The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

[TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] raid on Libya. A woman carrying a bomb was stopped from boarding an El Al flight in London. The U.S. prepared to evacuate several hundred embassy personnel from Sudan. The economy grew at an unexpectedly strong 3.2 from January to March. More details of these stories coming up in our news summary. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight; Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After our news summary, we look at the aftermath of the raid on Libya and its impact on the battle against terrorism with a former head of Israeli military intelligence, a journalist with long experience in the Middle East and an expert on airline security. Then our series, "The War on Drugs," continues. Tonight, the battle against drug producers. It includes an unusual inside look at cocaine processing in Colombia, and a debate over how to stop it.News Summary

MacNEIL: Monday night's U.S. raid on Libya provoked terrorist violence and street protests in many parts of the world. The bloodiest incident was in Lebanon, where three kidnapped British men were found dead beside a highway, each shot once in the head. A note claimed they were U.S. and British spies executed by Arab commando cells in reprisal for the Libyan raid, which Britain supported. The dead were a writer, Alec Collett, and two teachers, Lei Douglas and Philip Patfield. A British television journalist, John McCarthy, of Worldwide Television News, was kidnapped by gunmen in Beirut. In a third assault upon the British in Lebanon, men in a speeding car fired a volley of grenades at the official residence of the British ambassador in Beirut. The ambassador no longer lives there, and there were no injuries to the Lebanese household staff. A pro-Libyan guerrilla group claimed that its men fired the grenades. The White House said the killings of the three kidnapped Britons bore the marks of Abu Nidal, a Palestinian guerrilla linked to Libya. President Reagan was asked about the incident by reporters.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I think it's a tragedy, but I think it's another example of the fact that terrorism is something that we have to deal with once and for all, all of us together.

1st REPORTER: Well, Qaddafi surfaced again and says he's going to continue -- suggests he's going to continue to do what he's been doing.

Pres. REAGAN: Has anybody been able to pin down where he surfaced?

1st REPORTER: Well, he was on television yesterday. We're not quite certain whether it was live or taped.

2nd REPORTER: Do you know, sir?

Pres. REAGAN: What?

2nd REPORTER: Do you know where he is?

Pres. REAGAN: No. No. I just think he's staying under cover while the shooting's going on.

WOODRUFF: An Irish woman was arrested at London's Heathrow Airport this morning after explosives were found in luggage she had planned to carry on a flight to Tel Aviv. Police were looking for the woman's Arab boyfriend, who they suspected may have planted the time device without her knowledge. We have a report from Andrew Taylor of the BBC.

ANDREW TAYLOR, BBC [voice-over]: The police had been expecting a terrorist attack, and they'd expecting it to be on an El Al flight. The Israeli airline had been moved months ago to Terminal One because it's easier to shut off for security reasons. This morning's incident showed why. Flight El Al 016 had a scheduled stop in London on its way to Tel Aviv. When it landed at Heathrow at 10 to 9:00 this morning, it was directed towards gate 48 instead of its normal station at gate 23 of Terminal One. By then the authorities had already been alerted. It appears that an Arab man and his pregnant Irish girlfriend were moving towards the security gates to board the flight. The girl then proceeded to the security gate to hand in her luggage. The bomb was discovered in the false bottom of her holdall, and she was arrested minutes later when she reported to claim the bag.

WOODRUFF: Airport security was the focus of a hearing on Capitol Hill today. The head of the Airline Pilots' Association said that airport security staffs should be expanded, and security officials should be given better training and higher pay to combat terrorism. At the same time, FAA administrator Donald Engen told a group of reporters that airlines, especially those flying overseas, have tightened their security measures.

MacNEIL: The White House said that several hundred nonessential diplomatic personnel will be evacuated starting tomorrow from Sudan, where a U.S. embassy employee was shot in the head on Wednesday. Spokesman Larry Speakes said, "We are prepared for an increase in terrorism." But he added that in the long run, the administration believes its attack on Libya will reduce the risk to Americans.

In Tripoli, there were more anti-American street demonstrations, more unexplained anti-aircraft fire, and moves by some of the 18,000 Westerners, mostly Europeans, to leave the country. Last night the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, appeared on television after a two-day absence from public viewer. We have a report on that from Kate Adie of the BBC.

KATE ADIE, BBC [voice-over]: There he was, on television, apparently uninjured, speaking without notes, for about 20 minutes. He said that in appreciation of the international situation, he had decided not to escalate military operations in southern Europe. He said that the American attack was aimed at his own house and tent, and it had failed. He denied he knew who planted the bomb in West Berlin, but he also said that Libya had the right, as he put it, to export revolution everywhere in the world.

WOODRUFF: The Pentagon revealed today that there were some problems with some of the planes that took part in Monday's attack on Libya. Five of the 18 Air Force F-111 bombers and two of 14 Navy A-6 attack jets were forced to abort their bombing runs either because of equipment problems or for other unexplained reasons. At the same time, the Pentagon released film shot by two of the bombers that did make successful runs. Video from one of the F-111s shows that it clearly targeted on a military barrack thought to be the nerve center of Qaddafi's terrorist network. Film from the second F-111 shows a successful bombing run on a row of Libyan transport planes parked on the military side of the Tripoli airport.

