The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the headlines this Thanksgiving day. Two Israeli diplomats were named in the U.S. spy case. Guerrillas fired rockets at a South African oil refinery. Indians officially accused Union Carbide of responsibility for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 2,000 people. Details of these stories coming up. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary tonight on the NewsHour, we explore the rising storm over the Israeli spy case and see a report on the fundamentalist movement in Egypt. Then the head of J. Walter Thompson talks about zapping television commercials. Judy Woodruff reports on the new U.S. approach to the international debt problem, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt closes it out with words about Thanksgiving.News Summary

MacNEIL: Israel confirmed today that two diplomats allegedly connected with a U.S. spy had been recalled. A Foreign Ministry official told the Associated Press they were Yosef Yagur, science attache at the Israeli consulate general in New York, and Ilan Ravid, deputy science attache at the Washington embassy. The official said they had been in touch with Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy analyst charged with selling classified documents to Israel. Pollard's wife, Anne Henderson Pollard, is also under investigation. The Israeli cabinet met to discuss the case today. Prime Minister Shimon Peres afterwards refused to discuss any details, saying, "We must investigate the affair thoroughly, not impatiently." Peres indicated Israel would oppose any questioning of the two diplomats by American authorities, although the Foreign Ministry said they were cooperating fully with the United States. A U.S. Embassy official said Washington was impressed that Israel was trying to get to the bottom of the case. According to Reuters he added, "Israeli leaders are as shocked as we are. The last thing they want to do is to damage the relationship with the United States." Jim?

LEHRER: Anti-government guerrillas struck again today in South Africa. Rockets were fired at two refineries 60 miles east of Johannesburg, and another series of land mines exploded near the border with Zimbabwe. We have a report from Michael Buerke of the BBC.

MICHAEL BUERKE, BBC [voice-over]: The South African army launched a big search-and-destroy operation across the cotton fields of its northern border today, looking for guerrillas and the lethal land mines they've planted. Pretoria has warned these troops may be sent across the border into Zimbabwe. South Africa says that's where the guerrillas came from and says they'll be hunted down whatever the diplomatic consequences. So far, though, none have been caught. Five mines have already exploded; another four have been found before they were set off. They're big mines. They lifted this van 20 yards. The driver escaped; the man on this tractor was killed; eight other people have been injured. All the roads in this area are now being swept for more mines. The farmers have been ordered to stay at home. Men like Tom Argyle have seen it all before. He farmed in Rhodesia before moving south over the border. He lost a leg in Rhodesia, but still says he's not worried about it all happening again.

MacNEIL: Indian officials today accused the Union Carbide Corporation of responsibility for the Bhopal gas leak, which killed more than 2,000 people a year ago. The charge was issued by the state government of Madhya Pradesh. It said Union Carbide, a 51 owner of the Indian plant, knowingly constructed a badly designed pesticide factory to handle dangerously large quantities of the toxic chemical methyl isocyanate. The statement said Union Carbide must bear full moral responsibility and legal liability. More than 90 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. asking for billions of dollars in damages. A judge is to decide on January 3rd whether they can be heard in the U.S. or in India. In India a company spokesman said Union Carbide is expecting a storm of protest on the anniversary of the Bhopal tragedy next week.

LEHRER: The astronauts aboard space shuttle Atlantis celebrated Thanksgiving by launching a $50 million communications satellite. It belongs to RCA and is the third Atlantis has spun out and into orbit since it got up there Tuesday. The seven astronauts had a meal of irradiated turkey and freeze-dried vegetables. Two of them will take walks in space tomorrow and Saturday.

MacNEIL: Here on earth it was a cold, rainy Thanksgiving in the Northeast, a cold, snowy one in the Northwest, and just plain cold in the northern states in between. The heavy rains caused some flooding in parts of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and record low temperatures were recorded in parts of Montana, Minnesota and the Dakotas. In New York, the rain and cold could not spoil the annual three-hour parade that opens the Christmas shopping season. Thousands of watchers turned out to see the procession of nine giant balloons bobbing over their heads. Betty Boop was a new one this year, and many of the old favorites were back. But in New York and elsewhere, it was also a day for remembering the unfortunate, like the thousands of victims of the floods in West Virginia three weeks ago. Volunteers organized by the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army prepared dinners for 10,000 people. That was only one of many displays of holiday spirit that were shown from coast to coast.

LEHRER: And that is it for the news on this Thanksgiving Day. We go now to a discussion of the Israeli spy case, a report on the rise of fundamentalism in Egypt, a look at the zapping of television commercials, an examination of the new U.S. approach to the international debt crisis, and some closing words on Thanksgiving from essayist Roger Rosenblatt. Quarrel Between Friends

LEHRER: We go first tonight to the growing storm over the Israeli spy case, the case of Jonathan Pollard, the U.S. Navy intelligence analyst arrested last week on charges of selling secrets to the Israelis. Today two Israeli newspapers identified Pollard's two spy contacts as the science attache at the Israeli consulate in New York and the deputy science attache at the Israeli embassy in Washington. The report said both men had been recalled to Israel to avoid being questioned by U.S. investigators. There were conflicting reports on whether Israel would allow the two to be interrogated by Americans there. Meanwhile, American Jewish leaders and congressional supporters of Israel urged the Israeli government to move quickly to clear up and clean up the situation lest it erode U.S. support for Israel. We pursue the story and the issues it raises now with Wolf Blitzer and Joseph Sisco. Mr. Blitzer is the Washington bureau chief for The Jerusalem Post and author of a new book on U.S.-Israeli relations called Between Washington and Jerusalem: A Reporter's Notebook. Mr. Sisco is a retired career diplomat and Middle East expert who served as undersecretary of state for political affairs, among other things. He is now an international consultant in Washington.

