we allocate our fisheries in the same room, because the problem is, science always loses out. I mean, science ought to say, “This is what the level of the fisheries is,” and then you make decisions, based on what science says, and in the allocation side. You’ve got to separate those two, and right now, unfortunately, the science and fishermen are in the same room, and the science usually loses out.

You’ve got to be able to ensure that we take steps to implement some of these efforts to restore the fisheries, like reserves, like sanctuaries and other steps that give some of these nurseries for our fisheries a chance to restore themselves. In addition, you need to establish better control over pollution. We’ve got to strengthen our water pollution laws, we’ve got to strengthen laws with regards to cruise ships so that they can’t simply discharge. Some states have already taken actions to do that, but we haven’t done enough. Lastly, we’ve got to ensure that, for example, the kind of runoff that goes down the Mississippi that creates these dead zones, that we try to limit that kind of what are called indirect pollution sources.

CAROL MARIN: Do you have in your own mind’s eye an idea of who coordinates all of this, how that gets done? I mean, is there a sort of UN solution, or an international commission?

LEON PANETTA: Well, I think these steps that I talked about are not just steps that apply to the United States, they apply to the world community as well. And what has to be done is that the world community has to ensure that each of these nations [is] implementing common policies here, common standards that will ensure that the world fishery comes into place. Which means we’ve got to be able to have the United Nations create the kind of vehicles that allow us to be able to govern and manage our ocean fisheries with the same goals in mind — restoring our fisheries, better managing them, better coordinating policy, and better ensuring that all of the world’s countries are abiding by the same rules.

CAROL MARIN: Are you far away from all of that?

LEON PANETTA: We’re a long way from doing that, but if the world community understands the level of crisis that is here, just as I think the world community is beginning to recognize what’s happening with global warming and the fact that you can’t just walk away from that …

CAROL MARIN: So who kicks off the discussion? Is it President Bush here, is it the EU, is it the UN, where does it start?

LEON PANETTA: The answer’s yes. I think you’ve got to have everybody being able to move on this, because it is a crisis. And it demands the UN, it demands world leaders, it demands that when the world community meets — whether it’s in Africa or South America — and talks about environmental challenges, that they include our fisheries, they include our oceans as part of that discussion.

You’ve got to ensure that. The President of the United States, very frankly, has a responsibility to provide leadership here. And it seems to me, as I’ve said, that this is a wonderful issue to be able to say, “We’re going to set an example of how we protect our oceans, so that we can take that position to the rest of the world community and say, ‘Yes, it can be done.’” Australia’s doing this, they’ve got a wonderful fisheries policy; other nations are beginning to implement strong fisheries policies; there’s no reason why the United States can’t do the same.

CAROL MARIN: Talk to me about squid.

LEON PANETTA: Well, I think one of the concerns that scientists have today is that we’re essentially what they call “fishing to the bottom,” which means that we’re — you know, 90 percent of the large fish are now gone, we’re now fishing at this level and we’re continuing to work our way down the food chain in our oceans. And so at some point we’ll reach plankton, and by that time there won’t be anything left. It happened with squid. When I was a kid in Monterey, squid was basically a bait that was used to go out and catch other fish. And there were a few families that ate it, but not that much.

CAROL MARIN: It was the worm on the hook.

LEON PANETTA: Exactly, it was the equivalent of the worm on a hook. We all used to remember as a kid going out on the wharf, basically my grandfather would buy some squid, and it was cheap, it was very inexpensive, and you’d use it as bait. Today squid is a delicacy in the restaurants in Monterey. And they basically, you know, they flatten it and fry it or whatever and cook it the same way they used to cook abalone, which is now gone largely because of its loss. And so what’s happening is we’re eating our way down the food chain.

CAROL MARIN: Last weekend I went to the grocery store and I bought swordfish. And there was a lot of it; there was no sign to me that we were running out of swordfish, or that 90 percent of the swordfish was gone. So what’s my job in this?

LEON PANETTA: Well, you do have a job in this, and that’s part of the education process that has to take place. I serve on the board of the Monterey Aquarium. One of the things they’re implementing is a little card that basically is being distributed that says, “These are the fish you ought to avoid when you go into a restaurant. These are the fish that you ought to be able to order, because they’re plentiful and they’re not in any way endangered.” And we need to educate people.

There are chefs now that, in restaurants, who are actually saying to their customers, “I am someone who is abiding by these standards. I’m not going to serve you a fish, whether it’s swordfish or whether it’s other fish, that are endangered. I’m not going to serve that.” And what you have to do is essentially develop a culture, very much the way when we used to throw our garbage all in one can, I mean, that’s something we were used to doing. But we’ve now learned to divide paper from bottles and other things. And we’ve learned that and we’re doing a better job at that. I think you’ve got to educate people that they have a role to play in this as well.

CAROL MARIN: Tell me what fish I’m not buying this weekend.

LEON PANETTA: Well, there are a lot of endangered species that are out there. And swordfish from some areas is at the top of that list. There are some halibut species that are also on that list. And there are obviously some shrimp species that are also on that list.

So you really need to look at that kind of information, as does the rest of the public, and then make their decisions accordingly. We’ve all got a role to play in this. This isn’t just the policy makers, it’s also every family [that], in their own way, has to help in dealing with this crisis.

