The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, freed hostage Robert Polhill arrived in West Germany, the White House said that only the unconditional release of all the hostages would lead to better relations with Iran, Lithuania prepared for massive layoffs because of the Soviet economic blockade. 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 talk about the deal that freed hostage Robert Polhill [FOCUS - HOPE FOR THE OTHERS?] and what can be done about the other hostages still held in Lebanon. Then we take a behind-the-scenes look [FOCUS - DRUG BUST?] at the fight against illegal drugs. We have the view of a former undercover agent who says it's all a scam and reactions from the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration and a key U.S. Senator. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Robert Polhill began his journey back to a normal life today, one that will mean a reunion with family and friends and perhaps a return to teaching after 39 months as a captive. The former hostage arrived at a U.S. military base in Wiesbauten, West Germany, where he underwent medical tests, but not before savoring a breakfast of bacon and eggs. Doctors said while he had some minor physical problems, he was in relatively good health. We have a report from Wiesbauten by Ian Glover James of Independent Television News.

IAN GLOVER JAMES, ITN: It's been more than three years since an American hostage was released from Lebanon, but in West Germany, the Americans were waiting, for more American hostages have yet to follow Robert Polhill through the emotional somersaults of sudden freedom, of sudden confrontation with the outside world. He'd received just two hours notice that he'd be freed. In three years captivity he'd never seen the sun and his pale, stooped figure betrayed his suffering, but his spirits were unquenchable. At the hospital, doctors said Polhill was malnourished and dehydrated, but a rousing reception from staff brought on some impromptu American football with photographers. Then in a top floor suite, Robert Polhill slept, had medical checks and appeared for his debriefing by State Department hostage experts. They insist no special deals were done to free Mr. Polhill and they've just said he brought nothing in return, no special messages for Pres. Bush about the fate of the remaining American hostages.

MR. MacNeil: In Washington, White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the administration could not define what role Iran may have played in Polhill's release, but he said only the unconditional release of all American hostages would bring about better relations with Iran. At a news conference this afternoon Secretary of State Baker had this to say.

JAMES BAKER, Secretary of State: Well, we're not going to deal and we're not going to negotiate. We've said that before and we've seen hostages released, we've said it before and we've seen hostages not released. So we remain hopeful, we continue to call upon the world community to do what they can to obtain the release of all hostages, their safe, immediate and unconditional release.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have more on this story after the News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: West Germany today made a major concession to East Germany on economic reunification, agreeing to pay an even one to one exchange rate for the East German mark. The rate would apply to salaries, pensions and some savings. West Germany's Central Bank had recommended a two for one rate, arguing that anything more lenient would cause inflation. Lithuania today closed its only oil refinery after running out of oil because of the Soviet blockade. Lithuania's prime minister said the Baltic Republic may try to sell gold in order to import fuel. This came as Mikhail Gorbachev's spokesman proposed a way out of the stalemate. We have a report narrated by Tom Brown of Worldwide Television News.

MR. BROWN: In response to Lithuanian reports of krypton shortages, a spokesman for Pres. Gorbachev said Moscow might be willing to negotiate. Arcadia Mosleninkov announced the Kremlin would consider letting up on its economic blockade if Lithuania put its plans for independence on hold for two years. As Lithuanians began their first full work week since Gorbachev cut off oil, natural gas and other raw materials, workers began to feel the crunch. At the DKAS factory in Vilnius, workers have been forced to cut back on production, leaving them with little or nothing to do. Vitautys Landsbergis, the republic's president, asked the Lithuanian parliament to draw up emergency plans to deal with massive unemployment, but the rebel republic has no thoughts of rescinding its declaration of independence, and all Lithuanians will continue to be asked to conserve everything, from oil to sugar, very carefully.

MS. WOODRUFF: Lithuania's prime minister said today that she wanted to visit the U.S. next week but said the U.S. would not allow her to come until June. She suggested the delay was intended to keep her away during the Bush-Gorbachev summit which is taking place between May 30th and June the 3rd. In Moscow today, there was a visit from a Chinese head of state, the first such visit in 26 years. Premier Li Pong will spend four days in the Soviet capital and is expected to talk with Soviet Pres. Gorbachev about reducing troops along their common border. Li said he is confident relations between the two nations will improve. Gorbachev visited China last May during the pro-democracy demonstrations shortly before the Tiananmen massacre.

MR. MacNeil: Four years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the Soviet Union has decided to evacuate 14,000 more people from the area. A meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in the spring of 1986 sent a huge amount of radiation into the atmosphere. The official death toll from the accident was 31, but most experts believe it was much higher. About a hundred thousand people have so far been evacuated from the area. In today's announcement, the government said it had underestimated how far the radiation had spread.

MS. WOODRUFF: Back in this country, a freight train carrying crude oil and a corrosive chemical derailed and exploded in Pennsylvania last night. The accident occurred in a steep ravine near Craigsville, about 35 miles Northeast of Pittsburgh. Some of the oil spilled into nearby Buffalo Creek, which is a tributary of the Allegheny River. Officials said they were working to contain it in the creek. Twenty-nine train cars jumped the tracks and burst into flames. Nearly 100,000 gallons of oil and a huge chemical cloud were released. Two hundred people were forced to evacuate the area. An Amtrak passenger train derailed this afternoon near Batavia, Iowa, about 90 miles Southeast of Des Moines. There were 394 passengers and 24 crew members aboard the California Zephyr when it jumped the tracks. Officials said 33 people were injured. The train was headed to Chicago from the West Coast.

