The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday evening, Britain broke diplomatic relations with Syria, saying it was implicated in an attempt to blow up an Israeli airliner. Syria denied the charge. The Jordanian who tried to plant the bomb got 45 years in prison. The Unites States withdrew its ambassador to Syria. Tennessee parents who challenged school textbooks won their court case.We'll have the details in our news summary coming up. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary, we have three main focuses on the News Hour tonight, starting with Britain's break with Syria: an interview with Britain's foreign secretary, reaction from Syria's acting ambassador to the United States, and expert analysis from two Middle East experts. Then, in an exclusive interview, Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney comments on the Middle East and other foreign policy developments. And we end with a look at today's Tennessee textbook trial verdice with spokesmen for the winners and the loser.News Summary

MacNEIL: The abortive attempt to blow up an Israeli jumbo jet last April had a dramatic sequel today. A British court convicted a young Jordanian and sentenced him to 45 years in jail. A few hours later, Britain broke diplomatic relations with Syria, saying the trial evidence showed conclusively that the Syrian embassy was implicated. The U.S. said it supported the British move and withdrew the American ambassador from Damascus. White House spokesman Larry Speaks said the U.S. will be consulting with Britain and other allies on "additional steps that we and others will take." James Robbins of the BBC describes the events leading up to today's decisions.

JAMES ROBBINS$0[voice-over]: The plot to blow up flight 106 has been meticulously planned. Had it succeeded, there would have been nothing to link the crime with either Hindawi or his Syrian masters. Hindawi had been staying at a hotel in the West End under a false name of Share. He was using a Syrian passport of a type normally issued only to government officials.

After the bomb was discovered, Hindawi went to the Syrian embassy. Hindawi says embassy staff took him to a safe house and tried to disguise him by cutting and dying his hair. The plot to blow up the El Al plane was described in court as one of the most callous acts of all time. Hindawi simply started straight ahead as the judge continued, "A more callous and cruel deception, a more horrendous massacre it is difficult to imagine. The sentence is 45 years."

MacNEIL: A few hours later, British Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe gave the reasons why Britain served relations with Syria, and then syria's ambassador gave his response to the British action.

Sir GEOFFREY HOWE, British foreign minister: And evidence given in the course of the trial, evidence that was not disputed by the Syrian government during the trial, independent evidence of the involvement of the Syrian ambassador and affecting the relationship between Syrian intelligence and the man convicted of terrorism, subsequent evidence of his contact with the Syrian intelligence authorities, an overwhelming volume of evidence has led us to the conclusion that Syria was responsible for what happened.

REPORTER: What's your reaction to the verdict?

LOUTOF ALLAH HAYDAR, Syrian ambassador: It's nonsense.

REPORTER: Why do you say it's nonsense?

Mr. HAYDAR: It's nonsense.

MacNEIL: The Syrian government denied the charges and claimed they were the product of a U.S.-Israel plot. Syira retaliated by cutting all ties with Britain, ordered its national airline to stop flights to London, closed Syrian ports to all British ships and its air space to British planes. Judy?

WOODRUFF: The government of Canada showed its support for its British Commonwealth ally today by calling home the Canadian ambassador to Syria for consultations. In an exclusive interview today with Robin, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney explained the decision.

BRIAN MULRONEY, Prime Minister, Canada: I think that any state that sponsors terrorism should be treated as a parish. That's exactly what it is. Any state that will indulge in the maiming of children and the killing of innocent people does not deserve that -- the associations that one gives to heads of government or to governments. I don't have before me the evidence in this case, but what we have received from Her Majesty's government so far is supportive of a view put out by the United Kingdom. We'll examine it very carefully.

WOODRUFF: In a related development, President Reagan said today that his administration will not pressure the government of Kuwait to release 17 terrorist prisoners it is holding in order to win the release of American hostages in Lebanon. In a written response to questions posed by the Associated Press Manageing Editors Association, Mr. Reagan said to do so would place many more innocent Americans at risk. Relatives of the American hostages told the editors earlier this week that the Presidents' policy of quiet diplomacy is not working.

MacNEIL: A federal judge in Tennessee today ruled the First Amendment rights of seven Fundamentalist families had been violated by school texts such as The Wizard of Oz and The Diary of Anne Frank. In a 27 page opinion, Judge Thomas Hull said the families who sued the Hawkins Country school board "have sincerely held religious beliefs and are entitled to protection under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment." The case has been compared to the Scopes trial, and at Washington news conferences, both sides continued to argue the merits of the decision.

ANTHONY PODESTA, People for the American Way: Sixty-one years ago, John Scopes was convicted in a Tennessee courtroom of the crime of teaching evolution. Scopes was vindicated by the court of history. We will look to the court of appeals in this case to reverse the district court decision. The logic of this decision will create chaos in the public schools, as first and second graders will be free to opt out of different parts of the curriculum. So that Fundamentalist first graders may opt out of reading or biology, and elementary school students of other sects may opt out of science or art or history or literature or health.

MICHAEL FARRIS, plaintiff's attorney: Today, religious toleration prevails, and religious bigotry advanced by People for the American Way, the school district, the state of Tennessee, has lost. They have been saying chaos at every turn. The judge has rejected their predictions of doom. He says that this -- there is no evidence that this is going to happen.

MacNEIL: A U.S. district court judge in Washington today sentenced Peter Voss to a four year jail term and an $11,000 fine. Voss, co-chairman of President Reagan's Ohio campaign in 1980, resigned as vice chairman of the Postal Service board of governors last May and pleaded guilty to taking payoffs in connection with a $250 million postal contract. He could have received a seven year sentence and a $750,000 fine.

