The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Colombia called for international help against the drug cartels. The U.S. showed the smallest trade deficit in four years. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary we go first to the drug crisis in Colombia, and a debate about just what the U.S. should do to help. We start with excerpts from an exceptional appeal to the world today by Colombian Pres. Barco, then reaction in a News Maker interview with Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, followed by former Drug Enforcement Administrator Peter Bensinger and University of Miami Professor Bruce Bagley. Next a look at the Hoover Institution known as the West Coast center of conservative thought, and essayist Jim Fisher on thoughts prompted by one home grown product. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The government of Colombia besieged by warring drug cartels appealed for more help from the U.S. and the world. Colombia's Justice Minister Moniqua De Greiff arrived in Washington first to rumors that she had resigned under death threats from the cartels. Later her government and the Bush administration said she had not resigned but was in Washington discussing help in the drug war. Colombian President Virgilio Barco delivered a speech by satellite asking other nations to help.

PRES. VIRGILIO BARCO, Colombia: Drug traffickers must come to understand that they are taking all of you when they attack us, that we are not fighting them alone. They must understand that they are international fugitives on the run from civilized society everywhere.

MR. MacNeil: Barco's appeal followed more evidence that the drug cartels meant business when they declared war on his government for threatening to extradite leading drug traffickers to U.S. courts. In Medillin, headquarters of the cartels and cocaine manufacturing, 10 banks were blown up. The bombs caused extensive damage to seven branches of the government owned Banco Cafetero and three branches of private banks. One young man was killed apparently while planting one of the bombs. After the News Summary, we'll talk with Attorney General Dick Thornburgh who met with Colombia's Justice Minister this afternoon. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Poland, Solidarity Leader Lech Walesa said today he plans to ask Polish workers not to go on strike for at least the next six months in order to give the new government time to solve the country's economic problems. Walesa told reporters he would work together with the new government of Prime Minister Mazowiecki to formally request the strike moratorium. In the Soviet Union, Pres. Mikhail Gorbachev has told officials of the Lithuanian Communist Party that the Baltic Republic has gone too far in its drive for independence. That word follows the statement issued over the weekend by Moscow officials saying all the recent activity by separatists in the three Baltic Republics would lead their people into what they called an abyss.

MR. MacNeil: In South Africa, police tear gassed hundreds of black schoolchildren after a protest march in Johannesburg against racially segregated schools. Clashes between police and demonstrators in a growing campaign of defiance to apartheid have become almost daily occurrences this month. Meanwhile, South Africa's acting president, F.W. DeKlerk, had an historic meeting with Pres. Kenneth Kyunda of Zambia, one of black Africa's most influential leaders. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughn of Worldwide Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHN: The Victoria Falls provided a dramatic backdrop for the unprecedented meeting between the two leaders. It's the first time a South African president has visited Zambia, and Kenneth Kyunda has been one of the most outspoken and influential critics of the white minority government. Now DeKlerk's government wants to build bridges with its black African neighbors. At the summit, Pres. DeKlerk unveiled tentative plans for racial reconciliation and told journalists later that his government would not stand outside interference.

F.W. DE KLERK, Acting President, South Africa: That South Africa is going to break out of the cycle of conflict, is going to break out of the cycle of mistrust, and that we are going through negotiation and dialogue, work out among South Africans, for South Africa, and --

MR. VAUGHN: Neither leader would reveal details of their discussions but DeKlerk denied that Kyunda had presented any proposals on behalf of the ANC for black majority rule.

MR. MacNeil: In China, the first publicly announced sentence to be passed on a student for actions during the pro democracy movement in June was reported. Jan We Bing, a 25 year old art student in the Eastern City of Han Ju was given nine years in prison. He was convicted of telling lies to the Voice of America and drawing cartoons lampooning Chinese leaders.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Southern Lebanon, fighters allied with Iran held funerals today for the victims of an Israeli air attack yesterday. Hezbollah said nine people were killed and twenty-seven wounded in a strike on a Hezbollah base. These were the most casualties of any Israeli raid all year. Hezbollah said six of the dead were civilians and that another fifteen children were hurt at a nearby school, but Lebanese police said all nine dead were guerrillas and that no children were involved.

MR. MacNeil: In this country, a judge in Atlanta today sentenced former Congressman Pat Swindle to a year in prison. The Georgia Republican was convicted in June on nine counts of committing perjury before a federal grand jury. He was found guilty of lying about a loan he negotiated with an undercover agent who posed as a drug money launderer. Swindle, who was defeated for reelection in 1988, said he would appeal his conviction. And in Charlotte, North Carolina, a court, former PTL head Jim Bakker went on trial today on 28 counts of fraud and conspiracy. In opening arguments, the prosecution said Bakker used untruth and half truth to get people to contribute to the PTL. Bakker's lawyers said there was no evidence of any criminal intent to defraud anyone.

