The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Lithuania again leads the news this Tuesday. Soviet troops seized Communist Party headquarters there and arrested a group of army deserters, all foreigners were ordered to leave the republic, and the president of Lithuania appealed to the West for help. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary, we'll begin with the war of nerves between Mikhail Gorbachev [FOCUS - LITHUANIA - FORCING THE ISSUE] and Lithuania and what the Bush administration should be doing to help diffuse the crisis. We'll be joined by Soviet diplomat Oleg Derkovsky and Lithuanian spokesman Victor Nakas, and Senators Joseph Biden and Bill Armstrong. Next we'll have a report on the upcoming election in the Southern African nation of Zimbabwe [FOCUS - ZIMBABWE ELECTION]. Then a conversation with a man whose mission was fighting drugs, [CONVERSATION] former DEA agent Robert Stutman, and finally [ESSAY - PERRIER - WATER ON THE BRAIN] what Essayist Jim Fisher calls the big story of the spring of 1990. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: There were several developments in the Lithuania story today. All foreigners were ordered to leave. That happened after Soviet troops arrested Lithuanian army deserters who were hiding in a hospital. Soviet troops also took over another Communist Party building in Vilnius. We have two reports from Independent Television News.

BILL NEELY, ITN: The Kremlin was quick to explain today while troops have been used. Lithuanian conscripts have broken the law; there was no alternative.

GENNADY GERASIMOV, Soviet Spokesman: If they try to catch these deserters and to bring them to justice, it can be considered that they are using force. If they don't do it, they will encourage other deserters to do the same, so what about army discipline?

MR. NEELY: A formula repeated in Paris by Soviet Defense Minister Dmitri Yasov. The deserters, he said, would be taken back to their units, the Lithuanian problem would be solved calmly. Mr. Gorbachev was in somber mood today. The army commander in Lithuania has made it clear that it's the president who's giving the orders. By Gorbachev's side at this first meeting of the presidential council was the head of the KGB. Lithuania was top of the agenda.

TIM EWART, ITN: The red flag flew over the capital Vilnius again today and the Soviet national anthem blared from loud speakers. But despite a demonstration by several thousands opponents of independence and despite military action overnight, Lithuanian deputies who watched from parliament kept their nerve. Workmen removed the last symbols of the old Communist regime. A plaque of Lenin was unceremoniously torn from the wall, and inside, the MPs went about their business as usual. But across town, at Communist Party headquarters, the harsh reality of the challenge Lithuania now faces. Armed paratroopers in control and in no mood to argue. This evening, Pres. Landsbergis told me he believed the army could use force at any time.

PRESIDENT VYTAUTAS LANDSBERGIS, Lithuania: It may happen in a day because it is a great unknown ghost.

MR. EWART: Are you afraid?

PRES. LANDSBERGIS: Well, I'm not afraid.

MR. EWART: There was no fear on the faces of young Lithuanians who sang folk songs outside parliament. So far there's no evidence the supporters of independence are losing their resolve.

MR. LEHRER: The Lithuanian president wrote a letter to Pres. Gorbachev today demanding the return of the army deserters. He called the arrests "kidnappings" and "inexcusable aggression". And he appealed to the West for help in meeting the Soviet challenge. At the White House in Washington, Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater would not comment on the latest developments. He told reporters, "We do not want to inflame the situation." We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The U.S. began its first television broadcast to Cuba today but Cuba jammed the transmission after about half an hour. The new station known as TV Marti is broadcast from South Florida. It's designed to be a TV version of Radio Marti which has been broadcasting news and entertainment to Cuba since 1985. Cuba said the broadcast violates its national sovereignty.

MR. LEHRER: Former Pres. Jimmy Carter went to see Pres. Bush in Washington today. He reported on his recent trip to the Middle East among other things. Mr. Carter told reporters at the White House that he was optimistic about peace in the Middle East.

JIMMY CARTER: I was very encouraged with this trip, in spite of the uncertainty about the Israeli government. I think that there's a general acceptance now that not the comprehensive peace is not only necessary, but I think inevitable. How long that's going to take will depend on the people involved and how enthusiastic others, including the United States government, is in pursuing this.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Carter said the United States should use its maximum influence on Israel and the other Middle East countries to get to the bargaining table.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In South Africa today, police used tear gas and rubber bullets to force a group of squatters to leave their shacks in Cape Town. Also in a black township near Johannesburg, thousands of blacks held a demonstration against high rents. Police let that march proceed. Yesterday police opened fire on similar protests, killing eight people and wounding several hundred.

MR. LEHRER: Matters continued to worsen today in the Greyhound Bus strike. There was more violence. A window was shot out at the bus depot in Amarillo, Texas. A bus was hit by a bullet near Orlando, Florida. No one was injured in either incident. They were the 22nd and 23rd sniper incidents since Greyhound drivers and other workers went on strike March 2nd. Both the company and the union had news conferences today. Greyhound executive Anthony Lannie said Greyhound would not resume negotiations until the violence stopped. The company offered a $100,000 reward for information about it. Union Pres. Edward Strait denied his union was responsible. Lannie spoke first.

P. ANTHONY LANNIE, Greyhound Chief Negotiator: It's quite apparent to me that this union believes that it can get a contract through terrorism that it cannot achieve at the bargaining table. If we return to the bargaining table, the No. 1 issue on the table will be halting the violence and we expect the union to come forward.