A group of congressional Republicans today introduced legislation to give a president virtually a blank check to act against terrorists anywhere in the world. Congressional legal analysts said the bill is not likely to win approval without major changes because of its controversial nature. It would require only that Congress be notified after any actions.

MacNEIL: The U.S. economy grew at a faster rate during the first quarter of the year than many economists had expected. From January to March, gross national product grew at an annual rate of 3.2 . The increase was more than four times the rate of growth in the last three months of 1985. Most of the economy's vital signs, like industrial production and retail sales, had been weak in recent months, leading to speculation that the Federal Reserve Board might lower interest rates to stimulate the economy. Today's GNP report raised doubts that the Fed would lower the discount rate soon.

WOODRUFF: The daughter of Joseph Stalin returned to the United States yesterday after a year and a half in the Soviet Union. She had headed there in October 1984, complaining that she had never been happy during almost two decades she had spent before that in the West. Sixty-year-old Svetlana Alliluyeva, Stalin's only daughter, arrived in Chicago just one day after her 14-year-old daughter left the Soviet Union to return to England, where she had been attending boarding school before her mother brought her to the Soviet Union. It was the daughter Olga's first visit there, and she was widely reported to be unhappy.

MacNEIL: The Pulitzer Prizes were announced today. The fiction award went to the novel Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry, author of Terms of Endearment and other novels made into popular movies. Nonfiction awards went to New York Times reporter Joseph Lelyveld for Move Your Shadow: South Africa Black and White, and former New York Times man J. Anthony Lukas for Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American Families. For the 12th time in the history of the Pulitzers, there was no drama award given.

WOODRUFF: That concludes our summary of the day's news. Just ahead on the NewsHour, we look first at the reaction to the U.S. bombing raid on Libya. Will it end up increasing terror attacks? Then our series on "The War on Drugs" continues with a documentary report about a Colombia village that produces cocaine, and a debate over U.S. efforts to cut off the supply at the source. Countering Terrorism

MacNEIL: Our first focus tonight is the terrorist aftermath of the U.S. attack on Libya: three Britons found killed in Lebanon; a Marine barracks firebombed in Tunis, the object of a firebomb attack; the arrest of a bomb-carrying passenger about to board an Israeli plane in London bound for Tel Aviv. We're going to hear three views on what's behind all this, and whether the United States can stop it. First we have an Israeli view. General Shlomo Gazit was chief of military intelligence in the early 1970s and the principal architect of Israel's anti-terrorist strategy. Now retired, he was president of Ben-Gurion University and is now a vice president of the Jewish Agency.

General Gazit, in the long run will this U.S. attack on Monday night deter terrorists or terrorism or make it more angry and more determined?

Maj. Gen. SHLOMO GAZIT (ret.): In the long run I very much hope that it will deter, provided that we don't look at it at as an individual act. It's a long war, and we should look at it just as one single case out of many. And if we go and we stick with the same policy, I hope we will be successful.

MacNEIL: What about all the groups of terrorists, the small groups and large groups, that are not state supported?

Gen. GAZIT: Well, state supported or having shelter by states or having -- being provided by weapons, diplomatic powers and things like that, makes all the difference between one sort of terrorism and those who have no support whatsoever and are totally clandestine, and because of that are very, very unsuccessful. That is, they have no chance really of doing anything big, anything really impressive. We have almost forgotten about the Red Army in Japan because they don't have any support by nobody. We have almost forgotten about the Red Brigades in Italy or the Baader-Meinhof. We do hear only of those organizations that have the support of countries, of states, of organizations.

MacNEIL: In your view, is the United States putting more emphasis on Libyan-supported and Libyan-directed terrorism than the reality warrants, and by pointing to its attack on Monday night, suggesting that that is going to produce a great improvement in terrorism?

Gen. GAZIT: Well, I think you are right, right in your question. The United States is putting emphasis on Libya, more than, let's say, the role Libya is really playing in the Middle East or in the world in supporting terrorism. But by choosing perhaps the relatively easier target, and if you will be successful in teaching Qaddafi, in teaching Libya to disdain from providing that sort of help, it may have its influence and impact on others too.

MacNEIL: In Israel's experience, has zapping terrorists -- and you've had a lot of experience of this, or of attempting to -- has it reduced the net amount of terrorism, do you think?

Gen. GAZIT: Oh, no doubt. No doubt. Listen, we have been now occupying territories for the last almost 19 years. We are living with a so-called alien population of 1.2, 1.3 million people, and the rate of terrorism is very, very limited. We have been limiting -- I can't say that anything in Israel has really been handicapped because of terrorism. Probably El Al is now going to be the most successful airline in the world because it's the safest in the world. I mean, ou? There is an airport which has the reputation of being a very well-defended airport.

Gen. GAZIT: Oh, no.

MacNEIL: No?

Gen. GAZIT: Definitely not.

MacNEIL: No?

Gen. GAZIT: No, and even with us it isn't the first incident. By the way, it's the only one of the few airports where our people are not allowed to carry arms, because the British don't allow it. But we have had many incidents. What it did prove to me is that our preventive measures are successful. And I wouldn't say that it's a fool-proof system. There may be always an accident. But nevertheless, we -- it's so long that not one single terrorist act against El Al was really successful.

MacNEIL: Well, we'll come back, General. Thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: We turn now to Robin Wright, formerly the Beirut correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and The Sunday Times of London, more recently the author of a book about militant Islam. Ms. Wright joins us from public station WKAR in East Lansing, Michigan.

