The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, a suspected car bomb killed at least four people at a U. S. servicemen's club in Naples, Italy. The Afghan troop withdrawal agreement was signed in Geneva. A U. S. frigate hit an apparent mine in the Persian Gulf, injuring 10 sailors, and the U. S. trade deficit was up again, triggering a 101 point stock market drop. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we debate questions of safety at Eastern Airlines with a company official and a union representative. Then, disagreements over the Afghanistan Accord are argued by a State Department official and a congressman. And finally, a report on racial tensions over the Dallas Police Department.News Summary LEHRER: There was an explosion outside a U. S. Servicemen's Club in Naples, Italy, tonight. At least one U. S. sailor was among four people reported killed. Another 20 were injured. Italian officials said it appears the explosion was caused by a bomb planted in a parked car. There was no immediate word on how many of the other dead and injured were American servicemen. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: In Geneva, four nations, including the United States and the Soviet Union today signed an historic agreement that will end Moscow's nine year occupation of Afghanistan. The U. N. --sponsored pact calls for the Soviets to start pulling out its 115,000 troops on May 15. During the ten minute ceremony at the U. N. Council Chamber, Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze and Secretary of State George Shultz signed for the two superpowers, which will act as guarantors of the agreements. The other signatories were Afghanistan and Pakistan. United Nations General Secretary Javier Perez de Cuellar said the accords represent a major stride in the effort to bring peace to Afghanistan. After the signing, Secretary of State Shultz had this to say:

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: The stage has now been set for the Afghan people to determine their own future, free of Soviet forces, and for the refugees to return to their homes. It will be important for all concerned to assist the Afghans in their efforts to establish a government which reflects the will of the Afghan people. HUNTER-GAULT: Mujahadeen guerilla leaders, notably absent from the ceremony, vowed to continue their war until the Kabul government is deposed. Their ally, Pakistani President Zia said he foresees continued turmoil because the agreement didn't address the issue of a new government. LEHRER: Ten U. S. sailors were injured today when a Navy frigate hit an underwater explosive in the Persian Gulf. The ship was the USS Samuel B. Roberts. It apparently struck a mine while on patrol duty in the central gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said none of the ten sailors suffered serious injury, and the ship was not in danger of sinking.

