The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, Poland's Solidarity Union was legalized, a move that will end the Communist monopoly of power. U.S. Customs seized a Jamaican airliner after finding two tons of marijuana on board, President Bush widened the ban on imports of assault weapons on all brands. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we go first to Poland and the new status for Solidarity. Joining us with analysis are experts Andrew Nagorski and Klements Szaniawski. Next, the Gorbachev visit to Cuba. We get a briefing on what it all meant from scholar Jiri Valenta, and we wrap up with Kwame Holman's documentary report on the dilemmas facing courts and medical experts when one parent charges another with sexually abusing their child. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The Polish Government and opposition Solidarity leaders signed an agreement today legalizing their union, allowing opposition members to run for office and ending the Communist Party monopoly on power. Solidarity leader Lech Walesa called the move a new stage on the move to democracy. In exchange for legalization and the right to contest elections, Solidarity has agreed to discourage strikes and try to hold down popular unrest, while the government attempts to deal with economic problems. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Washington, U.S. officials said today they were disappointed with Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev's speech yesterday in Cuba. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Gorbachev did not reflect any new thinking, nor any real leadership in terms of Soviet policy towards Central America. Fitzwater said the U.S. continues to call on the Soviets to cut in half their annual billion dollars in military aid to Nicaragua. The White House reaction came within hours after Gorbachev's departure from Havanna, which he left this morning headed for a visit to Great Britain. In yesterday's address to the Cuban National Assembly, the Soviet leader denounced the recent U.S. agreement to continue to provide aid to the rebels opposing the Nicaraguan Government. On another front, the Bush administration today confirmed a report in the New York Times that the Soviet Union has sold Libya advanced bombers. The bomber is the SU 24, which has an 800 mile range capable of reaching Israel. An administration source told the Reuters wire service today that U.S. officials were troubled, given past indications by Gorbachev that he wanted to cool trouble spots around the world.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. Customs Service today fined Air Jamaica $28 million and seized a plane after finding nearly two tons of marijuana on board. The aircraft was impounded in Miami after a flight from Montego Bay. Thirty-five hundred pounds of marijuana was found in a shipment of clothing. Three passengers on another Air Jamaica flight were arrested for carrying sixty pounds of marijuana. Airlines are fined $500 for every ounce of marijuana found on board a plane and $28 million is the largest such fine ever imposed. A Customs Service official in Miami had stern words for Air Jamaica.

GEORGE HEAVEY, U.S. Customs Service: Customs is very concerned that despite the rhetoric and the propaganda that we've been receiving from Air Jamaica that the security procedures are nearly and almost totally ineffective. We've got to do more to stop the use of Air Jamaica aircraft in conveyances to smuggle marijuana.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush today expanded the ban he imposed earlier on assault weapons imported into the U.S. to include all types of those weapons. His initial ban covered 80 percent of foreign made rapid fire weapons, but when sales of the remaining 20 percent soared, the administration decided to prohibit all such imports. Also today, Mr. Bush unveiled his $441 million package to improve education in this country. Promising to take action to make excellence in education a classroom reality, the President described several initiatives, including rewarding outstanding schools, teachers and science scholars. At a Rose Garden ceremony, Mr. Bush acknowledged that sources are scarce, but said the federal government has a responsibility to fulfill.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Money is tight and we wish that money was available to spend on all levels of education. I'm the one who recognizes the federal role, and I think I've got it properly in my mind that the states and local governments and private institutions across the country bear the significant responsibility, but the federal government has a role.

MR. MacNeil: The captain of the tanker Exxon Valdez, which caused the Alaska oil spill, surrendered to the law today and was held on a million dollars bail. Joseph Hazelwood was fired by Exxon after tests showed he was legally drunk at the time his ship ran aground. He's been in hiding since the accident but gave himself up in Hapawg, New York. In setting bail, the judge called the incident an "economic Hiroshima" in Alaska. Prosecutors had asked for only $25,000 in bail, but the judge said, "I want enough bail to ensure he's present for all appearances." A hearing will be held next month on whether Hazelwood should be extradicted to Alaska.

MS. WOODRUFF: The son of Chicago's longtime political boss, Richard J. Daley, today celebrated his victory in yesterday's Mayor's race there. Forty-six year old Richard M. Daley said after an election that bitterly divided many of the city's blacks and whites the city hall's doors would remain open to all citizens. His win ended six years of black control of Chicago's government.

MR. MacNeil: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir arrived in Washington today for talks with the Bush administration. He follows Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Shamir had talks with Secretary of States James Baker today and will see President Bush tomorrow. After strong statements against concessions on his way here, Mr. Shamir sounded conciliatory today.

YITZHAK SHAMIR, Prime Minister, Israel: We have discussed many problems in the spirit of the very friendly relationship existing between our two countries, including the cooperation in many fields, and I would say the most important problem we would like to work on it together is the problem of peace in our area and we have discussed together about some ways to solve the problems related to the conflict between Israel and the Arab world, including Arab countries and the Palestinians.