Ms. Wright, should we have been surprised to see this rash of terrorist acts after the raid on Libya?

ROBIN WRIGHT: Not at all. In fact, it was quite predictable. I think that many of the groups operating in the Middle East felt that they also were challenged, they also were threatened. And while the vast majority of groups are not linked to Libya, they feel that there is a kind of collective sense of face, and that they also were challenged, in effect, by the U.S. attack on Libya. I think it was quite predictable.

WOODRUFF: Why do they feel connected with Libya, if there is no natural tie there?

Ms. WRIGHT: Well, I think the Arab world in many ways has an identity that stretches often across borders, in part because of the Islamic religion. I think it's not -- I can think of different groups, for example, in Lebanon who have disagreed with Muammar Qaddafi in the past, but because they feel that the U.S. action was aimed at Arabs in general across the Moslem world, that they also have a responsibility now to stand up and let the U.S. know that they're not going to take this.

WOODRUFF: But what about the firepower that the United States demonstrated? I mean, why wouldn't they be intimidated by that?

Ms. WRIGHT: I think that there's a different kind of mentality in that they are not at all frightened or intimidated by U.S. repower. I suspect in fact that they think this is natural. They're not intimidated anyway. When they have so little to lose they're willing to stand up and lose their lives now, because they feel there's so little to fight for.

WOODRUFF: Well, but you just heard Mr. Gazit, formerly the head of Israeli intelligence, say that he thinks that acting in retaliation has deterred terrorism to some extent as far as Israel is concerned.

Ms. WRIGHT: I would ask him to look at the three-year occupation of Israel in southern Lebanon, and take a look at the Israeli losses. I think that their iron-fist policy in southern Lebanon only led to an escalation in violence, and in fact Israel lost more than 640 men or the equivalent of 30,000 Americans proportionately, more than half of what the U.S. lost in a decade in Vietnam. And in fact, Israel had to withdraw from Lebanon, in effect under force, because of the constant escalation of attacks by Shiite militants.

WOODRUFF: Who is behind all this? I mean, you've suggested that there's not one group, that there are many different groups. But who are we talking about here when we're talking about terrorism in Lebanon, in London and elsewhere?

Ms. WRIGHT: Oh, I think there are dozens and dozens of different groups. And in fact one of the most interesting developments over the past two years has been that the traditional groups we've known about -- the PLO and even Abu Nidal to a certain degree -- are not necessarily the main forces at play now. There are a lot of little cells operating in many ways almost independently or autonomously. They'll have loose links with, let's say, Iran or Syria or Libya, but many of their decisions are taken by themselves. They mastermind them, they carry them out. And I think that the names that have been coming out lately are an indication. There are all kinds of different names that are very hard to put in any kind of structure, to tell where they're going. I think that we're probably going to see the development of a lot of different groups along this line in the near future.

WOODRUFF: And what does that say about the American ability to combat that sort of terrorism?

Ms. WRIGHT: Well, that's why I argue that I don't think military force is a solution to long-term terrorist problems. I think that the U.S. needs to look instead at more constructive alternatives.

WOODRUFF: All right, we'll come back in a moment, Robin Wright. Robin MacNeil?

MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, the U.S. needs to look at more constructive alternatives than military force?

Gen. GAZIT: Basically, yes. I definitely agree with it. I would never say that military means is the only answer to terrorist problems. On the contrary. You first have to realize that terrorism is a war. You have to fight this war. If you don't fight it you will be lost. I would go even beyond that. I think that terrorism today is perhaps the biggest menace to civilized society in our era. Never did we have a society that vulnerable as we had it before. Never did we have terrorists with such sophisticated weapons. You couldn't be a terrorist with a dagger, but you can be a terrorist with a tiny bomb. Put it into an airplane and five pounds of explosives, the whole aircraft goes, and the 747 with 450 passengers will collapse.

So this is the first thing we have to realize. If we succeed on one hand to prevent, as I said, state and government support, and not only by military means -- definitely not. On the contrary. First and foremost, by political, economic boycott on those countries, by not allowing any aircraft, any airline to fly into those grounds, not accepting their airlines, boycotting their products. That's the first thing. Then by military operations, and not the kind you had in Libya. I would like to see a surgical kind of strike that goes directly at the terrorists, and not at hitting Libyan aircraft. What do Libyan -- how would you expect Libyan aircrafts to be shot down to have an impact on terrorism? That isn't -- and this won't deter Qaddafi or Libya from doing what they did. Three, by something that I'm sorry this country hasn't been doing for many years -- by covert operation. clandestine operation, whether it is trying to make a coup against Qaddafi or even to assassinate Qaddafi, or directly hit the terrorists. And last, by teaching your own people that it's a long war and you shouldn't lose stamina after the first casualty.

MacNEIL: Ms. Wright, what do you think of that prescription?

Ms. WRIGHT: Well, I think that he's right on many counts. I agree that --

MacNEIL: His first point -- let me ask you about his first point first, because there was a list of them, which goes to what you were saying. He says you have to go first at the state-supported terrorists. Even though there may be this proliferation that you've talked about of all these little cells and groups with no direct connections who operate independently, you must go first to the state-supported ones, the obvious ones. Do you agree with that?

