The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the headlines today, the Coast Guard found a large piece of debris from the space shuttle, and said parts of the cockpit seemed to be floating on the ocean. And new government figures showed good economic growth ahead. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, Elizabeth Brackett reports from Houston on the space program on hold, and two TV critics discuss television's handling of this latest national tragedy. Then, should the U.S. back the anti-Marxist rebels in Angola? We have a debate with rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, an Angolan government minister and two congressmen with opposing views. And finally, essayist Jim Fisher with some closing words on the space shuttle Challenger. News Summary

MacNEIL: The search off the Florida coast for remnants of the space shuttle Challenger produced a large piece of debris that is believed to be part of the fuselage, and the Coast Guard said parts of the cockpit appear to be floating on the Atlantic Ocean. As the search expanded, six Navy ships were sent into the 8,000-square-mile area to scan the sea bottom with sonar equipment. They join seven other ships and 13 helicopters sweeping the ocean surface. Tons of debris found earlier were brought ashore today. Lieutenant Commander Jim Simpson of the Coast Guard described what was found.

Lt. Cmdr. JIM SIMPSON, U.S. Coast Guard: The Coast Guard buoy Tender Sweetgum has retrieved has a cone-shaped object. It's 15 feet in diameter and has a parachute attached.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Simpson said an electronic panel was also recovered.

Lt. Cmdr. SIMPSON: They have electronic gear, but you know, whether it's radios or recorders or what it exactly is, I really don't know, and we really won't know until NASA gets a look at it.

MacNEIL: Meanwhile, at Cape Canaveral and in Houston, engineers studied the computer tapes that recorded information from the sensors that measured hundreds of functions many times a second. NASA had no new information on what might have caused the disaster.

The White House said President Reagan was sending a message to the students of Christa McAuliffe's school in Concord, New Hampshire, telling them, as he told the nation on Tuesday night, that life has to go on and so does the space program. The message will be read at an assembly tomorrow. Mrs. McAuliffe's husband, Steven, today issued a statement thanking the nation for its sympathy for himself and his two small children. He said, "We wish to thank you all and hope you can understand our need for these private moments. We have all lost Christa. We thank you for respecting our privacy and for sharing our grief." Jim?

LEHRER: President Reagan entertained Jonas Savimbi today. Savimbi is the guerrilla leader in the African nation of Angola. He came to the United States in search of military and other kinds of aid, and today President Reagan promised support.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: We want to be very helpful to what Dr. Savimbi and his people are trying to do, and what we are trying to arrive at is the best way to do that.

REPORTER: Are you prepared to give him more than a pat on the back, Mr. President?

Pres. REAGAN: I just said we want to be very supportive.

LEHRER: President Reagan also had some words today about next week's Philippine elections. He said in a prepared statement, "If the vote is fair and credible and reforms follow it, the United States should increase economic and military aid to that island nation." Also today, in the Philippines a Communist rebel leader pledged no interference in the February 7th elections and said his forces might talk about a truce if Corazon Aquino defeats President Ferdinand Marcos. And President Marcos filled the last two places on a nine-member election commission, saying he did so because he was asked to do so by some of his friends at the U.S. Embassy.

MacNEIL: In economic news, the government released two statistics today containing good and bad news. The index of leading economic indicators rose 0.9% in December, the largest increase in 11 months. The White House said that was a clear signal of gathering momentum in economic growth. Private economists were more cautious, pointing to the other statistic, the largest trade deficit in history. In the month of December, imports of foreign goods exceeded U.S. exports by $17.4 billion, the largest monthly figure ever, making the deficit for the whole year, 1985, $148.5 billion, also a record.

Administration plans to sell the government-owned freight railroad Conrail to Norfolk Southern Corporation passed another test in the Senate. Senators defeated an amendment that would have subjected the deal to antitrust lawsuits.

LEHRER: Secretary of Defense Weinberger today cautioned against what he called a childlike hope for detente with the Soviet Union. In a speech in Detroit he said the steady buildup of the U.S. military must continue, and warned against the defense budget's being held hostage to an accountant's pencil.

MacNEIL: A coalition of human rights monitoring groups today applauded improvements in Reagan administration efforts to end abuses in countries friendly to the United States. The report was issued by the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights, Americas Watch, Asia Watch and Helsinki Watch. It said the administration had come a long way in taking stronger stands on human rights in Haiti, South Korea, Liberia, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, Turkey, Yugoslavia and the Philippines. But the report said there were still shortcomings. Aryeh Neier of Americas Watch mentioned Central America.

ARYEH NEIER, Americas Watch: The administration does harm to the effort to promote human rights in Nicaragua by exaggerating or distorting charges or by making distorted charges of abuses. At the same time, we think that the administration does harm to the human rights cause by consistently acting as an apologist for what are continuing human rights abuses by the contras. A report to Congress that the administration submitted last November in our view completely misrepresented the human rights practices of the contras, stating that certain abuses did not take place, which we ourselves investigated and which we say did take place, and which we say that the administration did not itself investigate.

LEHRER: In the Middle East today, Syrian-backed militia fired artillery rounds at the presidential palace in Beirut, but President Amin Gemayel was unhurt. He was reportedly working at his desk 100 yards away and continued to do so after the shelling. Moslem and Christian allies of Syria are trying to oust Gemayel as president on grounds he thwarted a Syrian-sponsored Lebanon peace agreement.

In Tripoli, Libya, another 100 or so Americans left the country by plane. President Reagan's order that all Americans be gone from the country is effective Saturday.