MR. MacNeil: In the Israeli occupied territories, authorities freed 474 Palestinian prisoners. We have a report by David Simmons of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SIMMONS: The convoy of buses took the prisoner from Maguido Jail in Northern Israel back to the occupied territories. The bus load was bound for the Gaza Strip. Israeli troops were waiting. The freeing of the prisoners is described as a good will gesture, but the mass release also coincides with Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's visit to Washington for Middle East peace talks. The Palestinians were given a final lecture. Most had been detained for stone throwing or were accused of inciting disturbances against Israeli forces. But finally they were dropped off in Gaza City, where friends and relatives were waiting to welcome them back. About 10,000 Palestinians are still believed to be held in connection with the uprising against Israeli occupation.

MR. MacNeil: The Israeli administrator of the release program told reporters, "We have managed to pacify the area and bring it back to normality," but there were clashes in the Gaza strip today and several young Palestinians were wounded.

MS. WOODRUFF: Vietnam surprised many international observers today with an announcement that it will withdraw its troops from Cambodia by the end of September. If the pullout of some 70,000 soldiers takes place on time, it will be nearly 11 years after Vietnam's invasion. The invasion ended the brutal Khmers Rouge regime in Cambodia, but it started a civil war.

MR. MacNeil: In Haiti, the government declared a state of emergency today just three days after a failed coup attempt by dissident soldiers. There was heavy gun fire near the Presidential palace overnight, and earlier today, an army unit that stayed neutral in Sunday's coup attempt went on the radio to call for the ouster of Haiti's leader, Lt. Gen. Prosper Avril who himself took over in a coup six months ago.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead, Solidarity's historic step forward, Gorbachev's visit to Cuba, and one parent accusing another of child abuse. FOCUS - SOLIDARITY FOREVER

MS. WOODRUFF: Our lead story tonight is Poland and its steps toward what could be a freer society. Breaking the rigid control the Communists have had over that country since World War II, the government and the trade union Solidarity agreed to a set of reforms that would legalize the union and open up elections in the parliament. In a moment, we'll discuss the implications of this historic agreement with a Solidarity official who helped negotiate the accord and a journalist who has covered Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but first some background. It was the country's economic problems and labor unrest that triggered the government's Solidarity talks that led to today's agreement. Last spring, workers at several major steel and machine plants went on strike because of inflation rates that had reached 200 percent on some consumer goods. The strikers demanded salary increases to keep up with inflation, as well as a legalization of Solidarity. The strikes ended two weeks later without any concessions from the government. Solidarity's leader Lech Walesa had helped convince workers to return to work, but he told them it was a truce, not a defeat. The truce ended three months later in August, with strikes by coal miners in Southern Poland. With the leadership of Solidarity, the strike spread to other major industries. The government responded by increasing the number of riot police around the striking plants and arresting some Solidarity organizers, but after a two week impasse, the government agreed to meet with Walesa. They told him they would consider legalizing his union if the strikes ended. Walesa came out of that meeting and urged all strikers to return to work. Thousands of strikers followed him, but it took several more days of persistent pleas from Walesa to convince thousands of more militant, younger workers to go back to work. The government kept its promise to Walesa and began roundtable talks with him this February. Those talks culminated in today's agreement. Now two perspectives on that agreement. Klements Szaniawski is a Solidarity leader who participated in the roundtable negotiations which paved the way for today's deal. He is a professor of philosophy at the University of Warsaw, now on leave at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank. Joining him is Andrew Nagorski, an American journalist who served as Eastern European bureau chief for Newsweek Magazine from 1985 until last year. He is now a senior associate in Eastern European affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Gentlemen, why did this agreement happen at all? Why aren't Solidarity and the Polish Government still at each other's throats? Mr. Nagorski.

ANDREW NAGORSKI, Journalist: The basic reason is that both sides feared a social explosion. This situation has been simmering for years. There were new rounds of strikes in 1988 and then early this year and the government I think realized that if it did not finally meet with the same people it threw into ail in late 1981, it would have an explosion on his hand, an anarchic situation and something that nobody would appreciate either in the East or the West, neither Mr. Gorbachev nor the United States and the Western regions.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Szaniawski, is that why it happened?

KLEMENTS SZANIAWSKI, Solidarity Negotiator: Yes, I would quite agree with that description of the situation. My impression is that this is a kind of a paradox, a paradoxical situation we are in. The thing that is happening today, that is, the signing of the agreement, is of a primary importance for Poland and is a very good event and the paradox consisting of the fact that this is due to something that is very bad to a very threatening situation which Mr. Nagorski had just described in a very few words.

MS. WOODRUFF: A worsening situation?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: A worsening, that's quite correct.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why did Moscow let this happen, or did they really have any say in this one way or the other?

MR. NAGORSKI: I think Gorbachev does not want to see Poland break loose, there's no doubt about that, but at the same time the last thing he wants to see is a crisis in Eastern Europe that will demand some sort of action on his part to either save a regime facing a popular revolt, or else letting it develop into a hungry type situation in 1956. So I think he said, look, do something to the Poles to bring about, to give us some breathing space, and if it means some compromising on some issues that we would prefer not to compromise on, we'll go ahead.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let's talk about what this agreement really means. Mr. Szaniawski, what does this mean that Solidarity will now be able to do that it could not do before?