Mr. Blitzer, first, is there any question Israel should not be running spies in the United States?

WOLF BLITZER: Look, there are certain limits within which all friendly countries operate on the whole matter of intelligence gathering. And I'm sure that both countries over the years have done certain things which are not all that pleasant. But in this particular allegation, actually running an American intelligence analyst, paying him presumably, that goes beyond the accepted limits of friendly governments, and certainly there are very severe repercussions that could result from this type of thing if it's proven true.

LEHRER: Do you agree?

JOSEPH SISCO: I think the rules of the game have been very clear for a long time, Jim. I agree with what Wolf has to say. As undersecretary for political affairs, my function was to, among others, to sit at the top level of the intelligence coordination throughout the government. I was the State Department representative, and I think I understand something about the rules of the game, and I would agree that this goes beyond it.

LEHRER: Now, Wolf, can you help us at all as to what is the best evidence as we sit here tonight as to what actually happened, who did what to whom and why, and etcetera?

Mr. BLITZER: Well, what has come out so far in the news media and during the actual court proceedings -- and I was at that bail hearing yesterday at U.S. the district court -- it seems like Mr. Pollard was taking out sensitive documents from his job at the U.S. naval intelligence, and selling them. And the allegation of the FBI is that he was selling them to Israeli officials in Washington, receiving about $2,500 a month over a period of 18 months, plus two trips to Europe. According to the FBI eld agent who testified in court, Mr. Pollard has already confessed to these crimes, and presumably the situation will become clearer now that the Israeli government is involved in its own investigation to see how high the authority may have been to undertake such a specific operation.

LEHRER: What does it look like to you as to how high that may have been? How high would it have to have been for him to have been paid, say, $50,000 as is alleged?

Mr. BLITZER: It would have to be very high. Certainly the finger has already been pointed in Israel, in the Israeli news media, to a senior advisor to former prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, and a well-known Israeli intelligence official. And I don't think --

LEHRER: Who are they?

Mr. BLITZER: Well, the official -- this one person, Rafi Eitan, who was an advisor to the prime minister for counterterrorism and still remains in the prime minister's office today, controlling scientific intelligence, and he has been accused already of having undertaken this operation. And the question of course that has not been answered is how high of an authority did he allegedly get? Did he undertake this by himself? Did he get carried away, was he overly zealous in recruiting and operating an American agent? Or did he have authority from somebody higher up, the former prime minister or former defense minister, or the current prime minister? This thing apparently has been going on for 18 months. And those questions have not been satisfactorily answered yet.

LEHRER: They haven't been answered yet. Mr. Sisco, do you have any feel for how high up this may have to have gone?

Mr. SISCO: Well, I would add this footnote to what Wolf had to say. In the intelligence field, I think continuity is the byword more than change. In other words, these things don't tend to change from administration to administration, largely because these kinds of judgments are made on the basis of the national interest, and then they have a tendency to be ongoing. But I would agree that a $50,000 payment is not something that a lower-level individual, either in the Israeli establishment or elsewhere -- that kind of a payment could not be made without some higher authority.

LEHRER: What about the information -- what is known about the kinds of documents, the kinds of information that Pollard is alleged to have been passing to the Israelis?

Mr. SISCO: Well, there's been an interest on an ongoing basis, in the scientific area in particular, so that that comes really as no surprise. What is more surprising to me is, and it's been said several times already in our press, and that is that the cooperation between Israel and the United States in the whole intelligence field is really very unique. It's very close. We rely heavily on Israel for intelligence in the Middle East, and quite frankly that relationship has been so cooperative that one finds it very difficult to look at the situation and say why, why was it necessary?

LEHRER: Is there an answer to that, Wolf?

Mr. BLITZER: Well, the United States does provide Israel with a great deal of intelligence, and vice versa, and Joe Sisco is absolutely right. But let's say the United States provides Israel with 90 or 95 percent of everything Israel wants. There's still a five- or maybe 10-percent area where Israel might not be getting specific data on the military capabilities of friendly Arab states to the United States, like Egypt or Jordan, for example, and maybe it's getting it but not quickly enough. So there's always a temptation to go the extra mile, especially a country like Israel, which feels that it's endangered and threatened, to try to make sure it has as good an information source as possible. If Israel did indeed do this operation, as has been alleged -- and Israel appears to be in hot water right now, obviously -- then it would have been very foolish to risk that 90 or 95 percent cooperative level for the five or 10 percent that you don't necessarily get. Why risk all of those benefits and the close cooperative relationship that has developed to the mutual benefit of both countries for some relatively marginal material? Now, you ask what did Mr. Pollard -- what was the type of information that Mr. Pollard may have been providing? The FBI says that it involved the military and intelligence-gathering capabilities of foreign countries, not so much the United States, but foreign countries. Presumably, if Israel was interested in this material, it was the military and intelligence capabilities of Arab countries, and maybe the United States had held back on providing some of this material before. If they did it, as I say, it was a blunder, and certainly I'm sure some heads are going to roll within Israel, because this whole U.S.-Israeli relationship is so important to Israel that they will try to rectify the situation one way or another.