MS. WOODRUFF: There was some good news on the U.S. economic front today. The Commerce Department reported that the nation's trade deficit dropped to $27.7 billion during the 2nd quarter of the year, the best showing in more than four years. Officials said a record level of exports overcame a big surge in America's foreign oil bill to produce the positive trade picture.

MR. MacNeil: Finally in the news, Joseph Alsop, one of the most prominent American journalists from the '30s to the '70s died today. Alsop wrote an influential political column with his late brother, Stuart, and later on his own for the New York Herald Tribune, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times syndicate. In World War II, Alsop served in the Navy, was an aide to Gen. Clair Chenault of the Flying Tigers and was imprisoned by the Japanese. That's our News Summary. Now it's on to the war with Colombia's drug kings, the Hoover Institution, and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - COLOMBIA - DRUG WAR

MS. WOODRUFF: We go first now to the Colombian drug story. As we reported, Colombian Pres. Virgilio Barco today called on other nations to join the fight against the powerful drug lords of the Medillin Cartel. He warned that the cartel threatens the very existence of Colombia as a democracy. Here is an excerpt from Pres. Barco's unusual televised appeal to the world.

PRESIDENT VIRGILIO BARCO, Colombia: Ladies and gentlemen, I am choosing this unusual means to speak directly to you because of the tragic events we have suffered in Colombia. This is an appeal for your understanding and your support. A young senator and presidential candidate, Carlos Galan, as you saw on your televisions, was viciously gunned down by hit men from the narcotics cartel who are at war with our country. His cruel death put our whole country in mourning, but it also united us in our resolve to destroy this worldwide criminal enterprise. He was the latest of thousand of Colombian martyrs who have given their lives in the fight against drugs. They are your heroes too because this is a common enemy and a common war. We may have borne the brunt of the violence but it does not stop at our borders. The cartels fight back against our police and military because narcos are protecting a multibillion dollar enterprise that is funded by the cocaine habit of some of you which are watching me now. Those of you who depend on cocaine have created the largest most vicious enterprise the world has ever known. What might seem to be a matter of a pure habit has had explosive public consequences. It has thrown us all into a war we did not ask for. Colombia's survival as the oldest democracy in Latin America is now at risk, but also is the safety of your streets. Thousands of Colombians have died at the hands of the cartel, killed because they would not give into the intimidation or bribery. The cartel must know that their fight is not with us alone. The world is united in its outrage and in solidarity with us, what we are doing. The drug traffickers must come to understand that they are taking all of you when they attack us, that we are not fighting them alone. They must understand that they are international fugitives on the run from civilized society everywhere. There is no home for them. There should be no market for them. Over the last several days we have had close cooperation with the United States in developing an emergency package of aid and assistance. I want to express my gratitude to Pres. Bush and the American people for strong support. In this regard, $65 million in emergency assistance, including 20 helicopters, aircraft, and other equipment is being made available to Colombia. Of course, even more important, there are joint efforts to reduce supplies at your air force to cut demand. We can never finally destroy the narco traffic while the legal profits remain so great. Somewhere, some country, if not Colombia, then somewhere else, will continue to be terrorized by the drug cartels until people stop using these illegal drugs. The time will come when our sheer torment will be lifted, when respect for one another, justice and freedom, will prevail. That day will come, if we do not waver in our conviction, if we are all willing to stand up to this menace, if we do not despair. Let us vow to do our part so that these brave Colombians will not have died in vain. Together we can rid the world of this scourge.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Barco's Justice Minister Monica De Graf was in Washington today to talk to U.S. Officials about the anti drug fight. U.S. Government Officials went out of their way today to deny reports that she had resigned after receiving death threats. For more on the drug war we turn to the top U.S. Law Enforcement Official, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. Mr. Attorney General thank you for being with us. That is an extraordinary appeal for the President of another country to make speaking in English to American Citizens among others. Why do you think that he did that.

DICK THORNBURGH, Attorney General: It was an eloquent appeal and made bya man of considerable courage considering what has happened in Colombia in recent weeks. It is quite clear that President Barco sees the current situation as a real turning point for his country. They must either face down these thugs who have attempted to takeover their country or they face a long period of utter chaos. I believe that his appeal to the World Community is designed to enlist the support that is necessary for them to be able to accomplish this but they can not do it one their own.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think that he was really trying to reach drug users, I mean, he said that some of you who are listening who use drugs. I mean is that really what he was trying to do.

MR. THORNBURGH: I hope that he was because it is about time that we recognize where a major portion of the responsibility for the violence that exists in Colombia and the violence that exists in many our communities here in the United States. Every cocaine sniffer and crack smoker in this country has to take some of the responsibility for the loss of life and the erosion of the Governmental institutions in Colombia.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you agree with his point that cutting demand is more important than any effort to reduce supply?

MR. THORNBURGH: I think that we have to look at this as I believe the President will stress in his speech next week as a comprehensive approach.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush.