WOODRUFF: The Soviet news agency Tass boasted today that the Kremlin had dealt what it called a sledgehammer blow to the U.S. embassy in Moscow by withdrawing its Soviet staff. But here in Washington, the State Department put the loss of some 250 Soviet embassy personnel in a much less serious light.

CHARLES REDMAN, State Department Spokesman: There are going to be some short term inconveniences in Moscow. We'll certainly be bringing in support personnel to do the jobs formerly done by Soviet employees at the embassy. We had been planning to substitute American citizens for many of the Soviet workers in Moscow prior to this recent Soviet action, so we're not starting from scratch.

MacNEIL: A U.S. Marine jet searching for a missing navy anti-submarine plane crashed in the Mediterranean today. A U.S. Sixth Fleet official said the marine A6 fighter was spotted hitting the sea southwest of Crete by a Greek civilian vessel early this morning. No details were available as to the cause of the crash, but officials said weather conditions were normal. The plane carried a crew of two and was assigned to the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy, the home base of the other missing navy plane. A search for that plane was called off earlier today.

WOODRUFF: The Reagan administration gave the go ahead today for Texas Air Corporation to become by far the nation's largest airline company. The Transportation Department approved a bid by Texas Air to buy People Express Airlines, as well as the remaining assets of Frontier Airlines, a People Express subsidiary that shut down last summer. Texas Air already owns Continental Airlines and New York Air and is in the process of merging with Eastern Airlines.

That's it for our news summary. Just ahead on the News Hour, the meaning of Britain's decision to break diplomatic relations with Syria. An exclusive interview with the prime minister of Canada. And a look at the Tennessee textbook verdict. Syria: Sponsor of Terror?

MacNEIL: First tonight, we focus on Britain's decision, supported by the United States, to break diplomatic relations with Syria, charging that country with complicity in an attempt to blow up the Isralei airliner last April. The young Jordanian, Nezar Hindawi, who tried to get his pregnant Irish girlfriend to plant a bomb in the El Al 747, was sentenced to 45 years in prison by a London court. After the verdict, British Foreign Secretary Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe said the trial had proved conclusive evidence of heavy Syrian involvement. He was interviewed by Peter Sissons of Independent Television News in London.

Sir HOWE: We have no doubt, not just on the evidence given in court, a lot of which wasn't challenged, but on the basis of other independent evidence, of Syria's responsibility.

PETER SISSONS: In your statement, in which you refer to this independent evidence, you say that the Syrian ambassador was personally involved several months before the commission of the offense in securing for Hindawi the sponsorship of the Syrian intelligence authorities. Is that tantamount to saying that the ambassador recruited Hindawi?

Sir HOWE: It amounts to saying that he was responsible for the establishment of that relationship several months before the offense. Of course, we didn't know at that time that the offense was going to take place. Once the offense had happened, we had to hold our hand until the case had come to a conclusion.

SISSONS: The ambassador, of course, is one of his country's most senior and trusted diplomats, with personal links to his president. Does this go right to the top?

Sir HOWE: I think that it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the Syrian government, headed by its president, must accept responsibility for the conduct of its ambassador and its intelligence agency.

SISSONS: And yet, President Assad in a recent interview with Time magazine made it plain that he believed that the real people behind this were what he calls some intelligence services, in the forefront the Israelis. Do you think there's a grain of truth in that?

Sir HOWE: No, I see no reason to believe that whatsoever. It may be not surprising that that allegation is made. As I say, the same allegation was made in this trial. A British jury had the opportunity of considering that allegation alongside the evidence that was before them, and they came to the conclusion that Hindawi was guilty as charged. We've reached the same conclusion about the Syrian government. I say that with no pleasure. Syria is an important country. We would far prefer her to be growing on the side of peace and not indulge in this. But she is involved. We had to take this action.

SISSONS: But in the international terror league, for want of a better word, does thisput Assad on the same plane as Khadafy?

Sir HOWE: I think one has to judge each incident in relation to each country on the evidence there before you. We have reached this conclusion on this incident -- on this evidence -- and we've had to take this action.

SISSONS: The prosecution said that Hindawi told the police Syrian-Arab airliner crews were responsible for bringing explosives and guns into Britain, and Syrian security officers who were included in the crew were based at a London hotel. Why aren't we closing that airline down, lock, stock and barrel?

Sir HOWE: Because we've had to evaluate that evidence like all the other evidence given in the case. We haven't reached a conclusion on our own assessment of the evidence that Syrian-Arab Airlines were involved to that extent. They were plainly concerned and implicated. It's for that reason that we've put them under the strictest possible supervision and control -- their aircraft, their crew, their passengers and their baggage. But that, we think, is the right reaction so far as they're concerned.

SISSONS: Is there an element of pragmatism in that our own airlines over-fly Syria to a consideragle degree, and there could be quite damaging commercial retaliation?

Sir HOWE: I think in all these cases, whether one's dealing with diplomatic rights of the Syrians in this country or flying rights, you have to look at the other side of the equation, so to speak. But our judgement here is taken on our assessment of the responsibility of Syrian-Arab Airlines in this case. We think the right response for them is that which I have described -- strict supervision and control.

SISSONS: How much of a loss to us is our diplomatic base in Syria? After all, it is a very important diplomatic listening post in this highly sensitive area, the Middle East.

Sir HOWE: Well, this is one of the factors that the government as a whole had to take account of -- not just the foreign secretary of the foreign office. Because the whole government attaches importance to the maintenance of a post of that kind. But we've reached the judgement that we have to make that sacrifice in order to make plain our repudiation of the wicked involvement of the Syrian government in terrorism of this kind.

SISSONS: It must have crossed you mind that a reaction in such cases is the taking of hostages and the demanding of the release of the imprisoned person. What will be the British government's reaction if that happens?

