The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. HOLMAN: Good evening. I'm Kwame Holman in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary this Monday, we discuss the implications of Iraq's new testing of U.S. resolve, we have a report on life in Panama without Manuel Noriega three years after the war to capture him, Charlayne Hunter-Gault, just back from Somalia, reflects on the U.S. role there, and we have a report on a program to ease the transition from welfare. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. is stepping up pressure on Iraq. Yesterday a U.S. fighter plane shot down an Iraqi jet in a U.N.-declared no- fly zone. Today the U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk with some 5,000 troops and 85 warplanes on board was ordered back to the Persian Gulf. It had been stationed near Somalia. Sunday's encounter began when two Iraqi MiG's confronted two F-16 in Iraq's southern no-fly zone. The zone was created to protect dissident Shiites. Yesterday President Bush said Saddam Hussein had made a big mistake by sending his planes into the air space. A State Department spokesman had this comment today.

JOE SNYDER, State Department Spokesman: Iraq has continued to engage in a pattern of harassment against various U.N. operations in Iraq. These actions appear aimed at testing the resolve of U.N. officials as well as the U.S. and coalition allies in enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iraq. U.S. and allied forces remain on alert and capable of enforcing relevant U.N. resolutions. We're closely monitoring the situation and are prepared to respond, as necessary, to further harassments of U.N. operations.

MR. MacNeil: Iraq's deputy prime minister, Teraq Aziz, said today his country doesn't recognize the flight ban in the zone. Baghdad vowed to avenge the shootdown, calling it blatant aggression. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Kwame.

MR. HOLMAN: U.S.-led forces in Somalia today secured the town of Belet Huen near the Ethiopian border. It was the last Somali town designated as a hub for the distribution of food and medicine. Meanwhile, in the capital of Mogadishu, rival warlords appeared together at a rally for the time since their armies began fighting more than a year ago. We have a report narrated by David Symonds of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SYMONDS: The green line that had divided the capital for more than a year now became its meeting place, thousands gathering to witness the truce that signals an end to the civil war in Mogadishu. Clan leaders from the city's north and south met halfway. They declared an end to the fighting, offered hope for long-term peace, but gave no timetable. Two hundred miles to the north near the Ethiopian border the men from Restore Hope were competing their offensive. Belet Huen was their eighth and final target. The U.S. and Canadian force swept into the town unopposed, setting up support for 800 Canadian soldiers who'll be ferried in later this week. The coalition has now set up strategic relief bases throughout the country, allowing the famine belts to be flooded with food.

MR. MacNeil: There were reports today that President Bush has warned Serbia that an escalation of fighting in the former Yugoslavia could lead to U.S. intervention. A report in today's New York Times said he specifically warned against a tax on the Albanian population in Kosovo Province. Yugoslav President Davritza Kosic met in Geneva today with U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The U.N. chief appealed for an end to Serb violence in Bosnia.

MR. HOLMAN: Tennessee Governor Ned McWarter today appointed his top aide to fill the U.S. Senate seat of Vice President-elect Al Gore. The new senator is Harlen Mathews, who has held a number of administrative positions in the state government since 1950. That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Ahead on the NewsHour, the tension in the Persian Gulf, Panama three years after the invasion, Charlayne Hunter-Gault on Somalia, and help for mothers leaving welfare. FOCUS - SHOWDOWN

MR. HOLMAN: Our lead focus tonight is the latest showdown between the United States and Iraq. Today the Pentagon said it is sending an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf to bolster U.S. military might one day after an encounter between U.S. and Iraqi planes over the no-fly zone in southern Iraq. That area is supposed to be off limits to Iraqi aircraft. Iraq also has been stepping up pressure on the U.N.-protected zone in the north, where the Kurdish minority lives. We get four views now on the Iraqi situation. Bruce Van Voorst is a senior correspondent covering national security for Time Magazine. Lt. Gen. William Odom is former director of the National Security Agency. He now is director of National Security Studies at the Hudson Institute. Laurie Mylroie is a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She recently returned from a trip to northern Iraq. Dan KcKinnon is a former Navy fighter pilot. He is author of a book about the 1981 Israeli bombing of an Iraqi nuclear facility. He now heads a private air charter company. He joins us tonight from San Diego. First to you, Bruce Van Voorst. What do we know about what happened yesterday and what has happened today?

MR. VAN VOORST: Well, we've just seen some good film clips on the statements by the Department of State and some of the reports we've had from the Department of Defense on what appears to have taken place, and that is that the two Iraqi MiG aircraft -- we're not even sure they're MiG's -- at least the second one -- it appears that the aircraft penetrated the air space into the no-fly zone south of the 32 latitude, and there are American aircraft, F-16s, flying in the region, a part of the aircraft combat patrol that we've maintained there ever since they announced the exclusion rule in August, and in some way or other they were threatening. I don't know whether they actually attacked the American aircraft. We don't have details on that yet, but in any case, the American aircraft felt they were attacked and probably in any case have shot down after properly warning the aircraft. They shot one MiG down. The other MiG apparently disappeared into Iraq.

MR. HOLMAN: Okay. Dan McKinnon in San Diego, how do you view what apparently has happened, and do you know any more, can you tell us any more than what Bruce Van Voorst just told us?