MR. THORNBURGH: Yes. It is very difficult to weight the factors but it not difficult at all to figure out at all that a strong law enforcement effort has to be complemented by an equally strong commitment to reducing the appetite the consumption of drugs in this country and world wide. And I think one of the promising factors is the World attention that is focused on this problem. In the last year I have had conservation with three dozen of my counter parts in the law enforcement community around the World and as the drug appetite in other countries increases as the violence that accompanies it inevitably increases more and more countries are cognizant of the fact that they can't deal with this problem on their own any more than we can. It takes an International Effort.

MS. WOODRUFF: But here is the President of a Country that you just announced last week, the White House just announced last week, we were giving 65 million dollars worth of Military Aid to anti tank weapons, helicopter, grenade launchers. The President of this country who is now saying it is more important to aim at the demand then it is to cut the supply.

MR. THORNBURGH: I am not sure he was saying it was more important. I think that he is saying that it is equally important. In economics the first thing we learn is about the law of supply and demand and if there were no appetite for drugs in this country primarily but around the World there would be no market for these billion dollar narco traffickers and clearly while we have to keep the heat on them we have to supply and support our Colombian counterparts in their efforts to confiscate and seize the assets of the traffickers and arrest them and we have to undertake efforts to extradite them for trial to this country when they are taken into custody. In the long run it is a problem of attacking the demand side and to do that in this country is going to take a concerted effort by all of us.

MS. WOODRUFF: You met as we mentioned with Colombia's Justice Minister Ms. De Graf today. What did you talk about, what was she asking for, what is Colombia asking for beyond what we already have given?

MR. THORNBURGH: It was a working session Judy we got down to the specifics to the kinds of things that we can do to help Colombia. We looked at some of the details of the decree that President barco issued last week in connection with their enforcement efforts in cooperation with our own law enforcement efforts.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean the extradition arrangements?

MR. THORNBURGH: Yes. Secondly we discussed our commitment to help in the protection of their judiciary and the reestablishment of the rule of law, judges, prosecutors, police officers, public officials have not only been intimidated but assassinated on a regular basis and we are going to work with them and with other countries who have had experience in dealing with this kind of terroristic assault on their system.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean, you mean, beefing up security?

MR. THORNBURGH: Beefing up security, providing training for judges and security officials, providing the hardware that is necessary.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean training them to duck?

MR. THORNBURGH: Training them to see in the conduct of their daily lives to see what pitfalls are there. There are countries that have had a lot of experience in this regard fortunately not in the United States although we have contingency plans in this regard but in recent months Italian Law Enforcement authorities have had to deal with the Sicilian Mafia. Spanish Law Enforcement Authorities who have dealt with the terrorists in the Bask Separatist Movement, from the United Kingdom who have dealt with the Provision Irish Republican Army. The attack on the system is unfortunately not a rare phenomenon in this World. And it is as I think President Barco suggested time for all of us who are concerned about the rule of law and the sanctity of the system that we have established to administer justice to pull together.

MS. WOODRUFF: You all made a point today of saying that, the U.S. Administration, the Colombian Administration, made a point today of saying that Ms. De Graf has not resigned that she was remaining in her position. I mean, it is your understanding that she will remain is that right?

MR. THORNBURGH: We had no discussions about her future. She was here to do business and we did business and she was accompanied by military and law enforcement personal. As I said it was a working session.

MS. WOODRUFF: How much danger is she in?

MR. THORNBURGH: Well the track record of the terrorists affiliated with the narcotic traffickers in Colombia is pretty discouraging in that regard. One of her predecessors was assassinated earlier in this decade. About 50 judges, half of the Supreme Court.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is she in danger when she is here in Washington?

MR. THORNBURGH: I think that anyone in authority today who has to the courage to stand up to the narco traffickers is almost by definition in danger and they deserve all the more credit and thanks from the World at Large for their efforts in view of that danger.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what about when she goes back to Colombia. You are saying the situation hasn't changed that she still is threatened when she goes home?

MR. THORNBURGH: I would expect so and that is why we want to undertake every effort we can to provide for the kind of protection for the people who are exposed to this kind of activity as we can.

MS. WOODRUFF: You said in an interview a week or so ago that the Bush Administration would consider sending troops to Colombia just because of this drug crisis down there. Just today Newsweek Magazine in a Gallop Poll came out with a report that 53 percent of the people surveyed would support sending American troops to a foreign country to help interdict in drug flow. What does that say to you, I mean, does that say there is more support than you realized and will the Administration look at this again?

MR. THORNBURGH: I think one thing has to be emphasized as the President made clear is that any use of our military option has to be predicated on a request from the host country. There has never been any suggestion, responsible suggestion, that I have heard to send in troops unilaterally. We have provided military aid to the Colombians to the package that the President sent forward last week but clearly our preference is and the current preference of the Colombian Government is to support them in their efforts and they have indicated that they are willing to go a long wa y toward stepping up their own law enforcement and military efforts and they deserve our support. No one is suggesting as the popular phrase goes we should send in the Marines and there is a great deal of sensitivity on our part about Colombian Sovereignty and the need to work with them rather than imposing something on them.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you said, as I say, a week or so ago that was something worth considering?

