 I'm Tom Jelton, correspondent for NPR News and welcome to the Wilson Center. I'm not at all surprised to see this full house. This is, we're very fortunate to have President Juan Manuel Santos here with us today. I believe this is President Santos' first public stop on his trip to the United States. Let me begin by thanking the organizations that have made this event possible or are sponsoring this event. We have the Wilson Center, our host today. Also the America Society and Council of the Americas, the Atlantic Council, the Inter-American Dialogue and the U.S. Institute of Peace. A couple of brief announcements, I think you would all appreciate if you and your fellow attendees today silenced your cell phone so we don't get interrupted by that. Also we may have a couple of minutes, probably not much more than that, at the end of this event for questions from the audience. You will have some cards. I think some cards will be passed out and you can write your questions on those cards. In the interest of brevity, because we want to leave as much time as possible for this, I'm going to keep my introduction of President Santos very brief. You know he comes from an esteemed Colombian family whose service to their nation extends back more than a hundred years and distinguished not only in politics but also in journalism. The Santos family was responsible for many years for the famous and courageous Bogota newspaper El Tiempo. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. President, you were a reporter there at one time, right? Absolutely. Yes. And then after that, Mr. Santos served as government minister under three Colombian presidents, President Gaviria, President Pastrana, and finally Defense Minister under President Uribe at a time when the Colombian government made major gains combating some of the guerrilla forces that had been fighting in Colombia for more than 50 years. And he is now overseeing the implementation of a process of reconciliation that could bring peace to Colombia for the first time in more than a half century and he will be discussing that with us today. So it's my pleasure to introduce the President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos. Thank you. Thank you. So let's speak from here or from the podium? As you please. Let's make it more informal. Makes it more informal. Exactly. Well, I'll skip the protocol. Thank you all. I salute you, all of you, and thank you for attending this event, which I appreciate very much. I see a lot of old friends from both sides of the aisle, as they say. And I'm very happy to be here and especially happy for the reason why I'm here. I come here to say thank you. Thank you to the American people. Thank you to the American government for what you have done helping us go through a very difficult time in Colombia and to share with you how we see the future. And I think we can start there. Going back 50 years, as was mentioned, we've been at war in Colombia, at war with a guerrilla that has been present in the Colombian reality with their political objectives, their military objectives. And 15 years ago, we didn't know if we were going to win the war or if we were going to lose it. 15 years ago, when Plan Colombia was launched, Colombia was on the verge of being declared a failed state. One third of the territory was in the hands of the guerrillas. Another third was in the hands of the paramilitaries. And the last third was in the hands of the state, and the state was in a defensive situation. We were going through the worst economic recession in the last 18, 90 years. And that's when Colombia was seeking the help of a friend. And that's when the United States gave us this hand. And Plan Colombia was launched. President Clinton went to Cartagena. I was present because at that time I was Minister of Finance. He went with a bipartisan delegation. Speaker was Speaker Hastrick, Republican side. And President Clinton said, we are investing a lot of political capital, both Republicans and Democrats. In Plan Colombia, you must make this work. And the Colombian government said, we will do our best. We need your help, but we know it's our own effort, which is going to be determined. And that was 15 years ago. Today you can see how things have changed for the good. Today we are in economic terms, the leaders in Latin America in economic growth, in creation of employment. We are the leaders in the reduction of poverty, strengthening our middle class. And we're going through a difficult time because of the international situation, the situation in the region economically, which is not good. You've seen how the price of oil has dropped from more than $100 to around $30. This has hit us very hard. We used to depend around 20 percent of our revenue, government revenue, on oil and what oil represented. And today, for this year, we have calculated zero. You can imagine to adjust in a couple of years from 20 percent to zero, only from the oil revenue. We need some very strong and bold measures, but that's what we've done. And we've done that because we think that the economy must be administered with pragmatism but also with intelligence and always knowing where you want to go. And this has been a constant in Colombian history. The macroeconomic management of Colombia has been quite responsible. We are probably the country with the least volatility in the whole of Latin America throughout the last 100 years. We have been prudent and this government has made a big effort in trying to send the correct signals because I have a theory that has been already put in place in our constitution that economic crisis, if the art of government is the art, there are many definitions, the art of protecting the rights of the citizens, the fundamental rights. Economic crises go against the protection of these rights. When you have an economic crisis, you have to restrict your budgets in health, in education, in justice, in security. And so having a good economic situation, a manageable economic situation is also a necessary condition to comply with your obligation to protect the rights of the citizens. And that's why the first amendment that I proposed to Congress when I was elected was reforming the constitution, putting fiscal responsibility as a fundamental right. Right in the same level as education, as health, as the fundamental rights of any constitution. And this has been in a way a principle that has guided our economic management in the last years. And that's why we have been able to adopt to this new situation with relatively good results. We are still leaders in economic growth. We are going to be the country that compared to the rest of Latin America, the IMF has just