Mr. SISCO: It's never been a 100 exchange, Jim. I think that's very clear. Two areas that have always been very sensitive, the whole satellite information area, and then you get into the question of nuclear capabilities and rumors that normally pervade the entire Middle East. So that I'm sure that each government has certain secrets that aren't exchanged, and I think that's entirely understandable. But conducting this kind of an operation, as I said earlier, was beyond the rules of the game.

LEHRER: Does this in any way jeopardize the special relationship between the United States and Israel?

Mr. SISCO: No, Jim, it doesn't, for this reason. Both Israel and the United States are going to do everything they can to minimize the damage, largely because of the fact that the cooperation in the intelligence field has worked to the mutual advantage of both countries. Moreover there are fundamental common positions in terms of the area between Israel and the United States -- the longstanding relationship. And therefore this is a situation where the U.S. government and the Israeli government are going to do everything to ease it, to find out what went on, but not to make it a fundamental break.

LEHRER: Would some heads have to roll in order for the United States to say, okay, we'll forgive you this time? I mean, for the thing to be resolved without a serious problem.

Mr. SISCO: Oh, I think someone clearly is going to have to be held responsible for this, and it seems to me that that would be a minimum in the situation.

LEHRER: In Israel, is this as big a deal in Israel as it is here?

Mr. BLITZER: Yes. Originally it wasn't. The first few days that the story broke, people sort of were not taking it all that seriously, but they are taking it very seriously right now. They fully understand the long-term and short-term repercussions, and I think that they're going to try to do exactly what Joe Sisco says: get this thing behind them as quickly as possible. There had been some of these embarrassing operations in the early '50s. The CIA got caught doing things, and the Israelis got caught doing things. But over the years they developed the rules of the game, and unfortunately if these allegations are true, this goes beyond the pale.

Mr. SISCO: Jim, I've been doing some speech-making this week. I nd some very strong feelings out there in the hinterland of the United States about this.

LEHRER: What do they say?

Mr. SISCO: Well, I think that the question that's being asked is why, and some very strong feelings that this kind of a thing should not happen between two strong friendly states.

LEHRER: Wolf, would you expect the Israeli government to get this thing resolved quickly and in a very forthright way?

Mr. BLITZER: Frankly, I thought they should have done it by now. I think that it's taking them much too long to get their act together and to explain exactly what has gone on. Now, these two Israeli diplomats who have been recalled -- certainly that gives the appearance that they're trying to get them out so they don't have to testify or they won't be subject to questioning or whatever. They may have been recalled -- you know, the best-case scenario, they may have been recalled to testify before this Israeli inquiry that is now going on to see who authorized them to do what, or how the payments were made. And maybe they will be coming back, I don't know for sure. And there could be other Israeli officials going back, and even as we speak right now there may be some others that already have gone back or are planning to go back. This is still a rather murky area, and Israel's going to have to come clean very quickly in order to get this issue behind them.

LEHRER: Do you agree?

Mr. SISCO: I agree.

LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you both very much for being with us on this Thanksgiving Day. Egypt: Turning Back the Clock

MacNEIL: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said today that Egypt intended to be tough with all terrorists. He was speaking at a cabinet meeting as investigations continued into the hijacking of the Egypt Air plane in Malta and the raid by Egyptian commandos killing, in all, 59 people. Mubarak told his cabinet today, "Egypt's policy is to reject extortion and to strike at terrorism in all its forms, and to teach all those who see fit to attack it a lesson." Mubarak's government feels pressure from many quarters these days. One we don't hear much about is the subject of this focus section, a documentary report by Keith Graves of the BBC.

KEITH GRAVES, BBC [voice-over]: The call to prayer echoing over the rooftops of Cairo. The Egyptian capital is one of the most secular in the Arab world. But suddenly the Islamic revolution that engulfed Iran and has spread its tentacles towards a dozen other Arab countries is threatening the stability of the region's most-populaced nation. Egypt is not another Iran, where a dictatorial and corrupt shah was ripe for toppling. Here, most fundamentalists insist they do not want to overthrow the government, but just to reintroduce sharia, the 1,300-year-old Islamic fundamentalist code. Their rallying point is Sheik Hafez Salama, a Sunni Moslem cleric of indeterminate age who was first imprisoned when young fundamentalists started flocking to him and taking up his call for the return of sharia, and more recently was released when it became clear his imprisonment was counterproductive. The focus of attention is the unfinished Alnor Mosque, Sheik Salama's headquarters in a Cairo suburb. The authorities have stopped building work there and tried to close it down. They've only been partially successful. Again, it's been counterproductive as young fundamentalists try and gather around Alnor every Friday morning to pray, in the street, if necessary, and under the eyes of the riot police.

