The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the Senate passed the INF Treaty by an overwhelming margin. President Reagan made a pre summit call for the Soviets to improve their human rights record. And Syrian troops moved in to stop the bloody fighting between rival Shiite Moslems in Beirut. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary we begin our summit coverage. First, Robert MacNeil talks with Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko on the meaning of perestroika. Then we preview the summit with international security specialist Joseph Nye, Soviet expert Richard Pipe, and William Hyland, editor of Foreign Affairs Magazine. Finally we close with a profile of an American pianist who takes more than his show on the road.News Summary LEHRER: The U. S. Senate today gave President Reagan a great summit present. It passed by an overwhelming margin the treaty on intermediate range nuclear missiles. The vote was 93 to 5, 27 more than the two thirds needed for ratification. The only nay votes were those of Democrat Ernest Hollings and Republicans Malcolm Wallop, Gordon Humphrey, Steven Symms and Jesse Helms. The INF Treaty, as it's called, had been negotiated and signed by Mr. Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev at their Washington summit last December. The President is now in Helsinki, Finland, on his way to the Moscow summit. This afternoon, Senate leaders called him with the news.

Sen. ROBERT BYRD, Senate Majority Leader: I want to say that this is a stronger treaty now by virtue of the process in which the Senate and the Executive are equal partners in the making of treaties. The fact that this is a stronger treaty and that we've solved this process is evidence of our form of government, a government in which the Executive Branch and the Senate are united in this step. LEHRER: The plan is for White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker to hand deliver the treaty to Mr. Reagan in time for his first meeting in Moscow with Secretary Gorbachev. Charlayne? HUNTER-GAULT: In Helsinki today, President Reagan delivered a hardhitting pre summit speech, praising the Soviet Union on new and good reforms, but arguing that the Soviets still had a long way to go. Appearing at the same hall where 35 nations, including the Soviet Union and the United States signed the Helsinki Accords on human rights in 1975, the President called on the Kremlin to free political prisoners and embrace the humanitarian values defining Americans and Western European civilization.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Fifteen years after the final act was signed, it's difficult to understand why cases of divided families and blocked marriages should remain on the East/West agenda. Or why Soviet citizens who wish to exercise their right to emigrate should be subject to artificial quotas and arbitrary rulings. And what are we to think of the continued suppression of those who wish to practice their religious beliefs? HUNTER-GAULT: Soviet officials reacted angrily to the speech, which was televised in Moscow. Reuters quoted unnamed officials calling it ''condescending'' and ''out of date,'' and predicting that it could cause a lot of problems at the summit. Meanwhile, several Soviet news agencies today accused the U. S. of ignoring its own alleged human rights violations. LEHRER: The subject of Panama also followed President Reagan to Helsinki. Reporters asked him about it at a photo session with the President of Finland today. Mr. Reagan said no decision have been reached about what to do next about removing General Manuel Noriega from power in Panama. Negotiations to that end collapsed Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Reagan was asked twice about the possible use of military force, and he said twice that he would not comment on the possibilities. HUNTER-GAULT: Word out of Jerusalem today is that the Soviet Union is no longer insisting on an independent Palestinian state as the necessary outcome of an international conference on the Middle East. According to an Israeli foreign ministry official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, the new Soviet position was outlined to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres during secret talks in Madrid earlier this month. Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip, a three year old girl died today after Israeli soldiers fired tear gas grenades at Palestinian protestors. And two teenagers shot earlier by Israeli soldiers during West Bank clashes died also. LEHRER: Syrian troops took up positions in the southern slums of Beirut today. Their purpose was to intervene in and stop the fighting among two Shiite Moslem factions, the Amal Militia and the Hezbollah, or Party of God. The United States welcomed the Syrian troop deployment. State Department spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley expressed the hope it is a first step toward restoring central government authority to that area of Beirut. HUNTER-GAULT: Back in Washington, another assistant U. S. Attorney General has resigned. Charles Cooper, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and a staunch conservative, said he was leaving for a host of personal and professional considerations. He said his departure was wholly unrelated to the controversy over Attorney General Meese's