MR. MacNeil: NASA will try again tomorrow to launch the space shuttle Discovery. The primary mission for the crew will be deployment of the Hubbell Space Telescope. It'll be the second attempt. The first was scrubbed on April 10th, due to a malfunctioning power unit just four minutes before lift-off. The unit was replaced and tomorrow's launch is scheduled at 8:31 AM Eastern Time.

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally in the news, Paulette Goddard died today. A leading film actress in the 1930s and '40s, she was once married to Charlie Chaplin and starred in two of his best known movies, "Modern Times" and "The Great Dictator". She died at her home in Switzerland. She was 84. That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Just ahead on the Newshour, the release of hostage Robert Polhill from Lebanon and complaints from the front lines in the fight against drugs. FOCUS - HOPE FOR THE OTHERS?

MS. WOODRUFF: Our lead focus tonight the release of American Robert Polhill and the prospects of the freeing of the other American and Western hostages still held captive in Lebanon. We begin with the story of Polhill's release reported by Nik Gowing of Independent Television News.

MR. GOWING: After just a few hours in Damascus, American Officials took Robert Polhill on the second stage of his way home, a four hour flight to an American Military Hospital in West Germany. The hesitant steps revealing some of the price of his 39 months in captivity. The frail professor of business studies still had a sense of pride. So did his Palestinian born wife. Doctors later pronounced POlhill alert, stable and tired but malnourished and mildly dehydrated. Inside the hospital the debriefing procedure and medical examination could take just a matter of days or a matter of weeks depending on his physical and psychological condition. Earlier his wife had given her impression.

MRS. POLHILL: He is weak I will admit but his spirits are high. He is my Robert.

MR. GOWING: And she described when the kidnappers released her husband they put blankets on the heads of the other hostages.

MRS. POLHILL: They put him in another cell and they insisted on shaving his beard and cutting his hair. He said no,no, no leave my hair it is better long but they insisted on shearing his hair and that was it. Then they said you are free go.

MR. GOWING: There is cautious American delight at Polhill's release. Now come the questions on how it came about. Syria's Head of Army Intelligence in Lebanon General Khanon supervised yesterday's release. Syria made sure that a group of journalists were on hand to witness this moment. Syria's involvement with the kidnappers put Polhill in a Syrian car for the drive to Damascus.

ROBERT POLHILL: I really didn't think a lot about freedom.

MR. GOWING: Dr. Polhill's interview with Syrian Television in their car on the road from Beirut and then his fist public appearance in Damascus last night underlined the key role that Syria wants the World to see that it played in this release. It is a role Syria's President Ashad has fought hard for in recent weeks as his power in the shifting sands of the political Middle East seem to be whining. The process which climaxed with Dr. Polhill's arrival in Damascus last night remains murky but the visible presence on the left here of Ed Degerian. Americas Ambassador to Syria an experienced Middle East hand underlines the growing importance to both Syria and Iran in diplomatic contacts in achieving results. Both Iran whose Ambassador to Damascus yesterday gave the first sign of an imminent release and Syria want to prove now they can deliver hostages without losing face. But the question is who in Iran and Syria can deliver what. With whom must the West maintain contacts. Islamic Jihad who held Polhill still hold another four Americans. Islamic Jihad is closely connected to Iran. Syria has influence because the group is based in a part of Lebanon which is under Syrian control. The revolutionary justice organization which holds two Americans is under direct Iranian influence. The Arab Revolutionary Cells who hold one American look to Iran but some one in Syria does have influence. The Armed Struggle Cells who hold the retired British Pilot, Jackie Mann are believe to be pro Iranian. While who hold the other 8 hostages is uncertain. The new emerging axis between Syria and Tehran is becoming clearer and vitally important.

MS. WOODRUFF: This afternoon Secretary of State James Baker talked with reporters at the State Department about the Polhill release. he was asked if the U.S. would make a gesture to Iran to gain the freedom of the other hostages.

SECRETARY OF STATE BAKER: We really are not in to this business of negotiating, trading or making deals for our hostages. We think that out hostages should be released unconditionally and safely and immediately and this barbaric practice should end.

REPORTER: This sounds like setting forth a condition and sounds somewhat like a deal. Is that bad news for future hostage releases?

SEC. BAKER: We are not going to deal and we are not going to negotiate and we've said that before and we've seen hostages released and we have seen it before and we have seen hostages not released. So we remain hopeful. We continue to call upon the World community to do what ever they can do to obtain the release of all hostages. Their safe, immediate and unconditional release.

REPORTER: Do you have any concrete evidence that would lead you to believe that other American or other Internationals might be released. Is there anything other than you faith and hope?

SEC. BAKER: I am just not at liberty to comment on what we might have or what we might not have. We do remain hopeful and I am just going to leave it at that.

MS. WOODRUFF: We pursue the hostage story now with two guests. Robert Kimmitt is the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. And Geoffrey Kemp was a National Security Council Staff Member dealing with Middle Eastern issues during the Reagan Administration. he is now a Senior Associate that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. First of all Secretary Kimmitt why this release now? What were the factors that we believe were taking place behind the scenes that led the hostage holders, the Syrians, the Iranians and who ever else is involved to move now? What is going on?