MR. THORNBURGH: I said that if we had a request from the ghost country we'd certainly have to consider it and I think the President has indicated that as well. We had no such request and we certainly are not going to proceed on our own in that regard.

MS. WOODRUFF: And if the request came down you would recommend giving it a serious look?

MR. THORNBURGH: Well I think that it is implicit in the fact that a country under siege asks for assistance the President would give it serious request but that is all hypothetical at the moment and I think what we have to do is concentrate on the task at hand which is supporting the Colombians in their effort to take back their country.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well how much more can the U.S. do? 65 million has already been pledged by the President, as we mentioned, helicopter, anti tank weapons, we are assisting in the extradition of legal process, we are providing security assistance to the members of the Colombian Judiciary. What more can the Administration do? The President is going to make a speech a week from tomorrow night. What more can we do?

MR. THORNBURGH: Well we went through the strategy that the Colombian's are following and it is really in three parts. Number one is to arrest and incapacitate as much of the drug cartel by seizing their assets and profits as they can in their current crackdown. Secondly they are opening the window of extradition for us to obtain jurisdiction over cartel leaders who face criminal charges in this Country. They have to be taken in to custody first but we are processing the first of those extradition requests right now. The third and most important and toughest task that they have undertaken and where they need the support of the World Community is to reestablish their own system of justice because in the long run that is going to be the only salvation for the country and we can help in everyone of those regards and I am sure that when I report to the President tomorrow on my meeting with Justice Minister Monica De Graf that he will have a ready ear and will be able to participate in helping the Colombians in a very important task to all of us.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Attorney General We thank you for being with us. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Now to additional perspectives. Joining us from Chicago is Peter Bensinger who served three Presidents as the Administrator ofthe Drug Enforcement Administration from 1976 to 1981. He currently advises corporations on controlling abuse in the work place and Bruce Bagley, a specialist in Colombian Drug issues and an Associate Professor of Latin American Affairs at the University of Miami in Florida. He joins usa from Miami. Mr. Bensinger how do you think the Bush Administration has responded to the latest events in Colombia.

PETER BENSINGER, Former D.E.A. Administrator: Well I think that we have a turning point opportunity in the United States. President Barco's message was tremendously moving and very important but we are contributing because of drug use in America to the violence in Colombia. So we need number 1 user accountability. That is people using illegal drugs in this country held accountable. punished, jail terms, fines, disincentives so that there is a realistic reduction in use in this country. Instead of talking about it we have to do something about it.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think the Administration is under emphasizing that aspect of it so far?

MR. BENSINGER: I think the new strategy will very clearly outline a need for user accountability. I think the second point that the U.S. has to do is to recognize that the 63 million dollars is a drop in the bucket. This is not a one time, one shot aid in assistance issue. We need long term regional Latin American Assistance. Colombia which has been the source of most of the violence and most of the cocaine has been receiving about 5 million dollars a year in aid from this country to coup with a 50 billion dollar problem. We have not really looked long term at helping the Colombians. I think that we have to recognize that as the Cartels get pressure they will move their money, their mercenaries and their people in laboratories to other countries. So we should anticipate helping Peru, Bolivia, Equidor and Central America so they don't have to the tragedy and violence and intimidation that Colombia has suffered. And finally I think that we have to look at the source of the drugs in America. 95 percent of them come from Latin America and our State Department and the whole Government and Congress, I think, traditionally has been looking East and West. We need to recognize this as a Hemispheric problem and probably the most important war in this century, certainly in the last 50 years is the war on drugs.

MR. MacNeil: 50 years includes the Second World War?

MR. BENSINGER: I think that we've got our Copuntry's future at stake. The Second World War was obviously an important turning point ion democracy and people being able to exercise their own free rights. President Barco is right that if we take away the oldest democracy in Latin America's ability to have a free election, to have their judges act you are talking about a major challenge to the rule of law and the citizens ability to govern themselves. The problem is not Colombia's it is all of ours and these cartels go from Bogota right up to Boston.

MR. MacNeil: Professor Bagley do you think 63 million dollars which the Bush Administration has come up with in emergency aid is a drop in the bucket, that a great deal more is needed?

BRUCE BAGLEY, Miami University: Well I think the Bush Administration should be congratulated for finally taking at least a beginning of the action that is necessary. It is a small amount versus needs that Colombia has. In the short term I think that it is an excellent thing to have done but I couldn't agree more that this is a medium and long term problem. The United States is going to have to sustain aid at much higher levels than it has in the past to have any real impact.

MR. MacNeil: And you would look for some reference to that in the President's big anti drug speech next week?

MR. BAGLEY: Well I certainly hope so. I think that throughout the Reagan Administration we saw rising budgets for the war on drugs but I think much of that money was misspent. I think that the continued emphasis on intradiction which captures between 3 and 10 percent of the drugs entering the Country is fundamentally mistaken. We need to spend far more than we have had in the past on the so called course producing countries such as Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico many of the Caribbean Islands and it is going to have to be sustained over a lenghtly period of time. Anyone who thinks that this war against drugs is going to end tomorrow or next year is sadly mistaken. This is going to be a decades long war.