legal problems. In recent months, the Department has been plagued by a series of departures of key aides who felt the controversy was tarnishing the Department's image. LEHRER: The Food and Drug Administration today issued an unusual order to the makers of the anti acne drug Accutane. The FDA said a picture of a deformed baby must appear with the medicine packaging. The purpose is to warn pregnant women of the potential birth defects Accutane could cause. An FDA spokesman acknowledged the picture requirement was unprecedented, but said the situation warranted such action. Accutane packages currently carry strong written warnings that some pregnant women, and even a few doctors, continue to either ignore or misunderstand. HUNTER-GAULT: That's our news summary. Still ahead, Yevgeny Yevtushenko on perestroika, a summit preview, and pianist Eugene Istomin. Perestroika & the Poet LEHRER: Robert MacNeil is in Moscow for next week's Reagan/Gorbachev summit. We begin tonight with his first report. It features an extraordinary interview with an extraordinary man about the new Russian revolution called perestroika. MacNEIL: This is the Soviet Writers Union, one of the instruments the Kremlin used to control what the Soviet people read and thought. Only approved writers could be members, only their works were published. In 1957, the Writers Union expelled the legendary poet Boris Pasternak. His crime, the novel Dr. Zhivago, a love story which painted too realistic a picture of human suffering after the revolution. Millions of Americans could read it or see the move, but Russians could not. And Pasternak died reviled by the State. Thirty years later, one of the most telling symbols of Gorbachev's reforms is that Dr. Zhivago has now been published here. Pasternak lived in Peredelkyno, the writers colony of country houses, or dachas outside Moscow. So does the poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko. When Pasternak was disgraced, one of those called upon to denounce him was the young Yevtushenko, just beginning to taste the fame that made him a world figure. Yevtushenko refused and his popularity protected him. He has survived ever since, just on the margin of official approval/disapproval, occasionally chastised, but permitted extraordinary freedom to publish and travel. Now 54, living in a dacha rented from the Writers Union, Yevtushenko talked to us about the new freedom under the reforms known as perestroika and whether its most important effects are material or intellectual. YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: For the moment, spiritually, intellectually, for the moment. Because, of course we have during very short time already got some incredible changes. Practice of censorship almost doesn't exist. I would like to be truthful, and so that's why I say almost. But you could publish almost everything. Nobody to -- I mean, censors now, they don't put their noses into our writers' porridge. And so they could not dictate to the editors to cut some words, some phrases. They're just more or less -- they probably -- I don't feel what they -- I feel it only instinctively. MacNEIL: You say there's almost no censorship. It's a moment of great symbolism that they have allowed Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago to be published. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Most of us are happy, of course, but some people very disappointed because some people -- I mean, some mediocre readers, they were expecting one political scandal. But it was a legend about this book, his book never was political book. It's wonderful love story when two wonderful persons, Yuli and Lara, were between two fires. They were victims of civil war. MacNEIL: As you know, Americans know the story very well, because -- Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: It's a Russian kind of Gone With Wind. But could you call Gone With Wind a political? Of course not. MacNEIL: No. How important is it symbolically that Dr. Zhivago is now published? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: I mean -- oh, gosh, I mean that first of all, I think that's sign of maturity of our State. You know, if we compare history of our country with history of socialism, of course socialism is a baby, a baby. But all children, they are very naive and very cruel. And unfortunately during first year of development of socialism we were very cruel to ourselves. And we killed for nothing so many people. We destroyed our own great culture, we destroyed mammary, our national mammary. MacNEIL: In another novel that has been published recently by Anatoly Rybakov, The Children of the Arbat, about the Stalin period in the 1930s, there is this sentence. A character says ''Try to imagine what sort of human beings they'll be when they've had the right to be good and to be kind hearted taken away from him for 50 years. '' The Russian people are just beginning to discuss openly what happened over those 50 years. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: No. You're mistaken, sir. May I correct you a little bit? The Russian people always were, even in Stalin's time, whispering sometimes, but they were always discussing about most painful problems. And during -- after the Stalin's death, we were discussing openly, but unfortunately inside our houses, it was very difficult to publish. But now what it means, we always in some sorts of society, we shape kind of openness, kind of glasnost. But it was unfortunately glasnost which was not open. That was our problem. MacNEIL: Not open openness. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Here there was unopen openness. But now, what is very important now, we opened our openness. MacNEIL: I was talking to some people yesterday in Moscow in the market, and one woman said perestroika only benefits intellectuals, the intelligentsia. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Unfortunately, this is -- she was sincere. Many people think this way. Why? Because perestroika really gives freedom of speech to intellectuals. But there are some other people -- I don't know if you felt them -- I don't mean what they have nothing to say if they get freedom of speech, but unfortunately this is a part of society. If someone has nothing to say, or something special to say to others, of course freedom of speech is nothing for them. But they do not understand, these people, they do not understand very important moment. Without freedom of speech, which means open competition, mediocre people with a more talented people, gifted people, on any kind fields of society, in agriculture, in factories, everywhere, without this open competition, which means glasnost, we could not, they could not move our society even economically. Of course this lady, I respect what she is saying, but I think she's one sided. She probably doesn't guess how glasnost could with time move our society even economical, because she is a Russian woman, she's a part of these endless lines, and shops -- she's fed up, pissed off with the shortage of products of any kind of -- (unintelligible) -- she's (unintelligible) upset, frustrated, and I understand her. But we are fighting for her, for people like she is. MacNEIL: How much time has Gorbachev got to make perestroika work? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Oh, gosh, I just don't want to be a false prophet, because he -- he who could be false prophet could make good prophet, my dear. And so -- it's very difficult to guess. I think we will see a real great -- could see real great results probably in ten years. But not earlier. I do not believe it. But of course, because we made so many mistakes in all fields -- you know -- but of course with time we will make new mistakes. Of course, we are not gods. MacNEIL: You said that you're a man who has hopes and fears. Is fear, the sensible fear of not getting into trouble, is that fear being dispelled by perestroika? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: I think -- not -- I think ten times less fear than before. But I mean, you know, what extermination of abolishment of fears, that's very slow process, very slow. Because fears, they are running in our blood, together with, how you call it, a red and white both, you call it? MacNEIL: Corpuscles. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Corpuscles, yes. Together with white and red corpuscles inside our veins are running gray corpuscles. That's corpuscles of fear, because fear doesn't permit us to be colorful. Fear, trying to force us to be gray. Fears that produce grays in society. But grayness produce brown, color. If you remember history, you know what means, in German, history of German brown color. And I mean we have for instance now very strong Russian chauvinist groups. And some of them, some of them really, behave, are the fascists. In relationship with our minorities, for instance. They are behave as a fascist when they trying to accuse and hold defects of our society Jewish people. So this is -- I mean, democracy, development of democracy, of course it's a great deal for Russia. We jumped from almost feudal society, society other democratical society into socialism. That's why our socialism looked as a very strange mixture of feudal society with some socialist ideals. And so that democracy gives possibility so we are now learning democracy. We are very clumsy peoples. And -- but democracy gives space for development of most gifted people, most progressive people, but democracy unfortunately gives space and possibility for development even some reactionary forces. Some very dangerous microbes of any society like, for instance, chauvinism, nationalism, anti semitism, etc. So -- but I do believe in the spirit of our society, and I think we shall overcome. MacNEIL: From his house, Yevtushenko took us to Pasternak's grave, which the State now grudgingly accepts as the shrine the poet's admirers have long made, still leaving flowers, little notes and candies to bring him sweetness in death. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: He was one of few people who saved spirit of Russian great literature of 19th century. As if he protected this spirit like fragile flame of one candle, you could protect by your palms. And so that was Pasternak's symbol, candle. Candle in the window. Candle of conscience. MacNEIL: Candle of conscience. Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Candle -- that's Pasternak. Pasternak was not slave of candle. He was a candle, determined with permanent petal of light even in darkness. MacNEIL: A mile away is Pasternak's dacha, where he lived for 30 years, and where he wrote Dr. Zhivago. After a long campaign, it is to be made into a museum.

Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: This could be miracle if this door could be open and we could see him. But unfortunately it's impossible. MacNEIL: And what did he say to you when -- how many times did you come here when he was still alive? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: Not too many. I came first time 1957, first time and I read him my poetry. And afterwards, last time I came during scandal with (unintelligible) And it was very sad moment because two young poets were before me, and they were students of Literary Institute together with me, Vanya and Viula. Vanya Padgradapy, Vanya Harabutavy Padgradapy. And they were pupils of Pasternak. And they were first in Literary Institute to sign letters demanding to throw away Pasternak from Soviet Union. And they came to him to ask his permission, because they were frightened. MacNEIL: They came to ask him his permission -- Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: For permission -- MacNEIL: -- to throw him out of the Writers Union -- Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: -- to sign this letter demanding to throw him out of the Soviet Union. And he said, Of course I permitted them, Genya. But it was so sad, he said. Now they never could be great poets, because they made betrayal. And he said afterwards ''I opened window looking to them. They were walking out and afterwards they embraced each other and they began to jump because they got -- jumped joyfully -- because they got permission, my own permission to betray me. '' And he said, ''Genya, do not idealize our generation. Sometimes we are cowards, too. And probably betray some people unvoluntary, but we did sometimes, but we never jumped joyfully afterwards. That's difference. '' MacNEIL: Is your own conscience clear about defending Pasternak in the Writers Union, your own? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: How to say clear? I think Dostoevski said everybody are guilty in everything. I was forced to accuse Pasternak, to make a speech against him. I refused. It was a kind of courage for that time. But okay,in a way I'm guilty because I refused to accuse him, but I didn't defend him or die, so I am guilty too in a way. But in this way, I mean all our people is guilty. I think the shame is probably most powerful model of progress. That's what is going on now. Because we are not ashamed to have a shame. And that's why I do believe in my country. Summit Outlook LEHRER: The Reagan/Gorbachev summit does begin Monday in Moscow. The prospect and possibilities are, as always, a matter of opinion. We explore four separate ones now, the first being that of the Russian poet Yevtushenko. Robert MacNeil asked him for a Soviet view of the meeting.