MR. McKINNON: Well, Kwame, from the information available, it appears there was two intrusions. A first intrusion happened somewhere between twenty to forty minutes before the aircraft were shot down. Those aircraft were warned off, I imagine, by the AWACS, who hasthe capability to speak on their frequencies, and those MiG's left. About twenty to forty minutes later, a new batch of MiG's, two of them, entered the air space they were prohibited from flying over, and they made a mistake. What you had was the MiG, this is a MiG 21 here, came into the F-16. The MiG 23 is what, or 25 is what was reported flying. It came in and was warned away, and instead of turning away from the F-16s, it turned towards. The minute you turn towards another aircraft when you're fighters, you're saying let's get it on. The F-16 launched the ARAM missile and the ARAM is the missile that's been very expensive to develop, with a lot of problems, $500,000 for one copy, but it was launched, and worked successfully and shot down one MiG. The other MiG went into Iran, which raises one point, but the significance here, the type of missile used, is that this missile's been developed over a bumpy road, a lot of problems, but it worked well in this combat situation. And what it does, it gives the F-16, the American F-16, an opportunity to fire a little further away at an airplane that has a Soviet system that can't reach the same distance, so it gives the U.S. plane the advantage. It's possible too the Iraqi aircraft turned on its radar, which is a no-no, as well, and so the minute that happens, that's an aggressive act as well. Meanwhile, the Iraqi plane that escaped went over to Iran, and I think there's probably one of two reasons happened there; one, the airfield it came from was just outside the border of the no-fly zone, and he may have been afraid of getting shot down there, or else he went to Iran for fear of facing Saddam Hussein and the failure. I personally don't think they decided to take on directly the F-16s. They probably were probing and got mixed up through ground control radars, and went the wrong direction, and that was their demise.

MR. HOLMAN: Bruce Van Voorst, Dan McKinnon says he believes it was probably a mistake. Does that comport with --

MR. VAN VOORST: Well, I think there's very little evidence to suggest one way or the other. The clear thing is that they violated the no-fly zone and the American aircraft were quite prepared to shoot this down. I think these technical details are interesting, but the bottom line is that we had been patrolling now for a long time, four months now, this no-fly area, and 7,500 sorties have been flown with no incident to date. It must occur to somebody that Saddam Hussein has decided to challenge that, that zone, and the response was very, very rapid. If he, in fact, wanted to see whether the transition was tying up Washington and preventing any serious response, he learned at the cost of one MiG down and one MiG gone.

MR. McKINNON: Well, Kwame, there is one other thing. Back in September there was a challenge as well, and the airplanes at that time just flew up alongside each other and the F-16 told the MiGs to get lost, which they did. I think the violation of the air space was intentional. I think getting shot down perhaps was a mistake by the Iraqi pilot for turning the wrong direction. It appears to them Hussein's under a lot of pressure these days, and this may be just one effort to probe to see how serious we are in patrolling this air space, which really is the distance between Washington, D.C., all the way to Chicago, so it's a long, vast air space we're trying to protect the Kurds in.

MR. HOLMAN: Gen. Odom, let me ask you, a lot has been made in some reports about the timing of this -- if it's deliberate -- violation of the no-fly zone. Do you think it was deliberate, and is there something to be said about the timing?

GEN. ODOM: Well, it seems to me the aircraft entered this space. They didn't do it without permission, in light of what we just heard. I really can't say that I know what was on Saddam Hussein's mind or the people who sent them up. It does seem to me that the most significant aspect of this event is to remind us that the Iraq War is not over or the Gulf War. We fought the first battle. We're still in it, and we're still hanging in sort of the face of a dilemma. Do we go in and take the full responsibility for Iraq and bring down that regime, or do we let it re-establish itself, and be the hostile power it almost inevitably will be, no matter whether Saddam Hussein is deposed and some other person takes over? And I think that dilemma which we faced in the fall of 1990, in January of 1991, is still with us today, and this just reminds us that we have that dilemma, while we have other demands for forces, Yugoslavia, Somalia, and perhaps other places.

MR. HOLMAN: Laurie Mylroie, you were in Iraq recently. What is the situation there? Is it the kind of morass, if you will, that Gen. Odom suggested?

MS. MYLROIE: Well, I think Gen. Odom made a point I'd like to underscore. The war is not yet over. The American relief program to northern Iraq, as I saw it, is failing. It is failing for two reasons, because we have let Saddam and his terrorists interfere with that program. There were three bombings of a U.S. financed aid program arranged by the U.S. Government. Two times those bombs went off. One time they didn't. Only on the third occasion was there, in effect, a protest made to Baghdad. But at the same time that protest was made the U.N., which handles the last tail of the delivery of those relief supplies, suspended the relief supplies, handing Saddam Hussein a victory. Those supplies, to the best of my knowledge, remain suspended. It's scarcely any wonder to me that Saddam Hussein thought he might be able to get away with probing and testing other aspects of the U.N. regime, and I'm not convinced, myself, that this plane is the most important incident. I think far more important is the fate of 4 million people in northern Iraq who have very little kerosene and fuel right now to heat their homes in the middle of winter.