This scene says a lot about the fundamentalist revival in Egypt and the problem facing the authorities. When the time comes to pray, some of the riot police sent to disperse worshipers join in. No one is sure just how widespread is Sheik Salama's support, nor what would happen if the government did try and crack down hard on the fundamentalist revival.

Egyptians are traditionally easy-going and hospitable people. Only of late have young women wearing the traditional Islamic dress appeared in any numbers on the streets -- the most obvious manifestation to the outsider of the fundamentalist revival. The government believes the move towards fundamentalism is an escape for many people from the country's mounting economic problems. Certainly the fundamentalists find a fertile breeding ground for their ideas amongst the poor and the young faced with a future without employment.

Safenaz Kasam has been in prison for her beliefs, and is now one of the fundamentalists' most ardent advocates.

SAFENAZ KASAM: Well, you see, all these expressions -- "fundamentalists," "fanatics," "radicals" -- these expressions I reject. Actually -- and "phenomena." This is not a phenomena, what you see in our Moslem world, but it is a rebirth, a resurrection to our spirits. After all these great losses which we actually had to lose, we have to find our real root. So actually we are only becoming committed -- the word "committed" -- to our ideology, which is Islam.

GRAVES [voice-over]: Parliament has discussed the fundamentalist demands, but in a half-hearted way, unsure how to handle the situation. After first appearing to dispense with some of the relaxations in the laws governing, for example, women's rights, introduced under the late President Sadat, they've now gone the other way and started to clamp down on the fundamentalists. But even that is half-hearted. Car stickers, for example, carrying Islamic quotations have been banned, and there's growing opposition to the fundamentalist demands from the public.

Nawal Sadawi has also been imprisoned for her beliefs and is one of the fundamentalists' most outspoken critics.

NAWAL SADAWI: Because I think most of them are ignorant of Islam. Most of them are ignorant. I lived three months in jail with some of the fundamentalist Islamic women in the jail, and even they don't understand Koran. They just -- they imitate, they hear, but there is no in-depth study of religion. So most of them are fanatic because they are ignorant of religion itself.

Ms. KASAM: To be committed to something, that means to do it honestly, or to do -- to work hard to do it honestly. There is no reason except that it is the time to realize that we are now at the tail of the international society, and we are crushed by their feet. So for our own dignity and for our revival we have to find who are we. If we are Moslems, this should not be the case of Moslems, because Moslems has to be very dignified, very honored. Because it is a system which should help human beings to be very honored.

Ms. SADAWI: Their interpretation of Islam is ridiculous, because when you compare real Islam with what they are saying, it's a big gap, it's a big gap. And I can give you examples that really are quite ridiculous of how some of the women fundamentalists think.

GRAVES: Give me an example.

Ms. SADAWI: I tell you. For instance, when we were in jail, one of them was very sick, and she was supposed to have a syringe to have some injection. So she was not allowing the doctor to see her arm, naked arm. So she was asking him to inject her over the clothes so that he will not see her arm.

GRAVES [voice-over]: President Mubarak's problem is not hard to understand. Whichever way he turns, he's likely to meet stiff opposition. In the recent riots that followed the American interception of an Egyptian airliner carrying the hijackers of the cruise liner Achille Lauro, the slogans were not only anti-American; they were anti-Mubarak. The fundamentalists had found a convenient stick with which to beat their president. And foremost in Mr. Mubarak's mind must be the fate of his predecessor. Mr. Mubarak was sitting beside President Sadat on October 6th, 1981, when Sadat fell victim to the bullets of fundamentalist gunmen. The trial that followed, with fundamentalists apparently more than willing to face capital punishment for their cause, made a deep impression on Egyptians and no doubt on Mr. Mubarak. They are scenes he has no wish to see repeated.

For now, the fundamentalists seem content for the most part to back up their demands with a lot of noise and little else. But their support is steadily increasing, and one wrong move by President Mubarak could turn their words into violent deeds.

LEHRER: That report from the BBC. Still to come tonight, the head of J. Walter Thompson talks about zapping television commercials, Judy Woodruff reports on a new way to tackle the international debt problem, and Roger Rosenblatt shares some thoughts about Thanksgiving. Commercial Appeal

MacNEIL: Some people feel that the television commercial is an important American art form. If that is true, what follows is a landmark in the history of that art.

[Apple Computer commercial]

VOICE: Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the information [fades out]. a garden of pure ideology, where each worm will make a loom secure from the pests of the [fades out]. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. [fades out]. We shall prevail.

ANNOUNCER: On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh, and you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."

MacNEIL: That commercial, which aired early in 1984, was revolutionary. It was one of the first made to be zap-proof. Zapping commercials means flicking them off with remote controls on your television or on home cassette recorders. Zapping has become so popular that many advertisers have dramatically altered their commercials to make them zap-proof. We have several more examples to show you, and to discuss them we have Burt Manning, chairman and chief executive of J. Walter Thompson USA, one of the nation's leading advertising agencies.