MacNEIL: How important is the summit meeting to Mr. Gorbachev? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: I don't know about him personally. Of course it's important for him. Because he was betting, betting on the very positive development of American/Russian relationship. Of course it was one of his main basical points of perestroika. And of course if, for instance, I could say, if for instance your people not to work for agreement, for such kind of agreement, for disarmament, I think it's a tragical moment for Gorbachev himself. MacNEIL: If the INF Treaty had not been ratified, that would be tragical. Tragic in -- how would that tragedy show itself? Mr. YEVTUSHENKO: I mean because he -- we have in our -- part in our society like any kind of society some conservatives and some even reactionary people. I'm absolutely sure they were trying to convince him of you never could trust these Americans. They will deceive you, they are not your side, they will put you in shame, or something like that. I am sure. I was not witness, personal witness, of such kind of conversation, but you could hear it on any kind of streets in Moscow. And that's why important for him personally. But it's also important for -- and I think it's very -- that's what I'm thinking about our two societies. I think for all your reactionary people, very important to create image of enemy country from Soviet Union. Because otherwise they could not be elected and they could not be successful. For our conservatives, for our reactional people, it's very important to create image of enemy society from United States, because otherwise they never be elected, and they wouldn't be successful. So your reactionary people and our reactionary people, they are both very personally interest if this treaty, INF you call it, INF Treaty, not will be ready by. And if measure on this thing between our two people on the states level, and people's diplomacy level, never will be developed. So and -- this is key question. So I mean if this INF Treaty will be ratified, we will have new possibility for development of democracy inside our own country. And I hope in your country too. LEHRER: Now three American opinions. Those of Joseph Nye, Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a former deputy Undersecretary of State in the Carter Administration. He's with us from Boston. William Hyland, editor of Foreign Affairs Magazine, and former Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. And Richard Pipes, professor of history at Harvard. He was the National Security Council's director of Soviet & Eastern European Affairs in the first Reagan term. He joins us from San Francisco. Bill Hyland, what would you expect as the accomplishments of this summit? Mr. Yevtushenko was talking about the signing of the INF Treaty, orthe ratification of the INF Treaty. That in fact did happen today. So where does that leave the summit? WILLIAM HYLAND, editor, Foreign Affairs: I think the summit is more important for the fact that it's happening, rather than any specific agreement, even the INF Agreement, which was bound to be ratified one day or the other. I think that what it means is that we have come a long distance from where we were in 1980, '81, when relations were very bad, very tense, continued in that channel until about 1984. And now Mr. Reagan, I think, has been more or less vindicated. He's in Moscow, the Soviets are out of Afghanistan, they've given up their INF missiles, and we're fairly far along in a START Treaty, so from the standpoint of the United States, this is a vindication of the last seven years. LEHRER: Vindication in what way, Bill? Mr. HYLAND: Well, Mr. Reagan came to office saying that what we have to do is be very tough, have a military buildup, psychological buildup to recover from the low point of '80, '81, after the Afghan invasion and the Iran hostage crisis. And on that basis then the Russians will come to us on our terms. And of course, that is what has happened. Now you have to give Gorbachev a considerable amount of credit. It might have been a much slower, uneven process had Chernenko or even Brezhnev remained alive and in power. But Gorbachev accelerated it. Nevertheless, they're out of Afghanistan, they've given up, they've made concessions in arms control, they've eased up in human relations and human rights. So I think Mr. Reagan is in a position to say, Well, I told you so. And to take some credit for this change. LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Nye? JOSEPH NYE, Harvard University: Well, I think it is fascinating that Ronald Reagan, who talked about the Evil Empire in 1983, will have had more postwar summits with the Soviet Union than any other president. But I think we have to be careful about causation. After all, if the rooster crows and the sun comes up, it doesn't necessarily mean the rooster caused it. But let's face it, the Soviet economy has been pretty sick. And for the first term of the Reagan presidency they had three dying leaders. So to some extent I think the Soviets were ready to come around to get some easing of the pressure, no matter who would have been president. But, yes, he does get credit. LEHRER: Would you agree with Bill Hyland also that the important thing about this summit is the fact that it's happening, more so than any results, specific results, that might come out? Mr. NYE: I think that's right. I don't expect any large agreements. I suspect they'll celebrate the INF Agreement again, which gives them a twofer, in the sense that they've already celebrated it in Washington, and now they're celebrate it again in Moscow. There may be some minor agreements signed. But I think we ought to look at the importance of this summit in terms of Soviet domestic politics. Gorbachev has a very important party conference coming up on June 28, which will help him with his advancing his program of restructuring, perestroika, at home. I think the success in the foreign policy domain, which the summit represents, may help to offset the fact that perestroika thus far hadn't put much more food on the average Soviet citizen's table. LEHRER: Professor Pipes, what's your view of this? Does anything have to happen in this, or any accomplishment, any agreement, anything like that have to come out in order for this summit to be a success, or just the fact of it? RICHARD PIPES, Harvard University: Well, the summit is really of symbolic importance. The major decision which have been taken in the White House in '83 by the president to extend the olive branch to the Russians, that was the basic decision. And then the coming to power three years later of Gorbachev. And then the various things that have happened since. But the meeting itself symbolizes simply a change of policy on the part of both powers. LEHRER: Is that wrong? I mean is it wrong to have just a meeting that is strictly symbol? Mr. PIPES: No, it's not wrong unless you attach too much importance to it. Because I like to keep my eye on the changes in the Soviet system, Soviet ideology, and Soviet behavior. Now, there are changes. Without question. But in some areas where we are most concerned are (unintelligible) Afghanistan in the field of foreign policy. In the field of military buildup, the Soviet Union has not yet changed its policies. Therefore, while I would welcome everything that has happened and the rapprochement between us and them, I'd be very cautious. LEHRER: President Reagan in his speech in