The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The space shuttle Columbia landed tonight after an eight-hour delay due to computer failure. [voice-over] -- see it sitting there on the runway at Edwards Air Force Base, California; the astronauts still to come out from the space ship.

[on camera] Also tonight we look at the options facing President Reagan as the administration considers moving the Marines to a safer position in Beirut. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: And the Russians took another walk today in Geneva, leaving strategic nuclear arms talks with the U.S. with no word on if and when they would return. We're going to talk at length tonight with Ambassador Paul Nitze, who just returned from the intermediate-range missile talks, which got walked out of by the Soviets two weeks ago. Charlayne Hunter-Gault also has some hopeful word for and about children facing starvation in the Third World.

MacNEIL: The space shuttle Columbia touched down safely tonight at Edwards Air Force Base in California. It was a perfect ending to an almost perfect flight.

[voice-over] The one major hitch in the 10 1/2-day mission occurred today when two of the five on-board computers failed and NASA had to postpone the originally scheduled landing from this morning. NASA officials stressed that the six-man crew was never in any danger, but they decided to delay the shuttle's return by eight hours to try to figure out what had gone wrong. Pilot John Young told mission control in Houston that the two computers failed after he fired maneuvering rockets to realign the shuttle before leaving orbit. Young said the rocket thrust really hit the vehicle hard, that it felt as though the ship had been jolted by forces 19 to 20 times the force of gravity. When the shuttle finally did touch down at 6:47 Eastern Time this evening, it was met with a rousing welcome from some 30,000 people who had gathered at Edwards Air Force Base to watch the landing. The mission itself already is being hailed as a great success, and not only by Americans. Congratulations poured in earlier today from the leaders of Italy, Belgium and Austria and other European countries. The Europeans built the Spacelab in which dozens of scientific experiments were performed during the shuttle's flight. Young, the shuttle commander, summed up the mission by saying, "We think we've learned a whole lot about how to live, operate and work in space. It's delightful." Jim? Moving the Marines

LEHRER: There was another heavy firefight today at the U.S. Marine position at the Beirut airport. A Marine unit on the northeast perimeter of the airport compound was hit by a barrage of mortar and rocket-launched grenade fire. The Marines immediately returned the favor with a barrage of their own anti-tank missile, mortar and small-arms fire. A Marine spokesman said the attack had come from a fortified position which was destroyed by the Marine counterfire. He said he did not know who the attackers were. There were no Marine Casualties.

In Brussels, the U.S. and its three partners in the peacekeeping mission reaffirmed their determination to stay in Lebanon despite attacks like today's on the 5,600-man international force. Secretary of State George Shultz met this morning with his counterparts from Britain, Italy and France, all gathered for a regular NATO foreign ministers conference.

[voice-over] After the breakfast meeting, which was held in Secretary Shultz's hotel suite behind closed doors, he went on to a full meeting of the NATO foreign ministers. While that was going on, various briefing officers told reporters that British, French and Italians all endorsed the American air raid on Syrian positions in Lebanon last Sunday and declared they had the right to do the same.

[on camera] And, in spite of criticisms voiced in Britain's Parliament, British and American officials agreed there should be no changes in the positions or the duties of the multinational force in Lebanon. But the White House today did confirm press reports that the Marines may be moved from the airport to a less vulnerable position. Spokesman Larry Speakes said several options are available, but the issue has yet to come to President Reagan for a decision. Getting the 1,600-man Marine force away from what some call their "sitting duck positions" at the airport has been in the wind for weeks, most particularly since the October 23rd suicide truck bomb attack which killed 240 Marines and other U.S. servicemen. How that might be accomplished, the options available, is what we want to go over now with Paul Jureidini. Mr. Jureidini is a military affairs specialist who has worked as a consultant to both the U.S. and Lebanese governments. He was born in Lebanon, but has been living here for the last 25 years. Under your analysis of the situation, there are four basic options. Is that not correct?

PAUL JUREIDINI: That's quite correct, right.

LEHRER: All right, the first one is moving the Marines back and forth from ships offshore.