MacNEIL: And finally in the news of this day, Henry Kissinger is considering a run against Mario Cuomo in the 1986 race for governor of New York. The former secretary of state confirmed in a statement that some Republican leaders have urged him to run, and he feels he owes them consideration of their views.

That's our summary of the news. Coming up, Elizabeth Brackett reports from Houston on all the space programs in limbo after the shuttle explosion; two TV critics assess television's response to the national tragedy; then, with Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, a government minister and two congressmen: should Washington support Angola's anti-Marxist rebellion? And essayist Jim Fisher will have some closing words about the space shuttle Challenger. NASA: A Time of Waiting

LEHRER: We go again to the tragedy of space shuttle Challenger and first to correspondent Elizabeth Brackett's report from Houston on what is not happening at the Johnson Space Center now.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: Here at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, the failure analysis team continues to meet. In a nearby lab, teams of investigators review reams of computer printouts. So far NASA has said only that all computer data up to the time of the explosion appeared normal. In this photo taken by NASA on the day of the disaster, the eyes of mission director Jay Greene are still glued to the computer screen while the shuttle explosion is clearly visible at a TV monitor over his shoulder. Seconds later, Greene realizes what has happened. Edward Herndon, a computer systems consultant to NASA, says one of the biggest problems NASA has is the answer to what happened may have been blown up in the explosion.

EDWIN HERNDON, Mitre Corporation: If the world was normal up until the explosion, and the explosion occurred, and blinded -- you know, kept us from seeing what happened as a result of the explosion, we'll never find out -- if that's the state of the world.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: With so little information coming from NASA, those who depend upon the shuttle program are at a loss as to their next step. Dr. Robert Haymes, chairman of the space physics department at Rice University, says the university has several important space science experiments scheduled for upcoming shuttle missions.

Dr. ROBERT HAYMES, Rice University: Everything that we have in space science depends on the shuttle. If we can't use it, then every experiment, such as the space telescope, the missions to the sun, the north pole of the sun, to Jupiter -- all of those things that have been built for the shuttle, to fit exactly within the constraints of the shuttle and to use the shuttle's power and all of that stuff, all of that would have to be redesigned for some new vehicle.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: A critical experiment being coordinated at Rice is America's attempt to get a close look at Halley's comet. Last month's shuttle mission failed to bring back pictures of the Comet. The ill-fated shuttle Challenger was scheduled to have launched a satellite to photograph Halley's. The shuttle mission scheduled for this March was to be the scientists' next chance.

Dr. HAYMES: Unfortunately, one thing or another has gone wrong, and the actual amount of scientific data that's come back has been very small, if not zero. So we were really looking forward to this upcoming one.

BRACKETT: And if this upcoming one does not launch, what does that mean?

Dr. HAYMES: Another 76 years in the trenches.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: The scientific experiments performed on the shuttle range from the simple to the complex. NASA's goal has been to make the shuttle program pay for itself by allowing the private sector to perform experiments in space. The McDonnell-Douglas Corporation was well on its way to becoming a paying customer with this experiment, designed to use purified hormones to fight kidney disease and anemia. McDonnell-Douglas hopes to have its new drug on the market by 1988.

[on camera] So much of the space community here in Houston -- scientific, business, technical -- is on hold, waiting for some word from NASA as to the future of their projects and the future of the space program as a whole. Word that may not come until some reasons behind Tuesday's tragedy can be found. Tragedy on TV

MacNEIL: The Challenger disaster is another of those moments of national dismay where television has come to play a central role. The medium has been much criticized in recent years for its performance in such moments, and tonight we look at the performance this time. We have two prominent media critics who disagree strongly about the Challenger coverage. Before we hear from them, here's a sample of some comments from TV critics around the country.

Mack Gunther in the Detroit News: "The networks did an excellent job. If there was a problem with the coverage, it was the usual one for TV news -- a lack of context."

Jack Thomas in The Boston Globe: "As the tragedy unfolded, America became a family in common grief. And with television once again serving as a national hearth, people gathered to watch in disbelief."

Ann Hodges in the Houston Chronicle: "In this national tragedy, at least, the customary TV tendency to rush pell-mell into pandemonium was under control."

Tom Shales in The Washington Post: "Network news anchors and correspondents, among the most frequently criticized of all public professionals, performed superbly."

Steve Sonsky in The Miami Herald: "We could not tear ourselves away from the screen. But at the same time questions emerged about the nature of the coverage and the fine line the networks must walk between humanity and exploitative mawkishness, and there's a fine line too between news gathering and ill-conceived premature speculation."

With us with their views are Edwin Diamond of New York magazine and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek.

Mr. Alter, how do you think TV performed this time?

JONATHAN ALTER: Well, at the risk of echoing the conventional wisdom on this, I would say that they performed quite expertly and competently in almost all dimensions of at least the early coverage. This was a major news story, worth preempting regular broadcasting. They did an effective job of marshaling resources on short notice. And I think that they stopped well short of the line that one would draw between sensible coverage and exploitativeness.

MacNEIL: Ed Diamond?

EDWIN DIAMOND: Well, they showed up and did their job, which they're paid very well to do, and I don't think we have to throw our hats in the air in that respect. What I am concerned about is the kind of pretentiousness about calling television a national hearth and how America all becomes a family. I don't want to be the curmudgeon on the program.

MacNEIL: You're here to be the curmudgeon.

Mr. DIAMOND: Well, but, you know, television is an appliance, and when there's news on the appliance, people turn to it. The ratings went up for the network news programs last night because there was genuine news to watch for. And to talk about the national hearth and the American family I think is to put a layer of pretentiousness over what is a quite straightforward, simple thing. A television's like a refrigerator. You go to a refrigerator to take food out of it. You go to television to get news from.