DAN HOWARD, Pentagon spokesman: Approximately 10:10 this morning, Eastern Daylight Time, the USS Sam Roberts -- it's a FFG 58 -- experienced underwater explosion in the Persian Gulf at a point approximately 70 miles due east of Bahrain. It caused flooding in the engine room, and some hull damage. The flooding is under control, and the ship is in the process of pumping out the water. It's operating under auxiliary power. LEHRER: The Roberts is one of 14 U. S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf to protect American flagged commercial shipping. HUNTER-GAULT: In Algiers, gunmen holding the hijacked Kuwaiti jetliner released one of their hostages late today, as negotiations appear to intensify to end the 10 day old crisis. Some 35 hostages remain on board the 747 jumbo jet. Earlier in the day, negotiations broke off. The suspension came amid pleas from one hostage, who said that ''unless the hijackers' demands are met, they will kill us all. '' The hijackers are seeking the release of 27 pro Iranian terrorists jailed in Kuwait. In Kuwait, hundreds of mourners, including members of the Royal Family, attended an emotional funeral for the two Kuwaiti men already murdered by the hijackers. They were hailed as martyrs and victims of terrorism. LEHRER: The U. S. trade deficit has gone up again. The Commerce Department said today the jump in February was $1. 4 billion, to a $13. 8 billion total deficit. It was the largest monthly increase since last October, and was mostly unexpected. Analysts had predicted a decline in the trade deficit as the result of drops in the value of the U. S. dollar. Today's surprising news caused the New York Stock Market to decline. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 101 points at closing. It also triggered further drops in the price of the dollar, and of gold on European money markets. HUNTER-GAULT: Harry Helmsley, the billionaire developer, and his wife Leona, the self styled Motel Queen, were arraigned today on tax evasion charges in New York State court. They were accused of disguising millions of dollars in renovation costs for their estate as business expenses. A 47 count federal indictment was also handed down. Both Helmsleys along with two associates also named in the indictment pleaded not guilty and were released on their own recognizance. The Helmsleys own the Empire State Building and the Helmsley Palace Hotel, among other holdings. LEHRER: President Reagan today nominated Washington lawyer Judith Richards Hope to replace Robert Bork. Mr. Reagan said he would nominate Mr. Hope to take the seat on the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington Bork vacated in February. She has been active in Republican politics for several years. She worked for Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole and in the Ford White House. Her husband is Anthony Hope, son of entertainer Bob Hope. A Military Appeals Court in Washington today freed a Navy heart surgeon convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of three patients. The court said there was insufficient evidence against Dr. Donal M. Billig. HUNTER-GAULT: Transportation Secretary Jim Burnley has some words of warning for the airline industry today. He called the federal investigation of Texas Air Corporation and its Eastern Airlines subsidiary a shot across the bow of any airline that allows financial pressures to compromise safety. At the same time, he said on the Today Show that passengers should be reassured by a planned month long safety probe of Eastern's fleet. Meanwhile, in Charleston, West Virginia, a Piedmont Airlines jet made an emergency landing today, after a jet turbine apparently disintegrated in flight. The turbine ripped a hole in the fuselage, causing a loss in cabin pressure. Passengers said that oxygen masks were released, but not all worked, and some passengers fainted. Authorities said there were no injuries. That's our news summary. Still ahead, debates on Eastern Airlines safety, the Afghanistan Accord, and racial tensions over the Dallas police force. Safety Sacrificed? LEHRER: We first tonight rejoin the hottest airline safety story of all time. Yesterday, the Federal Government launched an unprecedented investigation of Eastern Airlines, promising to inspect all 267 planes in the airline's fleet over the next 30 days, and also investigate the management's ability to run the airline. The airline fought back today with this ad in the nation's leading newspapers, saying it welcomed the investigation and blaming the situation on labor problems. We will now join the argument with two men from Miami. Representing Eastern Airlines, Steve Kolski, a Vice President for Maintenance, and sitting next to him in Miami is Charles Bryan, president of District 100 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which has many members who work for Eastern Airlines. Gentlemen, my apologies, we had intended to run a little tape and at the last minute they told me we weren't going to run the tape. That's my explanation for the confusion on introducing you. But anyhow, thank you both for being with us tonight from Miami. First of all, gentlemen, what is the special FAA inspection likely to conclude about the safety of Eastern Airlines? Mr. Kolski? STEVE KOLSKI, Eastern Airlines: Well, we believe that the special investigation of the FAA will confirm that Eastern is a compliant airline with all federal safety rules. And that the many charges that have been levied against Eastern, primarily led by a small group of union activists, that Eastern is unsafe or has unsafe practices, will be put to rest. We welcome the investigation. We believe the vast preponderance of employees and management at Eastern Airlines are dedicated employees, dedicated to the safety of airline flight, and that this investigation will conclude that, and put this matter to rest once and for all. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan, what do you believe the investigation will conclude? CHARLES BRYAN, Machinists Union: First of all, I'd like to respond to the proposition this is a labor/management -- LEHRER: We'll get to that in a minute -- Mr. BRYAN: It's just not true, and it's really a Lorenzo passenger dispute or congressional/Lorenzo dispute -- LEHRER: Exactly, but I -- I understand the position -- Let's talk about one thing at a time. Mr. BRYAN: Right. I was only trying to respond to the previous comment -- LEHRER: Sure, sure. Mr. BRYAN: -- but as a relation of what the findings will be, we hope that they will be far reaching in this investigation and go certainly far beyond just safety. As the DOT order indicated they're going to look into the fitness of the management, into the way the airline's being managed, the financing of the airline, and whether in fact they're really serious about running an airline and the way they're conducting business at Eastern. It's a very complex, much more complex than we can get into on the program. In relation to safety, I don't believe the 30 days will ever be sufficient time to do an in depth and a detailed evaluation of a fleet of over 260 aircraft. I think it'll have to be an extended investigation and an ongoing followup to have the assurances we're looking for. Because we've already had indications from my staff that there's been about nine airplanes grounded today by the FAA observations. LEHRER: Is that true, Mr. Kolski, nine planes have been grounded today by the FAA? Mr. KOLSKI: That's absolutely not true, sir. Before the FAA can ground an airplane, they have to issue a grounding order, which has to be backed up by a piece of paper supplied to the airline. The FAA has not grounded any airplanes at Eastern Airlines yesterday or today. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan, generally, what is your position about the safety of Eastern Airlines operation right now? Generally? Mr. BRYAN: Well, first of all, I am not and have never been an alarmist. In fact, until very recently I have scrupulously avoided any media comment about the safety because I did not want this labor/management thing to be validated. The fact is, though, all we've done really is to provide empirical data, documentation and so forth for what's being observed by the outside world. And I quite frankly am not afraid to fly. I think it's much safer than driving a car. And I've not quit driving my car. But I think the margins for safety are being compromised to great extremes, and certainly unnecessarily. LEHRER: In what way? Mr. BRYAN: Well, an airplane, first of all, is an extremely safe piece of machinery, with heavy redundancy backups, and they're overbuilt as far as stresses and so forth are concerned. But when you have management overruling mechanics -- in a very recent incident where a mechanic was investigating an engine that had an air conditioning hole ingested into it. What had happened, a ramp serviceman was hurrying to put a large air conditioning duct under the airplane, the engine was running, and it sucked it into the engine intake, and the mechanic took the engine off, and the mechanic was inspecting it with a borescope device, and looking into the inside of the engine. They pulled this mechanic off of it, put a supervisor onto that inspection, put the engine back in service, and a few weeks later that aircraft was flying eastbound from Miami Airport very close to the highly populated Miami area, the engine exploded and scattered fiery debris all over a field and caught it afire. It was a very serious situation. It was a two engine aircraft. It lost one of its engines with a full load of passengers. LEHRER: Mr. Kolski, what about that situation? And also Mr. Bryan's general comment that the margin of safety is being compromised at Eastern? Mr. KOLSKI: First, let me talk to the engine and come back to the margin of safety issue. Mr. Bryan's comments are reckless and slanderous to Eastern Airlines, its employees and its management. The fact of the matter is, when that engine ingested the plastic air conditioning hose, it was determined to be serviceable, completely legal and safe to continue on the wing of the airplane in flight. That was in October of 1987. Management decided to remove the engine as a precaution and take it to the engine service center in Miami. An engine change is a lengthy process, causes delays that otherwise would have been taken at the -- if the engine had been left on the airplane. In the engine service center, the airplane, the engine was opened for inspection. A mechanic did record, as he's supposed to record, what he observed to be damage to the compressor section of the engine. A management employee determined that the damage recorded was within limits to remain in service. It's important to note that that management member two weeks before was paying dues as a dues paying member and a mechanic at Eastern Airlines, paying dues to Mr. Bryan's union. It's interesting that Mr. Bryan would say that he's unqualified two weeks after he quit paying dues to his union. The compressor was determined to be totally within limits to return to service. The engine was put back on another airplane. Four months later, not five days, four months later, that engine failed. The part that failed was the turbine of the engine, it was not the compressor. It had nothing to do with the compressor. That compressor was taken to our engine service center. It has been examined by the FAA, it has been examined by the NTSB. It was determined to still be in service, even after the turbine failed. One point that Mr. Bryan doesn't know -- and I'm going to be telling him for the first time -- one month before that engine failed, 30 days before, in January, that engine was borescoped by one of his members, a highly respected mechanic at Miami International Airport. And it was determined to have no damage (unintelligible) limits. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan? Mr. KOLSKI: If there was damage in October, there would have been damage in January to that compressor. The compressor remains serviceable today. That's why I say his charges are reckless and slanderous to our company. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan? Mr. BRYAN: Yes, first of all, I used to work in engine change and troubleshooting, that was my job, and my training, my academic training was aeronautical engineering. I don't know what Mr. Kolski's background is, but the harmonics and the vibrations that get set up internally within an engine, are enormously high pressure with the high speeds of the turbines and its compressor blades and so forth, are such that the transference and the deterioration of an engine is interdependent on all the systems on -- all of the -- the parts are all fastened together and in fact as one unit when they're flying in the air as an engine. And they're all certainly interdependent and intereffective on each other. Secondly, as far as what Mr. Kolski's saying about that particular supervisor being a mechanic. That's right, he had had 300 trips to our medical department, was a very marginal employee and had letters in his file about his performance as a mechanic. He changed his loyalties obviously and decided to go into management and become a very harsh manager, in fact. He overruled our mechanic on repair of that engine, and just yesterday, that same foreman in the engine overhaul shop overruled a mechanic on an engine maintenance problem, on the 13th, just yesterday, and this supervisor that we're talking about, same supervisor, was overruled by techs service department and they in fact told him to disassemble the same kind of an engine. So the supervisor really has a second time now, he's done a very similar thing. LEHRER: So you deny his charge that what you're saying here is reckless and scandalous. Mr. BRYAN: It absolutely is not reckless and scandalous, and Mr. Lorenzo on TV the other night suggested that this was a kettle of fish from the -- delivered by our friends in the machinists union. I think it's a kettle of fish that was delivered over the city of Miami by his management. LEHRER: Mr. Lorenzo, to identify, is the Chairman of the Board of Texas Air Corp, which owns Eastern Airlines. All right, let's go to this question -- Mr. KOLSKI: Sir, you didn't let me comment on the other part of the question you had for me -- namely the margin of safety. It is extremely interesting to us at Eastern that in 1985 and 1986, when Eastern was ongoing, undergoing a white glove inspection by the FAA, which resulted in a $9. 5 million fine, the worst civil penalty ever issued by the FAA, thousands and thousands of violations, and thisoccurred before Texas Air acquired Eastern, that there wasn't one mechanic, one union leader, there wasn't a word out of Mr. Bryan, about unsafe practices at Eastern. Eastern has remarkably improved its compliance and safety posture since that inspection. The FAA has said so many times, publicly and privately and in written official documents. It's interesting, what has changed today that causes Mr. Bryan and others to come forward and say we have a safety problem at Eastern, when they were nowhere to be heard in 1985 and 1986. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan -- Mr. KOLSKI: The margin of safety at Eastern Airlines is greater today than at any time since Texas Air acquired it. Every standard under which one can measure maintenance has improved. The number of deferred maintenance items are reduced. The budget for maintenance has increased. The highest in the industry. There is no cutting of corners at maintenance at Eastern. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan? Mr. BRYAN: Well, first of all, it's interesting to go back to '85 and '86. The fact is the company was profitable then, we had an excellent safety record, we were not having any problems. The -- in fact in the first seven months of the very year leading into the sale of Eastern, we made a record profit of $168 million at Eastern. The employees were all working to get a cooperative, and they owned better than one third of the company. When Frank Lorenzo and the Board of Directors of Eastern got together and made a deal to sell, take it away from the employees. All we wanted to do then and continue to want to do, quite frankly, is to buy the airline back for the employees and restore it to the level of excellence we know it's capable of achieving. But since he wants to go back and talk to that period of time, those fines were not implemented until after the airline was sold to Frank Lorenzo. The inspections were taking place up to and including the period of time when Frank Lorenzo took over. And I'm not making an allegation, but certainly I would submit that Frank Lorenzo has demonstrated with the former Chairman of CAB and the former Chairman of the FAA working for him, an enormous amount of influence with the FAA. And it's ironic that that huge fine with Eastern Airlines came in conjunction with Eastern declaring that they were about to go into default with the bankers. They had forced a strike situation with the flight attendants and pilots. They had set the stage in other words for a crises situation to justify the sale of the airline to Frank Lorenzo. Mr. KOLSKI: Sir, may I comment on that? LEHRER: Let's go to the question that I promised Mr. Bryan we must get to. And that was your charge at the very beginning, Mr. Kolski, that this is not a safety question, this is a labor/management question, and that the unions are being irresponsible in attacking you and the airline. Mr. Bryan, your answer to that? Mr. BRYAN: Well, what I said was that this is clearly a passenger problem with Frank Lorenzo Airline, or Texas Air Corporation. Texas Air has a stranglehold on the bottom place on customer complaints for years now. And have drawn Eastern Airlines right down next to it, next to the bottom. And Congress has certainly -- 150 people in the House now had signed a bill -- I think it's an insult to our Congress to suggest that they did not have major evidence of a serious problem before they would sign a bill to have the kind of investigation we've got going. Every political candidate in the Democratic camp for president, in fact, are supporting the employees' position in this controversy, and they don't get on the wrong side of an issue. I would submit there was very, very overwhelming evidence that we're in the right. LEHRER: Mr. Kolski? Mr. KOLSKI: Two comments. First, going back to the $9. 5 million fine. That fine was announced and determined before Texas Air acquired Eastern. The only -- first thing that Texas Air agreed to do with respect to that fine was agree to pay it. Something that Frank Borman and the prior management of Eastern refused to pay. The first thing Eastern management did under Texas Air was agree to pay it and go about fixing the problems. Which we've done. The other comment I would like to make -- going back to something Mr. Bryan said. Talked about returning this to an employee owned airline. This is the heart of Mr. Bryan's dispute with Eastern, and this is why he's taking this charges public. He is trying to bash the company. You've heard charges that the company's trying to bust the union. This is a union trying to bust the company so that they can buy it. LEHRER: Is that it? Mr. KOLSKI: Return it, as Mr. Bryan just said, to an employee owned company. He doesn't own the company. He refuses to negotiate at the bargaining table. He instead wants to negotiate in front of Congress and with phony safety charges. He said that there were hundreds, or he said dozens, of instances that his people have provided empirical data to the FAA about management overruling mechanics. The FAA investigates every one of those things very seriously, has not found the first case in which there's any validity to those charges. That's why we welcome this investigation. We want it out. We want it out to show that these charges are phony and they continue to be phony, and they're designed for one purpose, and one purpose alone. That is to bash the company. LEHRER: Bash the company, Mr. Bryan? Is that what's going on here? Mr. BRYAN: Well, I'd let you make your own mind up about that. Since Frank Lorenzo took over Eastern, they've been terminating employees at ten times the rate they did prior to that. Over a thousand percent increase in disciplinary terminations of employees. Unbelievable charges of employees. Just recently, as a matter of fact, a mechanic was threatened in Ft. Lauderdale, just a matter of a few days ago. A captain on an airplane asked a mechanic to come back and pull his airplane, and he had an emergency onboard with a passenger. The mechanic went out and pulled the airplane back into the gate. The emergency was that there was a passenger onboard who died. This woman passed away. They gave the mechanic a disciplinary letter for pulling that airplane back in instead of pushing another airplane out that was slightly delayed because of his responding to the captain's call. It's that kind of brutalization of employees. And they call it union bashing, or management bashing, it's employee bashing really. And they don't really discriminate whether you're in the union or not. (unintelligible) bashing is also going on. LEHRER: Mr. Kolski, these are very serious charges about your airline. Mr. KOLSKI: They are serious charges, and they're false. LEHRER: How does this thing get resolved? Here you are -- Mr. KOLSKI: It gets resolved with this investigation by the FAA, which is going to examine these charges and put them to rest once and for all. Mr. Bryan said that we are indiscriminately disciplining employees. That's not true. He fails to mention that some employees who have failed to follow FAA rules and the FAR's and the maintenance manual are disciplined for that purpose, and his union continues to fight to get their jobs back. LEHRER: Mr. Bryan, is that true? Mr. BRYAN: We have a duty of fair representation for anyone who gets terminated and Mr. Kolski's well aware of that under the federal law. However, we are winning a high, high percentage of our cases with full back pay. Just recently -- one of the things I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned -- it comes up in court or wherever they get a chance to talk -- about the $80,000 baggage handler. So I'll mention it since they haven't. But we have two employees that earn near that in Newark. The fact is, the company has terminated large numbers of employees, making them work all their holidays, making them work all their overtime, saturation overtime, and they could actually hire four employees for that rate of pay. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we have to leave it there. But I hereby, in front of everybody, invite you both to come back when 30 days is up and we get the results of these investigations and -- is that a deal? Mr. KOLSKI: Be glad to do it. Mr. BRYAN: Be happy to be here. LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, thank you both very much. Again, my apologies for the foul up at the top of the program getting our act together. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: Still to come, the Afghan Accord and Dallas police racial troubles. Afghan Exit HUNTER-GAULT: We turn next to the historic Afghanistan Peace Accord. Although it was widely hailed for its promise today by officials attending the signing in Geneva, some questions remain. Among them, how good a deal is it? And will it end that bitter war? We'll take up those questions in a moment with a State Department official and a U. S. senator. But first, some background on that country, whose very name used to symbolize a faraway place, but then came to stand for a major tragedy of the cold war. A report now from correspondent Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Since 1979, political and military developments in Afghanistan have been an accurate barometer of U. S. /Soviet relations. The invasion itself brought an end to Jimmy Carter's illusions about the Soviet Union, and to a decade of detente. JIMMY CARTER, former President, USA: This invasion is an extremely serious threat to peace. Because of the threat of further Soviet expansion into neighboring countries in Southwest Asia. And also because such an aggressive military policy is unsettling to other peoples throughout the world.