Mr. JUREIDINI: Well, let me begin by saying that a decision to move the Marines is not a unilateral American decision. It has to be coordinated with our allies. Otherwise, the mission of the MNF may suffer. Second, when we consider moving, we have to consider a number of factors, basically casualties, logistics, presence -- a number of things that affect the move. And it's tradeoff. Now, our casualties generally come from three types -- sniping, car bombs and shelling, random or deliberate. And therefore these are --

LEHRER: Which is what happened today, the latter. Right?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Exactly. And a lot of the casualties have nothing to do with the war in Lebanon. It has to do more with our problems with other local actors, such as Iran, Libya, Syria and basically, maybe, Yemen and some radical factions of the PLO. So it's a tradeoff, and obviously moving the Marines onboard ship creates a problem, and I think a logistical problem, an immense logistical problem. And it leaves the Marines vulnerable. If you have to move them back and forth, you have to depend on climate, the conditions of the sea --

LEHRER: How far offshore actually are these ships?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Well, they differ, obviously. We don't sit there because of a number of factors. But anywheres between six and eight miles, or sometimes closer, sometimes further away. Moving them in while they're moving onshore, they may be very, very vulnerable to shelling. Coming onshore, they may find some of their positions overrun. In fact, they may have to fight to retake their positions. Thus, moving them on ships may not in fact minimize casualties, and it may increase them. And it may leave the Italians, who are to the immediate north, vulnerable and exposed, since the position is not held permanently by the Marines.

LEHRER: Okay. On your list, what's the second option?

Mr. JUREIDINI [voice-over]: The second, obviously, is moving south, slightly south of the airport, somewheres between, let's say, roughly, Khalde and the Israeli position on the Awali River, Sidon.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Along this road that we see here on the map.

Mr. JUREIDINI: Exactly. There again we reduce possibly the question of random shelling. We would know this time that they're shelling us, and not, certainly, the Lebanese army or some other unit.

LEHRER: It's been confusing up 'til now, has it not?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Exactly.

LEHRER: The Druse in particular have said when they have shelled the U.S. Marines, "Well, we weren't really aiming for the Marines. We were aiming for the Lebanese army."

Mr. JUREIDINI: Exactly. If there's any shells coming our way, we will know that we're the target. There's another problem with this area. There is a major road on which terrorists travel to blow up Israeli targets, and go after them, and they may be able to reach us in that situation. And, third, we're not that visible. And we have to remember that our presence in Lebanon has a lot to do with visibility, presence. We are there to do a mission, and we're not going to hide. Moving them out makes them less visible on the road down to -- south of the airport.

LEHRER: All right, now, your third option would be going north.

Mr. JUREIDINI: The third option would be to move them north and slightly east -- somewheres between Monte Verdi and the city of Broumana.

LEHRER [voice-over]: We see them there on the map.

Mr. JUREIDINI: There it creates a logistical problem. They're not that close to Syria. You have to travel about 10 to 12 miles. But it's an area that used to be occupied by the IDF, the Israelis, before they evacuated the Shuf, and they never took a casualty there.

LEHRER: Why is that? Why is it so safe?

Mr. JUREIDINI: The population is less hostile, in fact, not hostile at all. It is not in an area where terrorists can reach -- the terrorists can reach easily. There's no major roads. And it's away from the major targets of either the Syrians or the Druse or the Shiites -- the fundamentalists. Even in the random terror shelling of East Beirut, this is not an area that they would shell.So we would avoid, I think, in that area, the sniping and the terrorist attack, and basically the random shelling. If we're shelled we would know we are the targets.

LEHRER: I see.

Mr. JUREIDINI: And we would be able to respond.

LEHRER: And then of course the fourth option is to keep them at the airport. Is it possible to make that position secure?

Mr. JUREIDINI: Yes, I think it is. In many ways, the situation evolved very quickly since we first landed almost a year and so ago. There are a number of factors that have entered the picture. Obviously, the terrorist interest of other nations. I think there are a number of factors, that could be discussed with the Lebanese government, especially after the president of Lebanon broadens his new cabinet, when he names it. There are certain discussions that can be held with the Shiite and, frankly, what we've been doing, answering the fire with fire, is, in my opinion, one of the best ways of letting people know that if they want to test our resolve, they're not going to find it wanting.

LEHRER: Which way do you think the Pentagon wants to go on this?

Mr. JUREIDINI: It's hard to tell, and I'm really not a spokesman for the Pentagon, but I think really the Marine position at the airport is still, in spite of the casualties, the best position from the point of view of visibility, from the point of view of backing up the Italians, from the point of view of logistics and resupply. I think it is still, from a military and political-military point of view, the best position.

LEHRER: What would the Lebanese government prefer?

Mr. JUREIDINI: I think the Lebanese government is very, very anxious to make sure that we don't incur any more casualties, and I think they would be more than willing to discuss with us and agree, in a sense, to any measure we take which would reduce or avoid casualties among our troops.

LEHRER: Mr. Jureidini, thank you very much.

Mr. JUREIDINI: Thank you.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Two weeks after they walked out of the Euromissile talks, the Soviets today terminated their talks with the U.S. on long-range strategic missiles, but Washington did not consider this another walkout. The START, or strategic arms reduction talks, have been going on for 17 months in Geneva, and were due to recess today anyway for a holiday break. But the two sides met for only 35 minutes at the Soviet Embassy, and a Soviet delegate read a statement saying his side needed to re-examine all the issues in light of the deployment of new American missiles in Europe. For that reason Victor Karpov, the Soviet negotiator, said they were not setting a date for resumption. But the U.S. negotiator, Edward Rowny, did not see the Soviet move as an abandonment of the talks.