CAROL MARIN: And so since you’ve been doing this, and passionately doing this, are there a lot of species of fish you’re not eating?

LEON PANETTA: There are, absolutely. There are species that I wish I could order when I go to a restaurant or go to a fish market. And I know that I’ve got to stay away from it, because I’ve got to play my own role in terms of ensuring that it’s done. And you know what? It has an impact. It’s amazing, when one restaurant does it, and they advertise it, other restaurants understand that they’ve got to do the same thing. When one fish market starts to do it, and labels that they don’t carry those kinds of endangered species, then others have to do it as well. It becomes the economic club to doing the right thing.

CAROL MARIN: And another pressure point for politicians and governments and commercial businesses.

LEON PANETTA: Exactly, exactly.

CAROL MARIN: Sort of a variation on “You are what you eat.”

LEON PANETTA: That’s very true, we all are and, very frankly, people in their own behavior have to reflect the concern that we talked about because if they don’t, I mean, if they just simply buy whatever’s available and don’t pay attention to their own habits here, then ultimately it sends a message that it doesn’t make any real difference.

CAROL MARIN: You live in a world and are skilled in a world where diplomacy is the operative term, and you negotiate and you compromise. But let’s just argue, for the sake of argument, that won’t work here. Do you take it to the next level in this emergency and start thinking about boycotts, about radical social solutions to get the world’s attention?

LEON PANETTA: My hope in politics is that you never have to reach that point where people have to take to the streets to make you understand that there’s a crisis. I mean, in many ways, it’s too late when that happens. It’s too late in the sense that the crisis may be so large that you may have a tough time getting your hands around it. I think that right now, if we continue through the whole process of educating the American public and the world community as to this crisis, that ultimately it will have a real impact.

There are children now, for example, who are learning about our oceans. I mean, when they go into the Monterey Bay Aquarium, for example, they’re taught this is what the ocean is about, these are the species that are in trouble. And pretty soon these children begin to go home and say to their parents, “You know, I learned that there are fisheries that are in trouble.” And their parents then start to pay attention. I mean, we have got to make this part of the education process, not only here but in the world. And if we do that, I think ultimately we’ll win this battle.

CAROL MARIN: Because it’s on a kid level. I mean, what you’re really arguing for is, talk to the kids, take it to the grocery store, take it to almost to the lowest common denominator of discussion rather than start at the policy end. And, I mean, you almost have to start at both ends.

LEON PANETTA: You have to start at both ends. The best of all worlds is to have the kind of leadership that is willing to educate the people as to why this has to be dealt with. Because they have the bully pulpit, and they’re the loudest voice that can be heard. But the best of all worlds is to ensure that what’s happening at the grassroots, what’s happening in families, what’s happening in fish markets, what’s happening in restaurants, that all of that is working in tandem with the leadership in this country, and we’re all walking in the same direction.

CAROL MARIN: You’ve talked a lot about leadership. Is it fair to say that you are angry about the lack of leadership?

LEON PANETTA: Yes, I am angry because I see it with other issues as well. When you see a problem, you see a crisis, you see this country — or the world, for that matter — is heading for a cliff, I mean, you’re saying, “Well, wait a minute — we’ve got to change.” We can’t just simply keep walking towards that cliff. We can’t pretend that that cliff isn’t there. We can’t just say, “Don’t worry about it today.”

So yeah, I’m angry, because I really do think this is about the future. Look, I was able as a child to enjoy being able to see the fishing industry, being able to see fishermen and the canneries, and it was a great way of life. I would have loved for my children to have been able to enjoy that same experience. And I guess what I’m saying is, if we want our children to enjoy the ocean and its resources the same way we can enjoy them, then we’re going to have to act now.

CAROL MARIN: Who are the objects of your anger, though? Is it George Bush, is it Kofi Annan, is it the leaders of the EU? I mean, are there names to be named here?

LEON PANETTA: I think leadership at every level bears some responsibility for what’s happening. And it’s not only the leadership, it’s also leadership even at the local level that has to deal with a lot of these issues. All of us, I think it can be said, bear some responsibility when this kind of crisis develops. And all of us bear the responsibility to deal with it and fix it for the future.

CAROL MARIN: If you were to grade the oceans right now, on an A to F scale, what’s the grade?

LEON PANETTA: I think the grade is D. And I think if you ask that family in the film how they would grade it, they would probably give it an F. And so it tells you a lot about the state of our oceans.

CAROL MARIN: What’s the basis of that grade?

LEON PANETTA: I think the fact that — I mean, here is a family that had a livelihood, that no longer has that livelihood. You can’t tell me that it isn’t an F as far as they’re concerned.

CAROL MARIN: Leon Panetta, thank you very much for joining us on WIDE ANGLE.

LEON PANETTA: Thank you.

Carol Marin: Ambassador Grossman, welcome to WIDE ANGLE.

Marc Grossman: Thank you very much.

Carol Marin: Maria Cristina, what do you think her odds are of winning and more than that surviving?

Marc Grossman: Well, first of all, let me say that I thought that the pictures and the story that you have about Maria Cristina are just absolutely gripping. And they are exactly the reason that we want to help in Colombia. And I think her chances of succeeding are good because there’s a new feeling in Colombia about the issues that she cares about. There’s a lot of backing from the United States. And so we support what she’s doing. We support what Colombians are doing and as I say, my hats off to her. What a courageous story you have here.