Ms. WRIGHT: Well, again, I think that's talking in simplistic terms. Unfortunately, I don't agree with what the Reagan administration calls state-supported terrorism. I think in many cases it is state-inspired, that governments aid and abet, but I don't -- I'm not necessarily convinced that they are actually masterminding these incidents.

MacNEIL: Even in the case of Qaddafi?

Ms. WRIGHT: I think that he probably may have been involved; obviously the administration says that there is a smoking gun in the West Berlin disco incident. But I think in the past that a lot of the incidents have been carried out by people he has provided with training facilities, weaponry, funds and other points, but is not necessarily the responsibility or the masterminding by Colonel Qaddafi.zMacNEIL: How can a country -- I'll ask you both; let's start all over again on this -- how can a country which is a superpower, which has global responsibilities, military and otherwise, and global interests, protect its citizens in this age of terrorism that you say is the number one threat to civilized society? How does it go about doing that?

Gen. GAZIT: Well, let me start by saying --

MacNEIL: Israel is a much smaller country, with much fewer responsibilities and much less extended.

Gen. GAZIT: Yeah. The first thing is to teach your people that there is no protection. There is no perfect cure, and once in a while there will be a bomb, there will be an assassination, and you have to learn to live with it. That's the first thing, and the most important thing. Then I am afraid I have to go back to what I said before. Try to deprive terrorists from state support. And it's not the masterminding -- really, that isn't important. Terrorists don't need somebody to tell them what is the target. They need weapons. They need a way; they need documentation, how to move from one country to another. They need shelter. They need a diplomatic pouch to transfer their weapons. That's what they need. And this is only what the state can provide. And then come all the rest.

MacNEIL: Ms. Wright, you seemed to fundamentally disagree at the beginning with the need to take military action against them at all. Were you suggesting that the only way is political and diplomatic, trying to understand what is motivating the terrorists and attack that problem?

Ms. WRIGHT: Absolutely. And I think that U.S. foreign policy has by and large been reactive, rather than trying to thoughtfully develop a policy that will deal with the root causes of these problems. I mean, we all felt a sense of euphoria when the Achille Lauro hijackers were brought down over Egypt after they'd fled Egypt. But I think the bottom line is that you do not eliminate the root causes behind street crime by merely nabbing four street muggers. I think it's a much broader phenomena. And I think we have to begin dealing with why this terrorist phenomena has become such a major problem, particularly to Western targets, and deal with those issues, rather than just dealing with what our military can accomplish in the way of eliminating military bases or our intelligence people finding out what the diplomatic pouches between Libya and Syria are trying to accomplish or conceal.

MacNEIL: General Gazit, the underlying causes.

Gen. GAZIT: Yeah. Sir, I would like to remark on one single thing. Why is this such a threat to Western civilization and not to the Soviet bloc? For two reasons. You can't do it in the Soviet Union; they have much more stronger protective measures, and the punishment will be much crueler.

MacNEIL: But they also have a police state.

Gen. GAZIT: That was the first point I said. They are much better protected against terrorists, but the punishment will be much more painful. And people know you, you don't start with them.

MacNEIL: Well, let's enlarge this discussion. Judy?

WOODRUFF: For a final view we turn to Rodney Wallis, the top security expert of the International Air Transport Association, which represents most of the nation's major airlines. He recently returned from inspecting the airports in Cairo and Athens, and he joins us tonight from Montreal.

Mr. Wallis, what can you tell us about the incident today at Heathrow Airport, any more than what we've learned already?

RODNEY WALLIS: Probably very little. I've obviously been in touch with London to find out precisely what had happened. The reports which I have indicate that the second security check at Heathrow for the El Al departure was successful in identifying that certain explosive material was being carried in a bag. The person who was carrying the bag has been apprehended. I understand questioning is still going on. Beyond that, there is very little that I can say at this stage. Obviously the British police are conducting the inquiry.

WOODRUFF: Might that bag have gotten through if it hadn't been El Al airlines with its extra security measures?

Mr. WALLIS: Well, of course El Al, and indeed other airlines and other airports, where there is a specific security risk, do have additional security procedures in force. This was a natural program which they operate in Heathrow, and it was of course successful.

WOODRUFF: Well, with all the recent -- with all the rash of terrorist incidents we've seen recently, why aren't other airlines now able to adopt many of the same procedures that El Al has adopted?

Mr. WALLIS: It's a question of perception of risk. At this pointin time, of course, El Al, and indeed in the past, El Al has recognized that they are an airline under threat and they have to take extraordinary measures in order to protect themselves, their passengers and their crews. And in certain other parts of the world and with certain airlines, additional measures are indeed taken. Now, for the bulk of the world, of course -- and we have to get this into proper perspective -- for the bulk of the world, that threat isn't there, and other airlines haven't seen it as necessary, nor have governments, to go to those extreme lengths.

WOODRUFF: We just mentioned that you had just come back from inspecting airports in Cairo and Athens. What did you find?

Mr. WALLIS: Well, as you know, the general standard of security at both Cairo and Athens is indeed up to the level prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization. And in fact, in certain instances, in both places, it goes slightly beyond the prescribed requirements, in that there is a double security screening very much like the one you've just described in respect of El Al in London. So it goes beyond that. Because of the attention which the terrorists have paid in the past to Athens, the Greek authorities have tightened up their security on the ramp and elsewhere, and indeed it is a very good security system at the moment.