Amb. EDWARD ROWNY, U.S. START negotiator: The United States, for its part, is fully prepared to continue the regular pattern of the START negotiations. We have proposed to resume Round 6 in early February, and we hope that the USSR will soon agree on a date for resuming these negotiations which are in the interest of both our nations and of the entire world.

MacNEIL: President Reagan was asked about the breakoff of the START talks as he left the White House to fly to Indianapolis to make a speech. The President appeared to be putting an optimistic face on the situation, saying he didn't believe the Soviets were walking out for good.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: They're pretty carefulabout their choice of words, and all they said in this one was that they were not prepared at this time to set a date for when they would come back. This was a regular adjournment that was scheduled to take place, and the Soviet Union, in departing, simply said that they were not prepared at this time to set a date for resumption of meetings. But I thought also that it might be a pretty good time to state our own position on this and why we are going to continue attempting these negotiations. It was just 30 years ago today, on December 8th, 1953, that President Dwight Eisenhower made a speech on this very subject of nuclear weapons, and in that speech he said, "To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma, to devote its entire heart, mind, to find a way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." And this administration endorses this view completely, and this is what we are dedicated to. Paul Nitze Interview

LEHRER: There have been two sets of nuclear arms talks going on in Geneva, of course, and it's the other one, on medium-range missiles in Europe, that has caused the most rhetorical fireworks. They're called the INF talks, for intermediate nuclear forces, and they've been underway for two years, the point of the exercise being agreement on some balance of nuclear weapons arrayed in Europe by the U.S. and NATO on one side, the Soviets on the other. The U.S. negotiator, Paul Nitze and the Soviet negotiator, Yuli Kvitsinsky have spent hours talking, both formally across tables and informally on walks through Swiss woods and parks. But there was no breakthrough, and two weeks ago, when the new U.S. Pershing II and cruise missiles began arriving in Western Europe, there was a breakoff. Kvitsinsky took a walk, and Soviet officials in Moscow and elsewhere says he isn't coming back until the new U.S. missiles are removed. Ambassador Nitze went from Geneva to see the leaders of various Western European allies to explain what happened at Geneva and why. He's now back in the United States to do the same, and he's with us tonight. Mr. Ambassador, welcome.

PAUL NITZE: It's good to be here.

LEHRER: Do you agree with what Ambassador Rowny and the President said about the significance of today's action in Geneva on the START talks -- nothing to get that worked up about?

Amb. NITZE: I do agree with exactly what they said, and that was, the Soviets put is as merely not setting a date for resumption, which implies that one can later set a date for resumption.

LEHRER: All right, let's talk about the talks you've been involved in, the INF talks. How would you characterize the progress that you all had made there up to the time that the Soviets did in fact walk out?

Amb. NITZE: When we entered the last round of these negotiations three months ago, there were four basic issues. The first was, what would happen to this SS-20, the main missile system in this class, that the Soviets had been deploying in recent years. And what would happen on our side to the Pershing II missiles and the ground-launched cruise missiles, which NATO had decided back in '79 should be deployed as a counter to the Soviets' deployments in the event it was not possible to arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement limiting both the weapons on both sides. Now, that was the central issue that we thought existed between the two sides. The Soviet position was that they should have a largenumber of SS-20s, should maintain a large number of SS-20s in Europe and have no constraints on their deployments in what they call the Asian portion of the USSR. They futher maintained that there should be no U.S. deployments of any kind. In other words, in Europe, that there should be approximately 140 SS-20s on their side and none for the U.S.

LEHRER: No Pershing IIs, no cruise?

Amb. NITZE: No Pershing IIs and no cruise, and further than that, that there should be radical constraints on nuclear-capable aircraft in Europe, of which they have 6,300 and NATO has 800. All our planes are dual-capable, and therefore, to radically constrain them would have undermined the conventional defenses, or the contribution that the U.S. can make to the conventional defense of Europe, as a byproduct of this kind of an agreement.

LEHRER: All right. So that's where you started in this last round. Now, where did you end two weeks ago?