Helsinki today made a big point that the Helsinki Accords, that the Soviet Union is still very much in violation of the Helsinki Accord. Is that a smart tack to use as he goes to Moscow? Mr. PIPES: Well, I think it's good to apply pressure on them in this respect. But I wish he would talk more about the information which he has at his disposal, about Soviet military buildup, about the increase in Soviet aid to Cuba, to Nicaragua, to the Vietnamese. This is what really is bothersome. Because it goes hand in hand with promises of new thinking in international relations. LEHRER: Bill Hyland, you agree that -- you agree with Professor Pipes that Mr. Reagan should not go in there and just have a ceremonial thing, he should use the opportunity to do some more tough talk? Mr. HYLAND: Oh, yes, I think he should raise these questions of regional conflicts, Angola, Vietnam, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, where we want some response and some action from Gorbachev. It would be a mistake to go through an entire summit and just go through ceremony. But the main prize, it seems to me, has eluded Gorbachev. I think Gorbachev went into this process some years ago in order to kill the Star Wars program, or at least to slow it way down. And to get an agreement from a conservative president that could get through the Congress. That has eluded him. That won't happen at this summit. I think there's still a possibility of another summit in the fall that might address this again. But from Gorbachev's standpoint, I think there still is a missing piece, and it's a very significant piece. LEHRER: Mr. Nye, in the past Gorbachev -- in the past summits at least -- Gorbachev has not taken well Mr. Reagan's comments about human rights, particularly in the Soviet Union. And also the issues that Dr. Pipes raised. Do you expect Gorbachev -- how would you expect Gorbachev to handle this? If in fact Mr. Reagan comes in there and symbolically at least pounds the table on the remaining issues? Mr. NYE: Well, I think partially it'll depend on how hard the pounding is on that issue. But the Soviets have to realize that the U. S. /Soviet relationship has at least four dimensions to it. There's arms control, but there is also the human rights issue, the regional issues and our bilateral economic relations. All four of them have to be brought up, and they can't just focus on arms control. On the other hand, I think Gorbachev wants a success at this summit. So unless Reagan pounds too hard on the human rights issue, I suspect that Gorbachev will not pound too hard back. LEHRER: Do you agree with Bill Hyland that the impact of this summit on the domestic situation in the Soviet Union is the most crucial thing to watch? Mr. NYE: I agree with that. I believe that the critical question for Gorbachev is what does this do in strengthening his internal support. And how does that help him with his program of domestic reforms. Gorbachev has said a number of times that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. And given the sickness of the Soviet economy at this stage, anyone can see that he really wants things to help him with that first priority of his. LEHRER: Dr. Pipes, what's your view of that? Mr. PIPES: Well, my view is this. That the fundamental problem for Gorbachev and his colleagues is to revitalize Soviet society and Soviet economy. They cannot do this with massive assistance -- without massive assistance from the West. The United States, Western Europe, Japan. To get the assistance in terms of capital and technology, investments in the Soviet Union, joint ventures, they have to somehow decrease the tension. And they have done many, many things to achieve that end, and they've been very, very successful in this. And that is the real problem facing them. The present summit, the possible future summit are merely steps in that direction. But for them and for anybody who studies the Soviet Union, the crux is internal Soviet development and the ability of the West to contribute to the reconstruction of Soviet society, which is essential for them. LEHRER: You heard what Mr. Yevtushenko told Robin MacNeil, which was that he said ten years, it's going to take ten years for perestroika to really have its impact. Would you agree? Mr. PIPES: Well, they've changed their schedule very significantly because when Gorbachev came in, and at the 27th Party Congress two years ago, he said that we must achieve the major breakthroughs within three years. Which meant by 1990, '91. Now Soviet visitors to my university and elsewhere talk about the end of this century. In some respects, I think this is more realistic. But they also will say, the more realistic ones among them still, will say that to change the way of thinking of the Soviet people will take generations. Because they have been so destroyed by the experience of the past 70 years. LEHRER: Bill Hyland, what's your view of that? Mr. HYLAND: I think ten years is probably a good guess. And if so, it puts the United States in the catbird seat for quite a while. Gorbachev or his successor is bogged down in long term decade of reform. They will need I think as Dick Pipes said, Western help, Western assistance. We probably can begin to negotiate the terms for this long term breather, and I think that's to our advantage. LEHRER: Long term breather ahead, Mr. Nye? Mr. NYE: Yes, I believe that both Bill and Dick are right on this. I think ten years is on the short side. The problems that the Soviet economy faces may take more than ten years. The interesting puzzle, though, is the surprises. Suppose, for example, Gorbachev isn't able to perform in the short run and opposition arises, then suppose there's an uprising in Eastern Europe, or in a republic like Armenia, and he is blamed for it. Maybe we won't have Gorbachev for all those ten years. LEHRER: Yeah. Richard Pipes, what about what Mr. Yevshutenko was talking about, the removal of censorship and his view of what theimpact this could have on the individual citizens in the Soviet Union? How do you view what he said about that. You heard what the woman -- he quoted the woman who said it's only the intellectuals, the ordinary folks are not going to see this. What's your view of that? Mr. PIPES: Well, in the first place I think that the greatest change which has occurred under Gorbachev has been in the field of removal or weakening of censorship. That you can now talk about subjects which for years have been taboo. And that's of course extremely welcome in every way. But it is equally true that because intellectuals are the ones who benefit most from the weakening of censorship, they are the greatest supporters of perestroika. For the average citizen so far, there has been very little change. And indeed sometimes the change has been for the worse. Because for example they have now introduced quality control into factories and workers who have been accustomed for years to produce shoddy goods and get paid, now get their pay docked if they produce unacceptable goods. So it is to some extent true that so far the main beneficiaries have been intellectuals, whose commodity is free speech. LEHRER: All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you all three for being with us. Mr. Nye, Bill Hyland, Professor Pipes. Moving Musician HUNTER-GAULT: Finally tonight, a story about an unusual pianist, and the baggage he insists on taking on the road. Our teller is special art correspondent Joanna Simon.