MR. HOLMAN: That's the Kurdish region in the north, the southern region being the Shiite region. You were in the north. By the way, a wire story moved a little earlier this afternoon saying that Iraq apparently has agreed in principle to allow escorts of those relief convoys to the Kurds in northern Iraq. Does that change things?

MS. MYLROIE: Well, it may mean that the relief convoys will begin traveling again, but in the meanwhile they have been held up for nearly two weeks while the U.N. tries to reach an agreement with Baghdad. I find it questionable why the U.N. tries to reach agreements with Baghdad about getting permission from the U.N. to aid the population. Saddam has northern Iraq under a blockade which denies all fuel supplies to that region. That blockade is a violation of Resolution 688. Saddam has been engaged in a terrorist campaign in northern Iraq. There have been 30 incidents this fall that have led to the wounding of more than 200 people and the deaths of 10 others. In Resolution 687, Baghdad committed itself to renouncing terrorism. Iraq --

MR. HOLMAN: The cease-fire resolution from the Gulf War.

MS. MYLROIE: That's right. Iraq's terrorist campaign in northern Iraq is a violation of 687, so, in fact, this question of shootingdown an airplane is only the tip of the iceberg of the failure of the United States to secure the enforcement of all relevant U.N. resolution.

MR. VAN VOORST: But it does emphasize why, for example, this can be seen probably as an intentional act on Saddam Hussein's part because it's consistent with the patterned harassment that has been establishing, including the U.N. inspection efforts, the teams looking at his nuclear, bacteriological and other programs, the efforts to hinder the delivery of humanitarian aid in the north, and it does put it in perspective, because, in fact, this shootdown is just not an isolated incident, but certainly a test on his part. The real challenge that we're seeing developing is his increasing exertion of his control back over the one time autonomous area in the north. And as he developed, we've seen some indications of troop movements in that area, and if he were to do something on that scale, that is where it would really make it difficult for us.

MR. HOLMAN: General, there have been reports that there were increased troop numbers, Iraqi troops in the north, in the Kurdish area.

GEN. ODOM: Well, just let me say that no one should be surprised by any of this. This should go and be used. This is eminently predictable when we did not go all the way to Baghdad and did not take down the Iraqi regime. It was also predictable when we started the war that some of these kinds of dilemmas were going to have to be faced and that you tried to avoid taking responsibility for running that whole area of the world, and also attacking, there was no way to get out of that dilemma. Now, that's coming back to haunt us. So what I think this really shows is that we are, as I said, up against this earlier, and this should not be a surprise to anyone that we're in this kind of predicament. It will recur periodically, and I think over time Saddam is likely to be able to reassert control over Kurdistan and the Shiite south.

MR. HOLMAN: Dan McKinnon in San Diego, let me ask you, from a military perspective, do you think that there is any frustration on the part of the military in terms of dealing with the kind of situation we've just heard about in Iraq, and do you expect more of these kinds of incidents?

MR. McKINNON: Well, I think of course Saddam is testing us. We only have about 60 aircraft, the U.N. forces over there. He originally had seven to eight hundred at the start of the war. He's down to about two hundred, of which twenty or thirty can fly on any given day. But I think we've got to remember we talked about this during the Gulf War, about the possibility of setting up an alternate, a viable alternate government to Saddam Hussein so that people could choose between Saddam or somebody else to run Iraq. It seems to me it's important that Iraq remain intact as a nation because the Iranians are building up with a lot of new sophisticated weapons and missiles and aircraft. They even got the Scud seas from the north Koreans. So they are a real threat, and we need to have some kind of Iraq there with a different kind of government to keep a counter balance there, as opposed to having them turn into a bunch of tribal fifedoms that give Clinton a whale of a lot of trouble when he becomes president. This is -- we're seeing a little microcosm of the whole thing it can erode to down the road, and I think the United States' best interest is to try to figure out how to get an alternative form of government in there.

MR. HOLMAN: Let's talk about that, Laurie Mylroie. Does -- those policy questions about what should happen now, what should President Bush do between now and January 20th, and do you think that there will be more things like this for him to respond to?

MS. MYLROIE: I expect there will be more provocations from Saddam for Bush to respond to. I think the most urgent question is to deal with the humanitarian situation in the north. Saddam is trying to split the Kurds from the Arab elements of the Iraqi opposition, and Saddam's campaign against the Kurds has intensified since the Iraqi opposition met in the fall in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it's not just a humanitarian question; it's a political question, and there are ways to deal with it. One is to insist he lift the blockade that he has imposed on the north as a violation of 688. A second, if you don't want to do that, is to seize roads that Iraqi forces hold so that you'll have better communications within Iraqi Kurdistan. A third is to do something like improve the electricity grid. Just send in a U.S. military team, restore that grid which has suffered under the embargo, and that will provide some alternative fuel supplies to that which Baghdad has, is preventing from going to the north.

MR. HOLMAN: Some of those things would be for President Clinton to do. What about that, gentlemen? What should happen during this transition period?

GEN. ODOM: These are tactical steps. These are not really facing the fundamental problems.