given their reports on what they think the growth of Latin America is going to be last year or this year, around minus 0.203, Colombia is going to grow above 3% last year, number one. This year we're going to repeat. Why? Because we have adjusted, you know, what we call intelligent austerity way. We want to keep the economy growing, but at the same time try to maintain fiscal discipline. We are even obliged by law because we had Congress approve a law that obliges the government to maintain a fiscal path. You cannot spend more than X% of your revenues, and if you do spend it one year you have to readjust the next. And this has given the international markets great confidence in Colombia. And confidence in economies is fundamental for you to be able to have a long-term future. And so that's the way we have been sort of administering the storm, the economic storm that Latin America is going through, the world is going through, and Colombia. But we, I think, know exactly what you have to do. We have to adjust more. We adjust more, but always take into account the most vulnerable sectors of society. Those are the ones that generally suffer the most in any economic crisis. And trying to do a pragmatic, counter-psychical approach. And fortunately, this has worked very well. We have, we're making the biggest investments in infrastructure in our history. Probably it's the biggest investment in infrastructure that any emerging country is doing today in the world. You're going to see how roads and airports and ports are really modernizing Colombia. Construction, the housing, housing, we have proved that this is a great multiplier of the economic demand in the last, in the first four years of our government. We made a very aggressive policy of housing, especially for the poorest. We're repeating that because still the demand is big. And so we have managed to, in with our fiscal restraints, focus the scarce resources we have in those areas that have the biggest economic and social impact. And so we still are creating employment, 45 months in a row where unemployment is going down. We have created almost four million jobs, more than about 80% formal jobs, which did not happen before. And with a social emphasis, so that's why poverty has gone down more than ever before, and we tried to maintain that. Now, this, in parallel, what we're doing with Peace Plus, 15 years ago, as I said, we were on the verge of being declared a failed state. Plan Colombia helped us tremendously, not in terms of the resources, which are not as big as people think, it's about $10 billion in the whole 15 years. We have financed roughly 90, 394% of what has cost. But the quality of the Plan Colombia has been extremely, extremely useful. Trading our troops, intelligence, and not only the military and security side, also the strengthening of our institutions, the justice system, and the social development, the rural development aspect of Plan Colombia. This comprehensive approach has worked tremendously. And we started to develop a military strategy that would take us to a negotiating table. Why had we failed before? Many attempts of trying to reach peace with the FARC failed. Well, first of all, because they thought they were going to win. The military correlation of forces was in their favor. This we changed by strengthening our military, and their Plan Colombia helped a lot, by strengthening certain type of operations. The air, helicopters, we have the second largest fleet of Black Hawk helicopters in the world. They helped a lot. Special forces, elite forces, I'm sorry to say that we beat the United States in the last competition of special forces back in Guatemala. We became, that demonstrates that the United States are very good teachers. The students become better than the teachers. And intelligence. Intelligence has been absolutely crucial. And I was appointed Minister of Defense. We overhauled and re-engineered the whole intelligence system. We used to have a system very much like the American system where the intelligence agencies compete among themselves. The British told me, in your case, you better do the British way, put all the intelligence together, share information. That made a tremendous, tremendous difference. And we started being very successful in hitting the high value targets during the last years, seven, eight years, and especially during this government. Now, I was thinking about peace a long time ago. No country can last all its life in war. So we started to prepare for a peace process, trying to bring the conditions that would be necessary for a successful peace process, and planning very carefully, studying other processes. The IRA process, the South African process, the Angolan process, the Sri Lanka process. What worked there? What worked in the Salvador, what worked in Guatemala, and what did not work? Learning from those lessons. And we got together a group of advisors. I chose them deliberately that they would be persons who had real experience in these type of negotiations. Somebody from Israel, former minister of foreign affairs, very active in the Come David peace process, the right hand man of Tony Blair, very active in the IRA process, Joaquin Villalobos, commander of the Salvadorian forces, today professor of Oxford, chief negotiator in the Salvadorian process. Persons of that sort. Even a professor of Harvard, William Uri, great professor of negotiations. And they have been helping us plan every step since the very beginning. And when I got elected, and we said now the conditions are necessary, the conditions that were necessary are now present, a correlation of military forces in our favor, the commanders of the guerrillas learned the hard way that it's better to negotiate otherwise they will end up in a jail or in a grave. And we start hitting them one after the other because of the intelligence changes, because of the operational changes. And there was a third factor which is necessary in today's world to solve a asymmetrical war as the one we have had in Colombia, the region. If your neighbors are helping the guerrillas, it's almost impossible to have a successful peace process. And I, in a way, used American pragmatism in diplomacy and reached out to my neighbors with whom we had a very bad relation, Venezuela, Ecuador, even Brazil, that helped me with the peace process. They all complied. And that was another factor, another condition that then became present. So these conditions now were now present, so I started the process. We planned, well analyzed, and we are today on the verge of signing a peace agreement. Five years ago, if you would go to a betting office here in the UK where they're so popular, what were