EDWARD STRAIT, Union President: No, violence is not in the contract. I'm going to the bargaining table to negotiate a contract. The No. 1 issue is the contract, getting these people back to work. Violence is not going to put these people back. We do not condone it. The violence is hurting us as much as it is hurting them.

MR. LEHRER: There are not talks currently scheduled between the two sides. A different kind of transportation issue was voted on in the House of Representatives today. The House voted overwhelmingly to prevent a practice known as back hauling. That's when trucks that transport food one way carry toxic material or garbage on the return trip. The legislation is opposed by the Bush administration. It now goes to the Senate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Finally, two deaths to report, the first person to receive a heart, liver and kidney transplant has died. Cindy Martin received the transplant in December. She died last night at a Pittsburgh hospital. She had never fully recovered since the operation. Mrs. Martin was 26. And one of America's most famous designers also died last night. Halston, whose full name was Roy Halston Frohick, died at a San Francisco hospital. His brother said the cause of death was AIDS. Halston was 57. That's our summary of the day's news. Still ahead, the stand-off in Lithuania, a report on a crucial election in Southern Africa, a man whose mission was fighting drugs, and our Tuesday essay. FOCUS - LITHUANIA - FORCING THE ISSUE

MR. LEHRER: The President of Lithuania appealed to the West for help today. He spoke after Soviet troops smashed their way into a mental hospital and seized a group of young Lithuanian deserters from the Soviet Army. In Washington White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater declined to criticize saying we do not want to inflame the situation. We will get three other views on that appeal from help following the Soviet perspective. It comes from Oleg Derkovsky, a Councilor at the Soviet Embassy here in Washington. Good evening Sir. Why did the Soviet Army move against those deserters?

MR. DERKOVSKY: Well we are talking about law order and legality. I think it would be proper on my part to ask a similar questions. What steps would be taken in this country for example or any other country with regards to deserters.

MR. LEHRER: It is a simple case of Army discipline.

MR. DERKOVSKY: It is a simple case of Army discipline. It is a question of order and discipline.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Gorbachev had said though that no force would be used in Lithuania unless lives were at stake. This is a separate issue?

MR. DERKOVSKY: I think it doesn't contradict the case that you have mentioned. That doesn't contradict what President Gorbachev said. It is not from my point of view a question of using force. It is a question of enforcing order in the Army and I believe similar steps would be taken elsewhere with regard to deserters.

MR. LEHRER: The reaction today in Vilnius another Communist Party building was taken over by Soviet troops why was that done?

MR. DERKOVSKY: I can not comment on that because I have no clear picture of what actually has taken place there. But we are discussing a bigger issue. I personally have a larger agenda. It is a question of legality. It is a question of President Gorbachev having a mandate to do what he is doing and he is not doing on his own. He has a mandate given to him by the Congress of People's Deputies. As we know several days ago the Congress of People's Deputies took a decision in accordance with which the declaration on independence declared a couple of weeks ago by the Supreme Soviet in Lithuania was consider to be contrary to the constitution of the Soviet Union and not consistent with the Sovereignty of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. So this is a larger question and therefore I would try to avoid concentrating all of our attention on side issues in this problem. The problem exists and it should be resolved calmly. And the Government there of President Gorbachev and the Government in Moscow taking all proper measures to resolve this conflict in the context of the constitution, in the context of legal measures.

MR. LEHRER: But the member of the Parliament in Lithuania, the people who voted this action of independence, took this action of independence say they will not back down there is nothing to negotiate.

MR. DERKOVSKY: Well I have learned that it is good not to say never. A lot is changing and the views of the people are changing. I believe some of the segment of the public and political opinion in Lithuania is trying to approach the problem emotionally. It has to be voided now. It is a very serious and complex problem. And the set of measures suggested by the Congress of People's Deputies takes all concerns in to consideration. Interests of all parties involved and here we have not only Lithuanian interests we have interests of other 15 republics here and interests of many individuals. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that a large segment of public opinion in Lithuania who disagree with insistence of cession from the Soviet Union. The other day there was a demonstration in the Capitol of Lithuania with the participation of 100,000 people which expressed their opinion with regard to cession. They said no because it is contrary to their interests. Therefore what the Government in Moscow is suggesting that we have to work on the basis of the constitution, on the basis of legal procedures and for this purpose we are discussing drastic over haul, drastic reconstruction of the federated mechanism of the Union and we are discussing now the law on cession. Because nobody disputes in Moscow that all Republics have a right for self determination. This is a principal it can not be given or taken but it should be realized in practical terms in such a way that the interests of other sides and parties involved should not be damaged.

MR. LEHRER: So in other words what the Government in Moscow is saying to Lithuania, look we are not saying that someday you can not become an independent nation. What we are saying is you have to follow a process that might lead to that?

MR. DERKOVSKY: That would be a correct point of view. I would subscribe to what you have said and let me remind you that there was a similar period in the American History which many American observers try to compare the situation we are having now with Lithuania. With a period in American history when there was a demand of Southern States for cession during the tenure of President Lincoln. I think that is a valid comparison of this situation. Here we need patients. We need situations when emotions shouldn't govern the decisions.