Mr. ALTER: But, Ed, if they're making apartments in houses with fewer and fewer fireplaces, what's so wrong about people gathering around the hearth of the television set for a little warmth and comfort in a time of crisis? I just don't quite see what the problems --

Mr. DIAMOND: I just don't think it's so, that's all. I think it's one of these great, warm, cuddly phrases that I just don't think have any basis in reality. People turn to television matter-of-factly, turn it on matter-of-factly. Obviously we're moved, the images. Since we're all either parents or children, we're moved by a tragedy where we see here are the parents watching, there are their looks of disbelief, their cheers turn to tears -- we're all moved by that. But it's the pretentiousness of calling television the national hearth that I think, you know, we ought to just accept it for what it is.

Mr. ALTER: Well, it has become a little bit of a cliche, true. But the fact is, you know, whether we think it's pretentious or not, it is a source of comfort and stability and information at a troubled time for people, and many, many viewers who take it quite seriously.

MacNEIL: And then if it is that, then the question becomes, what about the quality of the information this time? Let's look at a couple of specifics in the coverage this time. It's been commented that the networks -- and not always negatively, but sometimes -- that the networks continually replayed the shots of the actual explosion. What are your comments on that?

Mr. DIAMOND: Well, you know, it's like the bodies at Rome and Vienna when the latest terrorist attack. The tape keeps getting replayed of all that. I can't claim credit for the phrase "the pornography of grief." The same thing with the parents. We kept seeing that tape replayed. The same thing with the children in Concord. We kept seeing the tape replayed. I think, you know, this is exploitative, and I think they know -- their technical -- what the networks are, these tremendous technical virtuosos. And I just think that they have to, you know, govern their technical virtuosity with some good judgment.

MacNEIL: Let's separate the two things. Let's talk about replaying the explosion sequence first.

Mr. ALTER: I really didn't have much problem with that. I mean, some people get off late, get off of work late, or for one reason or another have not gotten to a television set. And I know somebody yesterday who was telling me that they were upset that they had to wait for such a long time to see it. They had to wait for a few minutes; they wanted it right away. So news organizations have a certain responsibility to replay it who haven't joined in progress.

Mr. DIAMOND: You're talking about the explosion?

Mr. ALTER: I'm talking about the explosion.

Mr. DIAMOND: Okay. All right.

Mr. ALTER: And to play it in slow motion so that people can see what might have happened. As for the --

MacNEIL: The explosion also -- just speaking as a journalist -- the explosion was the only evidence, physical or intellectual or anything else, of the tragedy.

Mr. DIAMOND: I don't have any trouble -- that's not pornography. I mean, I don't have any trouble with that. I'm talking about the human tape that gets replayed.

Mr. ALTER: I think there's a real distinction to be drawn between people at public events, as those people in the reviewing stand were.

MacNEIL: Christa McAuliffe's parents, for example.

Mr. ALTER: Christa McAuliffe's parents. Distinction to be drawn between that -- that is a legitimate news story; the camera should not have averted its gaze when things went wrong there. That would have been abdicating its responsibility to cover that event and to capture that gripping moment. So on the one hand you've got that. On another hand you have these excesses during the terrorism crisis last year where we saw the cameras in the living rooms, hounding people. That did not happen this time. You did not see the widower, Mr. McAuliffe, harassed as he was moving from one place to another.

Mr. DIAMOND: You raise an interesting point there. Obviously the parents were in the grandstand, in a public place, because they were invited there by NASA. NASA was doing this for public relations purposes. We all recognize that. I think it much more tasteful that -- you know, we have to talk about these things. The two children and the husband were not in that public place, and their grief has been private, and I think that is good. Now, of course with 20fi20 hindsight, you know, you can say this. But the children had been protected and the father had been protected because they were not in a public stage provided by NASA for public relations purposes. So I'm not completely saying that the networks are at fault. It was NASA who designed that show.

MacNEIL: Some people have commented on the huge number of cameras in the church in this memorial service yesterday in Concord, New Hampshire. Did you see that? Does that offend you at all?

Mr. ALTER: No, it doesn't really offend me very much. I think it's unavoidable. And there's a line here; everybody has to draw the line at a different place. But this, I think by and large, with the exception of some local stations, which unfortunately are less cognizant of the intrusion problem than the networks have been -- with the exception of some local stations, the coverage has been quite responsible. And I think we would not have been happy to have had them return to soap operas in the middle of Tuesday afternoon. Then we would have been on the show complaining about them having not fulfilled their news responsibility.

Mr. DIAMOND: No, no, I think it's a legitimate news story.

MacNEIL: Although some people did phone up and complain that their soap operas weren't there, as they always do.

Mr. DIAMOND: That's what our President calls anecdotal information. Five phone calls does not constitute a Gallup poll.

MacNEIL: Just to conclude this, is TV changing, maturing, being more restrained? Is there a learning process going on in this? Is it reacting to the criticisms of the past?

Mr. DIAMOND: Well, it's technically superb. There's no question about that. And I think there is -- maybe even discussions like this have some feedback. I think the people who run -- men and women who run network news are not monstrous people. I think they take these things into consideration, and I think that what I've called or what others have called the pornography of grief, I think people are aware of that, and I think you see a modulation of that. But I know that Vienna and Rome we kept seeing those blood-stained bodies.