KRAUSE: In response, Carter ordered economic sanctions and a U. S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. He also ordered covert aid to the Afghan rebels, called the Mujahadeen. With full bipartisan support, that aid was continued and expanded by President Reagan. Since 1981, the CIA has supplied arms worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the rebel army, based in Pakistan along the Afghan border. Well armed, well trained and motivated by their Muslim faith, the Mujahadeen proved to be more than a match for the 115,000 Russian troops in Afghanistan. On the diplomatic front, the U. S. lost no opportunity to denounce the Soviet occupation. And during President Reagan's first term, Afghanistan was both cause and symbol of frosty bilateral relations. By the time Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985, Soviet casualties in Afghanistan numbered more than 20,000. Drug abuse had become a widespread problem among Russian soldiers. And at home, the Kremlin could no longer hide a war that was bloody and increasingly unpopular in a country where no one is exempt from military service. For the first time in 1985, Soviet television began to report news from Afghanistan, including the fact that every day Russian soldiers were being killed by the U. S. --backed Mujahadeen. And publicly, Gorbachev began to make clear his determination to withdraw from Afghanistan, which has been called the Soviet Union's Vietnam. Oleg Derkovsky is counselor at the Soviet Embassy in Washington. KRAUSE: To what extent is this withdrawal related to the U. S. pressure that has been brought to bear? OLEG DERKOVSKY, Counselor, Soviet Embassy: There are many interpretations. The one you have mentioned is one of the interpretations. I think it is based on erroneous concept that we went there to stay. And that we lost the war there. We went there with an intention to help the friendly government in the republic of Afghanistan, or to tranquilize and civilize the situation. And therefore, all assessments to the fact that we lost the war or military pressure is the major factor in our decision to withdraw, I think those are not very accurate assessments. KRAUSE: To what extent is the decision to withdraw related to your government's policy of attempting to improve relations with the United States? Mr. DERKOVSKY: I believe this is one of the major factors which underlies the decision. KRAUSE: There were four separate agreements signed today in Geneva. The first commits Moscow to begin withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan by May 15. Half are to be out by August, the rest by early next year. The second agreement pledges Pakistan and Afghanistan to end intervention in each other's internal affairs. That would appear to mean Pakistan can no longer aid or allow its territory to be used by the Afghan rebels. The third agreement provides for the orderly and voluntary return of an estimated four million Afghan refugees. And finally, the U. S. and Soviet Union agree to guarantee the accords will be carried out. The agreements do not provide for a cease fire. In fact, in a separate side agreement, the Reagan Administration reserves the right to continue military aid to the rebels. As long as the Soviet Union continues to aid the communist regime in Kabul. But the U. S. /Soviet understanding raises another question: Can the United States continue to funnel aid to the Afghan rebels through Pakistan? Derkovsky implied that his government would consider that to be a violation of the agreement. Mr. DERKOVSKY: From the Soviet side, I could emphasize that first, after the signing of the documents, we will act in good faith in trying to implement the letter and the spirit of them, and that we will expect from all other sides, which are going to put their signatures, to act likewise. We are talking about the documents, objectives of which is peace in Afghanistan.