JOANNA SIMON: A hundred concerts a year for almost half a century. That's been Eugene Istomin's life since making a spectacular debut in 1943 at the age of 17. He's performed in every major hall to international acclaim, and recorded extensively. At times even he is amazed by his career's longevity. EUGENE ISTOMIN: Here I am at 62, and I feel like a kid of 35. There must be something wrong with me. But I've gone where I've wanted to go, and I'm now -- I just want to get things right.

SIMON: Wanting to get things right has turned Eugene Istomin into a man with a mission. MAN: So I would offer a toast to the Johnny Appleseed of America --

SIMON: Istomin has bid farewell temporarily to his luxurious lifestyle, which he shares with his wife Marta in Washington, D. C. And he's making the sacrifice to realize his dream: playing for audiences hungry for live music. Not only in the major halls of the world's capitals, but also in auditoriums of small cities and towns. And touring with his very own piano, something no pianist has ever done before. So during 1988 and 1989 Eugene Istomin is barnstorming America, reviving a musical tradition made obsolete by jet travel. Mr. ISTOMIN: Hello all you Americans out there. I'm going to change your lives now.

SIMON: Playing on whistlestop tours was how performers of Istomin's generation built their careers. But even in the old days it was prohibitively expensive to bring along a favorite piano. So while reviving the old barnstorming tradition, Istomin is also breaking new ground. General Motors has built him a truck with suspension and climate controls especially designed for transporting grand pianos. He's hired a professional piano mover and a fulltime piano tuner, and he's touring with not one, but two, pianos. One is his own, a brilliant sounding instrument that he prefers when performing with orchestras. This mellower sounding piano is on loan from Steinway. He prefers it for solo recitals. Some might call this eccentric, but Marta Istomin, artistic directorof the Kennedy Center, and a musician herself, explains. MARTA ISTOMIN: Imagine for a violinist, a singer, any other instrumentalist, they carry their instrument with them. They can practice any time they want. But for a pianist, they have to find a new instrument everywhere that they've never seen, in whatever conditions they are, and they're expected to give the best performance, when they have just yesterday played on a piano that is completely opposite in characteristic as today. Mr. ISTOMIN: I need to play a lot. And I need to play on the instrument that I know. And I am now about to indulge myself in what ought to be a necessity, but it turns out that it's a great luxury.

SIMON: Istomin's tour is in two parts, covering the Eastern and Western United States with an itinerary that reads like a Rand McNally index. He's booked into an average of three halls a week, in towns large and small. On the Eastern leg, New York, Philadelphia and Washington are on the schedule. But so are Lake Rails, Florida, Greenwood, South Carolina, and Biloxi, Mississippi. The general plan was to start in Florida and end up home in Washington, having performed in 15 Eastern and Southeastern states. The tour started on January 3 in Winter Park, Florida. We caught up ten days later in Palm Beach, the legendary winter playground of the jet set, super rich and, Istomin hoped, musically sophisticated. It was a beautiful hall in a city with a glittering reputation, and there were no New York critics to please. But even an old pro like Istomin was consumed with stage fright. SIMON: How do you feel right now? Mr. ISTOMIN: Very nervous and jumpy. Ready to jump at you and everybody else. Just before going on stage, everything is like sort of before you're diving off a big diving board. And I go to that keyboard and I see that it's the same keyboard that I've seen all my life, it's not so bad, not so frightening. But the buildup before a performance is terrible.

SIMON: The concert sponsor had warned Istomin that Palm Beach audiences are notorious for leaving before the end of a performance, as they are usually anxious to get home to bed. But this audience's response was unusually warm, and Istomin was even recalled for an unprecedented encore. But there was little time for celebration. Istomin and colleagues were already thinking about the next day's concert and the work involved in its preparation. Joe Stevens had the earliest wakeup call. He had to load the piano onto the truck. And then he was off to pick up Istomin for an hour's drive to the next destination, a retirement community in Coconut Creek. The routine had been perfected. Joe would unload and reassemble the piano with help from local stagehands. And then Tali Mahanor would spend two to three hours tuning it. TALI MAHANOR: The pianos are living characters, and we named them. The one here, here name is Kira, and the other is Tatiana. SIMON: They're all women? JOE STEVENS: The king in the truck is a guy. SIMON: The truck's name is King? Mr. STEVENS: Mmm hmm. Mr. ISTOMIN: We're all a little bit touched in the head! Odd, yes. We do have fun and we've enjoyed stopping off and having, getting oranges along the road, or hamburgers, or barbecues or that sort of thing. And lots of ice cream, because I'm addicted to ice cream. But of course I'm not alone in this. Mr. STEVENS: You would think the artsy type are hard to get along with, they're so involved in their music and their thing. But Eugene is down to earth.