Amb. NITZE: Well, let me begin with the last part of it first, and that is the radical controls on aircraft. Up to the last month, last three months, the U.S. position has remained constant, that we thought it was wrong to try to control these dual-capable aircraft in this kind of a negotiation, and that we just complicate the thing, and it wasn't necessary. These negotiations had arisen because they had deployed the SS-20s, and NATO had decided it must, in the absence an agreement, to counter those.Yet, in order to progress on this, the President, on September 22nd, said that we would consider -- we would be willing to have controls on specific types of longer-range aircraft, nuclear-capable aircraft, provided the Soviets would agree to that. So that this was a concession made by the President in order to advance the negotiations. On October 27th, Mr. Andropov came forward with a somewhat similar proposal, not quite the same with respect to aircraft, so that by the end of this round it had looked as though the question of aircraft would no longer be a bar to an agreement. With respect to the next to last, the third issue, with respect to geographic constraints, the scope of the negotiations, where the Soviets claimed they should be limited to Europe and we thought they should cover all systems with given capability.

LEHRER: Including the ones in the Asian section?

Amb. NITZE: Including the ones in the Asian section. There, on September 27th, President Reagan offered a way forward to working out a negotiable compromise on that issue, that we would be prepared to work out with the Soviet side a specific limit on the number of systems that we would deploy in Europe within a global total, which in effect resulted in separate totals in Europe and separate totals in the Far East. On October 27th, Mr. Andropov came forward also with a move designed to make this issue negotiable, and that was that they would halt further deployments in the Asian portion of the Soviet Union when a treaty dealing with European systems entered into the force, and at least this was a move on their side to make that issue negotiable. We never got as close to a solution on that issue as we did on the aircraft issue, and it was my view that had the negotiations continued we would have been able to work out that third issue. Now that left the second issue, which was the Soviet justification for a one-sided result on the first issue. In other words --

LEHRER: SS-20s versus the Pershing IIs and cruise?

Amb. NITZE: Yes. In other words, in order to have a justification for their demand for around 140 SS-20s in Europe and an equal number, roughly, in the Far East, they claimed they needed compensation for British and French SLBM systems, which are identical with our SLBMs, our submarine-based missiles, and the Russian submarine-based missiles. They really are exactly identical in their characteristics with these Soviet and U.S. systems, which are the subject of START negotiations. They shouldn't be in these discussions about intermediate-range systems, or, as the Russians call them, medium-range systems, at all. They're not medium-range or intermediate-range systems. But this was the -- this was a rationale for an unequal outcome in the field of the SS-20s versus the Pershing IIs and GLCM. But on October 26th, Ambassador Kvitsinsky came to me at a dinner party at our house, at our apartment, and he said, "Why don't you look into the idea of equal reductions on both sides?" and I said, "Well, we've been over this once before, and you told me there was nothing in this that was of interest to your people in Moscow." He said, "But this is a little different. This would result in a reduction on our side to 120 rather than the 140," which Mr. Andropov was proposing on the same day. And it would also eliminate, at least for the time being, the problem of compensation for the British and French because the rationale, the justification, would be equal reductions on both sides, and not compensation for the British and French. And that would be a great advance. So it looked as though this second issue of compensation for British and French forces would -- could be eliminated and a different rationale substituted. And that left only the issue of what balance should there be between Soviet deployments of SS-20s on the Soviet side, and our Pershing IIs and ground-launched cruise missiles on the U.S. side. And it was just as we'd gotten the negotiations to a point where we'd reduced the difference between us to one single issue, basically, not that we weren't wholly agreed on the other issues, and we were close enough to agreement so that you could see that one could weave through those if one could lick the central issue.

LEHRER: And you think if they hadn't left you could have made it?

Amb. NITZE: If they'd been willing to stay on and continued to negotiate I think that the chances were very real that we could have moved toward a mutually acceptable agreement. At that point they walked out.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: So that the breakup of the talks really had nothing to do with progress or lack of progress you were making -- it was the decision in Moscow, based on the deployment of the first missiles in Europe?

Amb. NITZE: The Soviet position basically was that they would not -- they did not wish to sanction, as they called it -- bless -- any U.S. deployments in Europe. And the reason for that, as Kvitsinsky explained it to me, was that their friends and associates in Europe had been demanding that there be no U.S. deployments in Europe, and for them to enter into an agreement, which would have permitted even the deployment of a single U.S. missile, would be to bless that deployment and to undercut their friends and associates in Western Europe.

MacNEIL: Now, Mr. Ambassador, the Western governments, particularly the United States, have expressed many times confidence that the Soviets will come back. The Soviets said last week at the press conference, the press conference of three top officials, that that was wishful thinking, that it was fantasy to think so. What is the feeling in your own gut about whether they're going to come back to these talks?