the odds of reaching peace? Very, very small. But we are now, I think, in an irreversible moment. It has been tough, it has been difficult, it has been costly politically. They warned me, listen, you got elected president because you were the most popular minister. Why were you the most popular minister? Because you showed trophies every day. You were very successful as a minister of defense. And making war, especially if you're winning, makes you popular. Peace is much more difficult. So simply by sitting down with your enemy, that will bring you a political cost. But when you start talking about concessions to the enemy, then you will incur in a much higher cost. And that has been what has happened. But at the end, if you reach the goal, the cost becomes an investment, I hope so. And the result will be very positive. Now, I truly believe that this was the way to go, negotiating from a strong position and negotiating a very reasonable agreement. Some people are accusing me, oh, you're giving away the country. And I said, what is it that I'm giving away? These people are laying down their arms. I have some red lines that I have been establishing since the very beginning. I'm not going to negotiate anything that has to do with our political or democratic institutions, our economic policies, our investment policies, our tax policies. Private property is not an issue that can be even addressed, not even our military or police, which is one of the things, the items in any agenda of the resolution of a conflict like the Colombian that is put in the agenda that happened in Salvador, that happened in Guatemala, what is it that you're going to do with your armed forces? I said, this issue is not being discussed. I will not discuss the future of my military or my police or my armed forces with guerrillas. Simply, I will not discuss it. I have not discussed it, and I will not discuss it. So we had very clear what the items of the agenda and the items of the agenda reduced simply to a transition of a guerrilla group, an armed guerrilla group, towards a political party. They lay down their arms, and you go through a transitional justice that guarantees that there will be no impunity. And this is the first time ever that a guerrilla group accepts going through a justice system, never before. And at the beginning of the negotiations, the first thing they said, why should we be the first guerrilla group to give up our arms and go through a justice system and be condemned? What I said, it's a different world. You cannot have the amnesty that other guerrilla groups had. It's a different world, and these are the conditions. And after very hard negotiations, we were able to reach an agreement on a judicial system, special system, whereby the most responsible will be investigated, will be judged, will be condemned, and will pay the sanctions. Never before has this been done. It's the first time that the two parties in a war negotiate the system. Usually it's imposed by the United Nations or by a third party. This time, it's the first time it's negotiated. And that will guarantee that this is peace with no impunity. There has been questions of how much justice are we sacrificing? This is always the most difficult question in any negotiation of this sort. Where do you draw the line between peace and justice? And you will always find people that are not satisfied with whatever decision you take. Some people want more justice, others want more peace. The important thing here is that we put for the first time ever the victims, never before in any conflict resolution, anywhere in the world, have the victims of the conflict were put in the center of the solution. Their rights, their rights to the truth, their rights to reparation, their rights to justice, and the rights of non-repetition. And we put the victims there. I thought in the beginning that the victims were going to be the most troublesome in terms of where you draw the line between peace and justice. It's a logical conclusion. The victims are the ones who suffered. They want more justice. Well, I learned a lesson, a very important lesson. I was wrong. The victims are the most prone to forgive, to reconcile. They don't want others to suffer what they suffered. For me, it has been a lesson in my life. And the fact of putting the victims in the center of the solution has been an incredibly important, very difficult, but important aspect of this peace process. Because that gives the process a lot of legitimacy, tremendous legitimacy, taking into account the aspirations, the suffering, and the thinking of the victims. We have more than 7.5 million victims, 7.5 million. And they are feeling recognized, which gives the process a lot of legitimacy. We went through the negotiations, rule development. This is the first item. Why did I accept discussing this with the FARC? Because this is a conflict that emerged in the rural areas. That's where poverty is concentrated. And we need, we want to be a sustainable, modern, strong democracy. In the future, we need to address the rural areas. We need to invest in the rural areas. And that's what these people also wanted. It was very easy. The first item that we negotiated was that. It's the only matter of policy that we negotiated. The second item of the agenda is political participation. What are we negotiating? What every democracy discusses every day? You're having this discussion here right now in your elections, and in France, and in Israel, whatever you go. How do you improve your democracy with the new conditions that emerge before you didn't have cell phones, the social networks? How do you incorporate that in your democracy? Your democracy is a process. It's never a perfect process, as Churchill used to say, but you need always to improve it. We're improving our democracy. We're giving people that did not have representation a say in our democracy. The third item is drug trafficking. I put that as a condition. This is a major aspect. The FARC has been labeled as the biggest drug cartel in the world. They recognize that they have financed their operations through drug traffic, but they're not drug traffickers. So I say, OK, then commit yourself to break every link that you have with the drug trafficking and help us get rid of this scourge from the Colombian territory. And they agreed. And this is a major, major step forward in the world on drugs, not only in Colombia, but for the world, because we are still the number one provider of cocaine to the international markets. So this is a major step. Now, instead of our policemen and our military going to eradicate and they find landmines and they were blown up or snipers shooting them like ducks, now