Sir HOWE: Our reaction to that will be the same as ithas been on previous occasions. We will take no part in deals about hostages. That, I think, is one reason why our position is respected perhaps more than some other countries. You can't refrain from taking action against criminality and terrorism if you're frightened by reprisals. You have to take the action that is necessary, and that is well understood.

SISSONS: There is a precedent -- Lelia Kaleed.

Sir HOWE: There was a precedent some time ago, when the world was much less sophisticated abour terrorism that it is today -- I think some 16 years ago. Now we have all learned and are still sadly, painfully learning the need to make firm responses without being deterred by the threat of reprisal. If we are put off by that, then we become helpless in the face of this kind of terrorism.

MacNEIL: British Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe interview by Peter Sissons of Independent Television News. The reference to Lelia Kaleed was to the 1970 case when Britain freed an accused terrorist from prison in exchange for the safe return of British passengers on a hijacked airline in the Middle East. Judy?

WOODRUFF: To explore further the implications of today's move by the British, we go to two analysts of Middle Eastern developments. In Washington, Adeed Dawisha, who spent 25 years in Britian, including work at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He is now a professor of government at George Mason University and the author of the just published book, The Arab Radicals. And in Philadelphia, Daniel Pipes, director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and author of a book on Islam and political power. He joins us from public station WHYY.

Did Britain do the right thing, Mr. Dawisha?

ADEED DAWISHA, George Mason University: I think that if we talk about the moral high ground, and this is the kind of argument they are presenting, yes, they did. My Theory about the subject is that the really had no choice. Once the court came with a guilty verdict, it meant that they accepted the case for the prosecution. And the prosecution case linked the ambassador of Syria, Mr. Haydar, to Mr. Hindawi. Once this link was established, the only thing they could do was to expel the ambassador. Now, the British actually know very well, and probably more than we do here, that if you expel the ambassador in that sense, you are creating kind of a humiliating blow for the prestige and status of Syria, and that Syria was not going to just sit still and take it. They were going to up and ante and sever diplomatic relations themselves. So they had no alternative but to do that.

WOODRUFF: So they did the right thing?

DANIEL PIPES, Foreign Policy Research Institution: Absolutely. I congratulate the British government for its action. For too many years not, the Syrian government has lived in a special world of ambiguity where it could engage in all sorts of terrorist acts, and yet not be held resonsible. Unlike, for example, the Libyans. And this is the first decisive action by a Western government against the state of -- the government of Libya and the President -- the President of Libya, Hafez al-Assad. It's a very important act, I think.

WOODRUFF: But what are the -- there are, obviously down sides for the British. What are they? Mr. Dawisha?

Mr. DAWISHA: Well, I think the foreign secretary has already mentioned them. There is a possibility of retaliation by the Syrians. They've already done that. They've already made the airspace of Syria unacceptable for -- for British airplanes tofly in. I would have thought there would be some commercial problems. But I think, more than anything else, the British know that Syria is an important and pivotal Arab country. It is unlike Libya, in that any action of this sort against Syria would have reverbations in the Arab world, as such. One thing, for example --

WOODRUFF: Are you saying that they should have taken that into consideration before they made the move, or --

Mr. DAWISHA: I think they must have taken that into consideration. But their position was that there was really no alternative for them to pursue. They could not have done anything else. And I think -- I'm sure they've done -- they've taken this decision with much trepidation as to what might happen in the future.

WOODRUFF: Do you see the down sides for the British in this, Mr. Pipes?

Mr. PIPES: I think it depends very much on what the allies of Great Britain do. If we come to support and France and Germany, Italy and other countries, then there's very little trouble that the British will face. But if we leave the British handing out there alone, then perhaps the implications will be more severe.

WOODRUFF: Well, we announced, of course, today that we're recalling our ambassador. And I undersdtand that this is a permanent recall rather than a temporary one. Does that -- does that register as a siding with the British or not, in your mind?

Mr. PIPES: It certainly does. Perhaps the more interesting point today is not the actions the United States takes, because there's not that much we can do that would be dramatically supportive of the British. Perhaps more important is what the French do. Because after all, as you're probably aware, there's been a rash of bombings in Paris and a pretty clear indication that the Syrians are involved. The French government is very loathe to tie that link to Syria and, indeed, has gone in the opposite direction to give Syria some additional aid and to make accommodating gestures toward Syria. If the French government stops that and makes it clear that it will not appease the Syrians, but will take a firm stand, I think that will be very helpful for Britain and for all of us.

WOODRUFF: Do you think that's likely -- what the French are likely to do?

Mr. DAWISHA: I don't know. I don't think that the link is as clear as Mr. Pipes thinks it is, certainly in the case of the French. But nevertheless, what I would like -- my point here is that the Syrians are important actors on the Arab stage and on the Arab-Israeli front. To isolate them in this way, it seems to me, will undermine any possible -- any possibilities of either improving the chances of the Arab-Israeli peace process or, indeed, of the hostages in Lebanon.

WOODRUFF: To isolate them. You mean simply by what the British have done or the British action in conjunction with the American recall of --

Mr. DAWISHA: British action in conjunction with other allies in the sense that Mr. Pipes is advocating. I think that if you do that, then you're going to undermine, or at least diminish, the possibility that King Hussein, for example, in Jordan, would pursie his, as I say, peace process with the Israelis. Simply because traditionally and historically, Arab states, no matter what problems they had among themselves, have tended always to coalesce against an Arab state when it is seen as being under the hammer of some foreign power.

WOODRUFF: But you said a moment ago you thought the British had no choice but to do what they did under the circumstances.