SEC. KIMMITT: Judy I don't know if we have the complete story as to why they would move now. It seems there was a confluence of interest that came together on the part of the hostage holders and with those with influence over the hostage holders, particularly Syria and Iran. We would think that those three parties at the very least thought it was the time to release at least one hostage, maybe more.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean confluence of interest? What interest are you referring too?

SEC. KIMMITT: I think that would really be up for them to answer. I think that it seems from the moment on Wednesday when we heard first from the Syrians that a hostage was going to be released that the process had been set in motion. We were probably seeing something toward the end of that process rather than the beginning of it. So I am not sure that we have an answer to that question.

MS. WOODRUFF: Geoffrey Kemp is there anything else that can be said at this point of what is going on over there? Is it about what the Syrians have underway, the Iranians, the hostage holders?

MR. KEMP: I think that Syria and Iran are facing enormous strategic problems in the region. Iran lost its war with Iraq. Syria has had its legs cut underneath it by Gorbachev. So both these countries are weak. They need access to Western financing. They need deals and this one way to go about redeeming their reputation.

MS. WOODRUFF: Alright if they need deals, if they need something from the West why not just get all the hostages released all at one time and get it over with?

MR. KEMP: Because I don't think that either Iran or Syria can do that. I think quite frankly if they could, if they had the power to deliver all the hostages they probably would. But they don't in the last resort have tactical data they control over these hostages.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you disagree with that Mr. Secretary?

SEC. KIMMITT: I wouldn't disagree with that. I think that each of them has influence that they can bring to bear. We saw that in Mr. Polhill's release. We hope that I will result in the release of the other hostages.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well distinguish for me if you will between the influence of Syria and the influence of Iran. We noticed today, yesterday. I guess, that the President was clear to thank Syria but seemed reluctant to credit Iran? What is going on there?

SEC. KIMMITT: I think the President was reluctant only to give in to details about the Iranians may or may not have done. That was the question that was asked and I don't think any of us know the details of what Iran has done. However the White House statement was very clear in thanking both Syria and Iran for bringing influence to bear in getting Polhill out and it seems that Syria would have some sort of religious or philosophical ties to these organizations that are holding hostages. Syria obviously with its troop presence in Lebanon and other ties is in a position to help facilitate but I think again that it was a confluence of interest that brought about Mr. Polhill's release and I think we will have to see that in the future as other hostages come out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Specifically Jack Kemp how much influence did the Iranians have?

MR. KEMP:Well, I think, in terms of actually getting the hostages out the Iranians have more influence than the Syrians. Once that decision has been taken the Syrians then take over the sort of logistical operation and as we saw yesterday take all the credit for it. It was a huge boost to Ashad's image.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why is it at the end Syria is the one who gets all the credit, I mean, if the Iranians played a bigger role?

MR. KEMP: Well, I think, in part because Syria for the last year has been playing a more docile role in the Middle East. The Syrians, after all, helped broker the Tyfe Agreements which was supposedly to restore some type of semblance to Lebanon. The Syrians have restored diplomatic relations with Egypt. The Syrians seem to be wanting to have much better relations with the West. Now with the Iranians there is still a split in Teheran. Rafsanjani wants good relations but not everyone else does.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's talk about that. Today there was a report or yesterday in the Teheran newspaper which is supposedly close to Rafsanjani saying well may be it is time to release another hostage, meanwhile, you have the Iranian foreign minister saying no it is time for a reciprocal move on the part of the Israelis to release Sheik Obeid, now who is Sheik Obeid?

SEC. KIMMITT: Sheik Obeid is a cleric who was taken by the Israelis earlier and the Iranians and others have called constantly for his release.

MS. WOODRUFF: What are the prospects that Israel will do what the Iranian foreign minister is asking and release him?

SEC. KIMMITT: You would have to direct that question to the Israelis. I wouldn't want to speculate about the likelihood of that. Our position is clear and that is we think all hostages should be released.

MS. WOODRUFF: Does the United States think it is appropriate to ask Israel to release him?

SEC. KIMMITT: I think again our position is that all people held against their will should be released and we call on all people who can influence that process to exercise that process and effect those releases.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you are saying that is a message to Israel as well to the others?

SEC. KIMMITT: What I am saying it is an answer to your question that we stand against hostage taking and we want all hostages released and any one who can influence should bring that influence to bear.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right Mr. Kimmitt as a member of the Bush Administration he has got to be very careful what he says. Geoffrey Kemp do you want to interpret a little bit for us?

MR. KEMP: I think in all honesty we don't have control over the Israelis. I think the Israelis capture Obeid for their own reasons. They after all also have hostages in Lebanon which they would like to see released. Three Israeli prisoners of war. So my guess is unless we put enormous pressure on them or unless there is some great comprehensive deal brewing which I don't think is actually taking place, then I think there is unlikely to be a linkage here.

MS. WOODRUFF: To get back to what we were saying a moment ago you have President Rafsanjani indicating one thing and the foreign minister saying something else. Can we be any more specific about who is likely to win out there. Is there likely to be another hostage release or are they going to wait?

MR. KEMP: No I think we are going to see them coming out in dribs and drabs and I think that it is the test of the Bush Administration is not to cave in to a sort of over whelming media campaign to suddenly make concessions to either Iran or Syria.

MS. WOODRUFF: But on the one hand if you sayconcessions and then you have those who are as responsible like Congressman Lee Hamilton, who is with the House Foreign Affairs Committee saying what we need to do is indicate through some gesture, that is what the United States needs to do is that we are prepared to begin a dialogue with the Iranians. Is that something the Administration willing to do?