MR. MacNeil: You know Colombia very well. Would you answer something that arouses my curiosity. Colombia is a big and prosperous country which has its own armed forces. Why would sending 20 helicopter, for instance, make that much difference to Colombia. It must have lots of helicopters if it chose to take its Army's helicopters and put them in to chasing the drug king pins. explain that to me why suddenly 65 million dollars in boats and helicopter and machine guns and things is suddenly so important?

MR. BAGLEY: Colombia is a large country. It has a 30 million population. It is the fourth largest national territory in the region and clearly the Colombian Military which has a standing Army of some 60,000 individuals is a fairly large body. The territory is however extensive. There are many areas of the Colombian territory that are not controlled at all by the National Government. They have for years been sadly lacking in the more sophisticated high tech equipment. Helicopters are very expensive, repairs are extremely expensive, skilled mechanics are necessary so that I don't think you assumption that there are enough helicopters operating in Colombia is correct. Beyond that Colombia has not a single problem with violence. It is not simply drug traffickers that the Government of Colombia confronts. There are at least 5 active gorilla organizations, left wing gorilla organizations with combined combatants of 8 to 10 thousand. The Military has a principal mission in that area. There is also risen over the last several years right wing para military organizations, some call them death squads, private army's in the pay of narco traffic countries. In that sense the Colombian Military has its hands full and it needs all the equipment and support that it can get from the United States. I do however think that there is an over emphasis in the United States on the impact that military solutions can have on this problem. The Military has an important role as do the police but I don't think that we have seen in the past nor will we see in the future that the Colombian Military is going to match the fire power of the narco traffic countries.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bensinger what is your view of the Attorney General said that the use of U.S. forces would only be appropriate and only considered it were invited by Colombia. Do you sense behind all of this that we are heading towards some invitation from a desperate Colombian Government for the use of U.S. forces.

MR. BENSINGER: I don't, I think, President Barco's invitation was to have the American Government really try to police its own streets and reduce the demand. I think they would like to have more equipment and need it. I think they probably and their neighbors would look to receiving crop substitution, credits for balance of payment, incentives to export legitimate crops rather than a division of marines.

MR. MacNeil: The sort of things that we did in Bolivia, I believe, it was a few years ago but did send U.S. forces?

MR. BENSINGER: Well the Bolivian Operation, Blast Furnace, was a specific situation in which helicopter can in and did provide very quick fast reacting equipment and some officers to deal with the problem in that Country. I think in Colombia our resources would be better in training and intelligence finding out where the money is moving, where the labs are located, where the narcotic traffickers and cartels are located. I don't think Dick Thornburgh's reservation about sending troops is misplaced. I think if the Colombian Government finds itself in need of people literally police and law enforcement armies a regional deployment including U.S. troops could well be provided but I think that would be a last resort.

MR. MacNeil: What is your view on that Professor Bagley?

MR. BAGLEY: I think the idea of sending American troops to Colombia is really fool hardy. U.S. troops do not speak Spanish, they do not know the terrain, they would provoke a nationalist sentiment against the United States throughout the country. They would provide an easy target not only for the narco's but also the gorilla organizations in that Country. I think that all together it is the wrong approach. What we need to be doing in Colombia and in many other Latin American countries is to provide the economic aid that is necessary to being with. But this is a long term struggle and it is going to require serious efforts at institutions building. In Colombia on a multi lateral level the United States has a role to play. The Colombian justice system is virtually in Collapse right now. It needs to be strengthened and that is not a long term problem, that is a sort term problem. We need to provide armored cars, we need to provide computer systems to computerize the legal system in Colombia, we need to provide protection for judges. we need to provide body guards better trained who are capable of dealing with the kinds of problems that you are going to confront in Colombia. We need to invent better systems for the rotation of judges and judges anonymity. we need witness protection programs that perhaps might involve the United States. There are a variety of institutional aspects that must be addressed in the Colombian situation.

MR. MacNeil: Excuse me for interrupting would be those some of the things that the lady Justice Minister would have been discussing with Thornburgh today?

MR. BAGLEY: I am sure that Monica DeGraf has been discussing exactly those kinds of problems and looking for something more than the 2 million dollars that the Department of Justice has promised to help support this kind of effort.

MR. MacNeil: Finally let me ask each of your quickly. Do you have much confidence, starting with you Professor Bagley, that the decree by the President that he is going to reinstate the extradition policy, sort of over and above the political system. Is that going to work or is he going to be over ruled in the end?

MR. BAGLEY: I think that it is entirely possible the Colombian Justice System couldn't over rule that in the end. The Supreme Courts of Colombia on two separate occasions have struck down previous extradition treaties. The President is moving rapidly in ways that may well not stand up in court but beyond that I think that extradition is only one very small part of a much larger problem. You can extradite 10 or a 100 and there are many other Colombian narcos that are willing to fill his shoes. People are waiting in line because the industry is extremely profitable. So there will be other narcos willing to take the risks.