MR. VAN VOORST: And also the real question is: With what forces are we going to do that? We currently have in Turkey about 1400 U.S. military personnel, but it's not clear exactly what their mandate is, and certainly whether they have the authority to go in and take a military operation like this. This the great frustration with this whole northern Kurd situation at this point. In a sense, Saddam Hussein has the initiative. He can put the squeeze on this. He can block that highway here. He can interrupt a convoy there, and we have very limited means of responding, and also our chain of command is not there. Who's going to do that? There is a coalition arrangement there. It's not clear whether we could do this unilaterally. I simply -- my heart is with Laurie on what we are seeing going on. My intellect asked me though how we are supposed to go about this.

MR. HOLMAN: No way out, General?

GEN. ODOM: Well, I think the point that Mr. McKinnon raised earlier that Iran looms over the horizon here is a very key point. I would not be surprised to see U.S. policy drift back toward a benign neglect of Saddam and allow him to play the old role that he traditionally has of keeping Iran out of that region. If we go ahead and do these things, which I sympathize fully, I mean, it really upsets me to no end, and I think the U.S. is far more culpable in the case of the Kurds and the Shiites in the south because we actually were involved militarily there, in spite of all that, you've got to ask yourself, do we next want to carry the war to Iran, or what are we going to do when Iran begins involving itself much more deeply and closer to Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, southern Iraq? It, itself has Kurds, and it will not be kind to the Kurds in the best event.

MR. VAN VOORST: Let's keep this in context too. You've go the Somalia operation going. There's a real threat in Sarajevo, in Bosnia. We're in a transition here. I don't know whether Bush is prepared to do much. It's a very difficult time. Saddam Hussein is right in that context, that it's difficult for us to respond.

MS. MYLROIE: The whole issue --

MR. McKINNON: Just one thing --

MR. HOLMAN: One second, Dan. Let's let Laurie make her point.

MS. MYLROIE: The whole issue to me seems to have an air of unreality. There are 4 million people who are, in fact, friendly to the United States, friendly to its allies, Turkey and Israel, and to let an Arab dictator re-establish control over them seems to me both contrary to any definition of any -- any reasonable definitions of American interest and of any understanding of American values.

MR. HOLMAN: Dan McKinnon, a few seconds for the last word.

MR. McKINNON: I would just say that Saddam Hussein does balance our interest. The most dangerous part going on there in the Middle East today is the build up of armed force in Iran, and we're going to come to reckon with that in the next twelve to eighteen months, somewhere, and that something where Saddam Hussein serves as a buffer area without destroying that country, and it's interesting. The Turks up in the north area also doing some things to the Kurds, while we're protecting the Shiites down in the south. It's a whole turmoil, but Iran, I think, is a very important player to watch out for.

MR. HOLMAN: Okay, more to come. Thank you all four very much. FOCUS - PANAMA'S PROBLEMS

MR. MacNeil: We look now at another aftermath of American military intervention. Three years ago an American expeditionary force was spending the holiday season in Panama, after an invasion that led to the ouster and arrest of President Manuel Noriega. Most of those American soldiers are long gone. There are signs of prosperity, but Panamanians are arguing about their government. Elizabeth Farnsworth of public station KQED in San Francisco recently traveled to Panama and prepared this report.

MS. FARNSWORTH: First, the good news; Panama City has almost completely recovered from the U.S. invasion, and the economy is booming. Fueled mainly by banking and other services, the economy grew 10 percent this year, out pacing all other Latin American countries. New buildings are going up in Panama City at a record rate and across the isthmus in Colon, Sony and other international giants are constructing huge new warehouses in a free trade zone that is now second only to Hong Kong in the amount of duty free commerce. But in spite of these economic successes, opposition is growing to the government of President Guillermo Endara, which was sworn in during the U.S. invasion. Last month, a wide variety of labor and civic organizations came together to campaign against constitutional reforms favored by the Endara government. In a referendum held November 15th, almost 2/3 of the voters rejected the reforms, and the results were widely interpreted as a vote of "no confidence" in the government. Julio Harris is President Endara's chief of staff.

JULIO HARRIS, Presidential Chief of Staff: Obviously, as you just mentioned, the expectation of the people was very, very high because of the 21 years of disastrous government. We have problems with water. We have problems with electricity; we have problems with roads; we have problems with schools; we have problems with hospitals, and that cannot be fixed in two and a half years.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mayin Correa is mayor of Panama City. She was appointed by President Endara.

MAYIN CORREA, Mayor, Panama City: I think this is the government that has the worst communication system with the people. They don't know how to communicate. The President said once that he's not going to spend one penny on publicity. It's a government -- the only government that I remember that does not have one media on their side.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Doesn't have even one newspaper on its side?

MAYIN CORREA: Not one newspaper to back this government, that supports this government.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mayin Correa still hosts the popular early morning radio show that she used as a forum to accuse Manuel Noriega of drug trafficking and murder. She paid heavily for her outspoken opposition. In 1987, Noriega's police destroyed the radio station she and her family owned. Correa was arrested and eventually went into exile. Now, as mayor, she defends the achievements of the Endara government but acknowledges the problems that have undercut its popularity, for example, the continued presence of ex-Noriega officers in the new supposedly sanitized national police.

MAYIN CORREA: Some are in jail, the big tops in jail, but some are -- the middle are in -- that's the problem we have.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Still in the government?