SIMON: That's what these Coconut Creek residents thought. They wandered in off the golf course while Istomin was rehearsing. MAN: How wonderful that an artist like you come to us. Mr. ISTOMIN: Well, we need you. We need each other. That's what it's all about. MAN: (unintelligible) before, and we're out in the boondocks as it were. And it's simply astonishing seeing someone perform and hearing them perform. Mr. ISTOMIN: And being part of it -- that's right. The difference between this is like kissing a girl and watching Clark Gable kiss Lana Turner in the movies. It's a little different, it's a little different.

SIMON: Istomin had few expectations about a recital at a retirement village in Coconut Creek. During rehearsal he complained about the acoustics and had no idea what to expect from the audience. But when the hall was filled, the acoustics were outstanding. And the audience was musically sophisticated and enormously enthusiastic. WOMAN: I think he's a marvelous pianist, and his attitude and his goal to bring music to Florida and to go from place to place I think are very humane. WOMAN: I just couldn't wait to have something like this come through. MAN: And how they got him down here, I don't know. And for the price we're paying, it's just ridiculous.

SIMON: In Florida, Istomin was constantly surprised by a steady stream of faces from his past. The old friends who hosted his wedding, the doctor who operated on his hands 25 years earlier, and the wife of a beloved uncle. Mr. ISTOMIN: My Uncle Elias was the fellow who was my most adored uncle when I was a little boy. He took me to my first baseball games, and --

SIMON: That first game was in 1934, the beginning of a passion that's as old, and runs almost as deep as Istomin's love of music. He first rooted for the hometown team, the Brooklyn Dodgers. When they moved away, he pledged allegiance to the Detroit Tigers, which he thought was the greatest team of the time. Mr. ISTOMIN: In the effort of any athletes or any performers of music, there is great similarity. It's in the extreme intensity which you need, and that same intensity which can make you crash and fall right on your face. And that's the same thing. Of course I personally think that we musicians have more of that, because we can't afford to slack out and do that. We don't have averages of 300. We have to do a lot better than that.

SIMON: Istomin shared his love of baseball with his closest friend and mentor. Mr. ISTOMIN: That is Pablo Casals in his Detroit Tigers baseball cap, which I put on his head in the summer of 1965 when I went to see him in Prague, coming just directly over during the baseball season.

SIMON: Istomin met the legendary Spanish cellist in 1950, and impressed him with his talent. It was an instant friendship. In many ways, the relationship rejuvenated Casals, inspiring him both musically and personally. At the ate of 80, Casals decided to marry one of his students, the 19 year old Marta Montelignari. Mr. ISTOMIN: I remember at that time it was quite scandalous, because this young girl and this old man, all the talk, and the skepticism about it. But I then realized how happy she made him. He lived to 97 years of age. She gave him at least ten years.

SIMON: Not long after Casals' death, Eugene Istomin started to court Marta. SIMON: Do you think it ever occurred to Casals that you and Marta might marry? Mr. ISTOMIN: Yes. In one of our last conversations that is just something that was passed betweenus and he looked significantly at me when he said, ''I don't know who's going to take care of her and look after her,'' with that look. I remember that look. And I told her about it, too. I used it to court her. Mrs. ISTOMIN: Casals was an extrovert. In that he differed with Eugene. Eugene loves the same things, but he is more the retiring kind, he's quieter. I would say even a little shy. He's not a showman, he will not throw his arms in the air, he will not make faces. What we're there for at the concert is for the music. And I think that's Eugene's strongest point. You close your eyes and what comes out of that piano is what matters.

SIMON: For the last six months, the Istomin sound has been ringing loud and clear throughout the Southeastern United States. Soon he and his pianos will be heading out West. There are no plans to slow down, but he likes it that way. Mr. ISTOMIN: I hope to have the joy of making music the way I want to and make and spend an hour and a half with live audiences around the United States, and maybe leave a lasting impression on some people. To be able to do that is a great privilege. It's the reason that I was given, I believe, my talent. Recap HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the main news of this Friday. The Senate passed the INF Treaty by an overwhelming margin. President Reagan challenged the Soviets to live up to their commitments on human rights. And the Syrians moved in to stop the fighting between rival Moslem militias in Beirut. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. Have a nice holiday weekend. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.