KLEMENTS SZANIAWSKI, Solidarity Negotiator: First of all, and this is I think the most important aspect of the agreement, Solidarity's back, officially back on the political stage in Poland. Solidarity will from that moment on be a party to any kind of decision, important decision, I mean that will concern Poland. From now on, we are back to normality in the sense that whatever problems may arise by some kind of agreement, some kind of consensus, instead of an arbitrary decision.

MS. WOODRUFF: What does that mean, Mr. Nagorski, in practical terms? Does it mean that there is now more than one political party in Poland?

MR. NAGORSKI: I think there is. There has been for some time, but it's institutionalized, but there's a down side on this for Solidarity as well, because it will now be seen as a de facto coalition partner for the government and it will also have to take responsibility for some of the economic problems of the country, and there will be people and there already are people who are saying why are they compromising, why are they collaborating with a regime that has betrayed us before, so they've go to play, it's going to be a very difficult political game for both sides to make the best of this arrangement.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now, precisely, this means Solidarity members will be able to run for seats in Parliament, is that correct? Will they be able to run for higher government office as well? Do we know that?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: That's not too simple. Solidarity will not emerge as a political party, although as Mr. Nagorski has just said --

MS. WOODRUFF: It will not emerge as a party you're saying?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: It will not emerge as a party, although it has been for quite some time forced to play that role and I think that this kind of activity will not stop immediately because it can't be stopped overnight.

MS. WOODRUFF: What sort of activity?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: Activity which is not precisely trade union activity, some political activity on a nationwide scale, and while Solidarity as such will certainly not run, prevent people for running for the elections, in the elections, in fact, for the seats in Parliament, in fact, Solidarity will support the elections on the basis which has been negotiated now, which changed the rule for electing members of Parliament and the higher house which will be created now.

MS. WOODRUFF: Can you explain in a nut shell, Mr. Nagorski, exactly how Solidarity will play a larger role in the government?

MR. NAGORSKI: Well, I think first of all they may not be a formal political party but everyone will know which candidates are Solidarity backed candidates, so as a movement rather than a formal political party, their input will be immense, and this is an arrangement, a one time arrangment that the government has a majority in the lower house of Parliament, they will get 65 percent of the seats the first time around, and an upper house will be freely elected, but they will have very limited powers, but this will give a wedge into the system for Solidarity importers to really have an impact.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, that was my next question. If Solidarity doesn't hope to have a majority in running the government, how can they make a difference then?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: Well, the difference will be in the very fact that people who represent, de facto represent Solidarity in the Parliament, will be able to publicly express a view in Parliament, and this will carry certain weight no matter what the result of voting on whatever issues will be voted on will be. So the very fact of a participation is something --

MS. WOODRUFF: He'll be able to participate and to argue --

MR. SZANIAWSKI: -- influencing public opinion, that is something very important to my mind. That is one of the things. Another aspect is that we don't consider the present state of things to be final. We consider this as a step towards Parliamentary democracy in Poland.

MS. WOODRUFF: You do, you consider this a step towards democracy?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: That's my opinion, that this is a step in the right direction. How far we shall be able to go in that direction remains to be seen, but the direction is right.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that an optimistic view, Mr. Nagorski?

ANDREW NAGORSKI, Journalist: No. I think that's a measured view because there are things that can go wrong. We can still have a social crisis if after this agreement has been in place for a while, it's seen as being ineffective or it's seen as being sabotaged by people for instance within the government who perhaps were opposed to this agreement from the very beginning. But Solidarity does have a chance to push an agenda and it does have a chance to try to influence the people, even the people who are going to be in the new Parliament who come from the party.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about that agenda? Poland obviously has very serious economic problems. Does Solidarity have some solutions in mind that it's going to be able to push through and implement, and what happens if it can't get those solutions?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: I would say it works somewhat in a round about way in the sense that no matter what kind of problem Solidarity has in this field of economics, what we do need at the moment to improve the economic situation of the country is a cooperation on a nationwide scale. And this can be achieved only with the participation of Solidarity and in this sense, the participation of Solidarity is a necessary condition for success, not a sufficient one unfortunately.

MS. WOODRUFF: So, Mr. Nagorski, it's just the cooperation that's going to satisfy the Polish people, they don't care so much about what the solutions are?

MR. NAGORSKI: No, they care about the solutions. They care that they see this as a process towards a more democratic state and eventually one where the Communist Party can lose, although the Communist Party obviously wants to prevent that from happening and will be fighting a rear guard action, but this is a prerequisite to feeling that they are involved and now you can begin addressing the economic problems. The real tragedy is that this didn't happen a few years ago and then the country would have a better chance of tackling those problems and succeeding.

MS. WOODRUFF: What's the test? What's the first test or early test of whether this is working or not? What do we look for from Poland at this point?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: I think the first year or two years will be crucial from their point of view. I'm not the one to say what should be done first and in the farther away future, but what I do think is that we need, that we need to survive the next few years which will be --

MS. WOODRUFF: Just survive?