MAYIN CORREA: Still in the police or the, our FBI.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mayin Correa organized the rally for President Bush that ended with everyone on stage fleeing tear gas thrown by police at a small group of protesters. Correa says that as she ran from the stage, she saw the policeman who had overseen the destruction of her radio station in 1987.

MAYIN CORREA: He's the police still, and I saw him in this rally, and I said, oh, you, you're part of this. Oh --

MS. FARNSWORTH: The presence of ex-Noriega officials in the police and elsewhere in government has serious consequences. Leo Gonzalez is chairman of the Panamanian Legislature's anti-drug committee.

LEO GONZALEZ, Legislator: Look, the system that was operating under Manuel Antonio Noriega's dictatorship is still in place. The new government has come in, but the people that they have put up to head these things have not, have not revamped the system underneath. They've just taken the people on top and left everybody down to the bottom same.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Specifically, Gonzalez says recent drug busts show that ex-Noriega police are back in the drug business. Gonzalez got suspicious when he noticed that although the police were seizing large amounts of cocaine the price on the street was at an all time low.

LEO GONZALEZ: And apparently what they were doing was they were capturing drugs, but they were keeping it instead of reporting it, and that drug was going back down to the streets, and that's how come the prices were going down and down.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Gonzalez charges that high government officials are allowing the laundered drug moneys, which had been frozen after the invasion, to go back into circulation.

LEO GONZALEZ: It's unbelievable, but that's what's happening here, and my committee has investigated this thing, and because a lot of us worked 21 years trying to knock down Noriega and the dictatorship that's involved in drugs, and we don't want this country to go on a route that Colombia has gone where they're almost on the brink of a civil war, because of drug dealings.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Panama is not on the brink of civil war, but people are worried about increasing levels of crime and violence. In this incident outside an up scale mall in Panama City, a shoplifter who stole a pair of $10 pants was run down and then beaten by a security guard.

RICHARD FRANK, V.P., Giran Morris Dept. Stores: Before the invasion we never had security guards anywhere in Panama. That business did not exist. You could walk free -- you could walk freely in Panama with no problem at all. Nobody had weapons. After 1989, we're almost as bad as Colombia, almost as bad.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Why?

RICHARD FRANK: Before, Noriega had such a control on everybody that everybody was scared of him, which is the other side of the coin. We never had this. We never had this before, never.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In Colon, where unemployment is very high, crime is an even greater problem. In this incident, plain clothes police had just shot a shoplifter and were trying to get him into a car. The rising crime rate represents the flip side of Panama's economic success. Even with the new jobs generated by the economic boom, unemployment still ranges from 14 percent in Panama City to at least 40 percent in Colon. In Panama City, those who live in the worst slums can see luxury apartments going up by the dozens across town. President Endara and most of his ministers come from Panama's wealthiest families who have historically ignored the poor's needs. Mayor Mayin Correa, who comes from a humble family, is one government official who has made an effort to serve the poor. On a visit to Pacora, a town just outside Panama City, she listened to complaints about a lack of schools and about pollution in the local river. Villagers said President Endara had promised to solve these problems.

CIPRIANO AROSEMENA, Resident: [speaking through interpreter] The mayor's working well. We cannot deny that. She visits her community and when there is a problem, she tries to resolve it. We cannot say the same for a single other government representatives because these men really don't do anything for the people. None of them do. I have to say it's worse than under Noriega. We poor people always got a response from the military government.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Back in Colon, the poor have formed a movement called MODESCO, which is aggressively pressing the government for jobs. The situation is desperate here for some people, especially those who live in downtown slums like these.

RESIDENT: [speaking through interpreter] You know how many little kids have fallen from this balcony? More than five kids have fallen from that balcony. When they are in the middle of elections, the candidates come looking for our vote. Once they get in, they don't fix anything.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The gap between rich and poor seems especially wide in Colon, because the slums lie just blocks away from the hemisphere's most successful free trade zone. The zone is a rich enclave of commerce that did about $9 billion worth of business this year, but little of this wealth gets passed on to Colon's poor. Alcibiades Gonzales is mayor here.

ALCIBIADES GONZALES, Mayor, Colon: [speaking through interpreter] The great economic forces inside the free zone don't live in Colon. They are not interested in the city. They come in at 8 in the morning, go to their business, and leave at 5. It's an island of wealth in a sea of poverty.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mayor Gonzales is one of the younger generation of anti-Noriega activists. He lost almost everything during the fight against the dictator and now feels short changed by the Endara government. He works closely in Colon with others like him, Aurelio Barria, for example, who founded the Civic Crusade, the group that led the anti-Noriega opposition. Barria was jailed by Noriega and then exiled in 1987, but when he came back after the invasion, he was appointed to run one of the few government social programs serving the poor. He put about 2,000 people to work painting and doing other odd jobs in Colon. But the program is slated to end soon. Barria says he and others who fought against Noriega wanted more changes than this government has brought.

AURELIO BARRIA, Businessman: We have given time to the present politicians to do those changes, but believe me, we are going to be in front of the line and we are going to express our views through the democratic process. In the next elections, you're going to see more young people ready to participate in order to achieve what we fought for in 1987. I think this is just the transition to democracy. It's a hard road, but we have not finished yet. The job has not been done.