MR. MacNeil: Professor Bagley and Mr. Bensinger thank you both for joining us. Judy. FOCUS - THINK TANK WEST

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight a report on the rift between liberal academicians and conservative thinkers on the campus of Stanford University in California. The Hoover Institution, one of the nation's premier conservative think tanks, seeks to remain part of the Stanford campus despite objections from some faculty members who feel the organization is too ideological for the academic environment. Spencer Michels of public station KQED in San Francisco has this report.

SPENCER MICHELS: The Hoover Tower stands out the Stanford University landscape more than many professors at Stanford like. The Tower is headquarters for the Hoover Institution of war, revolution, and peace, a think tank where all appears to be tranquil and academic. Every afternoon some of the Hoover scholars gather to share coffee, cookies, and conversation. [Discussion by Hoover Scholars]

MR. MICHELS: There are 80 Fellows in residence plus about 50 a year who visit. They labor mostly in the social sciences. [Discussion by Hoover Scholars]

MR. MICHELS: But the restrained intellectual ambiance is deceiving. Much of the talk these days is of the war on campus. The institution's director, Glenn Campbell, claims Hoover is under siege by the university.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's a takeover attempt pure and simple.

MR. MICHELS: Untrue, say university officials, who insist Stanford has no ambitions to take over the Hoover Institution or any of its facilities. Provost James Rosse.

MR. ROSSE: I for one would throw my body on the road to prevent that.

MR. MICHELS: But there is a dispute about how appropriate it is for a think tank with a conservative political reputation to be linked to a prominent university. Stanford History Professor John Manley.

PROF. JOHN MANLEY, Stanford University: It involves the university necessarily in political activity and calls into danger our legitimacy and our claim for being a place that pursues education, not actively pushing lines.

MR. MICHELS: Herbert Hoover founded the institution in 1919, nearly a decade before he became President. It began not as a think tank but as a library and archive.

PETER DUIGNAN, Senior Hoover Fellow: We rank the best comparative library in the 20th century in the world in our fields of interest, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, East Asia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Soviet Union.

MR. MICHELS: The archives include such rare items as the czar's secret police book of suspected revolutionaries, and Gen. Joe Stilwell's World War II diary, a collection of handbills and posters from the Russian Revolution, and the collected papers of hundreds of actors on the world stage, including Ronald Reagan, when he was Governor of California. The institution, as it operates today, is mostly the brainchild of Dr. Glenn Campbell, an economist who became director of Hoover in 1960 and moved into Herbert Hoover's old office in the Tower. He raised millions of dollars and brought to the institution scholars in history, politics and economics, many of whom were to gain national influence when Ronald Reagan became President.

GLENN CAMPBELL, Director, Hoover Institution: So Milton Friedman's been influential, in my opinion. Dr. Martin Anderson has been influential. Dr. Teller has been influential.

MR. MICHELS: Those Fellows, plus others, including Dr. Campbell, himself, have given the institution a conservative reputation. Campbell is not shy about his links with Reagan and other highly placed Republican officials. Recently, former Attorney Gen. Edwin Meese became a distinguished visiting Fellow at Hoover along with former Secretary of State George Shultz. The well publicized conservative positions taken by those and other Hoover scholars who have been appointed to positions in Republican administrations have earned Hoover the disdain of liberals like Manley.

PROF. MANLEY: What does a political think tank do? It helps elect candidates. It staffs successful candidates in their administration. It attempts to shape and influence public opinion and all of those are highly political, highly visible activities.

MR. MICHELS: Manley argues that those activities are out of place when sanctioned by a politically committed institution like Hoover which is linked to Stanford University. So he and Prof. Ronald Rebholz have led the effort to evict Hoover from the Palo Alto campus.

PROF. JOHN MANLEY, Stanford University: The essential objection I think is that a politically active think tank and a non-partisan university make a bad marriage. There's a fundamental incapability between the mission of one and the mission of the other. The mission of a university is education. The mission of Hoover is political.

PROF. RONALD REBHOLZ, Stanford University: They are an institutional component that pushes a political light. I mean, what would you say to the English Department of Stanford University if it came out as a department as opposed to a group of individuals for a particular candidate? I think you would say that was completely out of keeping with the mission of the English Department, which is the pursuit of the truth about literature.

MR. MICHELS: Manley and Rebholz argue that the mission of the institution as defined by Herbert Hoover, himself, is to demonstrate the evils of the doctrine of Karl Marx. They believe that even if some scholars don't pay much attention to that notion, it sets the tone for much of their research which often focuses on the dangers of Communism and the benefits of free enterprise, but fewer than 100 of Stanford's 1200 faculty members have signed a petition drawn up by Rebholz and Manley to sever the Hoover- Stanford ties. The chairman of the History Department argues that a public policy center does not pollute a university.