MR. SZANIAWSKI: Survive, yes. I mean it quite literally. The standard of living has been deteriorating steadily and it will be, keep that tendency for quite some time. The problem is will society accept that, will society as a whole be patient enough to accept the state for some time yet and then I do hope there will be some improvement.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Nagorski, a final comment, will the Polish people be patient and wait to see if this works?

MR. NAGORSKI: I think some of them will. I think especially younger people are much more prone to be impatient. When I've been there, it's been striking how angry the younger workers are when they're in a situation where they see no hope of having a normal family life, of getting an apartment, of getting enough food on the table, and it's natural that they look to more radical alternatives. But I think there is some breathing space. I think there's respect for Solidarity, I think there's respect for the church, and a feeling that the government now does have its back to the wall and that something good may come of this.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen, we thank you both for being with us. Mr. Szaniawski, Mr. Nagorski, thank you both.

MR. MacNeil: Still to come, Gorbachev's trip to Cuba and America's children at risk. FOCUS - ADIOS AMIGO

MR. MacNeil: Now another part of the Communist world. One of the most publicized state visits in recent memory, Mikhail Gorbachev's trip to Cuba, is over, and the question remains what, if anything, was accomplished when the Soviet leader and Fidel Castro were out of the range of the television cameras. We'll assess that in a moment, but first from Correspondent Charles Krause a report on the visit that attracted so much attention in this country.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The highlight of Gorbachev's visit came yesterday when he and Fidel Castro signed a new 25 year Soviet/Cuban friendship treaty. The treaty underscores Moscow's continued commitment to Cuba despite reports of disagreement and even tension between Gorbachev and Castro. During a speech introducing Gorbachev to Cuba's rubber stamp national assembly yesterday afternoon, Castro addressed the reported tension head on. Describing his private talks with the Soviet leader as excellent, Castro said, "There's no disagreement whatsoever between the two countries." Yet, at the same time, Castro made clear he has no use for Gorbachev's new thinking. "It would be madness," he said, "to introduce glasnost or perestroika to Cuba." According to Castro, each country has to apply its own formulas in the construction of socialism. In response, Gorbachev praised Castro as a legendary hero and said the Soviet Union highly appreciates its friendship with socialist Cuba. But Gorbachev also made clear during the visit he's no longer willing to spend 6 to 8 billion dollars a year subsidizing Cuba's unproductive economy. Economic relations between the two countries, Gorbachev said, should become more dynamic and more effective. On other issues, Gorbachev explicitly rejected when he called doctrines which justified the export of revolution. Some Western analysts interpreted that phrase as a slap at Castro for supporting Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador and elsewhere in Latin America. But Gorbachev was also critical of the United States, denouncing U.S. support for the Contras and U.S. military aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and other countries in Central America. Gorbachev did offer to end Soviet arms shipments to Nicaragua if the United States would also stop sending arms to its allies in the region. At a press conference today in Washington, the author of a Central American Peace Plan, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica said he was disappointed by Gorbachev's speech in Havanna.

PRESIDENT OSCAR ARIAS, Costa Rica: I think he has mentioned that he is prepared not to send any more arms to the Nicaraguan government, but that is not enough. No one talks about cutting the support to the guerrillas in El Salvador. Where do they get the arms from? Not from heaven, so this is what I wanted to hear from Mr. Gorbachev and Fidel Castro, but I suppose we'll have to wait a little bit longer.

MR. KRAUSE: At the State Department today, the United States officially rejected Gorbachev's offer to end Soviet arms shipments to Nicaragua.

RICHARD BOUCHER, State Department: It's not a new proposal. It's something we've heard before.

MR. KRAUSE: Gorbachev left Havanna for London this morning, apparently leaving behind many unresolved issues that have long divided Cuba, the Soviet Union and the United States.

MR. MacNeil: With us now to assess the Gorbachev trip is political scientist Jiri Valenta, Director of the Institute for Soviet and East European Studies at the University of Miami Graduate School of International Studies. He's the author of a forthcoming book on Gorbachev's new thinking and regional conflicts. Mr. Valenta joins us in Miami. What do you think the net effect is of the Gorbachev trip? Does he leave Castro really propped up and reassured or feeling a bit worried and alone?

JIRI VALENTA, University of Miami: Well, I think he's succeeded in presenting himself as a supporter of Cuban revolution, somebody who appreciates revolutionary achievements of Fidel Castro, but at the same time I feel that he left a very strong message that Cuba must change some aspects of his internal foreign policy. As Carlie Krause suggested in his story, a particular issue of new thinking, I believe there is a strong disagreement between Gorbachev and Castro.

MR. MacNeil: Gorbachev in his speech yesterday also said -- and isn't this quite sharp for a Soviet leader to say -- that in their economic relations it's absolutely essential there be more strictness, discipline, undertakings carried out in good time, what's all that about?

MR. VALENTA: I agree with that. I believe that on the issue of perestroika, the message was that Cuba has to straighten out his economy. When he talks about discipline and commitments, et cetera, I think this is a very strong message to be sure to Soviet producers as well, but above all to Castro's irrational management of economic life in Cuba. I think also what was significant in terms of perestroika and foreign debt is that he did not say that Cuba is going to be forgiven all the foreign debts which are of a high magnitude and they have to see it the foreseeable long-term future.