KRAUSE: But on Monday, Secretary of State Shultz refused to respond directly to reports that U. S. aid will continue through Pakistan. GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: What we will say and what we will do is support the freedom fighters. And we are confident that we will be able to deliver that support and will do so. KRAUSE: Why do you think the Secretary of State will have left the impression that the United States will continue to provide military support to the rebels? Mr. DERKOVSKY: I simply cannot penetrate his mind. HUNTER-GAULT: We take up the ambiguities and agreements now with Edward Djerejian, acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, and Sen. Gordon Humphrey, a Republican from New Hampshire. Sen. Humphrey, a longtime supporter of the Afghan resistance, joins us from the Senate Gallery. Mr. Secretary, first to the ambiguities, briefly, does the agreement allow the United States to aid the resistance, to continue aiding the resistance? EDWARD DJEREJIAN, State Department: We have entered into the Geneva Accords as a guarantor on the basis of the principle of symmetry. And that means that we are undertaking reciprocal obligations with the Soviet Union in terms of military assistance on the Soviet Union's part to the regime in Kabul, on our part to the Afghan Mujahadeen, the resistance fighters. This is very important because our support for the Mujahadeen will not waver, nor quite frankly will our support for Pakistan, which has through the long years of struggle stood steadfast in support of the Afghan cause. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I guess there's where the ambiguity comes in. Because in the pact, it says that Pakistan can no longer allow its territory to be used by the rebels, and it also seems to imply that the United States can't use Pakistan to transmit this assistance. So how do you continue to do that and not get Pakistan in a bind? Mr. DJEREJIAN: Well, Charlayne, we have in the negotiations, culminating in this accord, in our talks with the Soviets at the highest levels, and in diplomatic exchanges with the Soviets, in close consultation with the Pakistanis, we have made our position on reciprocal obligations and symmetry extremely well known. There's no ambiguity in that respect. HUNTER-GAULT: And that in a simple statement is what? Mr. DJEREJIAN: That basically that we will continue to provide assistance to the Mujahadeen as long as the Soviet Union continues to provide assistance to the regime in Kabul. Now, in answer to your question, all I can say, your direct question, is that we are confident that we have the means and the ability to exert and exercise this right of symmetry. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is this agreement a good deal for the United States and its interests in that part of the world? Mr. DJEREJIAN: Well, I think we must not lose sight of our fundamental objectives in Afghanistan and in long negotiations leading to the signatures today in Geneva. One is the complete withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Certainly, this agreement provides for that in a structured way and on a timetable that is reduced from an original starting point -- if you look at January 1987, the Soviets were advocating 40 months for a withdrawal period. Well, we've gotten it down now to nine months, and according to what the Soviets told us, it might be even before the end of this calendar year. So that's certainly a major accomplishment. The second objective is to provide for the self determination of the Afghan people. And what this means is that the Afghan people cannot determine their own future as long as there are 115,000, 120,000 Soviet troops in their country. So that's a second major objective. Third is the return of the five million Afghan refugees in dignity and honor to their own country, which is a necessary concomitant of self determination. And the establishment of an independent, neutral, nonaligned Afghanistan. So in our basic strategic approach to this issue, we feel that this accord is a first step -- and I must say a first step towards realizing our objectives, the objectives of the Mujahadeen and Pakistan. HUNTER-GAULT: Senator Humphrey, you've called this agreement ''Childishly dishonest. '' Why? Sen. GORDON HUMPHREY, (R) New Hampshire: Well, it is. You've already spoken of the ambiguities. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what bothers you about that, the ambiguity? Sen. HUMPHREY: My friend is doing his best to represent the State Department, which is particularly difficult in this case, because our approach to these agreements is intellectually dishonest. We have already made it known that we intend to violate the spirit of this agreement, and made it known that we intend to encourage the Pakistani government to violate the letter. Indeed our whole commitment to the Afghan resistance depends on Pakistan violating the letter of these very agreements. So to begin with, it's intellectually dishonest, which does harm to the image of the United States, not to mention the U. N. And the whole concept of solemn agreements. But what is even worse -- HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. I hate to interrupt you there, but this is -- I find this a very complicated deal. So let me -- could I just go back to the Secretary and get him to comment on that point before you make your next point? We've got lots of time. Sen. HUMPHREY: Sure. Providing I get equal time. HUNTER-GAULT: Oh, you certainly will. But I want to clear up this ambiguity before I make it more ambiguous. Mr. Secretary, can you respond to what the senator said about your response on this? Mr. DJEREJIAN: Well, basically, and I must say that Senator Humphrey, the Senate and the Congress have been very instrumental in basically getting us all to the point where we're able to achieve this agreement, because we've had tremendous support in terms of achieving the aim of getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan. I said this is a first step in that long path. HUNTER-GAULT: But on his charge that you're encouraging Pakistan to violate the spirit of the agreement -- Sen. HUMPHREY: The letter. HUNTER-GAULT: The letter, and you the spirit. Mr. DJEREJIAN: Well, let me respond to that in this way. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has made a statement in which he has stated that all of Pakistan's concerns have been met in terms of the elaboration of these accords. Secondly, he has stated that Pakistan agrees with our interpretation on symmetry, which he feels deflects from the weakening of the position of the Mujahadeen. In other words, our basic position that we will continue our military assistance to the Mujahadeen as long as the Soviet Union continues its assistance to the regime in Kabul. So I think that's the best way I can answer the question of the ambiguities involved. HUNTER-GAULT: Senator? Sen. HUMPHREY: Well, to say that is doubletalk is to be charitable. I would put it somewhere around triple or quadrupletalk. The fact is, Charlayne, that the only way that we can remain faithful to the Afghan resistance, that is, to continue to provide them arms -- and by the way, it's been those arms and not these Geneva papers which have procured the willingness of the Soviets to leave Afghanistan, the only way we can remain faithful to the resistance is to continue to supply them with, and so long as the Soviets in this communist puppet regime, which the Soviets set up, remain. The only way we can get arms to the resistance is through Pakistan. And the only way for that to happen is for Pakistan to violate the letter of this agreement. Now, that's where my greatest worry comes in. Pakistan is now going to come under enormous international pressure to cease its violations. If she does, that means the pipeline is cut off, that means the resistance are without weapons, it means the Soviets ultimately have won at the bargaining table, with the help of the State Department, what they couldn't win through eight years of merciless war against the Afghan people -- who have suffered by the way a million and a quarter casualties. I'm not talking about soldiers, I'm talking about men and women and children, and the elderly. And to put that in perspective, if you translate that into a -- proportionately speaking, that's the equivalent of about 17 or 18 million dead Americans. So that's the magnitude of what we're talking about here. And that's the sacrifice that we have risked throwing away by putting in jeopardy the pipeline to the Afghan resistance. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, you've delivered the Soviets a victory at the bargaining table that they couldn't win in the battlefield. How do you respond to that? Mr. DJEREJIAN: Well, our basic interpretation of these accords is that what they give is a structured timetable for Soviet withdrawal, and we hope a more orderly fashion than would occur if the Soviets withdrew without a settlement. And we have on paper a timetable, not more than nine months. On May 15, they start withdrawing. By August 15, we've insisted on front end loading. They will have half of their troops out of Afghanistan. And by the latest, February of the next year, all of their troops will be out, and we've been told by the foreign minister of the Soviet Union that it is even more likely their troops will be out by the end of this calendar year. HUNTER-GAULT: Doesn't that account for something, Senator Humphrey? Sen. HUMPHREY: Well, Charlayne, as I pointed out a moment ago, it wasn't the signing of pieces of paper in Geneva that procured the Soviet willingness to leave. They -- HUNTER-GAULT: But they're leaving, as he just explained. So isn't that -- Sen. HUMPHREY: Well, let me finish. This is an important point. You asked a question, I want to clarify it. The Soviets stated unequivocally, General Secretary Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, stated unequivocally, two months ago that they were going to leave and that they were going to leave with or without an agreement. So to suggest that this agreement is instrumental in getting the Soviets out is really to belittle the enormous sacrifice made by the Afghan people and the fighting and the indomitable will of the Afghan resistance. That is what is procuring the Soviet withdrawal, not these pieces of paper. The Soviets said they were going with or without an agreement. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary? Mr. DJEREJIAN: Senator Humphrey and I are in total accord that the real basic reason that the Soviets have made this decision to withdraw is the courage of the Mujahadeen and the tremendous bravery that they've shown. There's absolutely no difference in our interpretation on that. All we're saying is that we and the Paks have determined that it is better to get the Soviets out on the basis of a written accord, internationally sanctioned, that puts a timetable that they are obligated to respect. That's what we're saying. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, President Zia of Pakistan said today that this accord can't work because you haven't settled the problem of a new government in Afghanistan. What's your response to that? Mr. DJEREJIAN: Well, basically what President Zia is saying is that a very important next step -- and as I said, these accords are just a first step. There is much more that has to be done. The return of the Afghan refugees. Senator Humphrey pointed out not only losses, but there are five million outsideof Afghanistan. And there have been two million Afghans who have been displaced within the country. So that's almost half the population of Afghanistan that has to be resettled. And it's a massive international undertaking that has to be underway now in terms of relief. And one of the major things that has to be worked on now. And Mr. Cordovez, the Secretary General's representative, is going to undertake, is really the elaboration of an interim government that would be broadly based, that can provide a political settlement and quite frankly, this is very important because we all agree that the regime in Kabul is an illegitimate regime. It has -- HUNTER-GAULT: Let me just -- excuse me, let me just get Senator Humphrey's response to that, and what you think the likely outcome of this accord is going to be on the internal dynamics within Afghanistan. We just have a few seconds. Sen. HUMPHREY: It's odd that we have just met and endorsed agreements on the future of Afghanistan with an illegitimate government, to use Secretary Djerejian's own terms. And that's quite true. The legitimate representatives of the Afghan people were systematically excluded from these U. N. talks. Were not a party to these agreements. Indeed I met with them in Pakistan near the Afghan border just a week ago, and they pleaded with me over a period of three hours to block these agreements. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we have to leave it on that point, but I'm sure this is a story, given all the dimensions to it, that we'll be coming back to. Thank you very much for being with us, Senator. And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dallas Divided LEHRER: Next, a story from Dallas about turmoil and tension over its police department. The Chief of Police there just quit. Billy Prince resigned after 23 years with the Police Department, the last six of them as chief, saying he was tired of being caught between city officials and minority leaders. We have a report on the situation that led to that resignation from Mia Squilla of Public Station KERA in Dallas. [scene of officer's funeral]