Mr. DAWISHA: Yeah, precisely. But we do have choices, and the French do have choices. I'm saying that --

WOODRUFF: We, meaning the Americans have a choice.

Mr. DAWISHA: The Americans. I'm saying that, in the case of the British, there was no other alternative. And I'm sure this is why they've taken it.

WOODRUFF: But did the Americans do the right thing?

Mr. DAWISHA: I think -- well, it depends on what they're going to do. If they're going to go, again, the full length and sever diplomatic relations, I think it is not going to be in the interest of pursuing further the peace process in the Middle East or, indeed, our problems with the Lebanese and the hostages and so on.

WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that, Mr. Pipes?

Mr. PIPES: I'd agree to the extent that I don't think cutting off diplomatic relations is the right thing to do. We have served as a very important intermediary between, say, Israel and Syria, and our links with Syria are useful. But there are a whole variety of other steps that would be useful to take to isolate Syria. I disagree with Mr. Dawisha, because I believe that the isolation of Syria would, in fact, help the peace process. And the isolation of Syria would go even further -- would distinguish Syria in American eyes of Western eyes as, perhaps, the main problem that the United States faces in the Middle East. It is the main base of Soviet penetration of the area. It is the main actor on the Arab side against Israel. It is the main actor in terrorism. So to isolate it would not only be to clarify an issue for us, but it would also, I think, help the Arab states of the region. After all, despite what Mr. Dawisha says, there is a great deal of worry about Syria in Egypt, in Jordan, in Turkey and Iraq. There's a great deal of trepidation about Syrian actions, a great deal of fear of Syrian terrorism. So I think we're not only doing ourselves a benefit and our allied, but even the neighbors of Syria in the Middle East.

WOODRUFF: You've been shaking your head, Mr. Dawisha.

Mr. DAWISHA: Yeah, I really disagree fundamentally with this point. In fact, again, historically, we find that when a country like Syria, which is a pivotal Arab state, is isolated, in the Arab world all that is going to happen is that the countries which kind of before that instance were against it will coalesce around it. Look what happened, for example, in the last year. King Hussein has been pursuing the peace process. Syria stood against him. He had no other alternative but to join forces with the Syrians. If the Syrians are seen by the Arab -- in the Arab context; by the Arab state system -- that they have unfairly been dealt a blow by superpowers or by Western powers, then the ability of Arabs to in front of their publics to look as though they were supporting a Western power against an Arab state, even if they disagreed with it, is much weaker.

WOODRUFF: Very briefly, a comment, Mr. Pipes?

Mr. PIPES: I would suggest that the United States take a whole variety of different steps that would serve to isolate Syria. We could --

Woodruff: Go ahead. Just finish briefly.

Mr. PIPES: Sure. There are a number of cultural, financial, trade, air link ties that we could reduce or cut that would make -- that would support the British and make this point more emphatically.

WOODRUFF: Thank you both, Mr. Pipes, Mr. Dawisha, for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now we get an official Syrian view from that country's acting ambassador to Washington, Bushra Kanifani.

Ambassador Kanifani$0, are you going to return to Syria yourself as a result of the American ambassador from Damascus being withdrawn?

BUSHRA KANIFANI, Syrian embassy: I was not informed of anything of that sort yet.

MacNEIL: You do not know. Have you been informed by the United States that the withdrawal of the ambassador is permanent?

Amb. KANIFANI: Well, they talk about the withdrawal of the ambassador, but they didn't specify this point.

MacNEIL: I see. So you, at this moment, do not know what your plans are.

Amb. KANIFANI: Yes.

MacNEIL: What is your comment on all that has been -- first of all, by the British government today that the court trial of the Jordanian Hindawi produced conclusive proof that your ambassador in London and the embassy were involved in the plot to bomb that Israeli plane?

Amb. KANIFANI: Well, I do think that what I have heard up to now doesn't mean it it exclusive proof. All what's there against Syria is this case in based on the statement of Hindawi himself. And Hindawi -- even Hindawi -- contradicted himself more than once during the procedures of the trial. Sometimes he accused Syria, sometimes he did not. And he said differently. The whole argument I have been hearing now is -- comes from the point that Syria is involved in what went on in Britain, which is not the fact of the situation. We have nothing to terrorism. We never had. And what happened there is a setup. It is a setup made by some intelligence agencies, especially the Israleis. And I'd like to say this is not the first time it happened.

MacNEIL: Let me read you -- let me read you -- can you hear me?

Amb. KANIFANI: I can hear you, but I am not sure that you can hear me.

MacNEIL: I can hear you, yes.

Amb. KANIFANI: All right, good.

MacNEIL: May I just put a point to you? Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British foreign secretary, said in his statement to parliament today, "Certain facts are undisputed. Hindawi travelled on an official Syrian passport and a false name. His visa applications were on two occasions backed by official notes from the Syrian foreign ministry. Hindawi met the Syrian ambassador, Dr. Haydar, in his embassy after the discovery of the bomb. He listed a whole lot of things like that.

Amb. KANIFANI: Yes, but let me tell you something. Hindawi himself in court himself said one time said I -- "The ambassador congratulated me." The other time, he said the ambassador said, "What human being could think of doing such a thing." Hindawi himself said both. The question of the visa. It's too obvious. That if Syria was behind what Hindawi did in England, wouldn't be the one to do any more concerning his visas. It is too obvious. What I was saying before a little bit, the question is a setup. It is being planned to have that bomb planted there by Hindawi himself in order to discover it and accuse Syria. I would like to recall the incident -- the incident the case of Lavon in Egypt in the early '50s. At that time, Western interests were attacked. Explosions took place in Egypt and so on. And everybody blamed the Egyptian government at that time under late President Nasser. And these attacks against Western interests in Egypt in the early '50s, they were terrorism, and they were damaging to the basic interest of Egypt.