Amb. NITZE: Well, if you look back at what has happened over the last year, it was last fall, more than a year ago, that they began to say that in the absence of an agreement which would provided for no U.S. deployments in Europe and which would provide for large Soviet deployments, then they would break off the talks. They would break off the talks as soon as delivery of U.S. missiles was sanctioned by the NATO governments and actually took place. So that they've been making this threat that they would walk out of the talks if the NATO parliaments supported deployment and the U.S. government went forward with deployment. Having made those threats over a period of a year, they were really -- would have been in an embarrassing position if they hadn't done something. You can't be in the business of bringing pressure, which the Soviet government often does, on countries by threatening to take this action or that action unless the other nations follow their will -- you know, you can't be in that business and then back away from this sort of a thing as though nothing had happened. At least you can't do it often.

MacNEIL: Well, you're saying that the Soviets have done what they said they would do. Now, are they going to continue doing that and not return to the talks until the U.S. removes the missiles or agrees to reverse the situation?

Amb. NITZE: It's very hard to predict exactly what the Soviets will do. In 1979, when the NATO countries together took the decision to ask the United States to deploy these weapon systems in Europe.At that time, Mr. Brezhnev said that, "If the NATO countries make this decision, why then we will not agree to any negotiations. We refuse to negotiate if you've made that decision." Well, within six months they said, "Well, we've rethought the problem, and we will negotiate." So that it is possible for the Soviet Union, and they often do reconsider, after the factual situation has changed, and do what they've said they wouldn't do. But they're not apt to do it right away. I really think it would take some time before they will come back.

MacNEIL: You've just toured the European countries after the breakdown of the talks. Do you think the Soviets have yet given up their campaign to undermine -- their campaign with European public opinion -- to undermine the NATO decision? Do you think they've given up that attempt yet?

Amb. NITZE: Certainly not. The whole basis of their decision to walk out -- I think they made the decision to walk out in the absence of an agreement which would be zero for us and a large number for them. I think they made that decision some 16 months ago. Their behavior in the entire period since that time has been consistent with their having made such a decision and then having -- then devoting themselves to putting the blame on the United States, or trying to put the blame on the United States for the failure of the talks.

MacNEIL: The NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels today considered and rejected a slow-down in the deployment of the missiles, stretching it out further, slowing down. They rejected that. Do you think that that rejection, when it sinks in, is what's going to bring the Soviets back to the table ultimately? Do you have confidence in that?

Amb. NITZE: Well, I was pleasantly surprised when I went around to see the various NATO governments after the breakdown of the talks, or the Soviets' unilateral withdrawal from the talks.As to the unanimity of opinion that the deployment schedule should continue unchanged, I think they feel that itwould be a mistake under these circumstances to change the deployment schedule at this time.

MacNEIL: And even among those NATO countries whose parliaments have not yet finally ratified the deployment? I'm thinking of the Dutch and the Danes, I believe, who have not yet finally come to the decision to go the next step?

Amb. NITZE: No, I think the Danes are not amongst the countries on whose territory any of these missiles were ever planned for deployment.

MacNEIL: I'm sorry, that's my mistake.

Amb. NITZE: And they have been quite uniform in their opinion since then that they would not want to see any -- they don't want to see NATO deployments at all. They've had this position for a long period of time.

MacNEIL: But the Dutch have not yet confirmed deployment, is that not true?

Amb. NITZE: That is true. I think the -- well, they have a complicated political situation and they have not yet confirmed it.

MacNEIL: But is it your hunch, on the knowledge you've gained of dealing with the Russians, is it your hunch that it is the determination of NATO to go ahead with deployment and no pause that is going to bring the Russians back to the table?

Amb. NITZE: Well, there's another factor, obviously, and that is, what is the state of public opinion in all these countries, because after all, the NATO governments are all democratic governments, they are responsive to public opinion in their countries. I think the extraordinary thing is that even though many, if not most, NATO people would prefer not to have nuclear weapons on their territory, which is similar to the view of most Americans -- they would prefer not to have nuclear weapons. Still, the NATO people elect governments that they have confidence will look out for their security in a serious way. So that even though many of the Germans would prefer not to have NATO have nuclear weapons on their territory, still they elect the Kohl government which they knew was committed to support of this NATO decision.

MacNEIL: You say --

Amb. NITZE: The same is true in Italy. After all, Mr. Craxi has taken as strong a position here, and Mr. Craxi is a Socialist, a new leader of the government in Italy, when he's taken as firm a position as any of the other governments.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Ambassador, you say European public opinion is another factor to consider. Can NATO governments and the United States relax and not worry that western European public opinion may erode as the months go by and these talks don't resume and more missiles come in?

Amb. NITZE: No one can ever relax in this business. One must always take seriously what is going to and do the intelligent thing from time to time, the things that will in fact strengthen the alliance and will make deterrence adequately solid, which will preserve both the security of the countries involved in the alliance and at the same time will avoid a nuclear war as best we possibly can.

MacNEIL: So are you recommending that the United States now just sit tight and make no different gesture, no further modification of position in public or anything? What -- is that what you're recommending? That we just let the work of the deployment of the missiles have its effect on the Kremlin?