MR. LEHRER: What is your reaction today to the call from the President of Lithuania for help from the West?

MR. DERKOVSKY: I can not commend this decision because of the situation I try to mention. Who speaks on behalf of Lithuania because there are people in this Republic who believe their interests will be damaged, infringed upon if the cession takes place and this is a real problem and therefore it has to be tackled in a calm matter so every body's concerns are taken in to account.

MR. LEHRER: Do you believe this is going to be resolved and resolved soon and in a peaceful way?

MR. DERKOVSKY: With a certain amount of goodwill on everybody's part it is going to be resolved. I am sure that it is going to be resolved.

MR. LEHRER: But where is the goodwill?

MR. DERKOVSKY: The goodwill has been demonstrated by the Congress of People's Deputies and I do hope that the goodwill is going to be demonstrated by people in Lithuania in Vilnius. Well let me make my very personal comment. The people who are described as having the extremist point of view. They are trying to force an open door and by doing so they create problems for perestroika. They create problems for perestroika because these problems can be resolved but we need time to work out the mechanism of cession if people will insist of cession but the way to decide if a majority of the population in that given Republic supports the demand for cession remains to be seen. Whether 144 people can decide on this matter or a referendum is required. I am just asking a hypothetical situation.

MR. LEHRER: When you say an open door you mean an open door where all 15 republics leave?

MR. DERKOVSKY: Independence can be provided for. I believe that independence and membership in the Union, the confederation are compatible. They shouldn't be viewed as something diametrically opposite. The independence of the people in this particular Republic can be provided for from my point of view with the membership of this Republic in the federation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the basis of a new treaty which has to be negotiated.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Derkovsky, thank you very much for being with us.

OLEG DERKOVSKY, Soviet Embassy: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: We get three other views now from Victor Nakas, Washington Director of the Lithuanian Information Center, a pro independence group, and from two United States Senators, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Chairman of the European Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Bill Armstrong, Republican of Colorado, co-sponsor of an amendment defeated last week that called for immediate recognition of the new government in Lithuania. The Senators join us from the Senate gallery. First to you, Nakas. On the deserters, why shouldn't the deserters have been arrested? You heard what Mr. Derkovsky just said.

VICTOR NAKAS, Lithuanian Information Center: The Baltic States have considered themselves to be under foreign occupation for 50 years and the West has recognized these countries as being under foreign occupation. This isn't a question of desertion. This is a question of these young men seeking asylum from a foreign occupying force.

MR. LEHRER: But they were members of the Soviet army.

MR. NAKAS: Well, they were members against their own will. They had no choice. They were forced to go into the Soviet army. If they didn't, they would face prison terms. I might note that the gentleman from the Soviet embassy had been talking about legality and following the law. The Soviet Union signed a treaty in 1947, a Geneva agreement saying that citizens of a country that is under foreign occupation shall not be forced to serve in the army of the occupying force. If we accept the premise that the Baltic states have been illegally occupied, and that is the argument that the Balts, themselves, make, Lithuanians make, and Western governments make, then these young men have no obligation to serve in this foreign occupying army, all the more so since Lithuania has declared itself an independent state.

MR. LEHRER: Well, does this mean from your perspective and from the perspective of the Lithuanian government that all Lithuanian citizens who are currently members of the Soviet army should walk away and desert and they should have, they should be free to do so?

MR. NAKAS: They should be free to do so.

MR. LEHRER: Not just these 23?

MR. NAKAS: Certainly. The dilemma that's faced now is that many of these young Lithuanian men are serving in the Soviet army in outlying regions of the Soviet Union. The government is not encouraging them necessarily to come home because it cannot provide them the transportation and the protection.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to the second major development today and that is the president of Lithuania's call for help to the West. What exactly does he want the West, the United States and the rest of the West to do?

MR. NAKAS: He wants first and foremost for the United States and Western governments to recognize the Lithuanian government because this will give him a negotiating position. If he doesn't get recognition for his government, the dilemma is that the Soviets feel no need to negotiate, and they have told Lithuanian representatives, why should we deal with you, why should we recognize your government, if no one in the West will.

MR. LEHRER: What about the point that Mr. Derkovsky made that the Soviet government is ready to talk, it's just they want to talk on a different procedural basis, rather than the basis that the Lithuanian parliament has put down on the table?

MR. NAKAS: Well, this is a strange way to talk. They're trying to talk at the point of a gun, and it really is no way to negotiate. It's Lithuanians who have been calling for negotiations all along. If you listen carefully to what Mr. Derkovsky was saying at the end, he's not talking about real independence for Lithuania. He was talking about Lithuania remaining in some sort of federation in the Soviet Union, and that's one reason why Lithuanians have decided to declare the reestablishment of their independence, because they're not confident that Moscow is allowed to grant any of the Baltic states independence.

MR. LEHRER: But he also mentioned the referendum possibility, he was speaking personally, but a referendum could be had of the people of Lithuania, let them decide whether or not they want independence or not.