Carol Marin: So our tax dollars are going into Colombia, and some of them are going her way for her program.

Marc Grossman: Oh, absolutely. We spend a lot of tax dollars in Colombia. You have to remember Colombia’s a country that’s two and a half times the size of California, 45 million people. It’s a very important country to the United States. We spend a lot of money there, and we spend money all across the board. We spend it on human rights; we spend it on the rule of law; we spend it on protecting people like the people you saw in your film; and we also spend it to support the fight against narco-terrorism.

Carol Marin: We spend ten million dollars a week in Colombia. It’s fifth behind Israel and Egypt and Iraq and Afghanistan. What is it about this country that makes it so important to us?

Marc Grossman: Well, again, like as I say, Colombia is a huge country, 44 million people. They’re one of the oldest democracies in our hemisphere, and you have people in Colombia who are fighting for democracy. What are they fighting? They’re fighting narco-terrorism. They’re fighting kidnapping. They’re fighting murders. They’re fighting all of the things that we really see in this world that ought to be combated, and we try and help them do that.

Carol Marin: But, at the base of that, some people would argue when you use the term narco-terrorism, it’s an easier sell than if you said we’re fighting poverty. We’re fighting a class war in which there are very few rich elite and very many poor peasants. Are we at the base of this, actually though, engaged in trying to reverse a class war?

Marc Grossman: No, I think what we’re trying to do is allow Colombians to make choices about their own lives. And, if you look at the past two or three years since President Uribe has been in and what has happened? More Colombian military forces, many more tax dollars now come from Colombians than they did two years ago. They’re making a much larger contribution to this fight than they were in the past. And also I think it’s really worth noting that among the things that are important to us in Colombia as they’re important to Colombians is the amount of narcotics that come from Colombia. Ninety percent of the cocaine, 50 percent of the heroin coming into the United States are either grown, processed, or passed through Colombia. It’s a very important thing for us and so when you say, what are we doing there, we’re trying there to have Colombians make a possibility of their own choices — to have a democracy

Carol Marin: And, yet when you say more and more tax money is being collected, the question might be compared to what. One study that I looked at said that of the tax dollars being spent only about 780,000 of the rich actually pay taxes against millions and millions who pay nothing at all. So is it not a failed state?

Marc Grossman: Well, I don’t think it’s a failed state. And one of the things I think is very important for you to do and for our viewers to do is to recognize that we’re on a path here. Nobody said — I certainly wouldn’t say — that everything is perfect in Colombia. There’s a lot more to do in terms of defeating narco-terrorism. There’s much more to do in terms of human rights. There’s more to do in terms of the economy. Again if you compare where we are today to where we were three or four years ago, I think there’s a lot of progress and, in particular, on the contributions that Colombians themselves make to this war. One of the very first things that President Uribe did was he added a billion dollars in taxes on the wealthiest so that they make a contribution as well. More to do? Absolutely, but would I trade where I am today for where we were four or five years ago? Not a chance.

Carol Marin: Would you disagree then with the UN official who recently said, “Colombia is by far the biggest humanitarian catastrophe in the Western Hemisphere”?

Marc Grossman: I think to say it’s a catastrophe looks away from all the things that have been accomplished. Again, I want to be very clear here that I don’t say everything in Colombia is as Colombians want it or as we would want it. I don’t think they are as President Uribe would want it. But, again, if you look at the numbers: the number of kidnappings — down; the number of murders — down; the number of terrorist attacks — down. The number of internally displaced people — which was a huge number — is 50,000 people lower than it was a year ago. I think all of those are indicators that we’re on a path to making some progress.

Carol Marin: One of the other things that was said not very long ago was a statement by the U.S. drug czar, John Walters. Just a couple of months ago, he surprised a lot of people when he said, of the $3.3 billion that we have thus far spent in the last four years in Colombia, we haven’t made a dent in the cocaine trafficking.

Marc Grossman: Well, I think what he was talking about — we’ve talked about this a lot — is we haven’t seen any lowering in price here in the United States. And cocaine trafficking and cocaine production in Colombia is still a big problem. But, if you look at, again, the numbers, the number of hectares or acres that we’ve been able to take out of production in Colombia, that’s a number that has gone down 20, 21 percent each year over the past couple of years. So it’s something we have to keep at. One of the things [that most] interested me in the program and in the interview with Maria Cristina was when she says, “What about demand?” I think that’s a very important thing. One of the ways we have always started our conversations with Colombians is in recognizing that this demand is in the United States. And, so, money that has to be spent by Americans has to also be spent to deal with demand in our own country.

Carol Marin: It’s a little bit like asking whose drug problem is this, right?

Marc Grossman: It’s everybody’s drug problem.

Carol Marin: Because our demand is fueling –

Marc Grossman: Absolutely.

Carol Marin: — and stoking their supply.

Marc Grossman: Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, that’s why of the total amount of drug money in the United States, about 45 percent of it is spent here on demand reduction.

Carol Marin: Given the fact that people can get drugs from so many other parts of the world, how much sense does it make to focus so strongly on Colombia when Afghanistan is producing heroin at a record rate now. Peru is picking up some of the cocaine slack. What makes our policy so sensible, therefore?