MacNEIL: Who do you think is behind this plot --

Amb. KANIFANI: Later on, it was discovered beyond any doubt that it is Israel which was behind these attacks. And the minister of defense in Israel, whose name was Lavon, and he had to resign. Now we call it the Lavon scandal, and you call it here the Lavon case. Now the things that the British officials talk about are part of a setup. The question is political; not terrorism. It is political.

MacNEIL:$0Well, be --

Amb. KANIFANI: It's our stand for the concern in the Middle East crisis and our understanding to the just and reasonable and durable peace that we seek that is under the attack.

MacNEIL: Madame Ambassador, let me ask you one more final question. Is it possible that you, as a distinguished member of your country's foreign service, might not know that some branch of Syrian intelligence, using some agents, might have set up a plot like this; and, simply, you would not know about it. And therefore, you would be very, very candid and forthright in denying it. But is it conceivable that Syria -- part of Syria could be backing this kind of terrorism, and you might not know about it?

Amb. KANIFANI: I would like to recall what President Assad said just some time ago. He said, "I challenge -- I challenge anybody who can say that Syria has any connection with this thing." What I have heard a little bit earlier by Mr. Pipes talking about the Middle Wast settlement, and it's better to isolate Syria in order to get to a Middle East settlement; yes, that is the reason why this has taken place -- to try to get a settlement which answers the Israeli objectives only by trying to isolate Syria or damaging Syria's credibility. And go ahead, impose the Israeli kind of peace in the area without Syria -- Syria's participation in defending its cause and the other cause and the Palestinian cause especially.

MacNEIL: Well, Ambassador Kanifani, thank you very much for joining us.

Amb. KANIFANI:$0Thank you.

MacNEIL: Next tonight, we have a newsmaker interview with Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He was in New York for talks at the United Nations and recorded an interview with us earlier today. I began by asking his reaction to Britain breaking off diplomatic relations with Syria and whether Canada would do the same.

Do you believe the evidence that Britain has provided that Syria is involved in terrorism?

Mr. MULRONEY: Well, the evidence that we have received and our government has received so far is strongly supportive of the view and the action taken by the United Kingdom. We supported -- strongly support and instinctively supported -- the United States, for example, in its first initiatives in regard to terrorism in Libya and elsewhere. We have supported the United Nations. We have supported any institution that will deal with trying to rid the world of this terrible sickness that is terrorism.

MacNEIL: Well, what do you think needs to be done if there is a consensus that Syria -- there's direct proof of Syria's involvement in terrorism, whereas the links with Libya and terrorism were somewhat tenuous. They're difficult to demonstrate in a court, as it were. What do you think should be done about Syria?

Mr. MULRONEY: Well, I would want to examine more closely the evidence that is going between London and allied capitals. But I think that any state that sponsors terrorism should be treated as a pariah. That's exactly what it is. Any state that will indulge in the maiming of children and the killing of innocent people does not deserve that -- the associations that one gives to heads of government or to governments. I don't have before me the evidence in this case, but what we have received from Her Majesty's government so far is supportive of a view put out by the United Kingdom. We'll examine it very carefully.

MacNEIL: Let's talk about a couple of differences between Canada and the United States in foreign Policy. South Africa -- Canada has adopted certain sanctions. What do you think that the Reagan administration's reluctance to adopt more rigorous sanctions, along with Britain, is doing to the situation in South Africa?

Mr. MULRONEY: The regimer in South Africa is rooted in evil. It is based on the notion that if you are black, you are less than equal. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Canada and, I assume, to the United States. As a result of which, Canada, having gone the extra mile with many other countries trying to bring about peaceful change -- we were part of the eminent persons group of the Commonwealth trying to bring about a solution in an evolutionary way in South Africa. We failed. And it was then time to fish or cut bait. And that's exactly what we did. We put in train, along with our Commonwealth allies, a series of measures designed not to bring South Africa to her knees; to bring South Africa to her senses. And any complicity with South Africa at this time is unhelpful to that process of change. So the United States Congress did -- we agreed with that. We thought that was right. And we are glad of the action by the United States Congress, because it's supportive of what the Commonwealth had been trying to do, and we're glad of that.

MacNEIL: Would the whole evolution move faster in South Africa if the United States administration joined enthusiastically in the efforts you've been describing?

Mr. MULRONEY: Well, you know, I've never -- there's not doubt in my mind as to the abhorrence that President Reagan feels toward apartheid. He feels very strongly about it. He views the methodology differently. I disagree with him on that. I think that the leadership of the administration on this would be -- would have swift and effective results in South Africa. You think if President Reagan were to take another decisive step, that it would produce a swift result in South Africa, to use your word.

Mr. MULRONEY: Swifter.

MacNEIL: Swifter.

Mr. MULRONEY: Than will be the case, yes.

MacNEIL: Take another area in which Canada has a rather independent view: Nicaragua. What effect do you think it's going to have that now an additional $100 million in aid to the contras fighting the Sandinista government is law in this country? What's that going to achieve, in Canada's view?

Mr. MULRONEY: I don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't think all that much. We are supporters of the Contadora process. We are not supportive of the notion of third party involvement in that area. We are very concerned about the suppression of human rights by the government in Nicaragua from priests and bishops to newspapermen and newspapers being banned on the streets. That doesn't justify Canadian involvement there. The fact that there is a regime arising whose causes -- whose views are inconsistent with our own -- fundamentally inconsistent, in many way, with our own -- doesn't give us the right to intervene.

MacNEIL: Well, what do you think when President Reagan says it's vital for America to intervene to prevent establishment of a communist base as an outpost of Soviet power in Central America which ultimately will threaten North America?