JAMES SHEEHAN, Chairman, Stanford History Department: The advantages of having them there are much greater than the inevitable restrains that exist.

MR. MICHELS: What is the advantage of having this policy institute here?

MR. SHEEHAN: Well, I think it's an advantage of having an interaction between people who are concerned with particular interests and people who do research on more general disciplinary grounds.

JAMES ROSSE, Provost, Stanford University: If you're going to have a voice in the state or national arena, you're going to be heard as speaking with a semi-partisan voice and that's one of the challenges of finding how or whether that organization can exist within a university like Stanford. I happen to believe that it can. I think the jury's still out on the question, but I wouldn't be putting as much energy into solving those kinds of problems as I am if I didn't think that were the case.

MR. MICHELS: Hoover's scholars, who mostly toil alone studying and writing, are not all conservatives. About half are Democrats of various stripes, nevertheless, Hoover defenders believe that it is the conservative image of the institution that has brought on the attacks.

EDWIN MEESE, Hoover Fellow: Hoover and the people at Hoover are very much in favor of a wide spectrum of debate and of maximizing free speech and free intellectual research. I don't think you'll find anybody at Hoover who's saying let's get the liberals out of Stanford.

MR. MICHELS: Meese and some of his new Hoover colleagues say it is the faculty liberals who are trying to stifle free speech.

MR. MEESE: It's a small clique of ultra liberals or leftists that seem to think that they want to decide for themselves the limited parameters within which debate can take place and I don't think that's what an academic institution is all about.

GLENN CAMPBELL: We only look conservative because a part of the rest of the university leans so far to the left so the tower is straight up.

MR. MICHELS: From there, the fight gets nastier. Hoover Fellows are aghast that Stanford lost the chance to get Ronald Reagan's Presidential papers placed on campus and they blame the faculty liberals for frightening the former President away.

PETER DUIGNAN, Senior Hoover Fellow: They attacked Mr. Reagan and they opposed him in the election. They really didn't want his papers here. The public policy aspect was part of it, because they didn't want an independent public policy institute such as Hoover. They want it under faculty governance, but it was also they didn't want a Republican President's papers here.

MR. MICHELS: How did you react?

MR. DUIGNAN: I'm a scholar; I'm furious. I'm a Democrat as well.

MR. MANLEY: It was an effort by Glenn Campbell to aggrandize even more than he already has aggrandized by having his friend, Ronald Reagan's library here, further cementing the relationship between Stanford and conservative causes, further endangering the reputation of the university.

MR. MICHELS: Liberals also claim Hoover's conservative reputation keeps graduate students away from Stanford.

HOOVER FELLOW: A lot of graduate students in English give second and third thoughts about coming to Stanford University precisely because they perceive Stanford University to be conservative institution, and why do they perceive that, because of that tower over there, because of the Hoover Institution.

MR. CAMPBELL: Stanford is always boasting about the large number of applications they have in relation to the admissions. Now I wish they'd make up their mind.

MR. MICHELS: The conservative image of the think tank may also have had a detrimental effect on the use of the archives and the library.

GEORGE ESENWEIN, Hoover Curator's Staff Member: I found that there were people who will not even come over to use the library because they feel that it's somehow part of the policy center and doesn't reflect a scholarly resource which is independent and open to the public which of course it is, and I think that this sort of damaging of the reputation of the Library of Archives is a very harmful thing.

MR. MICHELS: While Hoover's conservative reputation may decrease use of its library, Hoover Fellow and Nobel Prize Winning Economist Milton Friedman insists that it is the liberal reputation of Stanford that actually costs the university money.

MILTON FRIEDMAN, Senior Hoover Fellow: Stanford's left wing reputation has frightened away a great many people I've talked to who might have wanted to contribute funds to Stanford.

MR. MICHELS: Friedman is also angry that Stanford will seldom make joint appointments to the university faculty for Hoover scholars, a perceived slap in the face that also annoys Campbell.

MR. CAMPBELL: The professors in these departments don't like competition. They don't want the students to be exposed to another point of view, they want to indoctrinate them.

MR. MANLEY: There's no argument that says, that makes sense to me at least that simply because they have publications there they ought to become faculty members of Stanford through the back door. That eliminates the autonomy of the departments in their hiring practices, and I don't think you're going to find many faculty who want to give that power up. That's about the only thing we've got left.

MR. MICHELS: Some faculty members have attacked the impartiality of Hoover scholars and that in turn has brought counter attacks from Hoover on the qualification of Stanford's professors. Campbell calls some of them undistinguished.

MR. CAMPBELL: They shouldn't spend all their time attacking us. They should spend their time writing books.

MR. MICHELS: Reluctantly, Campbell, himself, will soon retire after 30 years at the helm. The president Stanford board of trustees thinks that may temper the dispute.

MR. GAITHER: There will be a new director on September 1 of this year.

MR. MICHELS: And you think that'll essentially solve the problem?

JAMES GAITHER, President, Stanford Trustees: I certainly hope so. The right leadership here, these two institutions can really flourish working together.