Marc Grossman: Well, I don’t think you can look at this in terms of the drug war in the world and say we have a choice. I mean, we have to do a lot in Afghanistan because as you say, it is now and going to be a drug-producing country for a very long time. We’re making a huge effort there. The British in fact, have the lead in Afghanistan to do something about narcotics, but we’re supporting them 100 percent. And then you look at Colombia, and Colombia is sort of the key to all of this. It’s the pin in all of this. And when you say, for example, Peru, Bolivia — one of the things we’ve tried to make sure over the past two or three years is that the money that we spend isn’t just on Colombia because you don’t want to solve that problem in Colombia and then have that problem appear in Bolivia or in Peru. And so we have not just Colombia money that we’re spending, but what we call the Andean Regional Initiative. And it’s very interesting to me because I was worried that we’d make progress in Colombia and what they call the balloon effect would happen either in Peru or Bolivia. But over the last two years that’s not what happened — two years ago 8 percent reduction in cultivation in Peru and Bolivia, and 16 percent this last year. So, so far we haven’t seen the balloon effect.

Carol Marin: Though some critics will give you a fight on that, won’t they? The belief that, in fact, the way you produce cocaine varies. It gets smarter. The science gets better. You can produce less at a higher quality. So, you don’t quite need the quantity. There are some who believe, in fact, that Bolivia is producing more because Colombia is eradicating some. So, does everyone agree on this?

Marc Grossman: I don’t know if everyone agrees. All I can tell you is that the numbers that we have and what it is that we see. And, when we see first an 8 percent reduction and then a 16 percent reduction, we think we’re on the right path. And, again, eradication is not the full answer to this question. I mean, you talked earlier in your questions about poverty. And, it’s not just about eradication. It’s also about alternative development. And, it’s about the fact that we’re trying to give people — and the Colombian government, the Peruvian government, and the Bolivian government — an alternative because you can’t just go in and spray. And, then say to people, “Well, good luck.”

Carol Marin: What are you going to eat tomorrow?

Marc Grossman: You’re exactly right. But that’s why we have 50, 60 thousand acres now that used to be under the cultivation for cocaine that is now in lots of different kinds of crops.

Carol Marin: But, if you look at the breakdown, it seems by at least one analysis, that 79 percent of U.S. money is going to police and military kinds of actions. And, only about 7 percent deals with the sort of cultivation alternatives, and about 14 percent in humanitarian aid. So, how great is our emphasis on creating an economic alternative?

Marc Grossman: Well, I think it’s very large. I mean of the 500 to 400 million dollars that we spend, a lot of that money goes to alternative cultivation, as we were talking about before, human rights, justice, houses, all the kinds of things that we’re doing to try to make Colombia a democratic society. But no question — we spend a lot of money supporting the Colombian police and the Colombian military because at base if there’s no security in Colombia, if narco-terrorism wins in Colombia, then all the rest of that money and all the rest of those objectives really go by the wayside. The other really important thing is that it isn’t just about the money that we spend. One of the most important things we do in Colombia is what’s called the Andean Trade Preferences Act. That’s not aid, that’s trade. That’s offering more goods produced in Colombia to come into the United States. And, in the cut flower industry and in many other industries now, people are employed. And, when they’re employed they don’t have to look to narco-terrorism as an alternative.

Carol Marin: You know that part in the film when Maria Cristina says, “I don’t want any leaks here,” and, you see the faces around the table. And, I don’t know any of those individuals but I did have to wonder — which of them honestly was going to abide by that. And, it turns out someone didn’t. Talk to me a little bit about corruption within the Uribe government.

Marc Grossman: Well, I think there’s a lot of corruption in society in Colombia. It’s one of the things that President Uribe and his most senior advisors have had to work against. And, it goes back to this question of whose drug problem is it? Because, again, demand for drugs around the world corrupts societies. And, one of the reasons that we got to keep working in Colombia is that we own some of the moral responsibilities here. But corruption is a problem. Corruption’s a problem I think everywhere in the hemisphere.

Carol Marin: Given our great concern and our huge investment in Colombia, it was in 2003 that, for the very first time, we committed troops. And, we did so because we were protecting an oil pipeline. Is oil a principal interest of ours in Colombia?

Marc Grossman: Well no, I think to be fair, we did not commit troops to protect an oil pipeline. What we did was after the 11th of September we went to Congress and we said to Congress, do you think that we ought to expand what we’re doing in Colombia in terms of training and, should we not spend some time and some effort training a Colombian brigade to protect the Caño-Limon pipeline. And after extensive consultation with Congress, Congress did give us that additional flexibility.

We spent about $100 million to train this unit, which is by the way, vetted through the human rights process so all the people in that are people known to us and are vetted. And so, our forces there did not get committed in terms of combat or did not get committed in any other way but to the training of that brigade. And, so far that brigade has produced a lot of results.