Mr. MULRONEY: That is his view, and that is the view that he sets out very carefully and I think well from his point of view. He views the evolution of it not unlike the situation that occurred in Cuba some 25 years ago. And he may be right. We believe as Canadians, notwithstanding that, that it is sort of contradictory, to understate the case, to be taking this kind of action on the one hand while attempting to achieve greater harmony with the Soviet Union, which is really supplying the wherewithal for the client state in Central America to do whatever it is doing that is offensive. So this is fundamentally contradictory, and we don't agree with it.

MacNEIL: There have been now two weeks of explanations of what went on at Reykjavik. How does that look to you? Do you have a clear idea in your own mind of what was achieved there?

Mr. MULRONEY: I think progress. You know, it wasn't so long ago that these kinds of meetings between the President and the General Secretary were inconceivable or were thought to be. And here you have the leaders of the two superpowers at the table for some considerable hours and almost reaching agreement on some very fundamental issues. I think that's very encouraging. The fact that it wasn't achieved at that time doesn't mean that it shan't be in the near future or in the future.

MacNEIL: You said right after the summit broke up that although SDI -- the Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars -- was a stumbling block, that it was prudent for the United States to continue their research. How prudent in the overall context?

Mr. MULRONEY: Well, I think that if the Soviet Union has come to the table most recently in the last little while, that it's come for certain reasons, certain realities. The Soviet Union is a country that indulges in real politic and knows exactly what is going on. One of the things that's going on has been, of course, the deployment in Western Europe by the allies. Secondly has been the strength of the --

MacNEIL: Of the cruise and Pershing missiles.

Mr. MULRONEY: Yes. Secondly has been the strength of the alliance itself -- the united resolve to deal with the Soviet Union. And they haven't been able the pick any of us off. We're firmly united in the position that we've taken. And that the United States is articulate -- that President Reagan is articulate. Thirdly, I think that the concept of SDI, which has been substantially researched by the Soviets and now by the United States, has caused the Soviet Union to take another look at itself and its future, economically and otherwise, and say, "We've got to be talking about this." And so I think these are the components that brought them to the table. And so SDI research, in our judgement, because of what was going on in the Soviet Union, is prudent by the United States.

MacNEIL: Why is Canada not taking part in that research?

Mr. MULRONEY: We didn't think that on a government to government basis that we could have the kind of influence or impact upon the kinds of parameters, given the importance of the United States in this process. So we let the private sector -- it's freed up to do whatever it wants in this area. But we felt it would constrain our action and that we wouldn't be able to have the kinds of impacts that we felt important to have. And so we would rather abstain than be a bit player in somebody else's action.

MacNEIL: Well, does this translate into meaning that you couldn't have a freedom of maneuver in criticizing or making suggestions if you were -- if you had joined in the Star Wars research?

Mr. MULRONEY: One of the reasons, yes, is that once you are part and parcel of it on a government to government basis, then your freedom, of course, is inhibited. And we feel that we must have the flexibility to have an independent foreign policy consistent with our traditions of support of NATO and NORAD and the Alliance, but we want the freedom to act on these great issues independently of anyone else.

MacNEIL: Just before the Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze went to Ottawa for talks with you, a Soviet official urged Canada to be more independent of the United States in its foreign policy. Did that urging touch a sensitive nerve?

Mr. MULRONEY: Not at all. There's no mistake, and there ought not to be any mistake, Canada's not a neutral country. We are very much on the side of freedom. We're very much strong members of NATO and NORAD, friendly allies of the United States. That does not obviate the responsibility for us to keep our eyes open and to represent the national interest of Canada as we pursue through different avenues the cause of peace. We are members of the -- loyal members of the Alliance. And the Soviet Union has its own alliance on the other side of the fence. And we know which side of the fence we're on. It doesn't mean that we can't be helpful in looking over the fence and helping bring down the fence.

MacNEIL: Well, Prime Minister, thank you very much.

Mr. MULRONEY: Thank you for having me.

MacNEIL: Part two of our interview with Prime Minister Mulroney regarding Canadian-U.S. relations will be broadcast on Monday. Textbooks on Trial

Woodruff: Next tonight, a debate about textbooks and religious freedom. As we reported earlier, a federal judge ruled today that seven families can collect damages from the Tennessee public school system for assigning books that the families said violated their religious beliefs. The case has received widespread attention because of its potentially enormous impact on school curricula around the country. Kwame Holman reported on the trial when it was argued in July. He now takes a second, updated look.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: This was the daily routine last July for Christian Fundamentalist parent Vicki Frost, suing in federal court in Tennessee to force school officials to provide alternative reading materials for conservative Christians.

VICKI FROST: We're just real confident in the Lord and thankful that we live in this great United States of America that we can bring our concerns to the court and see justice done.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Frost's complaint centered on hundreds of passages and references in a reading series from Holt, Rinehart Books, one of the largest textbook publishers in the country. The passages, she said, violated her conservative Christian beliefs. Frost said she was startled when, in 1983, her daughter asked her for help with a question about this story from the Holt, Rinehart series.

Ms. FROST: And when I read the question, I thought, "What is this?" And the whole story had to do with a scientific approach to mental telepathy. And then I began to read the rest of the book and found that, in fact, 130 pages of the one reader, Riders on the Earth, book, which was the sixth grade reader, contained directly or indirectly passages relating to mental telepathy, mind control, mind reading. That is contrary to the word of God. It's false supernaturalism, which the word of God, the Holy Bible, instructs Christians to stay away from.