WOODRUFF: Would you recommend that -- would you tell Americans thinking about traveling to Europe that both of those airports are safe for them to travel through?

Mr. WALLIS: I wouldn't describe any airport in the terms of safe or unsafe. There are varying degrees of threat in these places, and of course, as we know, in the recent past the United States citizens have had the focus, the attention of the terrorists placed on them. But nevertheless, as far as the governments of those countries are concerned, and the airport authorities and the airlines themselves, the level of security applied is indeed high, and everything is being done to make sure that passengers traveling through, be they Americans or any other nationality, are indeed able to travel through safely.

WOODRUFF: How then should a person make a decision about whether to make that trip to the Middle East or to Europe?

Mr. WALLIS: I think that has to be on a personal basis, of course. One of the great problems, I think, is that if people who are planning to take holidays or journey for other reasons do stay behind, that there's always that underlying feeling, of course, that the terrorist has imposed his will on the traveling public, which is something of a victory for the terrorist. But nevertheless, each individual has to weigh up the situation for himself, has to assess the potential for problem, and then make his own decision. I think we should get everything into perspective, however. I mean, there are vast numbers of Americans who do indeed travel regularly and traveling on a daily basis without any untoward incident whatsoever. But of course when you get a major activity such as a bombing or a hijacking, then quite naturally it concentrates everybody on that particular incident.

WOODRUFF: Well, Rodney Wallis, we thank you for being with us tonight.

Mr. WALLIS: Thank you. War on Drugs: Cutting the Roots

WOODRUFF: Next, part three of our special series on drugs. This one is titled "Cutting the Roots," a further examination of the relationship between foreign drug producers and their American market. Last night we looked at the Mexican connection. Tonight we go to the country that has become the major supplier of cocaine to the U.S. and ask just how effective has Washington been at pressuring it and other countries to get out of the drug business. We'll get answers from both the State Department and a congressional critic, but first a rare look at the thriving cocaine business in the remote mountains of Colombia. The reporter is Colin Baker of Worldwide Television News.

COLIN BAKER, Worldwide Television News [voice-over]: High in the Andes Mountains of southwest Colombia, the Indians have for centuries grown and cultivate these small privetlike trees. They bear no fruit, yet their produce is so sought after that people lose their fortunes and sometimes their lives in pursuit of its beguiling properties. This small leaf is the bottom end of a trail which links the peasant hand picking it to some of the world's most famous and glamorous people. Here on the roof of Latin America is the home of that so-called elegant aristocrat of the drugs world, cocaine. Since glaciers first cut these valleys in prehistoric times, Andean Indians have used the coca leaf to combat the effects of malnutrition and exhaustion. Today vast tracts of hillside have been cleared to make way for plantations as Western demand for the drug almost outstrips supplies.

In this area, controlled by the left-wing guerrilla group M-19, the Indian families and their plantations have little to fear from the authorities. Like most communities outside the big cities, their economy is governed by the cocaine dollar. This family's income is made up in part from Colombia's other main export, coffee. But the bulk of their money undoubtedly will come from cocaine. The plantation will be harvested three times a year and will earn them around $1,000. The cocaine which comes from their crop may be worth 500 times that amount. The peasants are aware that what they do is illegal, but the effects of the drug on Western society is something they just cannot grasp. Getting high on coca to them is no different to others chewing gum or tobacco.

For the small team which runs the illicit laboratories, making daily inspections of the plantations and organizing deliveries of the coca leaves can be carried out in almost perfect security. The guns of the guerrillas provide a shield behind which the cocaine industry flourishes. Government troops are loath to venture into the mountains, lending credence to the guerrillas' offer of protection to the drugs trade in return for a slice of the profits. Even the chemicals for the laboratory are picked up in daylight.

Under cover of darkness the process team make their way on foot and by candlelight to the laboratory about one hour's walk away. It's a small shack on the other side of the mountain, close to a guerrilla encampment. The chemist is Alexandro. Known locally as the cooking man, he's the link between the plantation workers, the guerrillas and the Colombian mafia, a group of a dozen wealthy families who control over 80 of the world's cocaine market. Their wealth is legendary. Each family is said to have access to billions of dollars tucked away in secret accounts in the Bahamas and Switzerland.

Not that much filters back here, though it's in small shacks like this, housing a lifestyle virtually unchanged by the passing of time, that Colombia's $2-billion-a-year black market economy lies. Cocaine is a family business at every level. While the women prepare dinner, the men wait for the first coca leaf delivery to arrive. It comes at midnight. It's taken this farmer five hours to cross the mountains with his load, a journey made more hazardous by the day's heavy rain, which has washed away many of the trails. Ten times a week the mule trains arrive, bringing in nearly two tons of leaf every seven days. It's a tightly scheduled operation, repeated daily throughout the mountains at dozens of other makeshift laboratories. It is without doubt the biggest and most lucrative cottage industry in the world.

Once the leaf has been weighed and the farmer paid, the process begins with the coca being finely chopped. The American government is pouring millions of dollars a year into South America, trying to kill the trade, but with little success. The cocaine dollar corrupts at every stage, be it buying arms for local guerrilla groups or persuading a local police chief that his life expectancy would increase, with considerable comfort, by staying out of the mountains. The Colombian government has been persuaded to ban the importation of chemicals used in the clandestine laboratories, but at this level the Indians are still producing high-quality cocaine paste ready for export.