MR. MacNeil: So that was really quite a sharp thing for a Soviet leader to say to Castro in his own national assembly?

MR. VALENTA: Exactly. On the other hand, I think that on the issue of glasnost, the second concept which Castro doesn't like about Soviet reforms, Gorbachev somehow compromised, so at least he did not want to appear as provoking Castro. He did not make references to human rights in Cuba, the unfortunate arrests of dozens of dissidents who wanted to see him and talk to him about the unsatisfactory situation in Cuba. I think on that issue he realized that he should not push for glasnost but rather to concentrate on perestroika, which is essential in Cuba, or some embracement of elements of economic reform, and then above all, as I mentioned earlier, the strongest disagreement came on the issue of new thinking and regional conflicts.

MR. MacNeil: I'll come to that in a moment. Perestroika being restructuring and glasnost being openness.

MR. VALENTA: Openness.

MR. MacNeil: But isn't it quite significant that the most prestigious Communist in the world and in many people's eyes the most charismatic leader around today goes to Cuba, he praises his own system and rethinking and restructuring, he does not praise Castro's in a country where not much has been reported about perestroika by the Cuban media, I mean, isn't that quite -- what is the residual effect of him doing that?

MR. VALENTA: I think that Gorbachev reflects on the policy line of the Soviet press on Cuba in the last few years. They do praise Cuba's heroism and Solidarity with the revolutionary movement in the past, but they believe at this time that Cuba is in big economic troubles. In their analysis they do talk of the difficulty, the word shlasnost, this is the word that is reported dozens of time. There is almost nothing positive said about Cuba at the present time as I see it, when I had conversations with Vice President of Cuba Rodriguez, it was clear to me that to Cuban leadership, perestroika practiced in the Soviet Union is basically a way back to capitalism. They just don't understand how Gorbachev can believe that perestroika will improve socialist way of management of the economy. They truly believe that he's betraying the ideals of Lenin, if you will, and Chegavara.

MR. MacNeil: So do you believe that behind the scenes Gorbachev put it pretty firmly to Castro, the amount of aid, $6 billion a year, that's going to get reduced?

MR. VALENTA: Well, from what I know, Castro and Gorbachev, at least, in public they have very pleasant conversations, in private, it's a different matter. It is true that Gorbachev treats Castro in a special way. He gives him special attention when they meet with the leaders in Moscow, but I think privately when they are just among themselves with the translators, I think there was some tough talk which was reflected in a speech about the need of restructuring at least some elements of Cuban economic management and above all, close cooperation between both countries which would take into account their differences. I cannot imagine that you can have joint ventures between the Soviet Union and Cuba in the long run; as Cuba becomes more war Communist oriented, if you will, Chegavara type country, while the Soviet Union is restructuring itself, becoming more a market oriented economy, it simply would not work, and I think that's the main fear of Mikhail Gorbachev.

MR. MacNeil: Let's turn to Central America. You heard the White House, the State Department and President Arias of Costa Rica say they were all disappointed that Mr. Gorbachev had not gone further, had in the words of the White House today, he didn't reflect any new thinking or any real leadership in terms of Soviet policy towards Central America. What did you detect in what Gorbachev said about Central America?

MR. VALENTA: Well, I disagree. I wonder if Mr. Arias analyzed Gorbachev's speech closely. Obviously, he could have gone further. I agree with that, but at the same time there were elements in his speech which I have to admit even surprised me, particularly when Gorbachev talks about old thinking, about the stereotypes which, of course, I believe he's referring to Castro and his views on revolution and class struggle, which are now in part repudiated by the Soviets. I also think it was very strong when Gorbachev said that we have to make sure that Central America will not become and will not stay a region of sharp East/West conflict. He's basically saying that East/West conflict affected Nicaragua, that Nicaragua was part of it. That's a complete reversal of the position which Castro has, there is basically no self-conflict and the U.S. is interfering. He's admitting, indeed, that the Soviet military aid was an influential factor in that conflict. That's the line which I detected in Soviet press in the last several weeks. I think that these changes in tone at least are significant. I believe that he is signaling Gorbachev that he is willing to discuss Nicaragua and perhaps even respond eventually after hard bargaining to Baker's proposals on the regional negotiations on Nicaragua.

MR. MacNeil: We have to leave it there, Mr. Valenta. Thank you very much for joining us from Miami.

MR. VALENTA: Thank you. FOCUS - CHILDREN AT RISK

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, a growing controversy over how well equipped the legal system is to handle special cases of alleged child sex abuse, those that grow out of unusually bitter divorce proceedings in which one parent charges another with abusing their child. The instances when this happens are thankfully few, but some of those that do have received national attention and they have ignited an impassioned debate over whether the legal system adequately protects the children involved. Kwame Holman has our report and we begin with a caution, that it contains some graphic descriptions of sexual abuse.

DR. ELIZABETH MORGAN: [CNN - At D.C. Detention Facility] My daughter was raped by her father.

DR. ELIZABETH MORGAN: [USA Today] Her one request was, please hide me, please hide me. Get me safe from my father. I did what I had to do and for a year and a half she's been safe.