MICHAEL FARRIS, Concerned Women for America: It's the bias against conservative Christians that has led to the bias in these textbooks.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Lawyer Michael Farris represented Frost and six other Fundamentalist families who charged that material in these books violates their religious beliefs and that public schools should provide unoffensive alternatives. The Fundamentalist objected to more than 200 passages that include parts of The Wizard of Oz and Rumpelstiltskin. Examples of their objections were that some stories support pacifism, are critical of the American government, or are critical of the practice of hunting animals. Lawyer Timothy Dyk represented the county school system that refused to provide alternative reading materials.

TIMOTHY DYK, school attorney: This is another example over here of something to which they object. It's "Pelops and Poseidon." It's a story of Greek mythology. And they find a great number of mythological stores -- Greek and Roman and fables from other religious -- as being objectionable.

HOLMAN: Based upon?

Mr. DYK: Well, based on their religious beliefs. They believe that this depicts false religion.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: When officials refused to supply alternative books, Vicki Frost took her four children out of public schools, put them in a private Christian school, and filed her lawsuit.

Mr. DYK: It's not clear that there is any satisfactory book to -- it's also not clear that they'd be satisfied with the rest of of the curriculum in public schools, because the same sorts of things that they're objecting to in the reading class, also find in the health class and the science class and the social studies class.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But even last July, lawyer Farris seemed to believe a Fundamentalist victory was likely.

Mr. FARRIS: We're confident that we've proven that the religious beliefs of the people were sincere and proven that they were burdened. They either had to believe what they believe or get our of the public schools the way the Hawkins County operated. They didn't give them any choice to remain in. And that's all we had to prove.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The plaintiffs had said there are acceptable alternative books, even within the Holt, Rinehart series, and ruling in favor of Frost and the other Fundamentalist parents this morning, Federal Judge Thomas Hall agreed that such an alternative should have been provided.

WOODRUFF: Joining us now to debate the effects of the decision are two people from two national organizations that have been pitted against each other in this case: lawyer Michael Farris of Concerned Women for America, who, as we just saw, argued for the parents who objected to the textbooks; and Anthony Podesta, president of People for the American Way, which helped to defend the Tennessee school system.

Mr. Podesta, what I read is the judge ruled that, in essence, that what the school system did was put a burden on the right of these people to practice their religious freely -- religion freely, as they wished. How do you -- without re-arguing the whole case, how do you respond to that?

Mr. PODESTA: These people objected to countless numbers of things in the reading series, and had the trial go on around other topics in the school system, they would have objected to many other things. What the judge did was to suggest that individual religious groups can opt out of various parts of the public school curriculum, so that if one religious group wants to get out of reading, another wants to get out of science, a third out of health, I think that's a recipe for disaster for nonsectarian public education if we invite every religious groupin the country to opt in or out of a variety of subject matters, and especially for young children would create a kind of revolving door classroom in which different people would -- different students would be coming out of the classroom as different subjects are discussed.

WOODRUFF: He says it's a recipe for disaster.

Mr. FARRIS: We think it's a recipe for individualized treatment in the public schools. Reading classes in this country already are divided up along several grounds. And some teachers in this country, according to the expert testimony in our trial, provide individualized instruction in reading for each and every one of their students. We don't see anything wrong with helping children on an individual basis. And if a child needs some special treatment because of their religion, we think that that's the way that it should work in this country.

WOODRUFF: What's wrong with that?

Mr. PODESTA: The logic of this decision, though, would be to allow individuals who have a sectarian belief to opt out of science class, to opt out of health class, to opt out of literature, out of history. Mrs. Frost testified in the trial that discussing socialism violates her religion, and so they could opt out of economics. And so across a whole range of public school curriculum, we would end up with some students attending some classes and some students attending others. And that would destory the core curriculum that the Tennessee authorites in this case, but in all the other states there are 16,000 school districts that will now be faced with students trying to opt out of various subjects.

WOODRUFF: Could that happen? I mean, could students just, then, arbitrarily opt out of whatever course it was they had an objection to?

Mr. FARRIS: That's theoretically possible, but the number of objections that these plaintiffs have is significant, we think, on the side of diminishing the concern. There wasn't a minor objection here or there to the books. The books were systematically violating these people's beliefs. And if there was one discussion in the social studies book or one discussion in the science book that violated somebody's concern, this case isn't going to help them. What's going to help them is where there's a series of books that, in a systematic fasion, violates peoples' beliefs.

WOODRUFF: What are you suggesting is behind this? I mean, there's some sinister motive operating back there that creates a systematic problem, as you put it?

Mr. FARRIS: Well, I think that there is not an intentional bias, but a cultural bias in the New York publishing market against Fundamentalist Christianity. It's the only bias that's acceptable; in fact, kind of mandated by the social culture in New York publishing -- that unless you're biased against Fundamentalists, you're not cool and with it. And so that kind of thinking has led to the exclusion of balanced thinking. And the judge noted that the lack of balance in these books that he found was particularly important in the plaintiff's complaints.

WOODRUFF: Is that the case? New York publishers have a built in bias?

Mr. PODESTA: Publishers are only biased away from controversy. The same publishers who have written these books have also been the publishing houses that have taken the word evolution out of biology books, that have taken passages out of Romeo and Juliet. There's no single literary anthology in America today that has a complete version of Romeo and Juliet in it. So that they do things that sometimes might please Mr. Farris and sometimes might please people with a different point of view. But the thing they mostly do is to try to avoid controversy. And the danger of this decision is that publishers will look upon this ruling and decide to rewrite the textbooks to approach the lowest common denominator and further dumb them down.

WOODRUFF: Is that what you want -- the lowest common denominator?