SEC. KIMMITT: I was going to say I think I would put much more emphasis on the Chairman's call for dialogue other than gestures or deals or negotiations at this particular point and the President has said quite clearly that we are ready to talk any time, any where with an authorized representative of the Government of Iran. We are ready for that dialogue.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is there talk going on now between the United States and Iran directly or indirectly?

SEC. KIMMITT: There are no direct contacts. We do have indirect contacts with Iran through various third party intermediaries.

MS. WOODRUFF: And what are we saying to them indirectly. can you say?

SEC. KIMMITT: No I don't want to comment on the frequency or the substance of those contacts but we do stand ready for direct talks when they are ready but again it has to be an authorized representative of the Government.

MS. WOODRUFF: And who would that be?

SEC. KIMMITT: I think that would have to be a choice that they in the first instance would have to make. I think some one who can speak authoritatively for the government of Iran.

MR. KEMP: Well I think there is a big difference between a gesture and concessions negotiated or deals and I do think that it is possible to say nice things like Secretary Baker said today that go well in Teheran with out giving away anything. It would be wrong for instance to be completely hard nosed about the Iranians had done but we should not under any circumstance make concessions. We should not release any of their frozen assets or release any arms equipment to them that they have paid for. We shouldn't do that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well alright of concessions are not going to happen let's explore this dialogue, I mean, what do you see happening. Do you see the Iranians responding in some way and saying alright if you are prepared to have a dialogue which I gather Secretary of State Baker said today we have been prepared all along to have a dialogue. I mean is it possible the Iranians might come forward and say alright here is our authorized representative let's begin a dialogue?

MR. KEMP: Well I think there are certainly things the Iranians would like the United States say in a dialogue that is not necessarily related just to hostages. I think they would like us to be more supportive of their position in the Iran, Iraq negotiations to reach a peace treaty and I think that since Iraq is now in the dark because of its activities the Iranians may calculate this is a good time for us to tip towards them.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that something that is feasible?

SEC. KIMMITT: I think that anything is feasible but back to your earlier question Judy about the leadership situation in Teheran I think it is very difficult to speculate on that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Speculate on what?

SEC. KIMMITT: The current leadership situation inside Iran and it would seem to me that at the time they would come forth with the desire for direct contacts and so forth it would have to be a signal that it is ready to move forward with those discussions.

MS. WOODRUFF: What would constitute a signal for them that they are prepared to have a dialogue, a signal that we would accept as legitimate?

SEC. KIMMITT: Well again I think we have means for communicating indirectly through third parties and they can indicate that willingness it could seem to me.

MS. WOODRUFF: Has that happened yet? Is that underway now?

SEC. KIMMITT: Again there are no direct contacts going on with Iran at this point but again as the substance of our contact with them I would rather not comment.

MS. WOODRUFF: Then Geoffrey Kemp you indicated one thing the Iranians would like the United States to do has to do with the Iran, Iraq war. What do you think the likelihood is the Administration would be likely to say what Iran wants it to say in that regard?

MR. KEMP: I think that it is pretty unlikely. Let's say in the next couple of months another five or so hostages are released I think you will have a different ball game and I think there might be more pressure on the Administration to make some concession but I don't think that we have reached that point at this moment. I think that it would be silly to speculate on what we might do but I don't think that you can rule it out down the track.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think that it is possible that five or six will be released in the next two or three months?

MR. KEMP: I think that both Iran and Syria want to get all the hostages out. They have nothing to gain by keeping them and that they are paying a price for keeping them and they have much better things to do when the hostage situation is resolved.

MS. WOODRUFF: But again getting back to the report that we saw a few minutes ago there are several different groups holding the hostages that we know of. There may be more. Can Iran and Syria effect the release of all the hostages, the American hostages without even getting in to the European hostages?

SEC. KIMMITT: I think in each instance they have influence that they can bring to bear and I think that is all that we can expect of them that they would bring that to bear with these various organizations. Certainly it has been shown that they have influence to bear with one organization that continues to hold other American hostages. At the very least you would hope that it would bring that influence to bear in getting those hostages out.

MS. WOODRUFF: What is the reading of the Administration right now. Are there any other hopeful signals at this point either from the Iranians or the Syrians that another hostage or more might be released in the near future?

SEC. KIMMITT: Well I have seen the same reports that you have. You mentioned the Teheran Times which the commentator called specifically for the releases of another hostage in the near term. We are always hopeful. I can't say that we are always optimistic however. We are going to continue to work for the release of all hostages. If one comes up in the near term we would rejoice at that as we have rejoiced at the release of Mr. Polhill. That rejoicing would be tempered, as the President, said by the fact that other hostages are held and our long term goal is to get all the hostages home.

MS. WOODRUFF: Geoffrey Kemp and once again Syria and Iran want these hostages out you say very quickly in a nut shell why can't it happen?

MR. KEMP: Because they don't have day to day tactical control over those hostages and they are going to have to pay a price.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean monetary?

MR. KEMP: Monetary or arms. There are reports that the Hezbollah has been given arms in order to help release hostages. The people that control the hostages now are desperate. They have no other chips to pay except the hostages. They want something from it. They don't particularly care for diplomatic credibility like Ashad and the Iranians do. They want practical things like arms and money.