we're going to have the FARC helping the state in this alternative crops that we need to plant instead of the coke. So this is a major step. The fourth was the victims, the rights, justice. And the fifth, what we're negotiating right now, is what you call the DDR, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration to society. We hope to finish soon. And then we will have peace. And this is going to open a new opportunity for Colombia. Colombia is a country that got accustomed to war. You ask people, hey, what do you think of peace? And they are afraid. I got peace. It's a major change. Most of the Colombians have never seen one single day of peace. And they're afraid of change. They think the peace might be bad. It's what happens to a prisoner who is in jail for 40 years and saying, you're going to be free. He's terrified. That, in a way, is happening to the Colombian society. And we have to teach them that, no, peace is going to be marvelous. That it's much better to have peace than to have war. And we're in this process. And I think, hopefully, we will sign this peace agreement in the near future. And that this is happening in good part because of the help of the United States. That's why I'm here. To thank the United States, this is a successful story in a world which is full of problems. And to tell the US bipartisan policy that you have a good partner in the south of Rio Grande, the best partner, I think you have in the whole of Latin America and Caribbean. And they are more than willing to continue this partnership. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, President Santos. I think we, in particular, appreciate your candor in acknowledging the difficulties that you face, both political and structural, in proceeding with this peace process. I'm sure a question you said, we're on the verge of signing a peace agreement. You said, in the near future, there actually was, at one point, or is, a particular date that you had in mind, March 23. Can you tell us how close you are to making that deadline, if it's even a deadline? I was advised against establishing a deadline. You're going to become a prisoner of that deadline. And it's not good. However, we found a situation, a particular situation, to force the guerrillas to establish a deadline. Because in a negotiation, especially the guerrilla groups, when they're going to take the decision to lay down their arms, they're afraid. And they try to postpone that date forever until they have every single guarantee. My son, who is a parachuter, I think he's here, I think, he said that these guys are suffering what a person who's going to jump in the parachute feels before his first jump. They're terrified. And you have to push them. How do you push them with a deadline? And that's why we put a deadline. Now, what is it that we need to do to comply with that deadline? Speed things up. That is exactly what we agreed. The negotiators went back yesterday, back to Cuba, with a new procedure to speed things up. And we're hoping that we can sign by the 23rd of March. Now, if it's two days after, one day before, a week after, it doesn't matter. But we are using that deadline to try to comply with it. And we are both committed. And the good part is that we're both enthusiastic about trying to sign by the 23rd of March. Let me personally point out to affirm what the president has said about Columbia's progress. I was in Columbia in 1997. And at that time, I and I think many of us were fearful that Columbia was going to become a narco state. The power of the narco traffickers, even in government, in parliament, was so evident. So there's no question of the progress that your government has made over these last 15 or 20 years. Nevertheless, as you say, there have been what? Four or five attempts to end the Civil War in Columbia over these past 50 years. Obviously, it's very difficult. And one of the obstacles that I think you personally have pointed out, I believe there's still something like 8,000 FARC fighters with arms in the country. I think you have personally pointed out that these guys don't know anything but fighting. How do you reintegrate a fighting force of combatants who know nothing in their whole life experience but war and fighting? Well, fortunately, we have had some experience. We have reintegrated more than 53,000 combatants, paramilitaries and guerrillas. We have set up structures to do that. And we've been learning more and more. They go through a process. And we are also teaching the people who can hire them, businessmen, that it's OK. Many times, they end up being better workers than the average worker because of their enthusiasm or whatever reason. And so we're not starting from zero. And to reincorporate 8,000 already having incorporated 52,000 is not a big challenge. Of course, in this case, there might be some special procedures in terms of if they want to live together in a cooperative in rural areas, then we will have them do. But we have experience there. And I think that's not going to be one of the major problems. Well, talking about your experience with the reintegration of paramilitary forces, for example, I think it's undeniable that a lot of those former paramilitary forces were transformed into drug traffickers. There has been, as you point out, a long historic link between guerrilla groups, whether on the right or the left, and drug trafficking. Do you expect, do you fear, that some of these FARC fighters, when they lay down their arms, will turn to drug trafficking? They say that they have a good command and control over their people. I have been very skeptic in every step of this negotiating process, like St. Thomas, who needs to see the blood in order to believe. And of course, you'll probably see some people maintaining, because they've been in contact with drug trafficking, and they know how profitable it is. One of the big challenges we have, the biggest challenge, and I hope that there we can cooperate with the US more, is precisely that. Avoid the criminal bans, the organized crime, to fill the vacuum that the FARC is going to leave. And that's where the state must be present, with the armed forces, with the police, with the justice system, with the health system, with the education, with investment in the infrastructure. That's one of the big challenges of what they call the post-conflict, which we are also planning very carefully, the areas that they need, what are the needs of the people in order to be effective in that way. This is probably the biggest challenge of the post-conflict, is precisely that. Now, a plan Colombia, when it was introduced, as you very well know, in 2000, was a counter-narcotics initiative. It was a counter-drug initiative. Has it now been morphed? Has it been transformed into a political initiative to end the Civil War? And what has happened to the counter-narcotic objectives? You mentioned that Colombia is back on top, as the number one producer of coca in the United States. I think that's a big concern here in this country. Well, we have never been number two. OK. OK. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. Credit where credit is due. But precisely, after all this effort, for example, last year, we seized, we seized in our interdiction efforts more coca than any other year in the plan Colombia or in the history of Colombia, 250 tons. Police are military. We have one third of the families that were dedicated to coca cultivation in the year 2000. By numbers, about one third. We have 100,000 acres less in the coca cultivation today than when Plan Colombia started. Yes, the coca production went up the last year and year before because these people learned how to protect themselves from spraying, learned how to migrate to areas where it's more difficult to reach them, to do any kind of crop substitution. But that's a big opportunity that we have now. Without the FARC protecting them, protecting the drug business, then it's going to facilitate tremendously the work of the state. And one of the reasons why we are still the number one coca-exported world is because, in a way, it was very difficult to be effective in giving the peasants an alternative crop that would be sufficiently profitable for them to have a good life. Now we have the opportunity. Now for the first time, we can address in a more comprehensive way the roots of the problem and not only the causes, the roots of giving these people an alternative way of life and being much more effective in combating. We have to carrot and stick the chain, the addiction which we are doing. We have learned a lot. We are helping other countries to fight the drug trafficking in those links of the chain where we are being very effective. We have to continue to address that, but be more effective in the roots. So that's where I think we're going to make a breakthrough. You have stopped fumigating, haven't you? Yes. We've started fumigating. We were the only country in the world that was fumigating, and we were experiencing diminishing returns in terms of these people have learned how to protect themselves. They started to plant the coca in between the legal crops. We had a ruling from our Constitutional Court saying, if there is any risk for human life, of the use of this, what do you call it, the fumigate, the spray, the chemical, then the World Health Organization issued a study, a degree, saying there is a risk. And at the same time, we were on the verge of losing in the international courts, the International Court of Justice, a demand suit that we had from Ecuador. So all these factors were less and less effective. We have a ruling from the court, and we're going to lose in the international court. Let's stop it and try to address the issue in a more effective way, because, again, as I would say, spraying was less and less effective. It was effective at the beginning, but it was less effective. They moved. One last question, and then I'm going to turn it over to our sponsors here. You eloquently pointed out that there is, in all processes of peace and reconciliation, there is a question of how much justice and how much peace. And the Colombian people will have an opportunity independently of your government to answer that for themselves when they have a referendum on your peace process. But it's even beyond Colombia. There is, for example, the International Criminal Court. There are international justice standards for what should happen to people who have committed crimes. How can you be sure? Or what steps are you taking to see that the special judicial zones that you are setting up will satisfy the international demands, the legal demands, for justice? Very good question. You're making the difficult questions. But I'm happy, because I think it's a good opportunity. We were very careful in the discussion of this issue, the justice element of the negotiation, to abide by these international standards. We are part of the Treaty of Rome. The fact that we put the victims in the center of the solution and their rights complies directly with the Treaty of Rome's purpose. And what is the purpose of the Treaty of Rome? Facilitate the peaceful resolution of conflicts. That's why the Treaty of Rome was created. And to protect human rights. And we are stopping the factory of the violation of human rights, which is a war. And at the same time, complying with these minimum standards. That's why I say that there is no impunity, the maximum is possible. We'll go to the justice system, we'll be judged, and we'll be condemned and sanctioned. And they will serve a time with what we call effective restriction of liberty. So the impunity part is taken care of. Since this is an unprecedented scheme, some people that are defenders of human rights have said, no, no, this is not enough. This is a relative appreciation. Of course, you can always say it's not enough. Many people feel, no, these people deserve, instead of eight years, they deserve 40 years. But this is precisely those type of situations where you seek the maximum justice that will allow you peace. And I think we struck this deal in the correct way. We have enough justice to comply with all these international standards, and at the same time allow us peace. And there's in this a very big, a very crucial question. What about the rights of the future victims? What about from the human rights perspective? The worst thing you can have in a country is a war. We're stopping this war. So the transition, that's why it's called transitional justice. The transition has a cost. But I think that the cost that the justice is paying is minimal compared to the benefits from the human rights perspective. That's why we think this is a good deal. Well, I have many more questions. I'd love to ask you your thoughts on the situation in Venezuela, but I'm going to surrender my time here now and let our distinguished co-sponsors of this event. Thank God. You're off the hook. Well, maybe one of them will ask you that. So what we're going to do is we have five institutions who are sponsoring this event, and each of the five is represented here this morning by their president or CEO. And we're going to go right down the line, beginning with Jane Harmon from the Woodrow Wilson Center. They're going to ask their questions, and then we're going to wait for all five questions to come. And then President Santos, if you could keep