MR. MICHELS: Nevertheless, tensions appear to be inevitable between a politically active think tank with a conservative betaine and a university with a liberal faculty that espouses impartiality. ESSAY - MADE IN THE U.S.A.

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, we travel to a small town on the U.S./Canadian border with regular essayist Jim Fisher, columnist of the Kansas City Times, and 10,000 other visitors.

MR. FISHER: This is middle America albeit as far north as you can get. Roseau, Minnesota, is 10 miles from the Canadian border. Land hereabouts is flat, largely empty, where descendants of the Scandinavian settlers joke there are nine months of winter and three months of tough sledding. Roseau is small town America, largely isolated, with no bus, rail or airlines. This being high summer, it's get-together time, time for family gatherings, laesa and other Swedish delicacies, to show off the grandchildren and cousins from around the country, to resume conversations broken off a year ago, and oh, yes, to have 10,000 people come to town to pack every hotel and residence within 60 miles, to have another kind of family reunion, the 35th anniversary celebration of a company called Polaris Industries, manufacturers of the Mercedes, of snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles. Signs of the celebration were everywhere. And attendance rules were simple, customers, dealers, former owners, even anyone who's ever cast a covinous eye at a Polaris product were invited and they came from this country, especially where it snows, from Canada, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and Germany. There was a pancake breakfast, a precision drill team, an ATV pull, a huge cake in the shape of a snowmobile, and finally on Saturday night a townwide street dance featuring none other than the Back Behind the Barn Door. As noticeable as the crowds were the brightly painted machines evoking such a fierce loyalty that thousands would return for this unusual company reunion. These models are lineal descendants of the first snowmobile, a jerry rigged device built in a blacksmith's shop here in 1954. David Johnson, one of the founders of Polaris, invented the first machine.

MR. JOHNSON: Materials were hard to get in those days so you wound up with an extremely heavy machine and we used materials at hand. I used materials that were there. I used angle iron and channel iron and a sheet of metal and cast iron sprockets and went to the hardware store and bought a Briggs & Stratton engine and coupled 'em altogether and it went to a degree in the snow.

MR. FISHER: How fast?

MR. JOHNSON: The first one, about four miles an hour, better than walking though.

MR. FISHER: Now Polaris snowmobiles go 100 miles an hour and the company has sales of $200 million, including a whopping 50 million in exports to more than 20 countries. Snowmobiles, ATV's, no real high tech there, no concept that would make a stock jump off the chart, that would set the leveraged buyout boys to drooling. What's here is something older, more basically American. Machines have filled the requirement of any engineer in that they work. What you see is the kind of stuff we used to make when "made in the U.S.A." seemed to be on anything from a paring knife to a hydroelectric generator, machines and products resulting from incremental improvements in engineering, rigorous testing, and the long view of product development, and above all, what seems sadly lacking in America today, quality.

MR. JOHNSON: When you can somebody into the plant and show them the quality going into the machine back from the first bolt and welding, to the sprockets, through the assembly and through the paint system, the whole thing, and then the final test of the machine, and then of course the final inspections, I could take somebody through the plant with an open mind and I can sell them a Polaris every time.

MR. FISHER: There's something else here, something rare, a commitment to people in the shop.

MR. JOHNSON: It takes commitment and concern for your fellow man when you are working together. If you're a disgruntled worker on the floor, you're not going to make the best product. You're going to say, oh, that's good enough, you don't care, and we want that caring about the employee to carry through to the customer, through the product.

MR. FISHER: How practical that sounds today and how oriental. Yet go back a century in the years following the civil war when delatants shook their heads at the crassness of this bustling young country. Our home grown art was primitive. American literature crude. Our cities were dirty and raucous, the West a killing ground both of animals and cultures, but none other than the high nosed Oscar Wilde would be shaken by the clean organic beauty of our tools and machines and the single-mindedness of flinty shop foreman who asked, nay demanded perfection. What resulted were machines that like the Polaris looked right and worked. Listen to Wilde. "There is no country in the world where machinery is as lovely as in America. I always wish to believe that the line of beauty and strength are one. That wish was realized when I contemplated American machinery." The question begs, why here, why other little pockets of America, too far and too few, does a particular genius surface, one that spits into the gale of foreign products and succeeds? Surely, part of the answer includes enlightened management, a measure of timing, stubbornness, and luck, finding a niche in what's now a world marketplace and willing and productive workers who as they say here live what they make.

MR. JOHNSON: We were the first ones in it and we were not about to give up that easy. It was tough going, but we had a commitment to snowmobiling and we knew snowmobiling and we loved snowmobiling. It was more than the work. It was fun for us to make a product we can go off and enjoy. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories in the news today, Colombia appealed for international help in fighting the drug cartels and Colombia's justice minister had talks in Washington about U.S. aid. The latest U.S. trade figures showed the smallest gap between imports and exports in four years. That's our Newshour for tonight. I'm Robert MacNeil. Thank you and good night.