Amb. NITZE: That's not correct. I think we ought to examine all the options that are available. What I am saying is I think it would be unwise to make concessions to the Soviet Union which spring from their unilaterally having torpedoed these negotiations which were making progress. After all, we sat still there and negotiated for two years while they were deploying SS-20s at the rate of one a week. Now, here we begin small counterdeployments to those SS-20s which have reached larger numbers. And the moment we deploy the first one, before they've become even operational, the Soviets torpedo the negotiations and walk out. Now, that -- you can't reward them for that by unilateral concessions, at least we shouldn't.

MacNEIL: Your walk in the woods and then later in the park with Mr. Kvitsinsky have become quite celebrated. As you sit here this evening are you confident that you're going to be taking another stroll with Mr. Kvitsinsky some time in the next year or so?

Amb. NITZE: I'm not confident about anything in the future, but the important thing is, what is it one tries to do? I think we should try to get the negotiations going again, but on a sound basis and not on the basis of unilateral concessions on the part of the West.

MacNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for joining us. Jim?

LEHRER: Today in San Francisco, national Democratic Chairman Charles Manatt gave a preview of what may become the foreign policy plank for Democrats in 1984. The speech, delivered before the World Affairs Council of northern California, outlined five strategic goals for achieving peace in the world. Chairman Manatt reaffirmed the Democratic party's commitment to a mutual and verifiable nuclear freeze, upheld the congressional use of the War Powers Act, and called for a recommitment to international human rights. In addition, Manatt supported a 4% annual increase in defense spending and blamed the Reagan administration and its deficits for a mounting instability in the world economy. However, his sharpest attack against the administration was leveled at the President's handling of the continuing crises in the Middle East and Latin America.

CHARLES MANATT, chairman, Democratic National Committee: Our unequivocal support for Israel is based upon a common democratic tradition that we share. No democracy deserves our support and no democracy will be more assured of our support than the state of Israel. Peace in the Middle East depends vitally on the future of Lebanon and Americans are dedicated to the achievement of that peace. But Americans are not prepared to see brave Marines made into defenseless targets by warring factions in the country of Israel -- country of Lebanon. No purpose for peace can possibly be served by a needless exposure of our Marines to that constant threat of death. If there is a purpose for American armed forces in achieving peace in the Middle East, this administration has failed to make that case, has failed to state that mission, and must be held accountable accordingly. Americans, as all of us, should serve notice on this administration that we will not promote, nor will we tolerate their promoting the overthrow of established governments. If this administration persists in a plan to force the overthrow of any government, especially in Central America, the American people will repudiate such an act as a violation of democracy.

MacNEIL: From American politics to Argentine politics. The State Department said today that Argentina had made significant progress in human rights and had therefore met congressional requirements for resumption of American military assistance. During the Carter administration, Congress barred military aid to Argentina's military government because of widespread abuses of human rights. Thousands of Argentine citizens disappeared in the military's war against leftists. Most of them remain unaccounted for. But Argentina has returned to constitutional rule, and will inaugurate its newly-elected president, Raul Alfonsin, this weekend. Vice President George Bush will head the U.S. delegation. Another guest will be former president, Isabel Peron, who left Madrid for Buenos Aires tonight after seven years in exile. At the State Department, spokesman Alan Romberg said that in considering any requests for arms, the United States would take into account its desire for a power balance. Argentina has a territorial dispute with Chile, and its conflict with Britain over the Falkland Islands is still unresolved, 18 months after the two countries went to war over the issue.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Cade's Cove, Tennessee]

LEHRER: In Miami today the leaders of the pilots, machinists and flight attendants' unions approved a $360-million deal to help Eastern Airlines solve its financial problems. They would divert between 18 and 22 percent of their pay into a program to acquire Eastern Airlines stock.In exchange, they would be given control of 25% of the common stock and four seats on the board of directors. The unions also agreed to cooperate with management on new work rules. Now the plan will be submitted to the rank and file union members and to the non-union employees.

And President Reagan did go to Indianapolis today to make a speech on education. He told some 2,300 educators and others attending a national forum on excellence in education that good old-fashioned discipline must be returned to the classroom. He also called for an end to drug and alcohol abuse, for efforts of raise academic standards, and for a renewed emphasis on basic courses like math and science. Mr. Reagan used the occasion to announce a new awards program to honor outstanding students, to be called the President's academic fitness awards, and to reiterate his support for prayer in public schools. But for those who believe more federal money is the answer to improving the schools, he had this to say.