Mr. ALTER: Where I would agree with that is that unfortunately we may be getting to a stage where the electronic tail is wagging the editorial dog, particularly in hostage situations. In this case it was pretty well contained, but the technology is such that eventually the terrorists will make use of satellites and cameras, and it will be very hard to contain in a more complex situation.

MacNEIL: Well, Jonathan Alter, Edwin Diamond, thank you for joining us.

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the debate over providing aid and comfort to anti-government forces in Angola, and an essay on the Challenger tragedy by Jim Fisher, our man in Kansas City. Angola: Should the U.S. Help?

LEHRER: Angola, a small nation in southern Africa that is causing a large debate in the Congress and elsewhere in this country. The debate is about Jonas Savimbi, leader of an effort to overthrow the Marxist government of Angola. He talked to President Reagan today and he talks to us tonight, as we explore the argument over whether the United States should help Savimbi's effort. An official of the Angolan government is here to respond; so are two U.S. congressmen who see the aid question very differently. Before we begin, some background now from correspondent June Cross.

JUNE CROSS [voice-over]: These are the forces of UNITA, a pro-Western guerrilla group that has been fighting a 10-year-old civil war in Angola. Angola is a south African nation with a marxist government. UNITA and its leader, Jonas Savimbi, have become a popular cause for American conservatives who are pressuring the Reagan administration to resume aid to these rebels. Civil war has plagued Angola for 10 years, ever since Portugal left its former colony and the two rival liberation groups, the Marxist MPLA and the pro-Western UNITA, turned their guns on each other.

Two-thirds of Angola is run by the MPLA and its leader, Jose Eduardo dos Santos. He holds on to power with help from some 35,000 Cuban troops and millions of dollars in Soviet military aid. UNITA, headed by Jonas ted by South Africa, rules the southeastern third of Angola.

JONAS SAVIMBI, UNITA: Our aim is to get the Cubans out and our country back.

CROSS [voice-over]: But the Angolan war has spilled over its southern border into Namibia and into that country's fight for its freedom. South Africa still governs Namibia, once its protectorate, even though the U.N. has called for Namibian independence. And South Africa is locked in a prolonged guerrilla war with a Namibian resistance movement, SWAPO. Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker, America's diplomatic point man for the region, has for years been trying to broker a deal: independence for Namibia in exchange for the withdrawal of Cubans from Angola. For as President Reagan told the U.N. last October, it is the Cuban-Soviet presence that is most ominous in this tangled conflict.

Pres. REAGAN [October 1985]: In Angola, 1,200 Soviet military advisors involved in planning and supervising combat operations along with 35,000 Cuban troops. These wars are exacting a staggering human toll, and threaten to spill across national boundaries and trigger dangerous confrontations.

CROSS [voice-over]: But Secretary Crocker's dealmaking has been frustrated. Angola is reluctant to ask the Cubans to leave until South Africa withdraws from Namibia, and South Africa won't stop its forays into Angola until the Cubans withdraw. Perhaps South Africa's most spectactular foray occurred last May, at a major oil installation jointly owned by the Angolan government and Gulf Oil in the enclave of Cabinda. That raid focused attention here in the U.S. on the major role Gulf Oil and its parent company, the Chevron Corporation, play in Marxist Angola's economy.

HOWARD PHILLIPS, Conservative Caucus: Americans who love freedom can no longer regard with indifference activities on the part of ChevronfiGulf which have the effect of furthering the Soviet Union's multibillion-dollar campaign for military domination of Angola and all sub-Saharan Africa.

CROSS [voice-over]: And the Reagan administration, in a significant shift of American policy, this week asked ChevronfiGulf to reconsider its role in Angola.

CHESTER CROCKER, Assistant Secretary of State: We pointed out to them that they're in the middle of a war zone, that they're also in the middle of a rather hot political debate in this country, and that they should be thinking about U.S. national interests as well as their own corporate interests as they make their decisions.

CROSS [voice-over]: On Capitol Hill, the drive for aid to UNITA rebels has been led by New York's Jack Kemp and Florida's Claude Pepper. Last summer they succeeded in lifting a 1976 ban on U.S. aid to UNITA. But in the fall, the State Department teamed with liberal Democrats and blocked any actual funds for the Angolan rebels. Within the Reagan administration, aid to Savimbi's UNITA ghters has been heatedly debated. The Defense Department and the CIA have been arguing for increased aid to the rebels. But the State Department prefers the diplomatic route. Recent reports indicate that President Reagan has tentatively decided to ask Congress for as much as $15 million this year. That's for secret military aid for Savimbi's UNITA. The goal: to pressure Angola towards a diplomatic solution.

LEHRER: We go now to Jonas Savimbi. What kind of support do you want from the United States? What did you tell President Reagan today that you wanted?

JONAS SAVIMBI: First of all, we told the President that we thank him very much for his speech at the U.N. when he said that local original wars can create problems between the superpowers. And secondly, we told him that we want our country back to democracy, and for that we needed the support from the United States.

LEHRER: What kind of support?

Mr. SAVIMBI: We want first of all to say that we had last year a very big offensive from the Russians, Cubans and the MPLA, and they have a lot of planes, tanks, and we want to meet the tanks and the planes, because we have our men in the ground and our men are comfortable. If we get something to meet the tanks and the aircraft, I think they are going to manage.

LEHRER: Do you want it directly, or do you want it secretly, or do you care?

Mr. SAVIMBI: I think that's the problem for the administration; it's not our problem. The problem is that we want support. How the administration will manage it, it depends on the administration and the Congress.

LEHRER: If you do get what you want, what then will you do with it?