Carol Marin: At the same time, when you say oil, you bring in a level of cynicism of what our real interest in Colombia is. If you took away the drugs –

Marc Grossman: Uh-huh

Marc Grossman: Well, I think so. And, of course, you can’t take away the drugs, and you can’t take away the oil. Drugs exist and the oil exists. And, Colombia is I think our seventh or eight largest seller of oil to the United States. And one of the interesting things that seems to me that’s happened is since we trained this unit and the numbers of attacks on that pipeline have gone way down, what do you know, another 350, 400 million dollars worth of tax revenue that comes from the oil goes into the Colombian government’s accounts. What do they use that on? Well, they use it on education and they use it on security. And we’ve also asked — and the Colombians have asked — Occidental Petroleum, which runs that pipeline, to make big investments in the neighborhood so the people can also participate in economic growth. So it’s all part of a whole. And one of the things I think when people look at the Colombia project that we have, or our Colombian policy, they want to take this piece or this piece, or this piece. And in fact, we are trying to run a policy that’s very well unified. You’ve got to fight the drugs to work on democracy. There’s no success in Colombia unless there’s real democracy and human rights. There’s no democracy and human rights unless there’s a really successful economy. So all these things are related and that’s why we try to run our Colombian policy in a unified fashion.

Carol Marin: Depending upon whose estimate you subscribe to, there are those that believe that up to 80 percent of the country is really run by either leftist guerrillas or rightist paramilitary, and not by the government itself. Is that in fact the case?

Marc Grossman: Well, two years ago or three years ago when President Uribe came to office, the numbers I think are exactly right. There are 1,098 counties in Colombia and, at the time, about 200 of those didn’t have a police station, hadn’t seen a police station in years. And one of the things that President Uribe has done is say, we’ve got to expand and put out the writ of the Colombian government all around Colombia. Today, these years later, all of these counties now have police stations and all of them have a government presence. So I think there’s more and more government presence every day in Colombia. For example, four years ago, the FARC, one of these narco-terrorist groups…

Carol Marin: The leftist guerillas.

Marc Grossman: Whatever they are. One of these narco-terrorist groups had a huge plot of Colombia that was theirs. One of the things that the former president did, I think very courageously, before the end of his term was, he said, that’s it — we’re not giving over our territory to these people anymore. So they got rid of that thing called the despeje. So more and more of Colombia is under Colombian government control and influence.

Carol Marin: At the same time, these things get complicated. As you know, in the United States we would like to extradite more and more people that we consider narco-terrorist or drug lords. At the same time, President Uribe is trying to negotiate a kind of amnesty. And part of the deal, at least for the paramilitary, is no extradition. So are we at loggerheads with Uribe about how to handle this?

Marc Grossman: No. Since President Uribe has come into office, he’s extradited about 120 people to the United States.

Carol Marin: But there are many more –

Marc Grossman: Absolutely.

Carol Marin: — that could go?

Marc Grossman: But if you look at the numbers before Uribe and now with President Uribe, that number has gone up a lot. So let’s give credit where credit is due. And yes, they’re in negotiations with the ELN. And I hope someday –

Carol Marin: Another leftist group.

Marc Grossman: Another leftist group. They are in negotiations with the AUC, the right-wing group. And I’d like to see these groups being taken off the battlefield. What we have said to President Uribe though is, those people who are indicted in the United States, for whom we have extradition requests, we’re going to stick with those extradition requests so please be clear about that.

Carol Marin: At some point do you ever say to yourself, who’s the enemy? Is it the left-wing guerillas, is it the right-wing paramilitary or people who are corrupt within the Uribe government? Who is the enemy in Colombia?

Marc Grossman: Well, the enemy in Colombia, for me anyway, this isn’t such a hard question. The enemy in Colombia is narco-terrorism. And you know the United States keeps a foreign terrorist organization list. The FARC, the ELN, and the AUC — all are designated foreign terrorist groups by the United States. So for us, it’s an equal opportunity deal here.

They’re all bad. They’re all terrorists. I believe they’re all involved in narco-terrorism. And the other enemy are those people who are the enemies of democracy who don’t want to see Colombia develop, who would like Colombia to still have corruption. And I think, all of those people, over time, will go by the wayside. But of all the problems I deal with, Colombia is one of those that actually has great clarity because, it’s no matter to me whether it’s the FARC, the ELN, or the AUC, they’re all the enemy of democracy in Colombia.

Carol Marin: That word ‘terrorist’ has taken on new meaning since September 11th. When we say it these days, we normally link it to an al-Qaeda connection. But in Colombia we’re really talking about domestic groups that grew out of some sort of revolution or sense of revolution or Marxism, or in the paramilitary case, defending drug lords who had the money. So is it proper to be talking about this in a terrorist context that we now use that term?

Marc Grossman: I think so. I think to say that terrorism only can be defined by people flying airplanes into buildings on the 11th of September excludes the recognition that in rest of the world, people have been fighting terrorism for years and years and years. I mean, in Colombia, the FARC holds three Americans. And they held Americans for over a year.

Carol Marin: Defense contractors.

Marc Grossman: It’s outrageous. And to me that’s terrorism. So I don’t have a problem considering them terrorists, and we were very quick to put these organizations on the foreign terrorist list.

Carol Marin: At the same time they hold, I think, for 2 1/2 years, Ms. Betancourt who was a presidential candidate in Colombia. There are what? 800 people being held hostage in that country?

Marc Grossman: Right.

Carol Marin: Right now.