Pres. REAGAN: Now, some insist there is only one answer -- more money. But that's been tried. Total expenditures in our nation's schools this year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, will total $230 billion. Now, that's up almost 7% from last year, about double the rate of inflation -- more than double the rate of inflation, and more than double what we spent on education just 10 years ago. So if money alone were the answer, the problem would have been shrinking, not growing.

LEHRER: Mr. Reagan's words met a mixed reaction, some of the harshest coming from Mary Futrell, president of the National Education Association, a nationwide teachers union. She said he turned the forum into a charade. He told everyone what they could do for their country, and he told them their country would do nothing to help them get it done. Robin? Third World Children and Hunger

MacNEIL: While Americans are deeply concerned about the education their children are getting, the worry for children in many countries is simply food -- avoiding starvation. The United Nations Childrens Fund, UNICEF, said today that some 40,000 children die of malnutrition in Third World countries every day. A UNICEF report said that half of them could be saved by new, inexpensive means if governments had the political will to adopt them. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more on the UNICEF report and what it means. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: UNICEF's report spelled out the devastating effect that disease, malnutrition and hunger has had on children in the past year. During that time, some 15 million children in the Third World have died from one of those causes. That's the equivalent of all the children in the United States under five years old. During that year, UNICEF waged a campaign to do something about the problem, and today, at news conferences in Brussels, New York and Washington, agency officials reported on their findings.

RICHARD JOLLY, deputy executive director, UNICEF: UNICEF sees this as what we call the silent emergency. So quiet and insidious that it very easily gets forgotten. But the message of this report is that these things need not be forgotten, and they need not be accepted.There is the potential for a child health revolution within the grasp of all countries at the moment of only these actions are taken.

HUNTER-GAULT: The report also described the success rates of four low-cost techniques, which it says could bring about a children's revolution and save millions of lives.

[voice-over] The program is called G -- O -- B -- I, or GOBI. The G stands for growth chart, a small chart which uses a color diagram to show a child's weight gain.Charting an infant's growth is one key way of spotting malnutrition early. The O phase is perhaps the most important, but one of the simplest aspects of the program. It stands for oral rehydration. All it involves is adding sugar and salt to water to create a glucose solution that goes down easily. This remedy stops the dehydration caused by diarrhea, which kills an estimated five million infants each year.The formula restores fluids to the system; it is being successfully applied in 34 nations.

The most controversial part of the plan is the push to resume breast feeding instead of using bottle formula. UNICEF officials are among those who argue that breast feeding provides nutrition and natural immunization benefits not present in bottled formula. The I is for immunization. UNICEF estimates that for $5 per child, children could be immunized against most of the major childhood killers.

[on camera] For more on the prospects and problems of combatting infant and child mortality, we talk to one of the principals involved in the UNICEF report. He is Richard Jolly, whom you just saw on the tape, deputy executive director for programs at UNICEF. Mr. Jolly, if your solutions are so simple, why are so many children still dying?

Dr. JOLLY: Well, they're not simple in application. They are simple in essence, and they are proven. But the problem, of course, is to get them widely applied, which is a question of getting them known, not only known by health workers, but known by mothers, known by communities and the support given in a community so that they're really applied universally. That's our goal.

HUNTER-GAULT: You said that these techniques, if applied, could cut the infant mortality rate in half. What will it take to do that?

Dr. JOLLY: Well, commitment from many of the different parties who ought to be part of the partnership to achieve this goal. Governments, in providing support through the ministries of health; international aid agencies; as I've mentioned, mothers -- families themselves; but also, all sorts of community groups. One of the encouraging things over the last year is new support and awareness from groups such as the Boy Scouts, the League of Red Cross Societies, the churches. Church groups and church organizations in many countries are realizing that they have contacts with the community at the grass roots level, and that they can get across these basic health messages and help them be applied not just in the ones and twos or the hundreds but for everyone.

HUNTER-GAULT: Has there been a problem with commitment of will to do this with any of the governments or with any of the agencies involved?

Dr. JOLLY: Well, many governments certainly don't give the priority to the basic needs of their populations, let alone the children, that we know is needed.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are there any that stand out particularly where the problems are particularly extreme?

Dr. JOLLY: Well, I'd prefer to put the emphasis on what has happened over the last year. That partly because of the low cost, partly because of the new possibilities, by using mass media, for example, radio/television, to get these messages across, many more governments, many more ministries of health, many other groups are responding than was so a year ago, let alone five or 10 years ago.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, many of these countries that we're talking about here -- Third World countries -- are suffering with severe economic problems. Can they afford even the low-cost program?

Dr. JOLLY: They can afford it, but I think also there is a role for international support. I don't think many people in this country are aware of the impact of recession on families and children in many parts of the world. This report issued by UNICEF today shows a sort of reverse shock-absorber effect has been operating in the world economy so that the rise in interest rates, the downturn in world trade, some of the economic problems in the industrial countries, when they reach the developing countries have a multiplied effect, and even more so when the impact reaches the rural areas or the poorer families in these countries. Now, that is presenting a very real problem, particularly for countries in Latin America, particularly for many communities in Africa.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what do you do about that?