Ordinary household salt is sprinkled on the leaves to react with the moisture released by the chopping. With the salt evenly mixed with the leaves, the par will be carefully wrapped up and left for half an hour. In the meantime, it's time to eat. The son of a respectable mountain family, Alexandro has been making cocaine paste every week for the last five years. He says he was sought out by a stranger who told him how to organize plantations locally and then taught how to refine the leaves.

In the short time it's been left standing, the leaf has undergone a remarkable change. A black tarlike liquid oozes from it. The leaf seems almost alive as it's transferred to a barrel. Under the watchful eye of the cooking man, several gallons of petrol are poured over the leaves. The petrol will act as a solvent, devouring the sticky black fluid in the most risky part of the operation. On occasions a carelessly discarded cigarette or an untended candle have produced disastrous effects. It's a part of the process which Alexandro stays well away from. After a thorough mixing, the barrel is covered for the night. It'll take another seven hours for the petrol to do its job.

The leaves are given a final mixing before being squeezed dry. It's the liquid which contains the cocaine. The leaves will be wrung dry, and then thrown away.

With the hard work over, the chemist introduces his talents. With no facility for accurate measurement, concentrated sulfuric acid is mixed with water, using instinct, guesswork and, like the experienced cooking man he is, by taste. It looks like arcane technology, but it does work. In the last three years the quality of Colombian cocaine paste has more than doubled.

The last step is the addition of a small amount of soda. The sample is now ready for testing. If the cooking man has done his job well, the procedure will be repeated on a much larger scale. A common handkerchief proves an ideal filter. The solution drips through, leaving behind the products of the night's endeavors, cocaine paste. The team are pleased with the result. The more pale the paste, the greater the purity. It doesn't look very much for 10 hours' work, but this small mountain shack will produce around 12 pounds of cocaine paste a week. By comparison with some Colombian operations, that's an insignificant amount. But further refinement will give this pound and a half of cocaine paste a London street value of more than 100,000 pounds. In effect, this little hut is ultimately producing a cocaine market of 26 million pounds a year.

WOODRUFF: Twenty-six million pounds is worth close to $41 million. That's just a piece of change in the multibillion-dollar drug trade which the U.S. has been trying to curb, among other ways, through diplomacy. The man who's been at the center of those efforts is Jon Thomas, outgoing assistant secretary of state for international narcotics matters.

Mr. Thomas, how in the world do you make any headway against an operation like that onewe just saw in the remote mountain regions of Colombia?

JON THOMAS: Well, it's been difficult. At the same time, you do it through international cooperation. There's no way that we expect any nation to do something like this on their own. And in the case of Colombia, we have been right there with them providing assistance, technical advice, and in some cases advisors in the field.

WOODRUFF: Well, would you -- I mean, is it easy, is it difficult? I mean, what's it like going up against an operation like that which in a way is very sophisticated? I mean, those men seem to know what they're doing.

Mr. THOMAS: And very dangerous. Last year some 200 policemen in Colombia lost their lives. In fact, we have now been engaged in raids in the jungle area of southern Colombia, where a number of national policemen have recently been killed in trying to uproot some of these cocaine laboratories. And in some of these cases, they're not just guarded by a few policemen or a few criminals like you saw here in the film, but rather guarded by insurgency groups of two to three hundred men.

WOODRUFF: But what do you do about -- the reporter kept referring back to the corruption with the local police, with the government, the mafia families and so forth, involved down there. How do you deal with that? What do you do?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, you start -- and I'm glad that you showed an episode on Colombia, because I think Colombia demonstrates what a country can do when finally backed into a corner. A few years ago Colombia was probably considered by most people in the world as the true arch-villain in the narcotics set. Today, based on what the government has done, the political commitment made by the president throughout, perhaps has served -- serving as a catalyst in part; the killing, the assassination of the minister of justice a couple of years ago. Well, the Colombian people said they had enough, and they have sustained a major crackdown throughout Colombia. Last year 85 of the marijauana cultivated in Colombia in the primary growing region was eradicated through aerial eradication.

WOODRUFF: You mean it's better now than it was?

Mr. THOMAS: Much better now. Absolutely. On the other hand, we're not going to fool anyone by saying that the cocaine problem in Colombia is anywhere near solved. We haven't even really begun. We're looking right now at ways where the coca leaf can be sprayed and eradicated, and we're raiding these laboratories in the Llanos -- that's the southern area of the Colombian jungle -- whereby these labs are located, and where these insurgency groups, in fact, are providing the very security for many of these laboratories.

WOODRUFF: How do you keep from getting just extraordinarily frustrated and just overwhelmed by the enormity of the task you're talking about here?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, I think one of the positive things that we've seen is this change of attitude on the part of many governments. A few years ago, many governments really didn't seem to care. Today they are, for maybe two reasons. One, governments like Colombia are seeing drug abuse in their own countries increase dramatically. One of the substances you saw in that film, the coca paste, which has a lot of impurities left in it, is smoked by young people in Colombia; it's called the basuco, and it has horrible impact, with all the impurities left in it. Another reason is that the narcotics traffickers have become so strong, so powerful in many cases -- the corruption and the capability that they have to buy influence, in some cases radio stations or television stations -- that they began to threaten the very institutions of the government. And when you begin to threaten the national security of a country, then you begin to tap into the reserves of a nation. And I think that's what we've seen in Colombia.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Thomas, stay with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: We hear another view now from Congressman Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York and chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Congressman Rangel has proposed legislation to cut off international aid to countries not participating effectively in drug eradication programs.