MR. NAKAS: The people expressed their will in elections which were held on the 24th of February. 71 percent of the electorate came out and voted and they voted in a pro-independence majority. There was a vote taken in the legislature, a unanimous to reestablish independence. The will of the people has been expressed in Lithuania.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Biden, Sen. Armstrong, to you first, Sen. Biden, what do you think the United States' answer should be to this appeal for help today from the president of Lithuania?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, [D] Delaware: I think we should acknowledge what we have for years, that there is a de joure acknowledgement of the independence of Lithuania. Our friend from the Soviet Union compared it to the war of the states. South Carolina when it fired the first shot had not been dragooned into the United States. It was a voluntary member deciding to get out. In the case of Lithuania, they have been in fact occupied against their will. But the real question here it seems to me to be is how do we move from de joure recognition to de facto independence? And I think the President of the United States is erring on the side of giving time for negotiation. If you notice, the spokesperson for the Lithuanians just said that they want to negotiate, although their official position is they won't negotiate. You heard the Soviet spokesman say they want to negotiate, although their official position is they don't want to negotiate. How do we allow Gorbachev a way out and save a little bit of face? I think that's the judgment the administration has made, and I'm prepared for the time being, in the absence of a use of force, to err on the side of going along with the administration.

MR. LEHRER: And that specifically, Sen. Biden, is do not officially recognize the new independent state of Lithuania and keep the rhetoric cool. Is that --

SEN. BIDEN: That is correct for the time being. But I hope and I'm assuming that the President of the United States is literally on the telephone to Mr. Gorbachev making very clear, very privately, very sternly how we feel about the right of Lithuania to, in fact, establish its independence and as an independent entity from the Soviet Union. If they want to be involved in a confederation at a later date or as part of that, that's up to them. But I assume that's going on. I'd be dumbfounded if it wasn't.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Armstrong, what's your view of what should be done?

SEN. BILL ARMSTRONG, [R] Colorado: Well, I think we should do exactly what Pres. Landsbergis has asked us to do, afford diplomatic recognition, send an ambassador to Vilnius, invite them to send an ambassador to Washington, give them every possible encouragement and possible moral support. I agree with Sen. Biden that the rhetoric ought to be kept cool, but I don't think we should give any appearance of vacillating or leaving open in some way how we feel about the status of Lithuania. For half a century, we have publicly and privately said this is an independent country which has been illegally and improperly occupied by the Soviet Union, and I don't think now that history has brought us to this point that we ought to equivocate or talk about it on the telephone. I think we ought to say forthrightly what we believe, which is that Lithuania is, always has been, and by right is a free and independent country, and when they ask us to afford them diplomatic recognition, I don't think we ought to do anything less.

MR. LEHRER: And you would disagree then with the White House and Sen. Biden that that could make things worse right now?

SEN. ARMSTRONG: I think it's possible that in the present situation it could make things worse. I acknowledge that. But the reality is that the people whose lives and freedom are on the line have asked us to do that, and it's their call to make. They're the ones who are the parties most at interest. We can temporize about it. We can do what we did in China, possibly with the same tragic result. We can say as we did when the issue was MFN status for Romania that it's too delicate, it's too sensitive and sort of try and handle it in the back room with the same tragic result. Maybe if we send an ambassador and let them send one to us, it won't work. The probable outcome is that if we stand up to be counted for what we believe in, for freedom and independence of these brave people that it will turn out for the best. But in any event, it seems to me with their lives at stake and their freedom and their country, we ought to let them call the shots, and they've asked us to do that. We shouldn't do anything else.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Biden.

SEN. BIDEN: May I make a comment?

MR. LEHRER: Yes, sir.

SEN. BIDEN: I think that's a very compelling point the Senator makes and I believe it's the strongest point for his position. But to compare the situation in China and Romania, I believe, in fact, the administration did vacillate too much. I believe and I said at the time that part of the problem that the China policy had that it may very well give the Soviet Union and Gorbachev reason to believe he had more latitude than he does, but we don't have Deng Xiaoping and we don't have Ceausescu here. What we have is a man who for the past three years has done what he said he was going to do. He has, in fact, lifted the iron fist from Eastern Europe. He has, in fact, withdrawn troops from Eastern Europe. He has, in fact, moved toward massive reduction in arms in both East and West, and therefore, it seems to me that it is not a question of recognizing Lithuania. We have done that. The issue is do we recognize officially this particular government at this moment when the President believes, and I think the President is right, that Gorbachev is merely looking for room to negotiate his way out of Lithuania? Obviously this all comes to a screeching end if, in fact, Gorbachev uses force.

SEN. ARMSTRONG: He's already done that.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the issue of whether or not --

SEN. ARMSTRONG: He's sent his tanks and helicopters in there. He has brought back by force the people who tried to escape from the army, and he's occupied buildings there. The tanks are rolling.

SEN. BIDEN: I would argue those tanks are already there. They've been there for 40 years. Those troops are already there, they've been there for 40 years. What we're talking about in terms of the use of force is physically putting down a genuine independence movement. That has not been done to this point. If he does do that, then it's a completely different ball game. Again, I would argue that what you have to look at here in the short term is the short term track record of a fellow unlike Deng Xiaoping, unlike Ceausescu, unlike anything anyone predicted. He has, in fact, made massive historical changes.

MR. LEHRER: What about that point, Sen. Armstrong, that direct point that Mikhail Gorbachev has earned the right for a little bit of leeway here?