Dr. JOLLY: Well, there's things, again, for all parts of this partnership to do. I think the international agencies, I think international governments have a role to play, and I am pleased to say that over the last year the United States government and other governments have rallied to realize that if they use more of their aid budgets and sustain their aid budgets they can do things, but there must be things, of course, many things in developing countries, too.

HUNTER-GAULT: What are some of the other problems that you face in trying to get this program implemented?

Dr. JOLLY: Well, ultimately, one must think, almost imagine oneself as a mother or as a family with limited resources, often poor families, trying to adopt some of these practices. First, breast feeding. Breast feeding is vitally important, as research shows, but there must be family support; there must be support from the employer to make it possible for a mother to breast feed. It's not fair to say it costs nothing, therefore the mother must do it.Often the mother goes out to work; often she desperately needs to make a little money for her family.

HUNTER-GAULT: Don't you also run up against tradition in the case of breast feeding?

Dr. JOLLY: Much less so with breast feeding. Breast feeding is traditionally the way all children were fed for the first few months of life.

HUNTER-GAULT: But in recent years so many mothers have switched to infant formula and so on --

Dr. JOLLY: I wouldn't call that tradition. I would often --

HUNTER-GAULT: The new tradition.

Dr. JOLLY: -- call that -- a new tradition, and often heavy promotion. But let me say here is something where there is a positive swing back towards breast feeding in the United States, in many industrial countries, and that's just like the idea of blue jeans spreads across the world, so also what is the latest practice, and here, if it's breast feeding, that also has an important influence in developing countries.

HUNTER-GAULT: Does the obstacle of remoteness -- because many of these people live in remote areas, does that present much of an obstacle to getting this program going?

Dr. JOLLY: Major problem. Major problem. Particularly at the time of recession, where the shortage of gasoline, the shortage of recurrent expenditures for health service is a major problem. But at the same time the media -- radio, television -- reaches now almost all corners of a country, and if we can get basic health measures put across in various ways through these, the radio, one can avoid some of the constraints.

HUNTER-GAULT: I gather from everything that you said that you're very optimistic about the possibility of this children's revolution that you've talked about. And I don't want to end on a note of pessimism, but what will happen if this program is not implemented in these countries?

Dr. JOLLY: I think if they're not implemented, many children will suffer, many unnecessarily. But I think the world also suffers, both in terms of conscience and in terms of stability. There are many analysts who say that the economic problems, the human problems of the Third World create more instability than the threat of the East-West conflict. That is my own personal position. If we can show that there is a partnership North-South to cope with these basic problems of people, I think one would find the world was a much safer place for us all.

HUNTER-GAULT: Thank you, Mr. Jolly.

Dr. JOLLY: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Robin?

MacNEIL: As we mentioned at the top of the program, the space shuttle Columbia landed safely tonight at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The six crew members, who spent the last 10 1/2 days in space, left the shuttle about 30 minutes after landing.

[voice-over] For some of them their mission isn't over yet. The four crew members who performed experiments in the Spacelab aboard the shuttle now head for a week of medical tests to asses how their bodies reacted to the rigors of space. Only the shuttle's commander and pilot, John Young and Brewster Shaw, can go home right away.

LEHRER: There are some other news items worth a brief mention before we go tonight. In Madrid, Spanish officials say the lack of signal lights and ground radar contributed to the collision of two airliners on an airport runway yesterday. Ninety-two persons died in that tragedy. From Montreal there is a report navigational error caused Korean Air Lines Flight 7 to stray over the Soviet Union last September. The plane was shot down by Soviet fighters, and 269 people died. The Canadina Broadcasting corporation says an upcoming report from the United Nations aviation agency concludes a navigation computer was programmed with the wrong starting point.

In Geneva, OPEC oil ministers broke two days of deadlocked negotiations and went along with Saudi Arabia, agreeing to maintain current production levels and the $29-a-barrel price.

And, in Moscow, Western diplomats say they have seen Soviet leader Yuri Andropov entering and leaving the Kremlin in his limousine. Normally that wouldn't be very important, but as you know, Andropov has not been seen in public since August, and there has been speculation that he is seriously, if not fatally, ill.

Again, the top stories of the day were the Soviets recess of the strategic arms talks in Geneva without setting a resumption date, and a new attack on the Marines in Beirut accompanied by a reaffirmation they will stay there with the rest of the multinational force, but maybe in a safer place than the Beirut airport. And, as we just heard, the shuttle has landed.

Good night, Robin.

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