Congressman, first of all, how well has the U.S-backed eradication program been working, in your view, in countries like Colombia?

Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Well, it's had some effect in the area of marijuana eradication, but has been a terrible failure in other countries. Jon Thomas has been a very strong and dedicated public servant, but I think it does a disservice to allow the American people to believe that we have any type of handle on this very serious problem. And I think that this program ought to be lauded for at least bringing it to the nation's attention.

MacNEIL: Do you put that at the blame of the governments concerned or failures in the U.S. effort?

Rep. RANGEL: Well, let me put it this way. We don't have a U.S. strategy. Now, with all of the agreements and the acknowledgments by heads of government that growing and producing and processing drugs could have an adverse effect on their governments and their people, the truth remains that we expect bumper crops from every opium- and cocaine-producing country. So we don't really have a strategy in order to effectively make certain that there's eradication. We can talk about Colombia. They have had their ambassadors, their public servants assassinated. They can't even have a trial of narcotic agents in a civil court in Colombia. All of them have to be tried by the military. Their minister of justice was assassinated. The president appoints someone to investigate that; they assassinate them. The government is dependent on this illegal crop. I know of no eradication that's taken place now in Colombia as relates to coca, but the fact is we expect to come into the United States some 150 tons of coca and some 60,000 tons of marijuana and some 12,000 tons of heroin. And I'm saying that the United Nations, the secretary of state and the Congress knows this, and we don't have an effective strategy.

MacNEIL: What is your strategy?

Rep. RANGEL: My strategy is, first of all, we have to tell these countries that we mean business. We can't call their loans and have them go into bankruptcy, and at the same time give them money for a crop eradication program, only to find out that corruption has taken the money and we find no eradication. Secondly, I think we should have really a stepped-up law enforcement effort. You go to our local and state police departments around this country, as our committee has, and they have thrown up their hands. They believe it's an international problem; the President and this administration believes that law enforcement and education and prevention and rehabilitation is a local and state problem. But the most important thing -- and this is what purpose your program is serving -- is that we have no federal program to deal with education and prevention. We have no modality to give to the local and state schools, and they don't have it either.

MacNEIL: Okay. Now, we're going to -- we have many other programs in this series, and we're going to come to those elements. But what about your proposal -- explain briefly how your proposal would work to force these countries to eradicate by denying them aid?

Rep. RANGEL: First of all, it's not going to work.

MacNEIL: And let me preface it by saying, don't they make so much money out of drugs that losing a bit of American aid would be small by comparison?

Rep. RANGEL: No. I have to agree with the secretary that the leaders of some of these countries in Peru and in Bolivia and in Colombia really want to excise the degree of corruption that exists in their countries, and would really like to have an effective eradication program. But what I'm telling them, what the Congress is saying, it's a message that we're sending to the State Department. We can't have these people in striped pants say that every country that's violating international and bilateral treaties, that everything is working out; they see the problem, we're turning the corner, there's light at the end of the tunnel. And yet on the streets in every congressional district we see tons of poison still coming across our borders. What we are saying is, if you take the United States dollars and you take it for an eradication program, at least show the Congress what you've done and make the President certify it. You don't do it, you can't do it; you don't get the money.

MacNEIL: Okay. Judy?

WOODRUFF: All right. Mr. Thomas, you're not wearing striped pants, but we'll ask you anyway, because I think that's who he's talking about. He's saying that you people at the State Department are too optimistic; that your program's really been a terrible failure when you look at these drug-producing countries all over the world.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, first of all, as Congressman Rangel knows, in our annual report to Congress we did not really exhibit any optimism at all. I think it was a very realistic report, and much of the statistics he draws on, of course, comes from that very report. We have shown, unfortunately, that narcotics production is up around the world. We have seen some real success stories and we've seen some failures, and we've been quite frank about that. I would also like to add that I know of no government where -- that represents a country where narcotics is either produced or trafficked in large quantities, where we have not made that one of our highest foreign policy priorities. Whether it be President Reagan or Vice President Bush or secretary of state or myself, I can assure you that these are always issues at the top of our agenda.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Rangel?

Rep. RANGEL: Since 1972 -- and this has nothing to do with this administration; any administration, some of the best people that go in the State Department understand the problem so well that I don't think that America gets a fair shake out of it. But we've had laws on the book which gives the President discretion in cutting off economic and military assistance to countries. The only president that effectively used it was former President Nixon, and when he cut off military assistance to Turkey, they banned the opium crop.

WOODRUFF: All right, why not talk about -- why not start cutting off assistance, military and otherwise, when these countries don't do everything we expect them to do?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, first of all, most of the assistance is already conditioned to how a country performs in the narcotics area, and we're quite prepared to cut off assistance if we think that would benefit that program.

WOODRUFF: Have we punished a country yet on that basis?

Rep. RANGEL: No. No.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, let's take Colombia, the case that you've shown tonight. I can assure you that the Colombian government's activities and sustained effort in this area was not brought about either because we threatened cutoff of assistance or we bullied the Colombians. We made sure that they had the capabilities of carrying out their own functions. They recognized a need to do it within their own country. And where -- in some countries, perhaps, where a government is not doing what it should do or refuses to do so, as was the case in 1980-81 in the Garcia Meza regime in Bolivia, yes indeed, we suspended assistance to that government.