MS. WOODRUFF: Alright gentlemen we certainly thank you both for being with us. Geoffrey Kemp. Secretary Bob Kimmitt, thank you both. Robin. FOCUS - DRUG BUST?

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, an extended look at what's wrong and right with the U.S. effort to stem the flow of illicit drugs. The latest offensive came just yesterday with the announcement of a $35 million military aid package from the U.S. to Peru. Under the accord, U.S. Green Berets will train Peru's army to fight drug traffickers, but there are those who say that such efforts are being undercut by official in-fighting and incompetence. Recently, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with a former undercover drug agent who raises those charges and some serious questions about who's winning the so-called war on drugs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Michael Levine's 25 year career has taken him deep into the deep into the bowels of the drug world. As a highly praised undercover agent for the Drug Enforcement Agency, Levine has posed as a heroin smuggler in Thailand, a cocaine buyer in Buenos Aires and a gun runner in Buffalo. Before his retirement in December, Levine specialized in South and Central America, where he is known as El Tiberon, the shark. The 50 year old agent turned author after his retirement in December. His book, "Deep Cover", is billed as the inside story of how DEA in-fighting, incompetence, and subterfuge lost us the biggest battle of the drug war. Mr. Levine, thank you for joining us. The Colombia drug barons have said they were going to step up their war against the politicians and the industrial leaders. What is your take on that situation? I mean, why is it so out of control?

MICHAEL LEVINE, Former Drug Enforcement Agent: Well, my take on the whole Colombian situation is it's being presented to America in a very fraudulent manner. The American public is being told that there is a war against drugs in Colombia, when, in fact, what it is is a war against violent drug dealers. Pres. Virgilio Barco of Colombia is much too smart to go to war against drugs because the sale of cocaine is more than 50 percent of his country's income. The proof of it I think is in, and you hear it when Commissioner of Customs Von Raab resigned from his post angrily and he wrote to Pres. Bush, "Third world banking schemes are more important than winning a drug war."

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So what are you saying?

MR. LEVINE: What that means is the Andean nations that sell all the cocaine in the world have a combined international debt of $42 billion, of which most of that payment, the interest payments come from the sale of cocaine, so you've got a very powerful faction, the bankers, the bankers of this world, particularly the bankers of the United States, who really don't want to win a drug war. In "Deep Cover", one of the purposes of writing "Deep Cover" and covering this case, Operation Trifecta, was to capture in microcosm what a total fraud this drug war is from bottom to top.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Where is the U.S. culpable here?

MR. LEVINE: I had a brother who was a heroin addict for 19 years. Finally he killed himself in 1977, writing a letter, my family and friends, I'm sorry, I can't stand the drugs anymore. He'd been through five rehabilitation programs. I was transferred a year later to South America. I'd become an undercover expert. I was teaching undercover to other agencies and other professional lawmen. I did what I was trained to do. When I got to South America, I started working my way upward through cocaine cartels until I reached the top. When I reached the top what I found was that the top drug dealers in this world had better protection with our CIA, our Pentagon, our politicians, our special interests, than any DEA agent in the world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you mean by that? You mean our government is in collusion with them actively?

MR. LEVINE: Absolutely. And very very actively so. What I'm saying is I'm going to give you enough real facts that if our elected officials are really interested in getting to the truth about this drug war, whether we're really in it for real or whether the whole thing is really a sham and a smoke and mirrors show, I have given them more than enough in this book to start calling these people forward and questioning them as to the statements they made and the acts that I described, as to whether they really did it or they didn't, and if they did, why. We gave up the drug war in favor of a war against Communism. In fact, we made a conscious choice. The hell with the children, the people of the United States. We're at war against Communism. Now it's become a lot more sinister than that. Now we have events like the one captured in "Vanity Fair" where a man named Molina Osario comes into Texas, sells two kilos of cocaine to an undercover DEA agent. In a closed door hearing, the CIA manages to get him removed from the American judicial system. The minutes of whatever happened are a secret. The investigative reporter follows it up. He finds out that the DEA agent in Honduras had documented 50 tons of cocaine a year coming into the U.S. at the hands of U.S.-supported Contras and Honduran military and what does DEA do? They transfer the agent out of Honduras to get him out of the hair of the Pentagon. Now what's happening is using the same logic that we're at war against drugs, we invade Panama, 23 Americans die, from four hundred to six thousand innocent Panamanians die for the arrest of one drug dealer, yet, in Honduras, they are given a license to peddle cocaine to the United States. And that's a fraud and that's a sham.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When I interviewed the head of the DEA, John Lawn, at the point of his retirement a few weeks ago, he wouldn't comment on your accusations specifically, but he did allude to them by saying that there are some low level DEA agents who feel that their particular case, their particular circumstances, are the only ones in the universe and that they get ticked off when we make decisions that have to take all of the other 3,000 agents and cases into consideration, that you -- the suggestion was that you may be blowing your situation out of proportion.

MR. LEVINE: First of all, let's talk about how low level low level is. I was "the" senior officer in the whole Southern part for three years, the senior representative with American law enforcement. During my career in drug enforcement, I have affected how it's done to the security regulations, to you name it personally. I can show you the effect that I've had.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So he's wrong?

MR. LEVINE: Yeah, he's absolutely wrong, and I asked that my case be judged as the thousands of cases that have prepared for courts and never lost be judged by the facts that I've written in that book.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me turn to the domestic situation here in the United States. The administration has reportedly acknowledged that its plan to fight drugs in the nation's capital has been a failure. What do you think went wrong in that situation in the district?