Mr. SAVIMBI: What we want is to discourage the MPLA to go into military option, so that we start talking. When we talk, then we have a reconciliation; we organize elections in our country, as we have agreed upon, Alror Agreement; then we have a democratic country back.

LEHRER: Critics of giving you anything or giving you military aid in this country suggest that giving you aid would create just the opposite effect. In other words, it would prolong the war and also -- and thus delay a peaceful negotiated settlement.

Mr. SAVIMBI: I think that we have an experience for the past five years where the assistant secretary, Dr. Crocker, has been working very hard to get MPLA to compromise on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from our country and the independence of Namibia. But he not succeed, and he thinks it is a very old saying: you have to negotiate from a position of strength. If you do that, then you get a solution.

LEHRER: And you do not have that kind of strength now to negotiate from?

Mr. SAVIMBI: We have, but I think it is necessary that when we look to the policy of Gorbachev, where he's becoming more aggressive against the freedom resistance movements in Afghanistan, in Eritrea, in Angola, I think the aim for him is to destroy all those resistance movements.

LEHRER: Would it be enough for you just for the Cuban troops to leave Angola, or do you want control of the country -- is that victory for you?

Mr. SAVIMBI: I think our aim has been and has remained that when the Cubans leave, the Angolans meet; we form a government of national unity, then we organize elections. And those who may come with the more popular support, then they will decide if they keep on with the coalition or not. But we want a mandate from our people, as it was agreed upon in our accord. It's not something new.

LEHRER: Do you think you could negotiate an arrangement with the ruling government now?

Mr. SAVIMBI: But we are prepared even now if they agree to talk. We are prepared. We have been always prepared.

LEHRER: After 10 years, why do you think suddenly you've become such a big deal here in the United States? What's your analysis of that?

Mr. SAVIMBI: First of all, I think I have to take the opportunity to thank all my friends here who have worked very hard to repeal the Clark amendment, for that was a tragedy. It was in 1976 when the Clark amendment was voted. It was a green light for the Russians to invade our country. Then that was repealed, and I came here to thank them, and to tell them now we should go ahead to try to get a democratic society in my country.

LEHRER: What happens if you don't get any aid from the United States?

Mr. SAVIMBI: I hope that the American public, the Congress and the administration, they will understand that we will go on fighting, for there is a resolve from our people to fight. We fought it alone for 10 years. And again, it will be a pity if with this new doctrine of Gorbachev to destroy resistance movements, if Angola becomes a Soviet base, then the whole southern Africa may go.

LEHRER: Where do you get your aid now?

Mr. SAVIMBI: I think the people they are driving out South Africa. I think when you are fighting a war, you have to get support from wherever you can get it. All those who fought the war, they know that. And also it is not only from there, but I am getting it also from black African countries, from Arab countries -- they are giving me also support.

LEHRER: But the most of it comes from the South African government?

Mr. SAVIMBI: I think that it's not most of it. The South Africans they serve as a logistic, because when they give us support from the Gulf, from other Arab countries, from the black countries, we need to bring it back.

LEHRER: It comes through South Africa.

Mr. SAVIMBI: It comes through South Africa. And sometimes we do ask them if they want to give support. But I think that you remember, during your independence war you needed support from the French.

LEHRER: All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now we have a member of the government Mr. Savimbi is fighting. He is Ismael Gaspar-Martins, Angola's minister of foreign trade, a former finance minister and governor of the central bank. He is close to the president.

Mr. Minister, how does it strike you as a member of the Angolan government to see Mr. Savimbi warmly received at the White House?

ISMAEL GASPAR-MARTINS: Well, Mr. Savimbi has been warmly received at White House. It was -- this was the decision of a sovereign government, the government of the United States of America. But we definitely think that it is a negative step in the right direction which we have been pursuing up to now. As you are quite well aware, Dr. Crocker has just returned from Luanda. He has yet again heard from my government and even, you know, he has heard directly from President dos Santos concrete proposals. We have been ready to talk, but it takes at least good will, and particularly political will, to find a solution.

MacNEIL: You say that you are willing to talk to -- to join in talks with Mr. Savimbi's forces?

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: We have been talking to South Africa. The United States has been playing the broker role, and we are ready to continue this exercise because it is the positive way to solve the situation in southern Africa. Mr. Savimbi unfortunately appears in this situation more as the long arm of South Africa, not particularly as a representative of the wishes of the Angolan people.

MacNEIL: He says the only way to find that out is to arrive at some arrangement whereby you could have the elections that were promised at the time of independence and get a mandate from the people.

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: The mandate from the people, definitely. There was an agreement in 1975 with the Portuguese as the Portuguese were about to leave after five centuries of Portuguese colonialism, and we had agreed. We have continued this exercise. For instance, since 1978, that we have been implementing a policy of national integration, whereby everybody has a say, whereby all the Angolans willing to participate in this great endeavor, which is the building of a new nation, with potential, nation,with tremendous potential, can participate.

MacNEIL: Let's come to the point of this today. Why would it be a mistake for the Reagan administration to give aid to Mr. Savimbi?

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: It would be a mistake because what Mr. Savimbi has been practicing in Angola is mainly terrorism. We loved, we appreciate, we think it is correct to combat terrorism. Just recently, Secretary of State Shultz was referring to this at the United Nations when he said terrorism is terrorism. Now, when we see American installations being blown up using American money, when we see missionaries being kidnapped, civilians who are playing a role in Angola, we do not understand. Imagine for instance if the Gulf Oil installations in Angola had been blown up. At least 100, if not 200, Americans would have been killed in this tragic situation.