Mr. Manning, how big a problem is zapping?

BURT MANNING: Zapping is a big problem; it's getting to be a bigger problem.

MacNEIL: It's growing.

Mr. MANNING: It's growing because there's a proliferation of these remote control devices and people simply are able to zap advertising more easily now.

MacNEIL: Who is doing it?

Mr. MANNING: Well, interestingly enough, we find that men do it much more than women do and young people do it more than older people do. People that have cable, have remote control devices, and people that have VCRs have remote control devices, and these are the people who are doing it.

MacNEIL: Now, this is bad news for Madison Avenue. I mean, it means a lot of people don't like what you earn your living making.

Mr. MANNING: Well, we've always known that that was a problem. Zapping is really not new. There's been a mental zapping. People have avoided commercials for many, many years, and they do it simply by turning off their mind, getting up and going to the kitchen or the bathroom. The electronic zapping is what's new, and we have to today do better at what we've always known we should be doing to hold people's attention.

MacNEIL: Now, how did that Apple commercial that we just showed, the so-called revolutionary commercial, how was that designed to be zap-proof?

Mr. MANNING: Well, I wish we could say anything is zap-proof. Let's say it's zap-resistant. It's a story, and it's an intriguing story, an exciting story. There's danger, there's pursuit, there is -- the hero; the heroine, in this case, is being chased by the bad guys, and that's a story that's been told in many ways many times over the centuries, and people are always interested.

MacNEIL: So people don't think they're in a commercial, in other words.

Mr. MANNING: In that commercial they don't know that they're in a commercial. That commercial is a courageous commercial in that it doesn't start right out saying we are now going to tell you about a product. On the other hand they had one point to get across, and that was that there was going to be a new computer introduced the next day or the following day after the weekend, and it's going to be revolutionary and you ought to see it. Well, they made that point very well.

MacNEIL: Let's look at another, rather different, for a Calvin Klein product, Obsession.

[Calvin Klein commercial]

ACTOR: She was a fever from which I will never recover. All heat and hunger, she inflamed my senses. And when she devoured my very soul, when I had nothing left to surrender, she abandoned me to the wreckage of myself, and smiled.

ACTRESS: In the kingdom of passion, the ruler is Obsession. Calvin Klein's Obsession.

ACTOR: Oh, the smell of it.

MacNEIL: Now, how is that zap-proof?

Mr. MANNING: It's a story. Again, it's a story -- a different kind of story, a murky story, a mysterious story. But you know something's going on with those people; there are some interrelationships there, and it's so beautifully produced that you stay with the commercial trying to find out what's happening. There's a lot of electricity, there's a lot of tension. I think there's an attempted, although not successful, sexual provocation, but it works. It works. I understand that at $165 an ounce that perfume is walking off the shelves of the stores today. So that story is holding people's attention, even though, I venture to say, nobody can tell you exactly what's happening in the advertising.

MacNEIL: What are the influences on that kind of --

Mr. MANNING: Well, some people think it's MTV. I see more of the influence of the French and the Italian films of the '60s, when there seemed to be a kind of surrealistic approach to film making. And it seems to work in this advertising.

MacNEIL: We have another commercial to look at.

[Wendy's commercial]

ACTOR: Pay attention, please. Thank you. Next, Day wear. Very nice. Is next, Evening wear. Very nice.

ANNOUNCER: Having no choice is no fun. That's why at Wendy's, every hamburger isn't dressed the same. You'll get your choice of fresh toppings, fresh tomatoes, fresh lettuce, fresh onion, cheese, bacon and more. Having a choice is better than not.

ACTOR: Is next, swim wear.

ANNOUNCER: Choose fresh. Choose Wendy's.

MacNEIL: And I take it humor is the secret ingredient in that one.

Mr. MANNING: People don't zap what they're amused by, and humor is a very, very valuable asset when you're trying to get a message across in advertising.

MacNEIL: So we're seeing a lot more humor.

Mr. MANNING: Seeing more humor. It's a dangerous trend for some people because they can't -- they don't know how to be funny. That is a funny commercial, I will concede that. I have to tell you that I have a certain lack of objectivity. Wendy's is a competitor of one of our clients, Burger King, so while I can say I think the commercial works up to a point, there's a point at which I think it stops working, and that is because the humor, I think, tends to overwhelm the main point of the --

MacNEIL: But perhaps you're not totally objective.

Mr. MANNING: I'll give you that.

MacNEIL: Let's show one in which you can be totally objective -- one made by your own agency, J. Walter Thompson.

[French's mustard commercial]

ANNOUNCER: If you're not giving your sandwich French's mustard, it may not like it.

SANDWICHES: No! Ugh! That's not French's! No way!

ANNOUNCER: Come on. Listen to your food. French's is 100 all natural. No sugar, no artificial preservatives. Delicious. French's all-natural mustard. Be good to your food.

MacNEIL: And what's special about that one?

Mr. MANNING: It's an amusing commercial that's right to the point. It's all on the product. People can't escape the message, which is that French's is the best mustard because it's 100 natural, has no artificial ingredients. There's no metaphor going on there. It is all about mustard, and it's funny.