MS. FARNSWORTH: President Endara's chief of staff says the government is doing all that it can.

JULIO HARRIS: Obviously, a government like this, which started from zero, cannot solve all the problems that was left over 21 years of mismanagement, corruption, et cetera, et cetera. We are doing what we consider has to be done. Obviously, we cannot solve all the problems immediately. If you give us the word back, then we could do that.

MS. FARNSWORTH: From their headquarters at Quarry Heights in Panama City, U.S. military officials keep a close eye on the current political situation. Under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaties, the canal and all U.S. military properties must revert to Panama by December 31, 1999. Between now and then, 10 U.S. military bases with hundreds of buildings, hangars and other installations will gradually pass into Panamanian hands. For this process to go well, a stable government and close U.S.-Panamanian relations are crucial. Gen. George Joulwan, who heads the U.S. Southern Command here, acknowledges the Endara government's lack of support, but remains a booster.

GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN, Southern Commander: I think we have seen a country really grab on and hold onto democracy. I think we see a strengthening of democratic institutions. I believe that was one of our goals, to create the understanding and the feeling of democracy within Panama.

MS. FARNSWORTH: U.S. troops and Panamanian police are working together now at some checkpoints. The relationship seems smooth, but in the background, tensions are building. A weak government, combined with drugs, violence and poverty, makes for a lethal mix. Gen. Joulwan is sure that the invasion which installed President Endara three years ago was worth it. At this point, some Panamanians aren't so sure.

MR. HOLMAN: For the record, Panama's attorney general was indicted after Elizabeth Farnsworth prepared that report. He was charged with releasing money from frozen bank accounts owned by alleged drug dealers. Still ahead on the NewsHour, Charlayne Hunter-Gault home from Somalia, and child care for some working mothers. CONVERSATION - SOMALIA DIARY

MR. MacNeil: Charlayne Hunter-Gault is just back after two weeks in Somalia, and she joins us now for some reflections on the U.S. role there. Welcome back.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: By taking Belet Huen today, the U.S.-led forces have completed, they say, the first phase where they were to get these eight hubs from which they could feed and guarantee medical care. What is the next phase?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I think the next phase, they're ahead of schedule and they're very excited about that, and I think that there'll be a period where they'll just make sure that these areas are secure, because, as you know, in places where they have secured there have been times when the bandits have come in and done little hit and run lootings of the food. So I think they'll want to make really sure that all of the feeding centers, places like that, are secure. And then I think the plan is to gradually turn over the maintenance of these areas to the United Nations forces, and therein lies the rub, because the United Nations isn't ready, it says, to assume that responsibility because they want the whole country secured first.

MR. MacNeil: Let's just talk about that. What is the idea? They have these eight hubs now, and Belet Huen is the last of them. Are the U.S. and other forces going to go out each day themselves from those hubs and look for people to feed, or are they going to wait for people to come into those hubs? How will they do that?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What they've been doing is when they, when they move into a town, as they did in Baidoa and the other places, at least initially, they escort the convoys out to the areas. Now, I think it's the International Committee of the Red Cross that has so far turned down any request to any -- you know --

MR. MacNeil: Have refused to be escorted, you mean?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's right, have refused to be escorted. I didn't want to put it in negative terms. They've just said we don't need it.

MR. MacNeil: They've said we don't need it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But most of them have accepted the escorts, and they take huge amounts out to the people because, as you know, prior to the escort service, they would take, you know, trucks of food and only 30 bags out of 100 would be left. So the people are really in desperate shape, so they're taking lots of trucks out with lots of tanks and lots of show of force. And presumably, that sends a message. I mean, the United States right now is really big on sending strong messages that we're going to see that this food is delivered, nobody's going to interfere with it, and if you do, you're going to deal with us.

MR. MacNeil: But how secure are the places that they've really secured? I mean, there are a whole lot of reports today out of Mogadishu, itself, a VizNews team was attacked, and the U.S. Marines shot somebody who was trying to take a car away from them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It was -- see, I think that's what's going to affect -- you say the second phase, and, you know, what's next. It's really going to depend on how well they can stabilize the situation because it's a very, very volatile country, and a very volatile situation, and while the, while the major armament of the bandits have been removed from the scene, those so-called "technicals," the weapons, big guns --

MR. MacNeil: The trucks.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: -- mounted on top of the trucks, have been taken out of circulation, all these guys are still floating around, and, you know, as you saw in our report, there are an awful lot of guns around the place.

MR. MacNeil: Well, that brings us back to the question of disarmament and taking the guns away. And I am just not clear. I listened to your interview with the ambassador, Robert Oakley, on Friday, and it sounded as though they are doing a good deal of disarming, but not calling it that, and of course, the United Nations said that's what the U.S. should do, and the U.S. said, well, that's what we're not here to do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Yes. Well, the official policy --

MR. MacNeil: Is there more disarming than there is stated?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I think there's a lot of confusion even in the minds of some of the military, because one officer I was interviewing said something about, you know, securing a country, which is exactly what the -- Oakley and company say they aren't doing, they're securing the zones. But in the minds of some people, in the military, they're doing that, but officially the policy is not that. But I think that it is sort of escalating, incrementally moving towards disarming the country. Now, one of the things that confuses me is in the report today about one of the attacks on the journalists, apparently the Marines saw this, and didn't interfere, and a lot of times I think it's a call as you see it, and you know, in the absence of a policy that says, we're going to do this in every situation, I think, you know, they often react to what they think the situation demands on the ground.