KWAME HOLMAN: Elizabeth Morgan once was a prominent Washington, D.C. cosmetic surgeon. Today, she is the most famous inmate in the D.C. jail. From the jail, Morgan has given dozens of interviews to the national and international press. Her critics say she enjoys the publicity, even though she presents herself and her child as victims of an outdated legal system. [DEMONSTRATION]

MR. HOLMAN: Supporters call Morgan's case a tragic example of how biased the courts are when faced with allegations of child sexual abuse. Morgan went to jail a year and a half ago for defying a Washington judge's order. She refused to send her six year old daughter, Hillary, to visit her father, Morgan's ex-husband. Morgan says on previous visits, he sexually molested Hillary. In court, the ex-husband, oral surgeon Eric Foretich, steadfastly denied abusing his daughter. The judge considered the allegations and initially ordered Hillary's visits with her father to be supervised by a court-appointed guardian. Later, the judge ordered unsupervised visits.

DR. ELIZABETH MORGAN: My daughter is troubled enough by the supervised visits seeing her father again, but on the unsupervised ones, she was molested, and then she was raped, and she started trying to commit suicide after the rape and Judge Dixon and the D.C. Court of Appeals kept ordering her back and I knew I could not let her be destroyed. When I found a way that I could hide her that she was happy with, I sent her into hiding and the judge sent me to jail. [DEMONSTRATION]

MR. HOLMAN: Every Wednesday for months, a group called Friends of Elizabeth Morgan rallies at the courthouse, demanding Morgan's release and denouncing Washington Judge Herbert Dixon who sent her to jail. Morgan has become a focal point for those who say the legal system discriminates against women who accuse their estranged husbands of sexually abusing their children. A frequent participant in the demonstrations is Molly Yard, President of the National Organization for Women.

MOLLY YARD, President, N.O.W.: I guess if I were going to be really honest, I'd say that I think there's a bias against women in the judicial system. We know that from the studies which have been made, and I think what's happening in this case with Dr. Morgan and the others like it that they're dismissing women as hysterical, revengeful people.

MR. HOLMAN: Elizabeth Morgan made her allegations of child sexual abuse against her ex-husband over three years in three separate Washington area courts. The bulk of the charges were heard by Judge Herbert Dixon of the District of Columbia Court. In 1985, he ruled Morgan's allegatins of child sexual abuse against Eric Foretich were inconclusive. In 1987, Dixon heard further allegations. Apparently still unconvinced, he ordered Morgan to send her daughter on a two week unsupervised visit with Foretich. Morgan hid her daughter and Dixon sent Morgan to jail. Citing judicial ethics, Dixon declined to be interviewed, but he said in court that the import of the decision gnawed his very existence because of its impact on Morgan, her ex-husband, and their daughter.

DR. ELIZABETH MORGAN: The fact is that as far as the evidence goes, Judge Dixon simpy hasn't listened to any of it at all. I think that he may have some emotional block in dealing with it so that he just can't -- I mean, nobody wants to believe that a parent molests their child, but I think that Judge Dixon may just find that so hard to deal with it that he can't deal with it.

MR. HOLMAN: Much of Morgan's evidence was presented in court by psychologist Mary Froning who evaluated Morgan's daughter, Hillary, for 20 months until August, 1987. Hillary was five at that time.

MARY FRONING, Psychologist: The initial disclosures about her father had to do with hitting her with his penis in various parts of her body and she on an anatomical drawing showed where that had happened. She talked about her father licking her, and when I asked her why or where, excuse me, she pointed to the vaginal area of a doll and to her own vaginal area, indicating cunilingus. She talked about being required to do oral sex on her father, many other kinds of abuse, emotional and physical, holding her over a stove and threatening to burn her, choking her, hitting her. In fact, one time she came in with a bruise that her father had hit her on the forehead, just incredible threats against her if she would tell about what happened.

MR. HOLMAN: Elizabeth Morgan has employed many lawyers during her custody dispute and allegations of child sexual abuse against her ex-husband. She currently is represented by Stephen Sachs, former Attorney General for the State of Maryland, now a prominent Washington, D.C. attorney.

STEPHEN SACHS, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering: When you ask how I feel to be part of the system that involves this degree of civil disobedience, I can only say that I'm very proud to represent Dr. Morgan and I don't know how she could do anything else. She is a very brave woman who wakes up every morning certain that she is giving -- has given by the loss of her freedom -- she is giving a great gift to her child.

MR. HOLMAN: Sachs says Morgan's case demonstrates how skeptical judges are of child sexual abuse charges, especially when they arrive during a bitter dispute over child custody or visitation.

STEPHEN SACHS: The reasons for these reluctances to believe are many and varied, but they begin, of course, in part with the youth of the victims, the inarticulate by normal standards, inarticulatness of the victims, the overlay of a domestic dispute where it's easy to dismiss it as just, you know, the vendetta of one spouse against another.

DR. ERIC FORETICH: You know the trouble is an accusation like that, an allegation like that is so easy to make, it's so difficult to unprove. It's as if you're guilty until proven innocent.

MR. HOLMAN: Dr. Eric Foretich is Elizabeth Morgan's ex-husband and father of their daughter, Hillary.