MR. LEVINE: The whole philosophy of what they're doing is bass ackwards. Two societies have won drug wars. If we really wanted to win a drug war, I'm sure our country could do it in a very very short order by following the methodology that the Chinese use and the Japanese use.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Namely.

MR. LEVINE: In 1949, China had 70 million heroin addicts. Within three years, they had none. Instead of having this militarized drug war spending tens of billions of dollars, which we've been doing now for two decades for zero, for nothing, they use all their resources on giving the addicts just what they want, rehabilitation on demand, but not the demand of the addict. My own brother on his own demand went through five rehabilitation programs before he killed himself. You cannot give addicts rehabilitation on their demand. They did it by giving them rehabilitation on the demand of society. They said we as a society demand that you as an addict get in.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how did they do that?

MR. LEVINE: You force them into rehabilitation programs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean after they've been arrested?

MR. LEVINE: You might do it that way. What I'm saying is we haven't even looked -- the idea is using our resources to attack the user. The user is not a victim. The minute you paint the user, as our politicians do, as a victim, you lose the war on drugs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what do you do with the guys who are selling, I mean the guys that you went after?

MR. LEVINE: They will disappear as happened in China and Japan. What happens is if you take the user off the street, you put him in a rehabilitation program, he can no longer spend his two and three hundred thousand dollars a year. You remove that from the economy. He can no longer commit the ten crimes a year that the average druggie commits before he's either put in jail or put into a force program. It makes sense any way you look at it, Charlayne, in dollars and cents, in the immediate effect in the drug war, and it works. It's worked for two societies.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, now that government is talking about using the military, using the CIA, is that just wrong?

MR. LEVINE: That's a total fraud on America. What's going on is there is no longer any Communist bogeyman so they are getting nervous. I read two weeks ago where the CIA is now going to commit itself to the drug war. Of course, they are, because who's going to fund them to do operations against a Communist bogeyman that no longer exists? So the new bogeyman is going to be the drug war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: They shouldn't be involved, you don't think?

MR. LEVINE: If you put aircraft carriers, jets, balloons, all around South America, if you link DEA agents arm in arm across the Mexican border, you're not going to stop one iota of drugs from coming in and we know it. I mean, we professionals in the field know it because it's going to come in in tuna cans or it's going to come in in dead bodies, the way it did during the case I had during the Vietnam years. We're not going to stop anything. It's a show. It's a show for the American public.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about local law enforcement and DEA, what role do you think they should play in all of this?

MR. LEVINE: They have to continue and the emphasis, we've got to demilitarize this drug war very quickly before we get into a real shooting war under the banner of drug war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it your view that we are not equipped to go up against their arsenals?

MR. LEVINE: It's not a matter of equipped to go up against them. It's senseless. It's futile.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But why is it futile?

MR. LEVINE: I'll use Jack Lawn's own words. Supposing we won the cocaine war? The next war we'd have would be the methamphetamine, the blue ice, so the net effect is zero, except we're at war in other countries.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me ask you. Your own daughter was a drug addict.

MR. LEVINE: Yeah.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How did you deal with that and how did she --

MR. LEVINE: I learned from my brother first. I learned that you can't make somebody, you can't beg, cajole, follow, and try to rationalize with a drug user. My own brother lived with me when he was on the methadone program and I came home and I saw him. I'm a narcotic agent. I saw that my brother was stoned on heroin and I said, I love you but you've got out, because I have two children, you have to get out, and I never saw him alive again. My daughter saw that and she was aware of that. Now I'm working undercover in Arizona on a thing called Operation Hun and my wife calls, my then wife called and she said, our daughter's in drugs, and she was very panicked. I got on the plane and I found myself in the strange position of fighting the drug war on two fronts. On one front I'm working undercover in a major operation targeting the minister of interior of Bolivia. On the other front, I'm flying to New York, trying to find my own daughter's drug connection. Well, I won for my daughter. In my daughter's case, I won. I reached the point where I said to her, you saw what happened with your uncle. Now I'm going to go so far with you and then that's it, I'm going to put you out the way we did with Uncle David. I went to the point of getting a petition in court to get her treated as an adult and she was then 15, going on 16. That's when she dropped -- she is now more anti-drug than the Pope. She's wonderful. And when I asked her what was it, she said, I didn't want to lose you as a father. And that's the bottom line. You have got to draw a line to protect yourself as a human in this world. You have to understand that when people make that choice to go into drugs, they're making a choice that's very against their family. They know that they are taking a substance that is going to control and dominate them and make them an impossible person to live with, a person not capable of love, and that's the bottom line. If you're not capable of enough love to think of me, then I have to get you out of my life to protect myself, and that's what I did with my daughter and it worked, thank God.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Levine, thank you very much for being with us.

MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Charlayne.

MR. MacNeil: Agent Levine raised a lot of questions and we have some expert reaction. Roger Mudd takes it from here.

MR. MUDD: The acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is Terence Burke, a 20 year veteran at the DEA. He directs the overall day to day management of the agency. Sen. John Kerry is a Democrat of Massachusetts, and is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, & International Operations. His subcommittee has held numerous hearings investigating the U.S. international drug policy and he joins us from Capitol Hill. Sen. Kerry, a former DEA agent, Michael Levine, says that the United States is more interested in fighting Communism than it is in fighting drugs. Do you think that's true?