SEN. ARMSTRONG: I accept that point completely. Now then the question is if you believe that Mr. Gorbachev's intentions are benign, that they are good, that they're wholesome, that he is a statesman, and I believe those things, the question is how do we strengthen his hand in facilitating what is a very difficult and embarrassing thing for the hardliners in the Soviet Union. Do we do that by saying nothing in response to the request for recognition by the Lithuanians, or do we strengthen his hand by putting on the very visible public pressure that he can then use to leverage the reactionary elements in his own country? It seems to me the latter although that's not the reason that I favor diplomatic recognition. I favor it because they've asked for, because they're entitled to it, and because their lives are on the line.

SEN. BIDEN: I think we've narrowed the question and I think that's exactly where most of us are in the Senate. It's a tough call. It's a tough call as to whether we're going to make de facto independence easier or harder. Which road you take in the very near term, I mean in terms of days and weeks, it's a close call.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Nakas, what is the view that you and others involved in the Lithuanian government have of Mikhail Gorbachev and whether or not he means it when he says he will not use force, or whether or not he means it when he says, look, if you'll just play by the rules here, maybe Lithuania can, in fact, be independent, you can, in fact, end up with what you want anyhow?

MR. NAKAS: Ten days ago I would have believed that Mr. Gorbachev was sincere when he said he wouldn't use force. The events of the last 10 days have convinced me that he can no longer be trusted when he says that because I really think force has been used.

MR. LEHRER: You agree with Sen. Armstrong?

MR. NAKAS: Certainly. I think that force has been used and I think what he's trying to do is to use this force to intimidate the Lithuanian government to back down or to instill so much fear in the Lithuanian people that they will want to have this government replaced with someone who is more amenable to Moscow. Either way it's the use of unacceptable interference in what is a sovereign state.

MR. LEHRER: So from your perspective then, Gorbachev has already used up his grace?

MR. NAKAS: Well, Lithuanians are realistic. They realize that they are a David going up against a Goliath and they will need to negotiate with this Goliath and they are simply hoping to by following their peaceful constitutional path to convince the Soviet Union to engage in these kinds of negotiations with the help of Western pressure.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Biden, if Gorbachev does, for whatever reason, whatever situation arises, he does, in fact, use force in a way that you believe and you and others who are taking the position you're taking now that he hasn't yet, but he does, then what should the United States do?

SEN. BIDEN: Oh, gosh, that's a tough call. I think everything begins to unravel. God only knows where it goes from there and I think just because Gorbachev understands as we do that there is no place at which you could tag this is what we'll do in return, any more by the way than if we recognize the government, have an exchange of ambassadors, and he does use force, what do we do then? Are we going to send in troops? Are we going to move in to guarantee the independence of Lithuania? Let me put it this way. Perestroika and glasnost, if they don't come to a screeching halt, they sure slow down tremendously. I think it negatively affects every aspect of our relationship.

MR. LEHRER: Is that so, Sen. Armstrong, from your perspective, that Lithuania is so important that everything else that Gorbachev has done or everything else that has happened, that it's time for the United States to take a serious move against the Soviet Union and its relations with it?

SEN. ARMSTRONG: There's no doubt in my mind that if Mr. Gorbachev should choose to use additional force, if he repeats the episodes of March 26th, 27th, that it'll be very serious, and the result will be not so much that we'll take actions but that the whole process of normalization of relations will break down and it's not just the normalization between governments, but the commercial developments, the investments that Mr. Gorbachev seeks to attract to the Soviet Union, the exchange of ideas and people and technology will grind to a halt, not because Congress says so for the President but because the moment will be broken, not irrevocably and not forever, but it'll set it back by many many years, and it's just bound to happen not by decree but because people will be alarmed and they'll feel that somehow it isn't for real.

MR. LEHRER: Would you be there saying that? Would you support that kind of grinding to a halt of these kinds of various relationships?

SEN. ARMSTRONG: I certainly expect to support the kinds of efforts to normalize and enhance the relations between our two countries, but I'm not going to be prepared to do that if they step in and again crush the people of Lithuania. It'll delay my interest in that a long long time.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Biden, why is this so important? Why is Lithuania so important?

SEN. BIDEN: I think it's important as a matter of principle -- they are illegally recognized by the Soviet Union -- just as a matter of principle. Secondly, it is the most difficult step thus far in Gorbachev's journey to bring the Soviet Union into a body of nations that recognizes certain overwhelming rules of civility in commerce and intercourse, and I think what both Sen. Armstrong and I are saying is not that the Congress or the President is going to pass a law saying you've done this to Lithuania, now we are going to do that. It's that the natural momentum that has been moving is going to come to a halt not because either he or I or anyone else introduce any legislation, not any sanctions, it's just the nature of what will happen.

SEN. ARMSTRONG: We might do that. It's possible.

SEN. BIDEN: That very well could happen. That very well could happen.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We have to leave it there. Senators, thank you very much. Mr. Nakas, thank you.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead, a crucial election in Zimbabwe, a veteran drug fighter, and the perrier crisis. FOCUS - ZIMBABWE ELECTION

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We go next to another battle for democracy, this time in Africa. The Southern African nation of Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, became independent a decade ago amid promises of developing a multi-party,multi-racial political system. Now Zimbabwe is about to hold its second election since independence. The voting is set for next Wednesday and Thursday, and the issue is one party rule. We have a report from Mike Hannah of Independent Television News.