Mr. FARRIS: No. In fact, we objected to some of the things they were doing already to eliminate controversy. We were asking for a balance. What they've done, and the court noted it, was putting in only one side of the issue on feminist ideology, for example, and only one side of the issue on various other kinds of ideology, particularly religion. There's Buddhist religion in these books, there's American Indian religion, but there's no positive mention, or really no meaningful mention at all, of Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity. And they have already been dumbed down. We're asking for an upgrade of the books to have a more balanced showing of what American life is really all about.

WOODRUFF: Is that the case?

Mr. PODESTA: It's funny that Mr. Farris would mention that tonight, because his star witness, Mrs. Forst, testified that what she objected to in the books was the mention of other religions.She said, in fact, at trial, that she wanted the schools to teach that her religion was the only true religion. She doesn't believe in tolerance for other points of view. And what she wants to have is the school supporting her religious beliefs.

WOODRUFF: Is that the case?

Mr. FARRIS: No, that's not true at all. What Mrs. Frost testified to is that she doesn't mind discussions of other religions when they appear in a social studies type context -- an objective discussion about this religion believes this and this religion believes that. And she has no objections to that. It's when they advocate a certain religion, putting in prayers to horse idols, but censoring out prayers in Little House in the Big Woods, which happened in this case. One of the books --

WOODRUFF: I'm sorry, you've lost me on that.

Mr. FARRIS: They -- one story depicts a girl praying to a horse idol. And in the same series of books --

WOODRUFF: Horse Idol.

Mr. FARRIS: A horse idol. They have a selection from Little House in the Big Woods, which has a Christian prayer as part of the original version of that story. They censored out the Christian prayer, but put the horse idol prayer in.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Podesta, you're frantically shaking your head.

Mr. PODESTA: Mrs. Frost testified in her own words, "We can not be tolerant. We can not accept other religious views on an equal basis as our own." That's her testimony from the trial, and I think that really is a capsule of the viewpoints of the plaintiffs in this case. They want special treatment for their religious beliefs, and they want other religions treated in a second class way. And we think that is a real problem for public education.

WOODRUFF: You two see things very differently.

Mr. FARRIS: And the judge agreed with us. This fantasy version of these people's religious beliefs was what their lawyers argued, and the judge categorically rejected that. I mean, it's important to point out that the judge dismissed our case once before. We lost before this very same judge once before. But the court of appeals sent it back and said, "Here, have a full trial." And upon hearing our story fully and not listening to these two sentence capsules out of some two days of testimony, the judge agreed with us.

WOODRUFF: I guess what a lot of people who are sitting out there watching this may be wondering is where do you draw the line? I mean, at what point -- do you go and then check every line of copy in every textbook? I mean, what is subject to review and revision and what isn't? What's off limits?

Mr. FARRIS: Well, I think that every parent should be reading and interested in what their children are doing and so on in the sense of parental review. I think everything is open. Parents ought to know what their kids are learning. But when the government ought to get involved and tell schools whether they can and can not force children to read books, the issue is whether there's a serious, systematic violation of the people's beliefs. If it's an occasional, minor thing, I don't think that there should be objections raised with the government. But if there is this systematic violation of people's beliefs like there were in this book, then I think people ought not to be coerced to read them. These kids were expelled from school for refusing to read the books.

Mr. PODESTA: Mrs. Frost testified that teaching about world pollution violated her religious beliefs, that teaching about the diary of Anne Frank violated her religious beliefs. If this were a case in which she objected to one story or two stories, I'm sure the public schools in Tennessee would have tried to accommodate her, would have assigned alternative reading. But what she really wants is a very different curriculum from a nonsectarian public school curriculum.

WOODRUFF: But the judge agreed with her.

Mr. PODESTA: The judge agreed that she could educate her kids at home, as far as reading is concerned. But the logic of the judge's decision really causes the disintegration of public school classrooms, because anyone can opt out of any class they want, under the judge's ruling.

WOODRUFF: Let's talk about what happens next. Will there be an appeal -- further appeal?

Mr. PODESTA: There will be an appeal. The Hawkins County Board of Education has decided to appeal this case, and the People for the American Way Legal Defense Fund will be helping them in that appeal, through the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering.

WOODRUFF: So what then are the implications? What happens in the meantime? I mean, will this sort of case come up in other school districts, or --

Mr. PODESTA: The Holt books that are at issue in this case are used in 15,000 school districts in this country. So I suspect that this kind of litigation is only at the beginning, and we are only beginning to see these kinds of controversies all across the country.

WOODRUFF: How much more litigation will we see like this, Mr. Farris?

Mr. FARRIS: I don't think that much. I think school districts will be more cooperative than the Hawkins County school system has. Most school districts don't arrest mothers who come in and ask to talk about their students' classroom assignments, which -- Mrs. Frost was arrested, and she won a $70,000 civil rights verdict in a separate case on that arrest. And most students aren't expelled from school for adhering to their parents' instruction over religious beliefs. It's not 15,000. There's only 16,000 schools in the whole country. If there's 15,000 school districts using the Holt books, I think Tony's misstated the situation. It's not 90% of the schools in the country. It's about 9%. At any event, I don't think this is going to be a very widely practiced problem, because most school districts are more reasonable than the school district here.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Podesta, you get the last word.

Mr. PODESTA: The school district tried to accommodate Mrs. Frost, but her objections were so full, so complete, that the whole Tennessee curriculum is what is being objected to in this case. And I think that will be true in all the other 49 states as well.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Podesta, Mr. Farris, we thank you both for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again, the major stories of this Friday. The United States withdrew its ambassador to Damascus after Britain broke diplomatic relations with Syria, saying it was implicated in an attempt to blow up an Israeli airliner. Syria denied the charge. The Jordanian who tried to plant the bomb got 45 years in prison. And Tennessee parents who challenged school textbooks won their court case. Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our News Hour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.