track of what they're asking, because you're going to have to answer all of them together. OK, Jane Harmon from the Woodrow Wilson Center. Welcome back to Washington, Mr. President. As the first of the all-female lineup of sponsors, I'm delighted to greet you. As you know, I served in the United States Congress for nine terms before coming to the Wilson Center, and I just want to make two quick observations. Number one, the only vote I missed making, because I had already come here, was the vote for the Colombian FTA, Free Trade Agreement. And that's the only thing I miss about not being in the United States Congress. But the second comment is that as a politician, you did something extraordinary, which is you put your career on the line in the presidential election on behalf of a great dream. And most politicians are never that brave. And so I just wanted to congratulate you for doing that. Good. So my question is, what keeps you up at night in these weeks before this agreement becomes final? OK. Adrienne Arst. Of the Latin America Center. You referred to the fact your purpose here is to thank us for what we've done for you in the past and that you wanted to stress the partnership that we have. My question is, in these days that you're here packed with meetings, including with our president, what will you ask of us, us your partners, to help you to implement this peace treaty and to move forward? Susan Siegel. Mr. President, I want to thank you for your leadership and your presentation today. You talked about infrastructure. And infrastructure, as you mentioned, is critical to growth. It's critical to connectivity. And it's critical to integration and peace. So what are the two or three projects that you believe has to happen during your administration and can be realized between now and the end of your administration? What's going to happen? Could you repeat the question that I didn't? Sure. On infrastructure. You talk about how important infrastructure is. And what are some of the most important things that you think of in terms of infrastructure that has to be created in your administration to ensure the connectivity in the country? Ambassador Hills. Mr. President, thank you for a wonderful presentation. And thank you for your leadership, not only in Colombia, but throughout the region. You mentioned in your remarks the economic challenges that Colombia faces and the region faces. And I would like your views on how you assess the US-Columbia Free Trade Agreement of 2012. What are the prospects in your view of moving forward with the Pacific Alliance? And if and when, Colombia will consider joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Thank you. And Nancy Lindberg from the US Institute of Peace. Thank you, President Santos. And thank you very much for your comments today and the vision that you've led your country through. I'm intrigued with your comment that you learned from studying other peace agreements. And I think we know already that many will learn a lot from the process that you've gone through. And we want to particularly applaud putting victims at the heart of your agreement. My question is, you talked about the careful process that you've put in place, including the possibility of having to teach people that peace is marvelous, which I love, peace is marvelous. We also know that once the agreement is signed, that there's still a lot of hard work ahead. It takes many years to heal after this kind of a conflict. So my question is both, how do you imagine managing the expectations of people? And how do you imagine managing the potential spoilers? Who might be the spoilers? And how will you manage them to keep the process on track? Thank you. There you go. Thank you. Jane, what nightmares do I have? I'll confess to you that I sleep quite well. Because when you have peace of mind, when you think you're doing the correct thing, you sleep well. And I think I'm doing the correct thing. Of course, there's a lot of difficulties. Now that you were mentioning Venezuela, for example, the neighborhood, Venezuela, if there is any violence there, that will affect us. I worry about that. That's why we're trying to promote dialogue within Venezuela. I sometimes fear, and I want to address the spoilers, that people are very easily misinformed. And that this misinformation sometimes breeds on misinformation. And many times in politics, many times about misinforming the people, that with the peace process, this misinformation could really damage the process. Or some spoiler that commits some kind of terrorist act or atrocious act that would put the process on the spot. These are the type of things that worries me. But of course, these are natural worries that you have in the process of this sort. And I sometimes worry that the price of oil keeps going down. For us, it's a big cost. But in general, I slept quite well. I slept quite well last night. What would I ask the United States right now in my visit, and what would I like the US to do for Colombia? You were extremely helpful in the process of bringing the conditions for peace. And I must say President Obama has been supportive of the peace process since the very, very beginning. He was one of the first persons to know about the peace process. He appointed a special envoy, Bernie Ironson, and has been extremely effective, very constructive. And so you have been a great friend in this process. And if we reach peace, the construction of peace really starts there. What we are going to sign is the end of the conflict. But the real construction of peace has to be done in the regions and in the hearts and minds of the people. And it's going to take a long time. And I would hope that the US was a great partner in bringing the end of the conflict. They can be a great partner in the construction of peace. You have many, many comparative advantages. In terms, for example, I have a dream. I want Colombia to be the most and better educated country in Latin America by the year 2025. The United States has the best universities in the world. How can we work together? We have a big problem with the SICA right now. I'm going to ask President Obama to see if he can help me. We can research together how to combat SICA and the other, the Casa de Sica, Chikungunya, or the other illness called dengue, all these tropical, or not tropical, but diseases that are now sort of flourishing. How can we work together there? We still need to work together against organized crime. Organized crime has tentacles all over the world. The President of Mexico and Central America and Caribbean and Colombia, West Africa, or you, wherever you go. There we have to continue, from the security point of