MacNEIL: And in terms of video technique, or television technique, that is quite advanced.

Mr. MANNING: Well, I think that would have been very hard to do 10 years ago. Making the sandwiches do all those things and making them look realistic, I don't think was really possible 10 years ago.

MacNEIL: Now, is all this working? Are people zapping less?

Mr. MANNING: We don't know yet. We know that as the zapping capability increases, there's more zapping going on. But common sense tells you that if you can give people --

MacNEIL: Excuse me a moment. So sooner or later, if home videos and remote controls become as common as color television ultimately became and as most of these things do, then everybody will be able to zap.

Mr. MANNING: They'll be able to zap. It's a challenge to us, and I happen to think that it's not such a bad challenge, is to make advertising so intriguing and so involving and so appealing, enjoyable, that people won't want to zap it.

MacNEIL: How do you know they're zapping because they don't like the commercials, or because they don't like the intrusiveness of a commercial in the program? I've read that a lot of people subscribe to cable or get a home video recorder so that they can see movies and programs without commercial interruption.

Mr. MANNING: I think that's a reason that a minority of people get cable for or VCRs. But most people get them for other reasons. You can't stop people from zapping. That's a right, and one of the consumers that we talked to, he said, "It's my constitutional right to zap commercials." What you can try to do is make the advertising so intriguing that they won't zap it. That's the responsibility of the advertiser and of the agency. There's another responsibility, though, I think that's important, and that is the responsibility of the commercial television industry. If people don't look at advertising, advertisers are not going to be on those networks and those stations. So it seems to me that the commercial television industry has a responsibility to find out when advertising should be placed in a program, or where it should be placed, the kind of commercials that should be clustered together. Maybe we should have pods the way they do in Germany and France. Maybe there are too many commercials.

MacNEIL: And in Britain they only allow commercials every 15 minutes or so, in natural breaks. In Italy they only show them -- I don't know if they still do, but they used to show them just for one solid half-hour of commercials.

Mr. MANNING: I don't know if they still do it, but I remember that being done. In England, incidentally, people in survey after survey say they like television advertising, because of the kind of advertising --

MacNEIL: Well, it's often been much funnier than the advertising here. Well, thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Manning.

Mr. MANNING: Thank you. Treasury: Making Change

LEHRER: Next, the international debt and something new the U.S. government is now doing about it. Our report is by Judy Woodruff.

JUDY WOODRUFF: With all the attention focused lately on tax reform, it's easy to get the impression that it and a few other domestic economic issues are where Treasury Secretary James Baker spends all his time. In fact, however, there are some international problems that have taken up a great deal of Baker's attention recently because of the bearing they have on the U.S. economy. I decided to take a closer look at some Baker initiatives that are creating a stir outside the United States as well as here at home.

[voice-over] Almost anyone you ask, from politicians to businesspeople to economists, agrees that the Reagan administration's approach to international economic problems during its first term left something to be desired.

DWAYNE ANDREAS, chairman, Archer Daniels Midland Company: Now, the hands-off policy worked just about as good as a hands-off policy driving your car. We went in the ditch.

ROBERT HORMATS, international economist: The reaction abroad and in the business community and financial community at home was that the administration was not paying sufficient attention to the major problems confronting the United States and the world economy, and I think that type of pressure has been one factor leading to the major change in administration attitudes.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The problems are well known. A glut of foreign imports: cheaper than American goods and pricing them out of the market. High U.S. interest rates, which contribute to a more expensive and overvalued dollar, making U.S. exports less attractive for the foreign consumer. And a mammoth debt for the developing nations of the world, much of it owed to U.S. banks. The debt began to build a little over a decade ago when the price of Mideast oil shot up. Arab nations flooded American banks with their profits. To make money on those deposits the banks loaned them out, especially to Third World nations and especially in Latin America. The Latin nations enjoyed a surge of prosperity, but by the early 1980s it became obvious that many of these countries, hit harder than anyone by a worldwide recession, would not be able to repay their debts on time. For his part, President Reagan seemed preoccupied with other matters during his first four years in office: budget and tax cuts, then a domestic recession, and finally winning reelection, which he did thanks partly to a low inflation rate. Priorities changed, however, early this year, after then-White House chief of staff James Baker agreed to swap jobs with then-Treasury Secretary Donald Regan.

Mr. HORMATS: Don Regan gave very little evidence that he was willing to take the types of positive actions or activist approaches that Jim Baker has taken. Baker basically has felt that the Treasury needed to get out in the lead on a lot of these things rather than simply let events pass them by.

ROBERT STRAUSS, former U.S. trade negotiator: I think Jim has probably realized for a long time they were on the wrong tack over there, and it was getting worse instead of better. And it looked like it was going to continue to deteriorate, and he realized he's got to make some changes.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Reversing years of Reagan administration policy that a high dollar was good, that it reflected a robust economy, Secretary Baker conceded it was killing those American farmers and manufacturers trying to compete with foreign goods. In late September he orchestrated an announcement by the five major Western industrialized nations that they would act together to drive down the value of the dollar. The action by the Group of Five, as they are called, was seen as a clever political move to prevent a nervous U.S. Congress from throwing up new trade barriers against foreign imports.