MR. HANNAH: Ten years of independence have fundamentally changed the social face of Zimbabwian society and nowhere is it more obvious than at the once exclusively white schools. But in the last map of the electoral campaign, the awareness among these parents and other voters is that radical constitutional change is imminent. The Lancaster House agreement that brought about Zimbabwian independence falls away next month. There are constitutional safeguards built into it and the prize for the winner of this week's election is the opportunity to draw up a new constitution. And victory for the ruling Zanu PF party will pose a real threat to those who support the multi-party system guaranteed by the Lancaster House agreement. At election rallies across the country, Zanu PF has pledged itself to the introduction of a one party socialist state. It's a system that party leader Pres. Robert Mugabe has insists is more suitable for Africa than what he regards as a device of Westminster-style constitution of the past.

PRESIDENT ROBERT MUGABE, Zanu PF Party: You can see what a multi- party state will mean to us. Every small party because it's frustrated by defeat and so they [applause] -- and so they would want to cause disaffection amongst the party.

MR. HANNAH: The only other party with any apparent support is the Zimbabwe unity movement, ZUM. It's led by Edgar Tekere, once a senior government minister and a passionate supporter of Robert Mugabe until being expelled from the ruling party two years ago. The core of Tekere's following is found among young students disaffected by what they see as Pres. Mugabe's autocratic style and angered by his plans for a one party state.

EDGAR TEKERE, Zimbabwe Unity Movement: Now there are so many words to simply say one man dictatorship, one party state. Why do you want a one party state to begin with? Right from the outset, it's a glaring admission that you are afraid of criticism. It's just a mechanism to stifle criticism.

MR. HANNAH: Despite comprising a small proportion of the population, Zimbabwe's whites are a significant factor in the election. All parties have sought to avoid alienating a group that still flexes substantial economic muscle. Amidst the crowd at this rugby match is a face that was once the symbol of white Rhodesia. While not standing as a candidate, Ian Smith is now adviser to the white conservative alliance of Zimbabwe. Proving that politics makes for odd bed fellows, Ian Smith and the alliance have formed an election pact with ZUM and Edgar Tekere.

IAN SMITH, Former Prime Minister: We must forget the past. I don't think it helps to go into that. What is going to be the best thing for the future of our country? And ZUM are preaching what I believe in, what I believe 99 percent of the white people of this country believe, and I think now the majority, by far the majority of the black people. Marxist Leninism has proven itself a failure all over the world, it's proved itself a failure here, so let's go back to a system that works, a free enterprise system.

MR. HANNAH: 40 percent of Zimbabwe's land remains in the hands of 4 1/2 thousand white commercial farmers, and the fear among some is that a Zanu PF election victory could herald wholesale appropriation by the state. But not all see their farms and their lifestyles as beingunder threat. John Murray believes that a change in the constitution will lead to a better utilization of land, and he argues that even in a socialist one party state, the economically vital commercial farming sector will remain unaffected.

JOHN LAWRIE, Commercial Farmers' Union: And I think really when you look back over the years, as far as Zimbabwe is concerned, we have to all intents and purposes had a one party state now since 1965. And I like competition, I support the government. I support the government of Pres. Mugabe, but at the same time, it doesn't worry me if there is competition. I certainly wouldn't feel threatened under a one party state because I think there would be an element of competition within that one party anyway.

MR. HANNAH: The past 10 years have been largely successful ones for Robert Mugabe, but the true test of his leadership will come after what most regard as an inevitable election victory. The question is whether a new competition unfettered by the Lancaster House agreement will allow democratic criticism of the government's failures as much as praise for its triumphs. CONVERSATION

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Next, an unusual perspective on the drug problem. It comes from a 25 year law enforcement insider who is highly critical of the way the federal anti-drug effort is being conducted. He's Robert Stutman, who until last month was special agent in charge of the 500 agent Drug Enforcement Administration office in New York City. I spoke with him a few days ago. Mr. Stutman, welcome. When you left your job recently as head of DEA here in New York, you had some pretty harsh criticism for the federal drug effort. Take us through that. What was foremost among your concerns?

ROBERT STUTMAN, Former Drug Enforcement Agent: Well, first of all the good part. I think Pres. Bush and Director Bennett have to be given a tremendous amount of credit for having raised the level of awareness and the agenda of drugs on the national plate far beyond what anybody else has done. And I give them a lot of credit for that. My disagreement is a disagreement that well meaning people can have as to the general direction that the national policy is going in. It is not a disagreement with enforcement or the enforcement arm of the national policy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But I read where you said that the effort was ill conceived. What did you mean by that?

MR. STUTMAN: I think generally the problem we have is the effort is too dependent on law enforcement. It is depending on short-term answers for a very long-term complex problem. I think the basic problem we've had in the United States for the past 25 years with drugs is we have consistently depended on people who carry a badge to solve a problem and we have not yet admitted to ourselves that no matter how good law enforcement is in this country we will never ever make drugs unavailable. That's unfortunately one of the negative sidelights of living in a relatively open, free democracy. We have open borders. We're never going to close our borders to the point that we could to make drugs completely unavailable. And unfortunately, I believe the present federal policy continues to depend too much on that law enforcement function and doesn't spend nearly enough time, money or attention to the other two legs of the three-legged stool which are prevention and treatment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, in the past when I have interviewed Sec. Bennett and others, he has said that the problem has gotten so bad particularly in poor neighborhoods and inner-city communities and so on that it is necessary to, in effect, take back the streets first before you can do the other things. Is that just wrong?