MacNEIL: So you say he practices terrorism?

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: This is what he has been doing, unfortunately, up to now.

MacNEIL: How else could Washington be satisfied and see the Cubans out, which it wants? Why don't the Cubans leave, and what could be done to get them out?

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: Well, the Cubans actually they -- we have said it, we have accepted, we are a responsible government, we take responsible decisions, and we adhere to the agreements which we signed, either with states or be it with banks or with companies. We have said it and we have done it. Back in 1978 and '79, as the war was less intensive as it is now, the war against South Africa -- because here we're talking about the war against South Africa -- we have started reducing the presence of Cuban forces up to -- they were reduced up to about one third. It was after that, as we are facing a threat -- we are a new nation, 10 years, facing the threat coming from the south. And Mr. Savimbi's talking conciliation with South Africa. He's reconciling with South Africa to fight against Angolans. We don't want to have in Angola a similar situation as that we have seen -- we are seeing in South Africa and Namibia. So that is why we are standing -- we want to have an independent government, we want to keep it, and we are actually practicing conciliation with the rest of Angolans since 1978.

MacNEIL: Well, we must move on. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes. Now to the American debate over Angola. A leader of the effort to secure U.S. aid for Savimbi is Congressman Mark Siljander, Republican of Michigan, ranking minority member of the House African Affairs Subcommittee.

Now, you want $27 million to go to Mr. Savimbi, correct?

Rep. MARK SILJANDER: Absolutely.

LEHRER: You want it on the table, under the table, how?

Rep. SILJANDER: Well, I have 109 bipartisan co-sponsors. You wonder why Mr. Savimbi is becoming a figure national -- international figure? Well, 109 congressmen are feeling a need to assist him. This is overt aid. If the President wants to add covert aid to it, it's fine with me. Mr. Savimbi, UNITA, to fight the 35,000 Cuban mercenaries that are butchering black women and children in Angola, they need to shoot down the hind helicopters and the MIGs with red eyes, which are surface-to-air shoulder-launched missiles, be it covert or overt.

LEHRER: And the $27 million would be spent exclusively on military aid?

Rep. SILJANDER: Indeed.

LEHRER: Yeah. What do you say to those who say, well, that would just continue the war, more people would die, the real answer is to sit down and talk. That's what the State Department says.

Rep. SILJANDER: Well, I've heard that, and it's one of the most preposterous arguments. For 10 years we had a legal ban against any type of aid, humanitarian, overt or covert, military. There were 12,000 Cuban troops at that time. Ten years later there are between 35 and 45 thousand Cuban troops. Five years of intense negotiations attempting through Secretary Crocker to release the 35,000 Cubans for independence in Namibia. Nothing has happened. Obviously more pressure is needed.

LEHRER: The minister says that what Mr. Savimbi is practicing is simple terrorism, is killing people.

Rep. SILJANDER: I think the real terrorism is the fact that the Angolan government is paying Castro a thousand dollars per month per Cuban soldier in Angola, who as I said earlier are butchering blacks in Angola. Mr. Savimbi has fought for 25 years, first against Portuguese, now against Soviet and Cuban and a puppet government in Angola. It seems fairly clear that Mr. Savimbi, with the widespread popular support that he has, the reasonable charisma that he holds in his people, has a widespread and wide-based support, and a terrorist would not receive that in his own country.

LEHRER: The minister also says that what Mr. Savimbi is is just the long arm of South Africa.

Rep. SILJANDER: You know, that's so absurd, it's mind-boggling that people would bring that up. I'm certain -- I mean this sarcastically -- that a black liberation leader would somehow kowtow to a white racist regime. Sure, practically, pragmatically he's obtaining help. But once, assuming there's a free democratic process, you think Mr. Savimbi will turn the country over to white racism? I mean, that's totally absurd.

LEHRER: Why have you and other conservatives suddenly discovered Mr. Savimbi and his movement, or is it just something that just now came to the fore, or what?

Rep. SILJANDER: Well, I think there's been an obvious progression. In the last 18 months there's been nearly $2 billion of Soviet military hardware poured into Angola. Secondly, the Clark amendment, we finally had the momentum, a group of us, to initiate to repeal the Clark amendment. Thirdly, we won in the sense of helping the freedom fighters, humanitarian aid in Nicaragua, Cambodia and Afghanistan.

LEHRER: And you see this right in that same line?

Rep. SILJANDER: This is Soviet global expansionism, and Americans have to decide morally, politically and economically whether or not we're willing to stand up for the Soviet expansionism worldwide.

LEHRER: Thank you, Congressman. Robin?

MacNEIL: That view is strongly opposed by New York Democrat Matthew McHugh, a member of the House Intelligence and Appropriations committees. Congressman McHugh initiated a letter to President Reagan signed by more than 100 House members urging him not to give U.S. assistance to the Savimbi forces.

Why not, Congressman?

Rep. MATTHEW McHUGH: Well, because this is essentially a civil war, as your film clip demonstrated, and this civil war has been going on now for many years, and as Dr. Savimbi himself has said, the contending factions in this civil war will take aid from wherever they can get it. Dr. Savimbi has accepted substantial assistance from South Africa. Prior to that he received assistance from the Chinese communist government. The other side, the other faction, the MPLA, of course, has received significant assistance from the Cubans and the Soviets. The question for us is whether or not it serves the interests of the United States in Africa to become directly involved in this civil war, and my answer is no.

MacNEIL: Are you and your fellow signers of that letter against all kinds of aid, economic and military, covert and open?