LEE HOSKINS, Pittsburgh National Corporation: I think the attempt to change the value of the dollar or to drive it down is clearly an attempt to appease Congress and head off protectionist pressures that are really quite strong there.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: At the same time the Reagan administration opened the door to a more hands-on approach to international economic problems.

Mr. HORMATS: The administration had, in effect, in the past said, "We're not going to intervene in currency markets except when they're disruptive." The September 22nd agreement was a mark by the administration of their interest in moving currency rates toward a greater degree of convergence through more intervention and through a much more active approach with other countries, to push them to work with us.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: And why should that matter to the average American?

JAMES BAKER, Treasury Secretary: It's important because if you continue to run the kind of trade deficits that we're running in this country, at some point or another that starts costing you jobs. If we can't produce goods in this country and be competitive in world markets, those companies in this country or in that business are going to end up going out of business. So it's important that they not have to compete with an exceedingly strong or overvalued dollar hanging around their necks.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: A little over two months after Baker's September move on the dollar the results seem successful. The dollar has dropped more than 8 compared to the major foreign currencies. However, some point out the dollar was already declining before any government intervention, and even Baker's admirers say intervening in the currency exchange markets by those five governments is not a permanent solution.

JOHN McGILLICUDDY, Manufacturers Hanover Trust: It will all come to naught unless we have the political resolve to come to grips with our budget deficit.

Mr. ANDREAS: Right now our federal deficit is the business of all of our trading partners, and their deficit is our business, because since they're using our dollar as the international medium of exchange, we're all in this boat together.

Mr. STRAUSS: Protectionist fever is tamped down a little bit, but it'll be right back tomorrow. They haven't cured anything, they haven't solved anything. They've taken one modest step under Jim Baker's leadership.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Baker himself acknowledges any successes may be temporary.

Sec. BAKER: While we may have dodged a bullet for the time being, it's not entirely improbable that that protectionist sentiment will be back very strong next spring if indeed -- if we're not successful in keeping our currency in proper balance with other currencies and getting a reduction in that trade deficit.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Not even the early results are in on Baker's other major fall offensive. In Seoul, Korea, on October 8th, a new proposal was unveiled for easing the world debt crisis. At a meeting of the major institutions responsible for lending to the Third World, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Reagan administration proposed that some 29 billion additional dollars be loaned to 15 developing countries, mostly in Latin America, to help keep them from defaulting on their foreign debt.

Sec. BAKER: Well, what precipitated it was that you were beginning to see some very serious strains in our debt strategy, in our approach, our case-by-case approach. You see countries like Peru repudiating their debt, in effect, by saying they'll only pay 10 of their export earnings on their debt.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: It's obvious why U.S. banks, which are owed money by the Latin governments, would be upset by that. But why should it make any difference to the average American taxpayer?

Mr. STRAUSS: If the Third World can't finance its ongoing operations, whether it be governmental or economic, then they don't generate the income to buy the products that this country manufactures. So it means that if we're going to export, if we're going to do business with the Third World, we're going to have to assist the Third World financially to get strong enough to be able to be economically successful enough to earn enough to do business with us.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In the past, Third World countries have had to curb their free-spending inflationary economic policies by tightening their belts, and in many cases working real hardships on their citizens in order to satisfy their creditors. Under the Baker plan, countries would be asked instead to aim for more growth, to have less government involvement in business, for example. The big banks, which are already owed the most money by the developing countries, are also supportive of the Baker plan. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company has some 10 of its outstanding loans, or $7.5 billion, out to a handful of Latin American nations. John McGillicuddy is its chairman.

Mr. McGILLICUDDY: Well, my reaction initially was very positive, and I get more positive as we reflect on it. I was positive for the first reason being that the United States government was taking a lead, and I think that most of the developing world looks to us, as does the developed world, as the leader.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Others, however, say the big banks are owed so much money by the Latin nations that they have no choice but to lend more money if they hope to see their original loans paid back. McGillicuddy rejects that idea.

Mr. McGILLICUDDY: I'm not suggesting we hold all the cards by any stretch of the imagination. Obviously we don't. But I don't think we're quite as bereft of power as some people would suggest we are.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In any event, many medium-sized U.S. banks, which are owed less money by the Latin countries, are noticably less enthusiastic about the Baker proposal.

Mr. HOSKINS: The problem is we've been doing this for a number of years now, in terms of expanding our lending, but we haven't gotten the kind of performance from those economies that we would expect. And one has to ask the question why.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Lee Hoskins raises a point many international finance experts are making: that there's no assurance the developing countries are prepared to make the sort of reforms the Reagan administration wants them to.

Mr. HOSKINS: Unfortunately the major drains on the public purse in those countries, the para-state companies or the state companies, are simply not being put on a profit-making basis or turned over to the private sector. And I think that is a source, a major source of a problem long term.

Mr. HORMATS: I think the administration's absolutely right to insist on policy improvements. The problem is that many of these countries don't really feel the political latitude to do more policy reform than they've done.