WOODRUFF: And is that enough, do you think?

Mr. THOMAS: It certainly wasn't effective then in the case of Bolivia, where Congress is now considering suspension of assistance if certain conditions aren't met. It's a government that's already impoverished, and I'm afraid that by suspending small amounts of assistance to that government, we're only pushing them into the arms of the narcotics rackets.

Rep. RANGEL: I may agree with him on that. I may agree with him on that.

WOODRUFF: On Bolivia?

Rep. RANGEL: On Bolivia. I mean, it's a basket case in terms of their economy. But the truth of the matter is that every country that we got agreements with are producing bumper crops, and I don't recall in the history of this administration or the Carter administration them ever recommending a cutback in economic assistance to these countries. There's always some excuse that they're going to do better. And so that is why the Congress got involved in something that really should be an executive decision. But they have never recommended saying that this country -- you take Mexico. We got more heroin pouring across our borders from Mexico than ever in the history of their production.

WOODRUFF: But you're saying we haven't used any leverage against Mexico.

Rep. RANGEL: We've never done it because State Department type of people and ambassadors don't do that.

WOODRUFF: All right, let's ask. Why haven't we?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, first of all, to maybe counter some of the statistics. In fact, heroin coming from Mexico is much reduced, to where it was in the mid-1970s before we started our State Department-run eradication effort. In Thailand we expect a decrease this year. In Burma we expect a decrease. Pakistan we expect a decrease. Colombia, we've just talked about some of its successes. So the bumper-crop description really is not completely accurate.

Rep. RANGEL: You may be expecting that, Mr. Secretary, but what I'm suggesting is every year of this administration we have had dramatic increases in marijuana, cocaine and opium.

WOODRUFF: Is that true?

Mr. THOMAS: No, it's not. And for example, in Colombia we've seen significant reductions in marijuana cultivation.

Rep. RANGEL: And coca?

Mr. THOMAS: Coca cultivation, where there has been manual eradication operations. We are now working on the spray I was talking about. The coca problem is probably our biggest difficulty right now, because it's not only grown in remote areas, but we're talking about cooperation in governments where there may not be full cooperation.

WOODRUFF: What more would you have them do? He's saying that the output is going down from these countries. What more would you --

Rep. RANGEL: The first thing I would want him to do is not to believe that the State Department can possibly deal with this problem alone. You have to have a national strategy; you have to deal with demand; you have to make certain that kids and adults recognize what is going on here; you have to have effective law enforcement; you have to do something to protect your borders; and you have to make certain that in the foreign policy is not just the assistant secretary that's dealing with sanctions and offering the carrot for eradication, but also the foreign policy, the debt restructuring, so that when the Congress looks at whether or not we should provide sanction in drugs, that we're not crippling a country that's already unable to pay its international debt responsibilities.

WOODRUFF: What about that?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, first of all, there is a national strategy, and Congressman Rangel just described it, whether he'll admit it or not. Our strategy starts with international cooperation; then it's tough interdiction at our borders; then it's good enforcement inside of our country. All three of those things have been increased. Then into the demand reduction area.

WOODRUFF: And you're saying that's working.

Mr. THOMAS: And I'm saying it's a long-term strategy, and anyone that would sit anywhere and say that we can expect short-term results in this area is just flat-out wrong. It's a long-term strategy, and it's going to have to have --

WOODRUFF: Is that what you expect --

Rep. RANGEL: We got a $17-billion-dollar educational program federally -- only three million of that is allocated in dealing with the drug problem. We have no effective program to deal with demand in this country. Mainly because we don't know about it in New York, Chicago, Boston -- all of the places that we've had hearings, there's been no program.

WOODRUFF: If there has been -- let me just ask you this finally, Mr. Thomas. If there has been a decrease, why haven't people like Congressman Rangel seen it?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, he has seen it in specific countries.

Rep. RANGEL: In our streets?

Mr. THOMAS: In specific countries we've seen decreases in production. On the other hand, I agree with Congressman Rangel, who has been an outstanding champion in this area, that we have not seen a decrease in worldwide production, and in fact, unfortunately we've seen an increase in drug abuse around the world, an increase in political instability because of the drug problem, and that's an unfortunate circumstance.

WOODRUFF: Well, it's good to hear you end on one at least brief note of harmony. Thank you both, Mr. Secretary Thomas and Congressman Rangel; thank you both for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Congressman Rangel mentioned the borders. Tomorrow we'll look at how the United States is trying and so far failing to stop the flow of drugs across its borders, at sea, on the ground and in the air.

Our Lurie cartoon tonight looks at some European reaction to the U.S. raid on Libya.

[Ranon Lurie cartoon -- Qaddafi lighting fire under "terror" kettle containing Europeans on one side and the U.S. on the other. Europeans say, "Why worry? He's only putting the heat on the other side," as the whole kettle begins to boil.]

MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. Three British hostages were executed in Lebanon, as terrorists punished Britain for supporting the U.S. raid on Libya. A woman carrying a bomb was stopped from boarding an El Al flight in London. The U.S. prepared to evacuate several hundred embassy personnel from Sudan. The economy grew at an unexpectedly strong 3.2 from January through March.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.