Rep. McHUGH: Yes, we are. We're in favor of a political resolution of this problem, which we admit is a very difficult thing to do, given the complexity of the issues. But that involves not only a withdrawal of Cuban troops, which I strongly support, but also a withdrawal of South African troops, and the two go hand in hand. And that's what Mr. Crocker has been attempting to deal with over the last few years.

MacNEIL: But Congressman Siljander's just said years of that policy haven't worked. The number of Cuban troops there has increased and more pressure is needed.

Rep. McHUGH: Well, the experience indicates that whenever the South Africans step up their support for Mr. Savimbi, the Angola government turns for additional support to the Cubans. And the aid which Mr. Siljander is talking about, in the area of $27 million, will not have an appreciable impact upon this military conflict. If anything, it will force the Angola government to turn for further assistance to the Cubans, exacerbating the military conflict, the civil war, making a political resolution of this problem much more difficult to achieve.

MacNEIL: He sees this as just an extension of Soviet expansionism as in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and that the U.S. should be helping freedom fighters, as he sees Mr. Savimbi one, wherever they are.

Rep. McHUGH: Well, Mr. Savimbi is here to get assistance from the United States Treasury. He is telling us what we want to hear in terms of a democracy, but unfortunately his past rhetoric has not been pro-democratic. He is a political leader, with some legitimacy withinAngola, but he is not a democrat based upon his prior statements, which clearly have been nondemocratic.

MacNEIL: Do you have a freedom fighter -- do you have an opinion whether he is a freedom fighter or a terrorist, as he's been described this evening?

Rep. McHUGH: I think he is a legitimate leader of a political faction in Angola which is seeking total political power in that country and is engaged in a civil war. I don't think it's in the interest of the United States to be engaged on one side of that civil war. Among other things, it would align us with the South African policy, which clearly is not in our interest in the continent of Africa as a whole.

MacNEIL: Congressman, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Savimbi, how about that? The congressman says you're not democratic, you're interested in control of the nation.

Mr. SAVIMBI: Let him say that. That's not true. First of all, I have in my record, 1974, it was me, nobody else, who went to meet the FNLA in Kinshasa and tell them let us work together. It was --

LEHRER: Went where?

Mr. SAVIMBI: To Kinshasa, to meet with FNLA to say let us work together so that we get our independence. Nobody else but me, who went to Dharasalam to meet with the late President Agostinho Neto and to tell him let us work together. It was nobody but me who went to Mombasa to ask the late President Kenyatta to organize a conference so that we come together and we work together. That is not a work of a tyranny, but it is a work of a democrat.

LEHRER: Congressman, What did you mean when you said he was not a democrat?

Rep. McHUGH: Well, what I mean is that he has given statements in many interviews indicating that he has no commitment to democracy as such. For example, just to cite one. In an interview in 1984 in Lisbon, Portugal, he was quoted as saying, "The Angola which we would like to see would be an Angola in which UNITA would control power alone, making the party's program the nation's program."

Mr. SAVIMBI: It was not true.

LEHRER: You didn't say that?

Mr. SAVIMBI: Never. I think the journalists, they are free to write what they want. In 1984 it cannot be different from what I have done in 1974. In '74 it was me who brought the people together. It was me who said let us fight for elections and not power for somebody. Nobody else.

Rep. SILJANDER: And I have documents which I can stack on your table here that have clear statements by his foreign minister, by Savimbi himself, the last 10 years.

LEHRER: His foreign minister? You mean of UNITA?

Rep. SILJANDER: Yes, of UNITA. Clearly articulating their press for open, participatory democracy, for a blend of free enterprise, and for fair elections, freedom of the press and assembly -- the very freedoms that we so cherish and enjoy here. And last point: it seems rather interesting that the same leaders against the aid were thrilled to send millions of dollars in nonfood economic aid and military aid to communist Mozambique. But now for some reason they wouldn't want to touch someone who had off-color statements in 1961, is about really frankly the earliest statement that Mr. Wolpe, the chairman of the committee that I'm also ranking on, on Africa, can come up with.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. McHUGH: Well, I would simply point to the statement I cited in 1984, and I have a list of other quotes which Mr. Savimbi may disregard at this point. But I think we have to recognize, as he himself has said, that he's going to take aid from whoever he can get it. He's in a conflict within his own country. I can understand that at one level, but the question for us in Congress and for the country is whether it serves the interests of the United States to become aligned with South Africa in that continent and to engage in helping a civil war combatant. I don't think that has been our policy for some time. If we change it now, it's a significant change, and I don't think it serves the interests of our country.

LEHRER: Let me ask Minister Gaspar-Martins in New York, Congressman McHugh said that if the United States were to help Mr. Savimbi with military aid, it would pressure, you, your government into even asking for more support from Cuba and the Soviet Union. Is that a correct assumption?

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: We have a government to protect. We have a nation to protect and to govern. And any respon have to react. Definitely we count mainly on our people to protect our country and to defend the sovereignty and the integrity of our country.

LEHRER: But Congressman Siljander suggests that if we help, if the United States helps Savimbi, that that will pressure -- you all will be more likely to agree to sit down and talk and resolve this thing peacefully. Is he wrong?

Min. GASPAR-MARTINS: Well, what -- if the United States decides to take this new course, which is going to be a new departure, that would mean turning the United States against the rest of Africa, which knows exactly what danger South Africa represents. Look at tiny Lesotho, let's look at Botswana, let's look at the expansionist role that South Africa has been playing, using individuals like Mr. Savimbi. I wish we could look at what we are doing. We would like to sit with all the Angolans, we would like to have all the Angolans -- the ex-FNLA elements are now working in Angola, been accepted. They are participating directly in the rule of Angola. This is what we'd like to see developing. And the United States has a role to play, to pressurize South Africa to withdraw its forces from Angola to stop the expansionist methods they have been using, and to let Angolans get together to sort out our problems.

LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Congressman Siljander? Just leave it to Mr. Savimbi and the Angolan government to work it out among themselves.

Rep. SILJANDER: They've been trying for 10 years to work it out, and the answer has been quadrupling of the Cuban troops, tripling of the amount of Soviet advisors, $2 billion in military hardware over the last 18 months. The response of attempted -- repeated attempts at negotiations have failed. And I want to bring up a point if I can, when we talk about what a bad guy -- that's the old argument -- that Savimbi is such a bad guy, that he made some off-color quotes back 10 or 15 years ago.

LEHRER: 1984 according to Congressman McHugh.

Rep. SILJANDER: Well, he claims he didn't make that particular quote, but the other ones we've confirmed were from 15 or 20 years ago. The point is, let's assume he is a bad guy, which I don't think he is. Who is he going to invite in, assuming UNITA were to take power as Mr. McHugh suggests? Will he bring in the Soviets, the Cubans, the Bulgarians, the North Koreans? They're already there. Obviously this gentleman is committed to a pro-Western democracy, to a democracy that he must, he has no option, assuming that there is a negotiated settlement, but to participate in the Alvor agreements, that would have brought out the freedom and opportunity society that so many of his people are seeking.

LEHRER: You just don't buy that, Congressman?

Rep. McHUGH: Well, I don't think the history of Mr. Savimbi backs it up. I think it's wishful thinking on the part of my friend Mr. Siljander and the right-wing conservative movement in this country. I mean, I wish it were true. But in any event, $27 million of U.S. assistance is not going to bring Dr. Savimbi and his forces to power. It's going to simply escalate the military conflict, which is essentially a civil war. Moreover, I'd like to make this point if I may. The fact that he has 100-or-so supporters in favor of aid and we have over 100 opponents indicates very clearly that this is another divisive foreign policy issue in our country, which we don't need. Moreover it indicates that this policy of assistance to Dr. Savimbi is not a sustainable policy. It's not going to work effectively. And for that reason alone I think it's important for us to focus, as the State Department has been trying to focus, on the more difficult but I think more responsible political course.

LEHRER: Mr. Savimbi, do you challenge the congressman's statement that even if you get the $27 million that Congressman Siljander wants to give you, that it's not going to change anything on the ground? In other words, you're still not going to be able to overthrow the government of Mr. Gaspar-Martins and others?

Mr. SAVIMBI: Let me just make some two remarks on what Martins said. First of all, I consider him as my compatriot, and he's calling me a terrorist. I think that he is my compatriot. And when I was fighting in the Portuguese, he was a student here in the United States. He was not fighting when I was, in the bush. That's first. Secondly, he's saying ex-FNLA. But in the accords of Alvor there were not ex-. Then he's saying integration, he was saying one MPLA coming up, eating other people bit by bit. That's one side.

LEHRER: I'm sorry. We have to -- we can't sort all that out right now, we have to go. And thank you very much, gentlemen, here in New York and Mr. Minister -- I mean here in -- I'm in Washington, you're in New York, right. Thank you very much. Was It Worth It?

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, some further thoughts on the shuttle disaster from our regular essayist Jim Fisher, columnist with the Kansas City Times, who talks to us from the banks of the Mississippi River.

JIM FISHER, Kansas City Times: Tuesday was a bad day for all of us. Here in Southeast Missouri, when the bulletins came on about the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, time sort of stopped. The videotape replays were endless. People here, like everywhere else, watched, grim-faced, shocked, unbelieving. "Did you hear?" people said, often in a whisper. "Did you see it?" was how phone conversations started. This in Southeast Missouri, about as far as you can get from Cape Kennedy or Houston or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. An accident, a glitch, maybe a pinhole leak caused by a falling icicle. Some tiny, seemingly insignificant thing. But something -- something that caused a cataclysmic explosion, something that killed all aboard, and something, at least in the moments after 10:39 a.m. Central Time, dashed our dreams. Because the shuttle, despite its cost, seemed like the best part of us, reaching out, exploring, seeking new frontiers, testing new technologies in the frozen realm of space. And with Christa McAuliffe, it seemed right: an ordinary schoolteacher could go into space. We could go with her. In a sense, she was every American.

And more. A black American. Another woman. Two all-American boys. An American of Asian descent. Even a crewman that was balding. Sure, there was the right stuff on Challenger, but America, the way it really is, was also aboard the shuttle.

And now will come the critics, saying that the space program is too expensive in this era of Gramm-Rudman, that it's too dangerous, that what happened Tuesday hurts America's image. You wonder, especially standing here at the Mississippi River, what once was the edge of the American frontier. You wonder, should this river have been crossed? Should these lands have been cleared to help feed the world? Should blood and fortune been spilled to allow, as Lincoln said, the father of waters to run unvexed to the sea? You wonder, but only for a while, because you know the answer.

LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thursday. The Coast Guard says it has located debris that may be part of the fuselage of space shuttle Challenger. Divers are being sent to check the finding, which was made by sonar in the Atlantic Ocean far off the coast of Florida. So far, search crews have found thousands of pounds of debris, including part of an electronic control panel. NASA officials say they have not yet recovered any signs of the bodies of the seven Challenger crew members. The search area was expanded to 8,000 miles.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour tonight. And we will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.