Marc Grossman: It’s astonishing and even though I said earlier that the numbers of kidnappings were down, the number of people kidnapped and who are kidnapped is way too high. And one of the things I know our European friends a couple of years ago tried to tell the FARC and the ELN and the AUC is at a minimum, stop kidnapping people. There’s no moral base for this whatsoever. But, you know –

Carol Marin: But there’s a financial base. You kidnap them, you ransom them, you support your various interests. Correct?

Marc Grossman: That’s what I would call terrorism.

Carol Marin: Where do you see this ending? There’s one more year left in this particular program –

Marc Grossman: Yes.

Carol Marin: Vis-à-vis Colombia. Are we going to renew it? Do we have another 3.3 billion that we need to put in for another five years? Where does it end?

Marc Grossman: Well, I think I’d like to see it end when Colombians, as I say can make their own choices. And Colombians have defended their democracy. And Colombians don’t have to get up every morning like the person in your film worried about the FARC and the ELN and the AUC and when they can breathe a little bit more freely. To the extent we can help them do that, but this is a Colombian problem, not an American problem, but to the extent we can help them do that, I think we will continue. Obviously we will have to make decisions into the future about how to consolidate Plan Colombia, how to continue on with Plan Colombia. But, if I’m right, and all the reasons that I gave you about why Colombia is important to the United States, I can’t imagine that we would walk away from Colombia, especially at this time when, I think anyway, we’re on the verge of some serious success.

Carol Marin: At the same time, we’re over extended or very extended, depending upon how you look at it, in any number of other fronts right now. And in some ways, it goes back to the question, doesn’t it, have we abdicated our own responsibility and our supply issues, our demand issues? It is we who are buying those drugs. It’s we in this country who are consuming huge quantities of cocaine and heroin. Have we taken a look at ourselves closely enough?

Marc Grossman: Well, again, as I say, we always begin conversations with Colombians, either in public or in private, and the president always does by saying this drug problem is an American problem. We consume this poison and we consume this filth and so that’s why we have a moral connection to this. And I don’t know, maybe we haven’t looked at ourselves enough, but this is certainly, partially our responsibility. And that’s one of the reasons that we have a moral responsibility to Colombia.

When you talk about over extended though, I mean, one of the things we’ve tried to do in Colombia is kind of leverage our advantage and leverage our resources. Congress has said there’s only so many American military people can be in Colombia at one time. That’s fine with us. Because we’re not fighting. There are no Americans in combat in Colombia. We are training Colombians to take this job on for themselves.

Carol Marin: Is it harder to fight a war if you say, our real enemy is poverty, our real enemy is quality of life than it is to say, our real enemy is narco-terrorism? Is it a harder sell?

Marc Grossman: But I mean that’s not what we’re saying. What we’re saying is –

Carol Marin: And, you took away the oil, would we still care as much about Colombia? We would still invest as much in Colombia?

Carol Marin: No, but you know what I’m saying — in this war where we’re really talking about terrorism and we focus so hard on it, especially post-9-11.

Marc Grossman: Well, with respect though what we’ve done in Colombia is we’ve said, Colombia is a democracy. Colombians are fighting for their democracy. And they have to do that by having a functioning economy, exporting to the United States, having human rights, having democracy, and being able to defeat narco-terrorism. Again, I think you only fall into that trap if you will, when you divide this up, and I don’t want to be divided up.

We have a policy toward Colombia that’s connected. And it says, you’ve got to fight poverty to be successful, you have to have democracy to be successful, you have to have human rights to be successful, and you have to defeat narco-terrorism to be successful. It’s related. They’re not in separate pots.

Carol Marin: Do you think we try to make it too simple?

Marc Grossman: We?

Carol Marin: We. The media. Do you think in trying to discuss it we try to categorize it, and pigeon hole it more than it can be? Is that what you’re saying?

Marc Grossman: No, I don’t say that. I mean, for example, if you –

Carol Marin: It would be okay if you did.

Marc Grossman: No, but I mean, you watch the program that you’ve already produced. I mean, her challenge is not just to do one thing every today. Her challenge is to help President Uribe create all of these conditions for a democracy in Colombia.

Carol Marin: Do you feel, when you saw that film, that she was winning or she was hanging on?

Marc Grossman: Oh, I think she’s winning. Again it’s a hugely courageous story, and I have nothing but admiration for her. But again, you’d have to ask her. If you ask me, would I trade where we are today, for where we were five years ago in Colombia, I wouldn’t trade you for a moment. And so that leads me to believe that as hard as her life is, and as challenging as it is, and as dangerous as it is — which you all fairly point out — she is on the leading edge of the fight to really protect democracy in Colombia.

Carol Marin: What’s the report card on President Uribe. How is he doing?

Marc Grossman: I think President Uribe is doing very well. Again he has met a number of his obligations that seem to me that are most important. One that we were talking about before, he has levied more taxes on the rich in Colombia. He’s asked more people to serve in the Colombian military. He’s extended the authority of the Colombian government now to all of the counties in Colombia. And he’s done some very important things for us, too, which is he talks very clearly about human rights and that there is no acceptable link between people in government and the AUC. That was a debatable proposition for some time but he’s been very clear about this — that that relationship has to be broken.

Carol Marin: Are you confident that he has no connection to drug lords? There was a ‘91 report out of our own government that raised questions.

Marc Grossman: Yeah, I saw that. I don’t believe that.

Carol Marin: You think that he’s clean.

Marc Grossman: I do.