SEN. JOHN KERRY, [D] Massachusetts: I think it was true up until about a year or so ago. There is no question in my mind that the hearings we held demonstrated that many decisions that might have affected the drug war were being deferred in favor of the interests that were defined in the context of East-West relations. We had sting operations called off, we were looking the other way with respect to narcotics coming back into this country from those who assisted the Contras and other examples, most prominently Noriega. But I do believe that George Bush has made a legitimate and conscientious effort to turn that around. I know Sec. Baker has placed greater emphasis. Asst. Sec. Mel Levitsky has also made steps. I think the Andean summit was a positive step forward and I think there is a reversal of that emphasis.

MR. MUDD: That coincides with the Bush administration?

SEN. KERRY: It does, indeed. That's fair.

MR. MUDD: Mr. Burke, do you think that the foreign policy gets in the way of drug policy?

TERENCE BURKE, Drug Enforcement Agency: Mr. Mudd, I spend many hours during the week, especially during these past two years over at the White House working with the National Security Council, working with Dr. Bennett's office, working with the State Department, which has made drugs a priority, part of our national policy. I've had one of the leaders of the National Security Council refer to DEA as now a foreign policy agency. I see every emphasis possible being placed on the drug enforcement and the drug education and demand reduction as a primary goal of this administration.

MR. MUDD: So you are saying that foreign policy does dictate drug policy?

MR. BURKE: No. I'm saying drug policy is part of our foreign policy now.

MR. MUDD: How does domestic politics, how do domestic politics, Mr. Burke, affect the way the DEA operates in those countries which produce drugs.

MR. BURKE: Are you speaking of U.S. domestic policy?

MR. MUDD: Yes, yes.

MR. BURKE: I think the fact that we are placing as much emphasis on drug law enforcement and on the demand reduction in education now has spilled over into our foreign operations. We are receiving support now that we never have had before. We have the entire defense community on our side now. We are receiving help in the intelligence community as we have not received before. The most important thing though I believe that the public has now become aware of what the drug menace is to the United States, and we have many more people both in the private sector and the Congress, in the media, in the entertainment industry, now taking an active role in what we do.

MR. MUDD: What was your opinion of former agent Levine when he was a DEA agent?

MR. BURKE: Well, I don't want to get into debate about him as an agent. I can say that there has definitely been a turnaround in his attitude. I have a quote from him just two years ago where he felt that he had saved thousands of lives, that there are many many people who are alive today because of his work. I see him as somewhat of a victim in the war on drugs. He expected to come home to cheering crowds as the heroes of Vietnam did and he didn't. This is a war that goes on. He had a part of it. I think he's underestimating the impact that he had, because I think each and every one of our agents who goes out and does their job is having an effect in this struggle.

MR. MUDD: The reason I asked it is I know the agency thought well of him when he was an operating agent, and my question is I know that one of the conditions of your being interviewed was that you did not want to talk about his specific charges, and my question is, if you respected his work then, why don't you respect his work now?

MR. BURKE: Well, he is writing from the viewpoint of an author and a commercial entrepreneur at this point and I think that you have to put it in that perspective.

MR. MUDD: Sen. Kerry, it seems to most people who read the Bush- Bennett drug policy carefully that the emphasis is on stopping the flow rather than stopping the use. Is that true and how is that policy working now?

SEN. KERRY: Roger, that is true and I think it's an enormous mistake. I think there is even some difference of opinion within the administration between Sec. Baker who went to the United Nations and stated that demand was the most important area of emphasis, and Bill Bennett, who is obviously focusing more on supply. My sense is that the criticism made by Agent Levine are indeed somewhat legitimate with respect to the absolute incapacity ultimately of the DEA or anyone no matter how great their intentions, no matter how competent they are as individuals, to be able to stem supply. If it isn't cocaine, it can be heroin, and indeed, an agent to the DEA testified before our committee recently that there will be an increase in heroin and if it isn't heroin, then it will be ice that will be manufactured in a basement in some community in this country. I think they're making an enormous mistake and I heard the mention of heroes of Vietnam coming back. You know, I was a soldier in Vietnam and I don't remember any great parades when we came back. I remember a lot of soldiers feeling they were fighting something without a strategy, without the resources and without a commitment to win. I fear that DEA agents are being put into that same predicament now, where they're being asked to do the impossible and they're being put at great risk without a nation that has committed the resources. We will not win this war so-called, and I emphasize "so- called", unless we focus on our inner urban communities, on programs that will make a difference to families and to kids, unless we focus on treatment. Only 19 out of every 100 addicts in this country are getting treatment under this so-called war, and unless we focus on education, only 55 percent of the kids in this country are getting educated about drugs under this so-called war. So I don't want to see DA agents made victims, and I think they we ought to shift the current allocations of resources, which is 70 percent, to military interdiction and law enforcement and bring that to a greater shift between domestic law enforcement, treatment and education.

MR. MUDD: Mr. Burke, your turn.