MIA SQUILLA, KERA, Dallas: Three days earlier, Officer John Chase was shot to death in a downtown parking lot with his own gun. Some say he begged for his life. Some say a downtown crowd urged the killer, a homeless man with a history of mental problems, to pull the trigger. The police department and their supporters say there's been an increase in the physical and verbal abuse police officers have been subjected to in the past year. They attribute this increase to the continued criticism of the police department. BILLY PRINCE, former Dallas Police Chief: I think some of the intense criticism and negativism that's been cast on the department certainly has a contribution. If you have someone like this who's on the edge anyway, and might otherwise not attack an officer. Or take a chance on attacking an officer. The atmosphere that's been created by numerous critics I think has certainly contributed to a person who might be on the edge of something like this, going forward with it.

SQUILLA: On the other side, minorities and some city council members say the criticism is justified because of the department's checkered past in its relations with the minority community. Deputy Mayor pro tem Diane Ragsdale grew up in a black neighborhood in South Dallas, and is a leading critic. DIANE RAGSDALE, Dallas City Council: You will find that people will feel more comfortable to abuses in poor areas and minority areas because the crime is so high. And so ''I don't have to act in the most appropriate way. '' And so they dismiss the fact that most of us are law abiding citizens, and just look at the fact, ''Oh, God, this is a high crime area. '' And so they come in with a preconceived notion, preconceived attitude, which is dangerous. And which is -- that's what's destructive.