Carol Marin: He doesn’t have much longer unless they change the rules in Colombia and give him another term. Can he finish his work? Can you start again with a new person? If he has to leave do you have a new one in mind? I know it’s a democracy. But the United States does have a fair amount of influence.

Marc Grossman: No, but it’s not for me to choose how Colombians govern themselves. It’s not for me to choose who is the president. We will work with a government of Colombia. We’ll work with a democratic government in Colombia. Because just as you asked me; where does this all end, will we continue? This is a Colombian fight, and I can’t believe they’d want to give it up either.

Carol Marin: What frustrates you about our policy?

Marc Grossman: What frustrates me is what frustrates me about everywhere is that you want to go faster. You want to do better. You want to provide more for the United States and, therefore, for people who are fighting for democracy. So I come to work every day, and I just want to go faster and do more.

Carol Marin: You’ve traveled to Colombia how many times?

Marc Grossman: About six or seven times now in the past few years.

Carol Marin: And going back there in another couple of weeks?

Marc Grossman: Absolutely.

Carol Marin: When you go, what do you see? What kind of Colombia do we see through your lens?

Marc Grossman: Well, let me tell you one of the things that surprises me whenever I go to Colombia. And that is that each time when I visit Colombia, I always make time to meet with the human rights groups and the democracy groups and the church because I think it’s very important that we hear their voices as well.

And one of the most interesting things that I have found is that in every one of those meetings, what do you hear? You hear people say, ‘Stay engaged. It’s right for America to be here.’ And specifically they ask for more and more training of Colombian military forces. Because they know that the forces that we train understand human rights and understand democracy and understand their role in a democratic society. And I’ve been very interested over these six or seven times, and usually I see the same people, so I can judge what they are thinking and where they have come to. And not ever does anyone say, take your money, it’s wrong.

Carol Marin: Get out of town?

Marc Grossman: No, they want more. They want you to train more Colombian military units, to be involved more in their society. I think that’s a very interesting thing and something that always gives me a real cause for optimism.

Carol Marin: So when you’re there, through your eyes, what do you see as their greatest challenge?

Marc Grossman: Their greatest challenge is security. Their greatest challenge is to defeat narco-terrorism.

Carol Marin: Above and beyond the poverty issue? Security trumps economy?

Marc Grossman: Well, I think again, they’re all related. You won’t have real security until there is a functioning economy. And you won’t have a functioning economy until there’s real democracy in Colombia. Again, all these things are related. You can’t put them into kind of this silo and this silo and this silo. It won’t work.

Carol Marin: Suppose you eradicate all the drugs in Colombia, all the coca plants, all the opium poppies. Does the war end?

Marc Grossman: Well, I think the war would radically diminish because the FARC, the ELN, and the AUC are funded by narcotics. So what you have now are three kind of international narcotics conglomerates who spend their money on weapons. And so absolutely. One of the things we’d like to do is take the money out of their pockets. And if the money’s out of their pockets, they’d buy less guns, and they’d buy less mortars, and they can do less things. And as you see with the AUC, and I hope also with the ELN they’ve got to come and say alright, let’s talk.

Carol Marin: At the same time you still have a very tiny group of very rich and a very large group of very poor. Doesn’t that fuel the war too?

Marc Grossman: I don’t think so in this case. I don’t say that the FARC or the ELN or the AUC don’t take advantage of people who are outside of society. But I don’t think that the reason there is the FARC, the AUC and the ELN is because of that disparity. And one of the things that we’ve tried hard to work on is to create real economic development in Colombia and as I said to you in a previous question we’ve got the Andean Trade Preferences act, which has been a huge advantage to Colombians and we’re also trying to get more investment into Colombia from American sources. And I think you’ll see economic life there pick up. Again, the last couple of years, 3 percent growth, 3 1/2 percent growth. Colombia is coming back.

Carol Marin: How is that policy toward Colombia changed since 9-11?

Marc Grossman: I think the most important change since 9-11 has been our recognition that what we’re doing with is narco-terrorism and that we needed to expand our capacity in Colombia to defeat narco-terrorism. So what we did after 9-11 is we went to Congress and we said, would you give us some additional flexibility? Would you give us some more authority so that we can train a brigade to protect this Caño-Limon pipeline because that’s terrorism too. And Congress, I think, after September 11th felt that that was a good argument and a right argument. They gave us that flexibility, and I think we’ve succeeded there. So I think 9-11 sharpened the issue of Colombia. And it sharpened the issue so people aren’t whispering, it’s narco-terrorism. People now will say to you, it’s narco-terrorism.

Carol Marin: Is it our economic interest that we protect the most or theirs by our aid?

Marc Grossman: By our aid?

Carol Marin: Yes.

Marc Grossman: We’re protecting Colombian democracy, which is tied up with their economic interests. Again, I think it’s important not to put these things into silos.

Carol Marin: I don’t mean to pigeon hole it. But, at the same time, those are very real pressures. I mean, oil is in our economic interests. A healthy Colombia, you can argue, is in our economic interest. And so when we devise a strategy of foreign policy, aren’t we first looking at what’s in it for us, as well as what’s in it for them?