Sec. BAKER: Why will they make the changes? Because the world economies, or the countries of the world today, are talking in economic terms in the same terms that President Reagan was talking when he first took office in 1981. These countries, as well as some of the more industrialized countries, have seen these policies work in this country, and they're talking about them, and they're willing to give them a try, because they've seen them work here.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even so, some economists question how wise it is for the U.S. government to be getting more involved in what has been in the past a purely business transaction.

Mr. HOSKINS: Americans don't want to, I don't think, be in the business of engaging in subsidizing the banking system of the United States. Prior to the Baker announcements, the administration had been pretty much in the camp of not using additional taxpayer funds to sort out credit problems. And now I think what we're seeing is the beginnings of this proposal, anyway, leading us towards more involvement by the U.S. government and the Treasury, which always raises the issue of whether the taxpayer's involved directly in it or not.

Sec. BAKER: This is not a bank bailout -- make sure you understand that. Our government is not putting up any money. We are not turning the screw on our banks and coercing them into doing anything. At the same time, if the principal debtor nations do not see some additional flow of funds, whether by way of investment or additional lending, they're not going to be able to make the economic reforms that are required for them to earn their way out of debt. If they don't earn their way out of debt, they fail as governments, they fall as governments. Many of them new democracies, failing and moving back to a totalitarian form of government. That's important to the United States.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Despite the high stakes involved, or perhaps because of them, Baker continues to bask in widespread praise for his initiatives, both on the world debt and on the dollar.

Mr. HORMATS: The administration's gained substantially by resuming its leadership in the world economy. The fact that it has halted the drift in the international monetary system, the fact that it has dealt with the debt problem in a much more positive way, has really strengthened its reputation for activism among the allies.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But there are unmistakable voices of caution as well, particularly on the world debt proposal.

Mr. ANDREAS: I think it's possible that it will succeed, but Baker's step is only one small step in the right direction. There are 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 more steps to take.

MacNEIL: Next tonight, our Lurie cartoon, with a Thanksgiving theme.

[Lurie cartoon -- Big Biz lounging, blanketed by tax reform, becomes cooked turkey ready to be eaten by the IRS [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. Two Israeli diplomats were named in the U.S. spy case. Guerrillas fired rockets at an oil refinery in South Africa. Indians officially charged Union Carbide with responsibility for the Bhopal gas leak. Jim? Giving Thanks

LEHRER: Our last words before we say goodnight this Thanksgiving evening come from Roger Rosenblatt, our regular essayist.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: On Thanksgiving Day, think of Halley's comet. This is the comet's year, remember. This month of November, the time the famous mass of ice, rocks and gases is scheduled to swing its bright tail into view again. Every 75 or 76 years the comet orbits and makes a comeback. For figuring that out in the 17th century, Edmond Halley won a niche in history. The comet's history goes back much farther. In 66 AD the comet's flight was thought to signal the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, and it has been blamed for riots and disasters ever since. That is one of two things to think about when one thinks about the comet. The other, much less ominous, is that for most of us the comet's sighting will be a one-time event.

How many other things happen once in a lifetime? I mean, besides death, which technically doesn't happen in a lifetime at all. True love is often thought to occur but once in a lifetime, yet people are constantly falling all over themselves falling in love here and there. Certain moments of sublimity are supposed to be unique. "I will never see a sunset so beautiful again." "I will never again taste a turkey like today's." But of course you will. Most things in life repeat themselves. We want the best events to recur as frequently as possible, which is why we sustain ceremonies such as Thanksgiving that ensure the re-creation of good feelings year after year, orbit after orbit.

Yet there are astonishing things besides Halley's comet that have occurred in the period of our lives, miracles we never would have experienced had we not been born in this particular bracket of years. We have lived in the time of Fred Astaire's dancing, for example. Future centuries will look back at us and seethe with envy for having been able to watch Fred Astaire whirl around a stage or stroll casually into some impossible n our time we have also sat stunned before the acting of Laurence Olivier and Alec Guinness and the trumpet playing of Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis. The world would be wildly lucky if sounds like theirs swung round as frequently as every 75 years.

Make up your own list of contemporary singularities. A Stephen Sondheim comes along once in a lifetime. So does a Baryshnikov, a YoYo Ma. Virtuosos like Cary Grant and Mickey Rooney may be getting on, but they are still here to admire. So are I.M. Pei and Georgia O'Keeffe. Or, if you want to shift focus, how many times will you see a ballplayer like Willie Mays or a fighter like Mohammad Ali or an Earl "the Pearl" Monroe? How, Pearl, does one walk on air? Such sights are at least as rare as the sky that Halley saw.

Thanksgiving is a family day on which people give thanks for personal bounty. Perhaps we should also give thanks for our public gifts, for the people who dress up the world's table by performing their lives. Gratitude only functions as a virtue when we feel it for things we could not ever provide for ourselves, a virtue consisting of humility and wonder. All gratitude, then, to those whose orbits have crossed ours by lucky chance, who have dusted our times with a shower of light.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. Happy Thanksgiving to you all. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.