view, to work together. So there's a lot of things that the United States can continue to help us, and I hope they do. And Susan, infrastructure and connectivity, we have made tremendous efforts there because we know that for long term, if we want to be competitive, we need to upgrade the quality of our infrastructure and the quality of our connectivity. Colombia has more than 1,100 municipalities. Many scattered around the country, very far away. And when I was elected, I set a goal. I want to connect every municipality with fiber optic and broadband. Today, every municipality is connected with fiber optic and broadband. And the big challenge now is how to use that infrastructure in terms of technology. There, the United States can help tremendously because you are the most advanced country in the world in that respect. And there's tremendous opportunity there. From the traditional infrastructure, now the technological infrastructure, if you arrive to Bogotá, you will arrive in the most modern airport in the whole of Latin America, Bogotá del Dorado. Number one, in cargo of all of the airports in Latin America. Number three, in passengers after Mexico and Sao Paulo. And we're trying to do that with 58 airports around the country. Rhodes, I lived in London for 10 years. And I used to say, why is it that my country cannot build these highways that you find in Switzerland or because we have a lot of mountains or in Germany or in the US? Is it that we don't have the engineers? Is it that we don't have the, well, we're doing that. We're doing that and the construction of these highways are already in place. The projects have already been structured and allocated and you have people now and today moving cement and to build these huge tunnels and huge highways that will really connect our country, which is one of the reasons we had, and we still have a big problem, to carry a container from Bogotá to report. Buena Ventura or Cartagena costs more than that container going to Hong Kong. That's what we're going to, we're addressing that already. And as I said, we're making the biggest investment in infrastructure of any emerging country in the world today. So I would like to leave that as one of my legacies. And Carla, I remember very well. Carla Hills was a special trade representative negotiator of the NAFTA. That was 25 years ago, you know? That was, no, no, that was 94, right? I was Mr. Trade at that time. First Minister of Trade, I had to open the Colombian economy and my dream was to have a free trade agreement with the United States. It took some time. It took about 15 years later. During my government, finally, the U.S. Congress, and your vote, Jane, was present there in spirit. So I thank you for that. The free trade agreement with the United States has been extremely important, not only because you're the biggest market and even though in the short term the balance of trade went in your favor, but we see this as a great challenge for us and a great opportunity for us. And one of the reasons why, in this very troubles in the international economy, we are not being hit as hard as other countries in Latin America, especially south of Colombia, is because you are still and will be, for many years, our first trading partner and our first source of investment. Many U.S. companies are still invested in Colombia, are present in Colombia, and you have a comparative advantage also in the opportunities that are being opened in the agribusiness. We have half of Colombia still to conquer in a way like you conquered the West here in the United States in the 18th century, we have to conquer half of Colombia. We're one of the few countries that can produce more food, a lot more food in the world. And I think the U.S. can partner with us a lot there. The Pacific Alliance is working very well. It's working because it's very pragmatic. We don't want to create any big bureaucracy. We have no bureaucracy. It's been a very practical approach. We share the same visions with Chile, with Peru, with Mexico, we share the same values. And I think we are, in a way, winning the competition in Latin America. This is the way to go about it. Integrating with some principles like the respect of private property, considering foreign investment as an ally, not as an enemy, giving legal and personal security to investors using foreign investment as a source also of technological transfer. And that's why the four countries of the Alliance are the four countries that are growing today more than any other country in Latin America. And we want to continue that. And whoever wants to join the club, more of the work. And we would like, I think tomorrow the TPP is being signed and we have made an effort to look towards the Pacific. And we are not members of APEC when the reasons why we were not considered as part of the TPP was precisely that, that we were not members of APEC. We are trying to become members of APEC and we would look forward to starting the route to be part of the TPP. That would take some time. But this is part of our overall objectives because we have a big ocean in the Pacific, also in the Atlantic, Caribbean, but the Pacific. And we see there a good source of growth for the future. We negotiated free trade agreement with Korea. We're negotiating free trade agreement with Japan. And we're looking more and more towards the Pacific. And there we can also meet our interest for the future. And managing expectations, what is the big challenge right now? At the beginning of the process, I told the Colombian people, don't worry, whatever I negotiate will be put to a referendum, to some kind of vote by the Colombian people. This is something that many people advised against it. They said, no, no, no, this is dangerous. This is a, and again, they started saying peace processes are very, very costly politically. This is something that people will not, will not really appreciate. The FARC are very unpopular. 