MR. BURKE: Well, I think that what we have to do is all of the above. I agree with Sen. Kerry that each one of these things is really important, the work that he's done and the other members of the Congress and the laws regarding the financial institution and the money flow, the demand reduction, as I've said, all of these, have to go along in a compact package. As far as the funding is concerned, what we're doing right now and the reasons the cost on the supply side are so high is that we're putting the resources, the additional agents, the additional law enforcement officers, on our payrolls which we have not had in the past, so these are initial start-up costs. What we do in Latin America with the Andean strategy, what we're going to have to put in terms of cost and training and the assistance of the U.S. military and others in South America, those are initial start-up costs which are very expensive at the outset, but I think that the drug strategy proposed and accepted by the President, proposed by Dr. Bunn and accepted by the President, does have a very great part of it as a demand reduction in the education. We're just getting started with that, but that is part right along with the enforcement of all of this that we have to do to be successful.

MR. MUDD: Sen. Kerry, Mr. Levine says that U.S. bankers really don't want to win the drug war because the Andean nations pay the interest on their huge international drug with the profits from the sale of cocaine. Do you think that's true?

SEN. KERRY: I think that he's mixing apples and oranges a little bit there. There is no question that interest is being paid with the proceeds from drugs -- there's no question about that. These economies are super dependent on drug trafficking. You've got one or two economies where literally half of their deficit in terms of external debt is being paid as a result or their trade deficit is taken up with narcotics proceeds. But I do not believe that American bankers are consciously making some decision or in some conspiracy to prevent the war from being fought. I think it's a matter of the way it's working right now. We don't have an adequate debt reduction program, and that's the government's job to put that in place, to jawbone the banks and to create a program that works. That hasn't happened. We've had the so-called Baker plan floated, other plans floated, but the reality is that they're laboring under that burden, they don't have alternatives for their economies and too many of their farmers have come to be dependent on the proceeds of the coca leaf and there is not enough money or no money in some cases for alternative crop plans or alternative development plans.

MR. MUDD: Mr. Burke, may I ask you, do you think that the DEA with the help that it can get from customs, from border police, from the Coast Guard, will ever be able to stop the flow of cocaine in the United States?

MR. BURKE: You're not going to be able to ever stop it totally, but you're going to greatly reduce it if we put all of these other programs working at the same time. If the demand reduction, if the reduction of the amount of drugs that are being consumed in the United States right now continues to be reduced, if we're able to get the countries that we're working most closely with in Latin America to reduce the amount that's being produced there, if we're able to intercept the loads, if we're able to disrupt the traffic, all of this together can cause a reduction.

MR. MUDD: That's a lot of ifs in there.

MR. BURKE: That's a lot of ifs, but we are working towards that end. And frankly after twenty years, I'm much more optimistic than I was five years ago.

MR. MUDD: Sen. Kerry, do you think the DEA is using its resources and its agents efficiently?

SEN. KERRY: I do by and large. And I think they're doing a very difficult job under tough circumstances frankly without resources in many regards. Also though there's been an increase recently. I think at Peru I'm greatly troubled. I'm worried about what is happening in the Upper Hulaloga Valley with the involvement of DEA agents very directly in fire fights and training of troops and really becoming involved in the middle of a civil war. That disturbs me. Let me make very clear also I think it's very important to have DEA agents out there, I think they should be augmented and I think you need to be fighting on that front. But don't do it with any misconception as to what it's really going to bring you. It brings you a process of raising the cost of doing business. It raises the risk to the criminal element. You do interrupt and catch some of them and you must have it as whatever deterrent you can put in place, but it will never be the most important part of the solution here. The most important part of the solution is for our own bankrupt criminal justice system which cannot even house the people who deserve to be put away to get the resources it needs and again on the treatment and other, and the only point I make quickly, Roger, is that you've got to shift those resources I think first to that place while simultaneously doing what we need to do with the DEA and interdiction.

MR. MUDD: Mr. Burke, do you have one more comment? Go ahead.

MR. BURKE: You've got to do a lot of things at once. Sen. Kerry is correct. We have so much to do but I finally think we are on the track. We've got a road map to the President's strategy and I just hope and I really believe that that is going to take us in the right direction.

SEN. KERRY: Roger, can I comment quickly?

MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, go ahead.

SEN. KERRY: What disturbs me is I took a ride the other evening in Boston with members of the narcotics squad and I went out through the hours of the night and I sat there in this undercover car and we watched the drug deals going down. And I got out and I talked to these kids in the street making two thousand bucks, three thousand bucks a night, doing this just whenever they want, and they're laughing at the system in this country. They know it doesn't work. The cops don't have the resources. And I think the great error is to be building up exclusively on the federal side. What we have is not a national strategy. We have a federal strategy. What we need is a national strategy. When I was a prosecutor in the 1970s, we had 875 million dollars a year going to states and local police to help them. In 1975 dollars with the war on drugs in 1990 dollars, we have 450 million. That tells the story and unless we address that issue, we're going to continue to kid ourselves about a war on drugs.

MR. MUDD: And do you have a final final comment, Mr. Burke?

MR. BURKE: I think for once if we've done nothing else we've got the attention of this country, we've got the attention of the Congress, and I just hope that the Congress working with the administration, working with the state and local organizations, and officials, will have an impact.

MR. MUDD: Thank you, Terence Burke, acting administrator of DEA, and Democrat John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again Monday's main stories, freed hostage Robert Polhill was described in generally good condition after a medical examination in Wiesbauten, West Germany. The White House said that only the unconditional release of all the hostages would lead to better relations with Iran. Lithuania braced for massive layoffs as the Soviet blockade took hold, a Soviet spokesman said the Kremlin might negotiate with the Baltic republic if it freezes its declaration of independence for two years. Good night, Judy.

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