MR. STUTMAN: No. I think he's right. We do need a very strong law enforcement effort. I'm not denigrating that. I guess what my problem is, [a], if you look at the overall picture of law enforcement, you have to break down within that law enforcement structure where are we spending the money. I think there are areas in law enforcement that we are depending on too much, frankly, things like border interdiction. But secondly, I believe the best that law enforcement can do --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me, what's wrong with border interdiction?

MR. STUTMAN: Well, I think we're spending a lot of time, money, and effort on an effort that is basically not going to work, which is closing our borders. There is an excellent study done by the Rand Corporation that points out that if we tripled our interdiction capability in the United States, and I don't think the Bennett plan proposes tripling our interdiction capability, but if we did triple it, we would raise the wholesale price of heroin from 100,000 a kilo to 103,000 a kilo, not very meaningful. It has been my experience in 25 years of federal drug enforcement that the average drug enforcement -- that the average drug cartel can afford to sell 70 percent of its product and still be profitable. Well, if you accept those as being basically accurate, then you have to realize that trying to keep it out is not necessarily the best way to do it. But unfortunately, even if we could keep it out, even if by the grace of God tomorrow we could close off the border between U.S. and Latin America, and we stopped all cocaine from coming in, unless we are prepared and ready to stop the demand for drugs in this country, within 60 days all of that cocaine I believe would be replaced by drugs made in the United States that have the exact same effect as cocaine, probably be more addicting, be longer lasting, and may in the long run actually be cheaper. So the bottom line is we are continuing to depend on law enforcement and law enforcement can give us a window of opportunity. I absolutely agree with the director in that way. My problem is that once we get that window, I don't believe we are prepared to step in with the true long-term answer, which is prevention and treatment. And I think we've got, by the way, an example of that. In the early '70s, Pres. Nixon, who Congressman Charlie Rangel I think one of the most knowledgeable guys in the country on the drug issue has said was the last president to truly deal with the drug issue, in the early '70s, Pres. Nixon stopped heroin from coming to our country from Turkey, Turkish grown opium, they shut off Turkish opium, and for about 18 months, we had a true shortage of heroin in our country. But because we did not have meaningful prevention programs, stopping people from wanting the drugs, and we weren't able to treat the addicts that were already addicted, within 18 months, we not only had that supply reinstituted from Mexico, it, in fact, went over the Turkish supply and we were back in a heroin glut.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you said that this effort, this emphasis, was being fueled by politically, you know, demands for quick success.

MR. STUTMAN: No, I -- that's correct. I think, and I can't tell you what their reason is. I did not say -- I said one of the questions was asked to me, why do you think it is. I think it is easy -- certain people think it is easy to sell the American public on quick fix answers. It's easy to say I don't know who, I don't know who has designed this. It is easy to say we're going to spend $10 billion and for $10 billion, you're going to get 100,000 more policemen and you're going to get the 7th fleet, or whatever fleet, off the Coast of Colombia, and you're going to get caterpillars in Colombia, and you're going to get all these fancy things, they're going to result, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It is difficult, a lot of politicians think, to say to the American public, we're going to spend $10 billion or $20 billion, and we may not see results for five years, but five years from now, we will truly have made a difference on the drug issue. I think the American public's ready to accept that latter answer.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You also said that the effort was being compromised by inexperienced leaders. Did you mean Drug Control Director Bennett?

MR. STUTMAN: I believe that there are people in his office who are not ready to look at history, what has happened. I think the Turkish opium ban is a classic example. When we really did have an effect on supply, an amazing effect on supply, and yet, because we weren't ready to follow up, that supply was simply reinstituted, and we ended up with more addicts than we had before.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The administration has designated cities like this one, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and two or three others, as high intensity drug areas, putting more drug enforcement agents, FBI officials and everything. What's wrong with that? I mean, isn't that -- is that a good idea, or --

MR. STUTMAN: I think a couple of things are basically wrong with it. No. 1, the real problem with the criminal justice system in the United States of America today is not that we don't have enough cops or agents. The real problem is once the cops or agents do their job which they have done in a fantastic manner we have no place to put the people whom we have arrested. Last year, the New York City police department arrested 100,000 people for drug violations. Only 5,000 people went to jail for more than a year. What good does it do us if we arrest 125,000 people if we only still have room for those 5,000 people? The major problem in the criminal justice system in this country today is that we don't have any place to put the people that are convicted at the federal, state or local level, and the present federal plan, I don't believe, adequately addresses that problem. It basically says to the states you have to deal with it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The administration continues to call its effort a war on drugs. Do you have any thoughts about that?

MR. STUTMAN: Yeah. I think war is a misnomer for two reasons, and I don't particularly care for the word. No. 1, a war denotes an ending at some time. I don't think this is an issue that's ever going to end. I think it is going to continue. We're always going to have to be dealing with the problem of drugs in America. It's the same way that an alcoholic --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is that?