MR. MacNeil: But can, can this go ahead with the U.S., which is leading the expedition, can it go ahead and be effective as long as there are so many arms in so many hands? Because, as you said, and we saw it in one of your reports, the Marines went into this village near Bardera I think it was, went into the village, took the stuff there, it went back to the other town, and the minute they were gone, these guys came in again and stole it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You know, unless they station Marines in these villages -- I mean, the one that I went to outside of Baidoa is a - - well, it's only 27 miles, but the roads are bad and everything -- and a lot of them are more isolated than that -- and way away from these population centers that have been secured by the Marines so that unless they leave Marines there, you know, sort of around- the-clock, the possibility exists. Now, I think that the U.S. people are counting on these strong heavy messages that they're sending to, you know, the generals and the bandits and everybody else not to, you know, mess with the Marines, but it inevitably is going to call for an escalation of force if the bandits keep these hit and run things going, because the job to do there is to ensure that the food gets delivered to the people, and if these things continue to happen, these little incursions, they're going to have to escalate.

MR. MacNeil: I was, you know, your reports were very moving to us, and I just wondered -- I was wondering watching them what the effect was on your own emotions being there.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, it reminded me a little bit, in terms of my emotions, like South Africa. I mean, they say that nothing prepared you for apartheid, which was true, and nothing, all the films on television in the world, could prepare you for actually seeing these situations because you're seeing things on so many different levels, and it's the smell and the feel and the touch, and I think it's probably one of the most profound human experiences I've ever had. I mean, on the one hand, what kind of helps you maintain your equilibrium is that you can see some definitive progress being made, I mean, like the young lady in the feeding center, her arms were bone thin, but there were kids there whose arms were thinner, and, you know, so I think it's the only thing that keeps those people going who work with in these dire situations that we can save some, and you cannot concentrate on the totality of the tragedy. You have to -- you just have to take it in small doses, otherwise it's just totally overwhelming.

MR. MacNeil: I wondered about the emotional stamina of the volunteers. For instance, you talked a long time to a young Irish nurse who is there. Now, the army goes in and they've got all kinds of psychological support. They've got their whole support thing behind them. But a lot of those people, they're just out there on their own and they're just civilians, and what is it, what is it doing to them, for instance, that, that nurse?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, as I said, I think -- well, many of them get sick and have to be taken out. I mean, the reality is that you're not immunized no matter how much immunization you've had. There's so much out there that you cannot be immunized against all of it, so a lot of them get sick and have to be taken out. That's almost the least of the problems. It is the psychological thing, but I think that when they feel -- that's one of the reasons they were crying for security to come in because when they could see progress, it, it kept them going for another day. I mean, it's, it's when you feel that your efforts are totally in vain that you then become despondent, but the fact that you can save one child or make -- or stop one child from crying or save one adult or, you know, stop one adult from, you know, just vanishing before your eyes keeps you going.

MR. MacNeil: Well, thanks, Charlayne. FOCUS - HELPING HAND

MR. HOLMAN: Finally tonight we look at a program designed to lend a helping hand to mothers who leave welfare for work. The program provides money for child care, but as Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett reports from Chicago, the help has not been easy to get.

MOTHER TALKING TO CHILD: Ashley, Ashley, going to go bye-bye.

MS. BRACKETT: Daisy Minor is a single mother working hard to stay off welfare. But it isn't easy. After receiving Aid to Dependent Children and food stamps for two years, Minor finally found a full- time job. The job pays her $8,000 a year. That's roughly $200 a month more than she got on welfare. But on welfare, she got full medical benefits. On her new job, she gets no medical benefits. Minor's salary is not enough to buy a basic stove or furniture for her one-bedroom apartment. And most importantly, it's not enough to pay for reliable child care for her two-year-old daughter, Ashley.

DAISY MINOR: Child care has been the biggest frustration. Trying to find reliable child care when you don't make much money, it's really hard.

MS. BRACKETT: Her problem isn't unique. Case workers say many welfare mothers want to get off public aid and into the work force, but are discouraged because child care is too expensive. Minor now spends $15 a week on money for gas. She commutes three hours a day to her 40-hour-a-week job. That's 55 hours that someone else has to watch Ashley. Without enough money to pay for child care, Minor struggled for six months to find someone she could afford to pay to watch her daughter. She has come to rely heavily on her sister and other family and friends.

DAISY MINOR: So taking her from place to place, it's a bad feeling to see her cry when you drop her off at someone's, and at the end of the week I have to call and ask people, you know, can you watch Ashley for me on such and such days, or all week, and if they can't, then I have to call someone else until I finally find someone for the rest of the week.

MS. BRACKETT: Minor says she took a job as a secretary in a luggage manufacturing plant when she decided she wanted to make a better life for her child.