SQUILLA: Most people point to 1973 as the beginning of what has become a bitter rift between the police and minority groups. That year, police killed a 12 year old Hispanic boy, handcuffed in the front seat of a patrol car. Since 1973, Dallas police have killed 119 people, three fourths have been black or Hispanic. Last year there were four fatal shootings. Community leaders were especially outraged by two of them. In May, an 81 year old black man who was half blind, was killed by the police when they arrived on the scene of a reported burglary. The victim, David Horton, a member of his neighborhood crime prevention group, had intended to help. Seven months earlier, Anna Collins, a 70 year old black woman, was killed by police. Both victims were armed with guns when the police arrive. Mr. PRINCE: People should in no circumstances go out of their homes with weapons, trying to apprehend criminals themselves, or trying to be their own police officer.

SQUILLA: A Dallas Grand Jury found no grounds on which to indict the officers in the Horton and Collins shootings. That incensed black community leaders. WOMAN: I think that we need a more thorough investigation of what has happened here. And this is a senior citizen, and that's why we're all concerned.

SQUILLA: Eventually, the officer involved in the death of the elderly woman was fired. Mr. PRINCE: In the last five years I've fired over 67 people. I've suspended without pay anywhere from one to thirty days over 150. Letters of reprimand, demotions. And I think the message is very clear within the department that we intend to insist on fair treatment of people, that we insist on good professional conduct among our officers. And that basically we have, as I said, a service philosophy, and we expect it to be carried out.