Marc Grossman: Well, our job is to look at it — my job anyway — from the American point of view. I’m spending American tax dollars. We have Americans there. We have Americans held hostage in Colombia. So we think about what is our responsibility. And our responsibility is to promote and protect the interests of the United States. And I believe that in this case, a successful Colombia — successful politically, economically, all of the ways we’ve talked about [such as] human rights, democracy — is profoundly in the interests of the United States.

Carol Marin: At the same time I think there are critics whom you have heard in the past and I have heard, who say that under the broad banner of terrorism we have a lot more latitude these days to do some of the military things we really want to do but couldn’t before. Is that possibly an outgrowth of 9-11? That terrorism and fighting terrorism gives us more latitude in what we do militarily there or in our military support there?

Marc Grossman: Well, that’s it. That’s exactly what happened. After 9-11 we went to Congress and we said, we need more flexibility.

Carol Marin: But I don’t mean to be argumentative here. But taking the eye off the economic ball a bit –

Marc Grossman: See, I disagree with you. You want to put me in a position that I can only do one thing at one time. And that’s not right. I can expand my training of Colombian military units to protect the Caño-Limon pipeline, and, at the same time, lobby Congress for an extension of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, and, at the same time, work to get Colombia into the World Trade Organization, and, at the same time, work to protect intellectual property rights for American friends in Colombia, and, at the same time, work on democracy and human rights. So we are capable of doing more than one thing at one time. That is what we are doing, and I would argue to you that if you only did one thing at one time you’d doom yourself to failure.

Carol Marin: Is Colombia a failed state?

Marc Grossman: No, Colombia is not a failed state. Colombia is a state that’s in a struggle for its democracy.

Carol Marin: Why do you think so many agencies, so many analysts still call it that?

Marc Grossman: I have no idea. You’d have to ask them. But what I see is, we had a presidential election, we had a peaceful transition to President Uribe. President Uribe has a 70, 75 percent approval rating. He’s done a lot of things here. And so what I see in Colombia is a society committing itself to defend itself. And I see a society that says; we want to live in a democracy. We don’t want to live in a society run by the FARC, the ELN, and the AUC. And we’re prepared to fight for it.

Carol Marin: That is an astonishing approval rate, isn’t it?

Marc Grossman: It is. I think people in Colombia know what the stakes are. And if their choice is I can live in a democracy or I can live in a society run by the FARC, the ELN, and the AUC –

Carol Marin: The leftists and the rightists.

Marc Grossman: — I choose democracy.

Carol Marin: What specifically is the U.S. doing exactly on behalf of economic development?

Marc Grossman: Well, again, I think the most important thing we’re doing is we are supporters of the Andean Trade Preferences Act.

Carol Marin: Would you decode that for me?

Marc Grossman: I’d be glad to. The Andean Trade Preferences Act allows certain sectors in Colombia, textile sector for example, the cut flowers sector in Colombia, to export goods into the United States at low or sometimes zero tariff rates so that they become more competitive. And they’re allowed to do more, make more economic development. I’ll give you an example. Twenty years ago, the cut flower industry in Colombia exported about 200, 250,000 dollars worth of flowers to the United States. That business is now a 600 million dollar a year business. And 80 percent of the people who work in the cut flower business in Colombia are rural women. And so we want Colombians in that sector and in other sectors to be able to sell their goods in the United States. We want you to buy these things so that they don’t have to go into the drug business to feed their families. So we have really focused on the Andean Trade Preferences Act. It was interesting, a couple of years ago, it lapsed for six or seven months while Congress had to renew it. And Colombian businesses and American businesses really hurt. And when we were able to get it renewed there was an immediate uptick in business between Colombia and the United States.

Carol Marin: At the same time, if I sold you a bunch of flowers or a bag of cocaine, the price differential would be pretty astonishing, right?

Marc Grossman: Well, that’s right. But that’s why we are also trying to get people out of the cocaine business because it isn’t just flowers. As I say, we have thousands and thousands of acres in Colombia now under alternative development.

They’re growing things that I hope people in the United States will buy someday, coffee for example. Colombian coffee is one of the great coffees in the world. I know Colombians are working to make sure more people who go to Starbucks or places like Starbucks buy Colombian coffee. And why not?

Carol Marin: You know that the eradication the U.S. is doing and helping doing has also eradicated some regular crops. There’s been some displacement of peasants and farmers. What do we do to solve that?

Marc Grossman: As soon as we hear about it, we pay. We pay people compensation. We move them. And we’ve gotten better and better at this over the years — the intelligence of where these things are, the maps, all these kinds of things. So again, four years ago we were perhaps doing more of this than we are today, but now, if we do make a mistake, we’re the first people to admit it and we pay compensation.

Carol Marin: In the United States do you think Colombia is really on anybody’s radar? I mean we see Afghanistan, we see Iraq. Do we, as Americans, see Colombia?

Marc Grossman: I don’t know. I hope that your program will help people do that. Cause again you have a very courageous person as the center of your film. Certainly where I sit, people are worried about Colombia and think about Colombia. In Congress, we have many, many supporters in the Congress for our policy toward Colombia. And I think there are a lot of people. There are a lot of people who see Colombia and I hope more of them will.

Carol Marin: Ambassador Grossman, thank you very much for being with us on WIDE ANGLE.

Marc Grossman: Thank you very much for the chance.

]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/an-honest-citizen/interview-marc-grossman/517/feed/ 0