DAISY MINOR: I didn't want her growing on that really. There's no life for a little child.

MS. BRACKETT: What do you mean?

DAISY MINOR: I see, you know, public aid is not for you to live off of. It's just an assistance to help you get on your feet, so that's what I did, and when I could get on my feet, I did. I took a job. It wasn't paying very much, but it was more than I was getting on public aid, so I took a chance with it.

MS. BRACKETT: Getting off welfare didn't have to be so difficult for Daisy Minor. The Family Support Act passed in 1988 as part of sweeping welfare reform legislation provides for one year of government-subsidized child care for women who leave welfare for work. But no one bothered to tell that to Daisy Minor. Minor finally found out about the transitional program by calling a child care hotline. She reached Edwina Hamilton, a counselor at the Cook County Child Care Referral and Resource Phone Bank.

EDWINA HAMILTON, Child Care Counselor: She was very surprised about does she qualify for any program out there. We discussed transitional child care. I suggested that she call her case worker and ask her for the appropriate forms to be filled out and also more information on how transitional works. In fact, Daisy called me back the same day and told me her case worker told her that she did not qualify for the transitional program.

MS. BRACKETT: But the case worker was wrong. Minor was a candidate for transitional child care. Hamilton says misinformation from case workers is a common problem.

MS. BRACKETT: Now, did the Public Aid Department mean to be deceptive, or is it, are they just disorganized?

EDWINA HAMILTON: I don't think they're really trying to be deceptive. Some case workers may not have been trained thoroughly enough; they may not have known about some of the programs that certain parents qualify for, it may be just oversight, the parent gets through the cracks without finding out about other programs in the system.

MS. BRACKETT: A statewide study commissioned by the Illinois Department of Public Aid showed that only 20 percent of those eligible were using the child care benefit. Nationwide, the number may be as low as 10 percent.

SHELLY PECK, Child Care Advocate: [talking to another person] So she should be able to get child care for job search.

MS. BRACKETT: Shelly Peck, an advocate for the Day Care Action Council, says states are often reluctant to embrace the program because they have to put up matching funds ranging from ten to fifty percent.

SHELLY PECK: A lot of these programs require the state to make investments up front, and Illinois, just like every other state, is going through some tremendous financial difficulties that might inhibit their desire to put this money up front and then wait for the federal government to reimburse them for their expenditures.

MICHELLE PIEL, Illinois Public Aid: All of this information has to be available to everyone as often as we can get it out there.

MS. BRACKETT: Michelle Piel says Public Aid is painfully aware of the difficulty of getting clients information on programs they need. Piel coordinates child care programs for the Illinois Department of Public Aid.

MICHELLE PIEL: Public Aid in Illinois is a place that has about 8,000 employees, and so keeping the information alive for case workers is also a problem for us, so we have posters in all of the local offices, and every day a case worker walks in, she's got a poster that says transitional child care; doesn't know what that is, hopefully she'll find out. We do a lot of training of case workers, but there is turnover, people move to different jobs, and there will always be that problem.

EDWINA HAMILTON: [on phone] I was calling to do a follow-up with you to see how your child care search had gone.

MS. BRACKETT: Hamilton says Minor is an example of a welfare mother living on the edge, where the slide back to Public Aid is always a possibility.

EDWINA HAMILTON: She's very frustrated. During our conversation of trying to weed out all the information, she asked me at one point, maybe I should go back to Public Aid, maybe I should quit my job and go back to Public Aid, so there's a big frustration point in there where they're not getting any answers and they'restill paying out the money, they don't know where the next child care payment's going to come from, so they get very frustrated, and some of them I think do slide back to the Public Aid system. They'd rather give up than keep fighting and fighting, which is what you have to do sometimes.

MS. BRACKETT: Once she knew she was eligible for help, Minor still had to find a child care facility which would accept the government subsidy. The facility must also be willing to wait a month for state reimbursement. Peck says such efforts require a lot of motivation.

SHELLY PECK: It can be very complicated, and it's not just for transitional. If you take a woman who's trying to get child care to go to employment and training and then work into maybe her first or second job, she will have to ask three different workers in two different agencies four different times for child care help. She will have to certify that her provider is legal three different times. She will have to master four different monthly reporting mechanisms for billing for her child care costs, and her provider will have to get used to three different payment mechanisms.

DAISY MINOR: If they want people to get off Public Aid, they have to be there to help them make that switch. If they're not there to help them, they're just going to go back to where they come from, so really I believe that there a lot of women who would probably like to get off Public Aid if they just had the chance and an opportunity.

MS. BRACKETT: Minor's opportunity finally came when this Chicago child care facility accepted her daughter and her transitional child care payments. But for too many the opportunity has been bogged down into bureaucracy. That will be the challenge for the new Clinton administration, not just creating new programs, but getting the old programs to work. RECAP

MR. HOLMAN: Again, the major stories of this Monday, the U.S. stepped up pressure on Iraq by sending the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk back to the Persian Gulf. Yesterday U.S. planes downed an Iraqi jet in a no-fly zone in southern Iraq. And U.S.-led forces in Somalia secured the final town designated as a hub for the distribution of food and medicine. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Kwame. That's the NewsHour for tonight, and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.