SQUILLA: Deserved or not, the Police Department's reputation for citizen abuse led local minority leaders to request a congressional investigation of the department's use of deadly force. In May of 1987, a House subcommittee convened in Dallas. Rep. JOHN CONYERS, (D) Michigan: We here are gathered here today to examine principally the Dallas Police Department's use of deadly force.

SQUILLA: Prince pitched the virtues of the Department. Mr. PRINCE: I think our department is a department of men and women who truly care about the people they serve. About this community.

SQUILLA: The subcommittee is still deliberating the testimony presented. A final report is expected this spring. Mr. PRINCE: I don't think there'll be any major changes recommended, because I think we've already made those in '84. We took away the right to use deadly force to protect property. And basically went to a protection of life, deadly force policy, which is what we have now.

SQUILLA: Simply stated, a Dallas police officer may use a weapon only if the officer's life, or that of another person, is threatened. But even with the new deadly force policy in 1984, Dallas police killed nine people in 1985, ten in 1986. Corporal Calvin Howard of the Texas Police Officers Association says attitude remains the big problem, not policy. Cpl. CALVIN HOWARD, Texas Police Officers Asso. : Do not do unto others as you would have to do unto you, because you do unto them before they do unto you. That is the attitude of the majority of the officers on the street. But like Chief Prince was trying to get across to the officers, if you can resolve a problem by talking to people instead of using force, then let's get about talking to people. But the officers say, We don't want to be social workers, we want to be police!

SQUILLA: Putting policy into practice is the daily duty of Officer Rusty Poole, whose beat is predominantly black South Dallas. Officer Rusty POOLE: We're gonna go down here to this Big Mama's house. Old lady named Martha, she's a fence, she takes in stolen goods and her whole family's involved reselling the stuff. We like to drive by and see her house every now and then. WOMAN: If you thought you knew anything, you'd have me downtown so quick it'd make your ears (unintelligible), but you don't know anything. Mr. POOLE: No, you got no one to use as evidence. I ain't got no evidence, Martha. WOMAN: Well, what you want me to do to give you evidence, because I'm tired of you coming, parking, looking, wasting my time, your time. Whatcha want me to do for you? Mr. POOLE: Well, you can give the people back all the stolen stuff you got in there. WOMAN: Okay. We'll start at who and what. Mr. POOLE: I don't know. That's what I'm asking you, Martha. You want to know how to clear it up. WOMAN: You know more about it than I do. Mr. POOLE: I wish I did, Martha. Have a good day, Martha. SQUILLA: You don't really think you're harassing her? Mr. POOLE: Well, harassing in what way? By talking to her and letting her know that I suspect her of doing this? I don't think it's harassment. If every time somebody starts coming to her front door with some stolen goods for her to buy, if she's paranoid enough to make them leave and not buy it, then it's worth it to me to go around and talk to her.

SQUILLA: While Rusty Poole won Officer of the Year, not everyone would approve his methods. In fact, the Dallas City Attorney said the woman quizzed by Officer Poole had no arrests, convictions or any type of criminal record. And it is the type of behavior exhibited by Officer Poole and others that opponents say leave them open to criticism. Ms. RAGSDALE: At the same time, you might have a gut policy. But sometimes the attitude would not allow you to carry out that policy in a way which is very just, in a way which is consistent.

SQUILLA: Meanwhile, there is an uneasy peace in Dallas. During a televised Town Hall meeting, the mayor and others tried to put a better spin on the controversy. ANNETTE STRAUSS, Mayor, Dallas: I think there's a lot of rhetoric about our being a divided city. I don't happen to think that we are. We have had a lot of problems in our city, we've had tensions between our police and minorities in our cities, nothing new. This has been going on since 1983 that I can remember. And a lot of steps have been taken by this council and previous councils to help relieve those tensions. JERRY RUCKER: And I think that the people of Dallas recently have frankly said, Look you can have these arguments, you can have your political agendas, you can describe what sort of political framework you'd like to base your political philosophy on, but we're not going to permit you to politicize the police force.

SQUILLA: Dallas police have declined to join the debate. Aside from rallies by their supporters, the police have chosen to lower their political profile, hoping less talk and more awareness will diffuse the tension for now. LEHRER: And since that report was produced, there have been no reports of killings by police officers, although two policemen have been fired on in the line of duty. There has been one further administrative embarrassment. The Dallas Department was cited in court for withholding evidence in a case about the death of a suburban police officer killed during a drug raid. Chief Prince did not comment on that charge when he said it was time for him to go. Mr. PRINCE: Certainly I would not be totally truthful if I said I've been delighted with the atmosphere that we've had here for the last year or two. It's very trying, and it wears you down after a while. If you just come to a point where you feel like it's time to maybe let someone else get in the middle of it for a while. This is totally my decision. I think you know from the last 12 months, I've had plenty of opportunities to leave when people call for me to quit, or leave or be fired. And I've never yielded to those during that time, and I'm not doing that now. LEHRER: Prince stepped down immediately, but said he would be available to serve as a consultant to the department. His first assistant Louis Caudel has been named interim chief. Recap HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the main stories of the day. A suspected car bomb killed at least five people at a U. S. Servicemen's Club in Naples, Italy. The Afghan troop withdrawal agreement was signed in Geneva. A U. S. frigate hit an apparent mine in the Persian Gulf, injuring ten sailors. And the U. S. trade deficit was up again, triggering a 101 point drop on the stock market. The dollar also fell on the European money market, but gold was up. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.