95% of people hate the FARC. And the concessions you're gonna give are gonna be unpopular, so why do that? But I thought it's so important that it has to have legitimacy. And I said, no, we will do that. And we included that point as part of the agreement with the FARC. And I said, I will, many people said, don't, you don't have to comply. You have the legal authority. The Congress will work with you. Why do that? I said, no, I have to do it. I have to put this to a vote. The Constitutional Court is studying the constitutionality of the law that Congress passed for this plebiscite to be put to the people. Some people are saying that I was rigging the minimal participation, which is not true. What we did was put a minimum of the number of people who will have to vote yes on 13.5%, which is equivalent to putting a minimum of votes of 25%. It's exactly the same. But in this misinformation, they said, no, no, I was doing an arbitrary change of the constitution and I lowered the minimum requisites. That's not true. I put it in order to promote a discussion between yes and no and not a discussion between yes and abstention. Abstention is not the way that democracy works. So that was the reason. Now, the challenge is to convince, and I'm sure that we will be successful there, of the benefits of peace for the people. And to do away with this misinformation, the spoilers that are saying that this is a peace agreement will give the country to communism. They have accused me of being a communist. They say that I was infiltrated by communism when I lived in London. No, really, I'm serious. I'm serious and there's a blog saying that I am a communist and that, well, this is part of the game. I am absolutely sure that when we have the agreement finished and we will put to the Colombian people the whole package that an overwhelming majority will vote yes. Now, what is happening? Of course, you poll the people and you ask the people, would you like the FARC to be in Congress? They say no. Majority say no. Would you like or do you agree that the FARC should have legal, judicial benefit, lower punishment than they should have? People say no, why? So elements of the peace agreement are all unpopular. But when you put the package, this is peace with a cost because there was always going to be a cost. Peace has a cost. But this is the cost of continuing this war for 20 or 30 years. People will vote for peace. I am absolutely sure and the challenge is to convince the majority of Colombians that this is the case and I'm quite sure that we will do that. Thank you. Very good. Well, President Santos, the organizers of this event are very cognizant of your time demands. You have some very important meetings scheduled. I think you're going to Capitol Hill this afternoon and that's obviously an important part of your work here. I do want to give you a minute or two to wrap up any sort of concluding thoughts you may have. Unfortunately don't have time to take questions from the audience as we'd hoped but I do want to give you this and I don't know, I'm personally curious but you said you want to promote dialogue in Venezuela. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that at all. That's a tantalizing comment you made but I'll leave it to you just a minute or two to conclude. No, I start by the dialogue. I do think that the whole exercise of bringing peace after 50 years of war through dialogue, through a negotiated agreement, I mean it's the sensible and only civilized way out. A society cannot live in war forever and this is what Columbia unfortunately, this is the longest armed conflict in the whole of the Western Hemisphere. The only one. And I think that through dialogue we can resolve our differences and keep going in peace. When I said we're trying to promote the dialogue in Venezuela or in any situation where there is such political polarization I say it because I'm convinced that when you try to understand the interest and the way of thinking of somebody who is completely different from you and try to discover common ground that you will always find common ground. I will tell you an anecdote. Chavez was my worst enemy and I was his worst enemy. You see I was a journalist before being the Minister of Defense I wrote and I wrote the most terrible things about Chavez and he spoke the most terrible things about me. But when I got elected we, I said now I'm gonna be president of every Colombian, 46 million Colombians at that time and we have a border of 2,200 kilometers. We had no relations, no commercial, no diplomatic and the relations were simply insults from one country to another and that was the same with Ecuador and that was the same with the whole region. So I said this is unbearable, this is absurd and so I sort of sent a message. I'm ready to sit down like civilized men and see if we can reach some kind of understanding. The response was positive. We met and I said to him listen, you and I will never agree on many things. You and I are like water and oil, they never mix. But you respect what I think and I respect what you think. I will not intervene in your affairs, you will not intervene in my affairs. And we'll see, we'll see if your model works better or if my model works better. I think six years later the evidence is there. But let's work on whatever interests you and me. And he said, I will help you with a peace agreement. And he helped a lot to convince these people that this is the only way out. And I even had an anecdote, a humorous anecdote, I will share with you very, I think we have a couple of minutes more. When I was going to meet him, I was scared. I don't know, how am I gonna manage this guy? What is he gonna say to me after all these insults back and forth? And he was invited to Colombia, to a place where Simón Bolívar died in Santa Marta, Colombia. I was with my minister of foreign affairs. He was with his minister of foreign affairs, Maduro. And he arrived 10th of August 19th, 2010, my birthday. And he said, that was my 58th birthday. And he arrived and he said, here I come and he always made press conferences and speeches in the airport. He arrived with the white flag. I will come to start a new chapter with Colombia. A new chapter with President Santos, who is the president of the United States. President Santos, who is today in a special day, it's his birthday, it is his 48th birthday. And I remember, I'm a big fan of biographies and I said, always try to use humor in order to try to fix situations, difficult situations. So I remember that advice and he then arrived to where I was waiting for him and he was going to embrace me. And I said, very seriously, we are in deep trouble, President Chavez. And he was flabbergasted and he was, God, what happened? And I said, you made some statements when you arrived, which creates tremendous troubles to our relationship. He said, what did I say? I only said that I come in peace. No, you said that it was my 48th birthday. It's my 58th birthday and my wife is going to be much more demanding to me. And that broke the ice. That broke the ice. And from then, that moment to the moment he died, we had a cordial, personal relationship being two completely, completely different persons. And I think this is a lesson for life. Thank you. Well, President Santos, I think I speak for everyone here in wishing you the best of luck in this hugely important endeavor. Thank you for coming by this morning. Thanks for everyone.