DR. ERIC FORETICH: I've never harmed that little girl in any way possible. I've loved her. The fact that this case has been kept in the spotlight so long, it has, indeed, become propelled by the media, and in doing so, it has strengthened Dr. Morgan's resolve to keep, to not bring Hillary back home again. As long as Dr. Morgan can maintain a high profile in the public eye, she has little reason to bring Hillary back home. It's a tragedy for the American people, because other parents, other women, other parents see what effect this could have upon visitation and custody and it encourages other people to do so.

MR. HOLMAN: There are other complications in the Morgan/Foretich case. Morgan says Foretich's parents were involved in the alleged sexual abuse of Hillary. Morgan also says Foretich sexually abused his other daughter by a previous marriage, a charge Morgan and her supporters say should have been allowed as evidence in court. Foretich angrily denies all the charges. To the contrary, he says if anyone abused Hillary, his daughter by Morgan, it was Morgan, herself.

DR. ERIC FORETICH: Hillary was definitely sexually abused by Elizabeth Morgan. Elizabeth Morgan placed spoons and crayons into the private parts of my daughter on at least two and we believe three occasions. She took three different sets of photographs of my daughter.

MR. HOLMAN: Elizabeth Morgan says she took the photographs to document disturbing sexual behavior Hillary exhibited after she came home from visits with her father.

DR. ELIZABETH MORGAN: Things that Dr. Foretich says are plausible until you look at the facts behind them. My daughter when she was two and a half did act out with objects vaginal penetration to try to tell me and other people what was being done to her.

MR. HOLMAN: University of Michigan Psychology Professor and Attorney Melvin Guyer defended Eric Foretich against Elizabeth Morgan's allegations of child sexual abuse. Guyer says it's likely that Morgan fabricated the charges and in any event, she has received more than a fair opportunity to prove her allegations in the courts.

DR. MELVIN GUYER, University of Michigan: The myth is there's a protecting mother, an innocent child, an abusive father, and an unresponsive court system that fails to come to her aid. The reality is that Dr. Morgan is a very well-to-do, a very well educated, upper middle class white woman, with very very powerful attorneys. She has spent up to $2 million trying to prove the truth of these allegations and she's failed to do so. I think the mundane reality to explain that is that the allegations just aren't true. It's not that a woman, no woman can prevail against an unfair system. I think the reality is that the system has worked beautifully in the face of that tremendous amount of influence, pressure, money and tenacity.

DR. ELIZABETH MORGAN: The system is saying to people, you want to protect your child, we'll lock you up, we'll throw away the key, we'll let your child be raped.

DR. ERIC FORETICH: It's time for the media to stop focusing on the civil rights of this woman who has chosen to be in jail, who is free to leave jail at any time and start focusing on this little girl, our daughter, who did not choose to be separated from her parents, about whom we know nothing, about whom we have no idea as to whether or not she's even frankly alive.

PHIL DONAHUE: [Segment from Donahue Show] We have a number of mothers, some of them are fathers, most are mothers. They are on the run because the court said they had to let the fathers either have custody or visitation rights, and these mothers will look you right in theeye and say, I will never ever allow my ex-husband to see his children; he sexually abuses them.

MR. HOLMAN: Hillary Morgan Foretich is not the only child to be sent into hiding to avoid contact with an allegedly abusive parent. This recent Phil Donahue Show featured organizers and participants in what has become known as The Underground railroad.

PHIL DONAHUE: And Faye Yager is here from Atlanta. They call you the head of The Underground Railroad, Ms. Yeager.

MS. YAGER: That's correct.

PHIL DONAHUE: And you're proud of that, are you?

MS. YAGER: I sure am.

MR. HOLMAN: Faye Yager and others like her operate outside the law. Her activities have been investigated by the FBI. Yager says her own daughter was sexually abused by her ex-husband. She says she has helped hundreds of parents, mostly mothers, and their children move to new towns and assume different names. Before helping families, she says she makes sure they are legitimate victims of child sexual abuse.

FAYE YAGER, The Underground Railroad: You'd better have some kids that's been abused if you call me and you'd better not be a vindictive spouse and everything you say had better be true and then I'll help you. We don't have any parents in The Underground that haven't given the system a chance, that haven't been through the legal system and the legal system has had every opportunity to protect that child and the legal system is not offering these kids anything.

MR. HOLMAN: At our request, Yager arranged for us to talk to an undergound family who did not want to be identified. We were told only that they were from the West Coast. We called the mother Sherrie and her daughter Jennifer.

"SHERRIE": My daughter was molested, she wasn't even four yet, and my son was molested by their natural father. The molestations continued and the courts -- and my feeling about them is they're primitive because they turn their backs while the molestation abuse continues and they do nothing and they give the criminal, their natural father, more rights than they do the children. Even though the judge is aware of sexual molestation of both children by their natural father, that totally gets lost. It comes down to dealing with visitation.

MR. HOLMAN: Jennifer, why don't you tell me, you went to court and what did you think about that?

"JENNIFER": Scary.

MR. HOLMAN: And what did people say to you there?

"JENNIFER": If my daddy molested me.

MR. HOLMAN: And what did you say to them?