MR. STUTMAN: Because I think there is always going to be a proclivity to use drugs in this country and we're always going to have to deal with the problem. We've had to deal with it in history. We're going to have to continue to deal with it. Secondly, I think to use the term "war" is unfair because of the dollars we're spending. The drug problem, substance abuse in America is considered by most experts to be the No. 1 public health problem in this country today. Yet, we are spending, after a lot of fights, $10.1 billion on the No. 1 public health problem in this country. In 1969, in 1990 dollars, we spent almost $90 billion in Vietnam in one year. I would argue that what happened in Vietnam had a heck of a lot less effect on the American public than what's happening today with drugs in our streets and yet, we're spending 1/9 as much and still calling it a war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There's a widespread perception that whatever you call it, the bad guys are winning. Do you believe that?

MR. STUTMAN: I think in certain areas the bad guys are winning. In certain areas, we are winning. I think Director Bennett is absolutely right. In the suburbs, casual drug use appears to be leveling off or going down. I think what we have done to date is win the easy part of the battle. I think we are now faced with the truly difficult part, which is the harder core users, the long-term users, and I truly believe that continuing to depend mainly on enforcement, and not setting up a system that says to every kid in the United States we're going to give you an option by the time you reach age twelve or thirteen, we're going to train you, teach you, educate you to opt not to use drugs before you ever use drugs. However, if you opt to use drugs, we're going to give you a meaningful choice which is there will be a swift and sure punishment from the criminal justice system if you're convicted of a violation. Right now we don't give kids either one of those choices because we haven't properly prepared them to make that decision and I am not one of those who believes that kids cannot be taught to generally not want to use drugs. I don't care where they come from.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We have to wrap this up but I just have to ask you one quick question because the debate continues over legalization. Where do you stand on that?

MR. STUTMAN: I think to legalize would give us the worst of all worlds.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why?

MR. STUTMAN: Because, No. 1, there is absolutely no question in my mind and in the mind of most pro legalization people if we legalize, we would have more drug users. If we had more drug users, that means we would have more infants born every year addicted to cocaine, it means we would have more child beatings and more child death as a natural result of the drug use. I think any policy that advocates more kids dying and more kids being born addicted to a drug is unethical and immoral.

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

MR. STUTMAN: Thank you, Charlayne. ESSAY - PERRIER - WATER ON THE BRAIN

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight our Tuesday night essay. Jim Fisher of the Kansas City Star has some thoughts about the perrier crisis.

MR. FISHER: The television pictures even after these few months still astound, Czechoslovakia, the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, pro-democracy parades in the Soviet Union, Nelson Mandela free in South Africa, the Chamorro victory in Nicaragua. Yet, what's America's big story in the spring of 1990? No, not drugs, not the environment, not the deficit or the homeless, not even Donald and Ivana, no, the big story, at least reading the papers or looking at the tube is perrier sparkling water, recalled because of benzine in some of the little green bottles, and now set to return April 1st to the welcoming shores of this nation where the citizens will buy absolutely anything. We know the April 1st date because of a flurry of PR, newspaper ads, radio commercials, even press conferences. Naturally distribution of what's called novelle production will be limited at first to New York and then LA, cities P.T. Barnum would have known all about. Oh, pardon, if I mispronounced novelle production. Being a native Missourian means that French isn't exactly a second language. Fact is most people out here butcher it, calling for instance, the Morgan County seat Versailles [Verselz] despite it being spelled just like that fancy place in France. Missouri, in fact, has a whole bunch of French names, Courtois, Portage des Sioux, Gasconade, Bonne Femme, St. Genevieve, even Paris. But don't look for a whole lot of perrier in those places. Pay $1.50 to $3.50 for a bottle of water, even in some trendy watering hole in St. Louis or Kansas City? Why, mister, folks in out state Missouri would say, you've been out in the sun too long. Out here water is water, despite the fact that along with the rest of the nation, we've been bombarded by a resurgence of that mostly discredited 19th century method of healing, hydropathy. Mineral water can make your body a temple. You owe your body the cleansing effects of mountain spring water. Tap water is dangerously polluted. In short, mineral or bottled spring water has become the liquid equivalent of $160 cross training shoes, Thirty Something on television, health spas, and a cellular phone in your BMW. You doubt that? On the supermarket and health food store shelves, perrier's been absent a couple of months, but there's no lack of other brands. An entire industry has been built on the fear of unsafe tap water. And if you don't want to buy your bottle, you can buy home water purification devices, in some cases, the new pyramid schemes of the late '80s and early '90s which are selling for big bucks. Nobody argues that the water supply has to be protected, maybe even better, but immortality in a green bottle? Out here in Kansas City, most of us drink water from this old muddy river and somehow we've survived. This bottle of perrier, one a friend gave me, one that just might have a trace of benzine in it, fizz water. I'd rather have a Coke or a Pepsi. Is it just me? Has anybody else connected next month's reintroduction of perrier with April Fool's Day, or that one of the last well known practitioners of hydropathy is one John Wrobley, who designed and started the construction of that often sold structure called the Brooklyn Bridge? I'm Jim Fisher. ESSAY

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, the use of Soviet force in Lithuania was today's main story. Soviet troops arrested a group of army deserters there and seized Communist Party headquarters. The Soviet foreign ministry ordered all foreigners out of the breakaway republic. Lithuania's president appealed to the West for help, but the White House refused to criticize Soviet actions, saying it didn't want to inflame the situation. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.