"JENNIFER": Yes.

MR. HOLMAN: What did your daddy do to you?

"JENNIFER": He touched my private part.

"SHERRIE": We have medical evidence where her hyman was ripped and her behavior was bizarre. It just was an incredible situation and I am glad I am in the underground and I wouldn't change anything.

MR. HOLMAN: Five days after this interview, FBI agents in Atlanta arrested the woman we called "Sherrie" and took her children into custody. She has asked a Georgia court not to return them to her father.

DICK WOODS, National Congress of Men: I know I would do that to protect my children if I thought it was necessary. On the other hand, I believe our system of justice gives the mother and the child every possible protection.

MR. HOLMAN: Dick Woods says most often it is men, not women, who face discrimination in the legal system. His organization, The National Congress for Men, charges a growing number of women are making deliberately false allegations of child sexual abuse as a tactic to win custody of a child.

DICK WOODS: Twenty years ago, the courts had what they called The Tender Years Doctrine that virtually assured mothers custody of the children, that is, during the tender years of life, the children should always go with the mothers. Since then, the courts have not only changed that view, but they've adopted more liberal stances in some areas, for example, the accusation that the father had an affair, or that he has been involved in alcohol abuse of some kind no longer carries the weight that it used to with the court. Well, that leaves the allegation of child sexual abuse as the ultimate weapon.

DR. MELVIN GUYER, University of Michigan: Having seen a number of cases in which the allegation with little or no substance is made and yet dramatically changes the course of the custody contest has persuaded me that that is one of the major thing that has contributed to this vast increase in the number of allegations.

MR. HOLMAN: But Lucy Berliner of Seattle's Harbor View Sexual Assault Center disputes such claims.

LUCY BERLINER, Harbor View Sexual Assault Center: Unfortunately, there's a very inflammatory and inaccurate view of this problem in custody cases that's been promulgated in a popular press and seems to permeate the courts and the mental health profession and it is contradicted by evidence.

MR. HOLMAN: Berliner told Lee Hochberg of public station KTCS that a national survey showed only 2 percent of disputed custody cases involved any allegation of child sexual abuse. The complexities of child sexual abuse allegations were a focus of this recent conference in Huntsville, Alabama. Berliner and 800 others from the mental health and legal professions talked about cases like that of Hillary Morgan Foretich, cases involving a very young child, ambiguous physical evidence of abuse and parents who tell conflicting versions of what happened to their child. Berliner says the legal system's need for a definite answer, even in such difficult cases, sometimes forces sexual abuse evaluators to make conclusions they really can't support.

LUCY BERLINER: We're not as good as we ought to be at resisting the pressure from advocates in the legal system to go beyond what it is we can know. There is no way that a mental health evaluator can be certain any more than anyone else can, unless you're there, all you're giving is an opinion, and at this point, we don't have enough science available about these kind of situations for anyone to take a position that's extremely definite.

MR. HOLMAN: Even in interviews with alleged victims like the one simultated here therapists may not get at the truth. Although a child's own statement is considered the most reliable evidence that sexual abuse occurred, children sometimes are subjected to too many interviews. As a result, the child may give answers he or she thinks will please the therapist. The American Bar Association is concerned about another failure of child sexual abuse therapists. Howard Davidson heads a special ABA unit on child protection.

HOWARD DAVIDSON, Child Advocacy Center, A.B.A.: I think one of the biggest problems we have in the sexual abuse cases has to do with the use of hired guns, people who will testify for the litigants, often without ever having seen the child. If the judges could do a better job, then maybe we could avoid these two experts saying contradictory things on both sides where judges feel, gee, I've got to give them both equal weight and, therefore, I just can't find definitively conclusively that the abuse occurred.

MR. HOLMAN: Davidson says judges should have their own child sex abuse experts evaluate children independent of the parents andjudges, themselves, should be trained in the state of art in determining child sexual abuse.

HOWARD DAVIDSON: In a situation where a judge can't feel comfortable in saying I believe that abuse occurred, many judges are going to be very reluctant to suspend the rights of an accused parent to access with their children.

MR. HOLMAN: The Washington judge who sent Elizabeth Morgan to jail may have been in that position, unable to be sure which parent, if either, actually abused Hillary Morgan Foretich. Experts say in such angry disputes where parents take intractable positions, what's best for the child often is forgotten.

DR. MELVIN GUYER, University of Michigan: We're seeing a number of very high profile sexual abuse allegation cases that are really divorce cases, are really contested custody cases that in some cases have like metasticized, you know, they've just gotten out of control.

LUCY BERLINER, Harbor View Sexual Assault Center: Of course, as always, it will be the children who suffer the consequences of the high level of vitriol and antagonism that's going on around these kind of cases. I really am less concerned about the parents' rights and needs than I am about the children, and I don't see adults being willing to give up anything towards making life easier for children in these very tough spots.

MR. HOLMAN: Meanwhile, six year old Hillary, like other children in hiding, probably lives without many of the benefits of a normal life and without either of her parents. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the top story today, Poland's Communist Government signed an agreement legalizing the Solidarity Union and providing for free elections. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. Thanks for being with us. I'm Judy Woodruff. Good night.