The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The lead stories of this day are these. national security adviser Robert McFarlane resigned. His deputy, John Poindexter, was appointed to replace him. The indicted head of NASA, James Beggs, took a leave of absence. And some encouraging results of an experimental treatment for cancer were announced. We'll have the details in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The major stories on the NewsHour tonight are these: Robert McFarlane's resignation, assessed by former NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and a veteran reporter. We learn of a promising experimental cancer treatment from the head of the National Cancer Institute, and, in a newsmaker interview, Corazon Aquino talks about how she plans to defeat Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. News Summary

LEHRER: President Reagan lost two top officials of his administration today. Robert McFarlane resigned as national security adviser and NASA administrator James Beggs took a leave of absence. President Reagan announced McFarlane's departure and said the current deputy security adviser, Rear Admiral John Poindexter, will replace him. All three came to the White House briefing room for the late afternoon announcement.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Bud's more than 30 years of service to his nation have been exemplary in every respect. He has served in peace and war, ranging from his early days at the Naval Academy to Vietnam and to the White House, and few have served with more dedication, none with more loyalty. While Bud's departure is a cause of deep regret for me, I'm pleased to announce that I have appointed Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter to be the new assistant to the President for national security affairs. In choosing Admiral Poindexter for this key position in our national security affairs structure, I am acknowledging the very important contribution that he has already made to the formulation and carrying out of our major foreign policy objectives. I'm also underscoring the great value I place on the continuity of our foreign policy. For five years John has been intimately involved in this administration's national security affairs and is well prepared and able to assume this very important post.

Adm. JOHN POINDEXTER, National Security Adviser: It's going to be very difficult to fill in behind Bud. We've worked together as a team, really, the three of us for over the past two years, and it's always difficult to lose one of the team members, but we've got a very good staff and we will continue to provide the President with the best advice available.

REPORTER: Mr. President, can you and Mr. McFarlane both speak to this question of what role the McFarlane-Regan problems had in his decision to leave?

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Whether he feels he wants to speak or not, about this let me just say, and I say this with full confidence that he endorses what I'm going to say. You have all been misinformed about that. The reason that has been given is one in which, after 30 years in which this country has been his first priority, he feels a responsibility, that I think all of us feel, toward his family.

REPORTER: Weren't there problems with Mr. Regan, sir?

Mr. McFARLANE: That's nonsense.

LEHRER: President Reagan also today accepted the decision of NASA administrator Beggs to step aside while criminal charges against him are disposed of. Beggs was indicted Monday for allegedly defrauding and lying to the government on contract cost overruns while an executive of General Dynamics. A reporter also asked Mr. Reagan about the Beggs situation at the McFarlane-Poindexter session.

Pres. REAGAN: I don't know of anyone who could have done a finer job than he has done and is doing at NASA, and we're talking about something that is supposed to have happened prior to government service. And also, if you read it correctly, not something in which he in any way was doing anything, if he was doing this at all, that would redound to his benefit personally or enrich him in any way.

LEHRER: And a Democratic-sponsored tax reform bill got a boost from Mr. Reagan today. In a written statement Mr. Reagan asked the House to support a bill recently approved by the House Ways and Means Committee. House Speaker Thomas O'Neill told reporters it will take the votes of 75 House Republicans to pass the measure; however, the House GOP leadership predicted many Republicans would not jump on board, even with the President's endorsement. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: A former Navy intelligence analyst was sentenced to two years in prison today for leaking three U.S. spy photos to a British military journal. Samuel Loring Morison's convictions on espionage and theft of government property carried a possible 10-year term and a $10,000 fine. During the trial prosecutors said that Morison endangered national security, because the photographs revealed to the Soviet Union how a U.S. spy satellite worked. Morison said he was unaware that his actions were criminal.

LEHRER: There was some good news about cancer today. An experimental treatment using a hormone called interleuken-2 has shown dramatic results in reducing the size of tumors in four different kinds of cancer. Twenty-five cases were used in the experiment, and there were tumor reductions of 50 or more in 11 of those patients. The experimental work was done at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and the results were published today in The New England Journal of Medicine. Institute officials called the results the most promising biological approach to cancer thus far, but emphasized the treatment is expensive and produces potentially dangerous side effects.

HUNTER-GAULT: Another Kennedy entered the political arena today. Joseph P. Kennedy II entered the crowded field of candidates hoping to win the congressional seat now held by retiring House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. Correspondent Maryanne Kane reports that in making his political debut in Boston, the eldest son of Robert F. Kennedy spoke about why he wanted the seat once held by his Uncle John.

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II, congressional candidate: That's why I want to run for the Congress of the United States, to fight for the rights of the poor and the elderly and ordinary working families all across the 8th Congressional District.

MARYANNE KANE [voice-over]: Setting the traditional Kennedy social agenda, Joseph Kennedy II, son of the late Robert Kennedy, became the first of the second generation Kennedys to run for office. And for his entree he selected the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, a district of some 600,000 people that includes business and residential areas of Boston as well as Cambridge, home of Harvard and MIT. It's the same seat held by his Uncle John from 1946 to 1952, and by House Speaker Tip O'Neill for the past 35 years. Kennedy made the announcement at his Citizens' Energy Corporation, a non-profit fuel service for the low-income that he founded in 1978. Accompanied only by his wife, Shelia, Kennedy said family members would campaign for him, but he downplayed their role.

Mr. KENNEDY: I am running for this office and no other member of my family.

HUNTER-GAULT: On Wall Street, traders did some serious pre-Christmas shopping today. The Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 25 points, to an all-time high of 1484.40. Advancing stocks outpaced losers by a four-to-one margin. It wasn't so much St. Nick as Paul Volcker on traders' minds. Analysts attributed the buying spree to speculation that the Federal Reserve is about to ease up on credit, resulting in lower interest rates.

LEHRER: The United States today reclaimed the remains of seven Americans missing from the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese government turned them over to a U.S. delegation in Hanoi. Unspecified material evidence concerning 14 other U.S. servicemen was also picked up. All were flown to Honolulu for analysis and hopefully eventual identification.

HUNTER-GAULT: Malta has decided not to turn over the sole surviving gunman involved in the hijacking of an Egypt Air plane 12 days ago. A government spokesman told Reuters News Agency that his country has no extradiction treaty with Egypt, that the hijacker was not Egyptian, and that they saw no reason to extradite him.

LEHRER: And, finally, from the Philippines President Marco told National Public Radio General Fabian Ver would remain chief of staff during an armed forces reorganization. He said that process could take a few days. Ver, a long-time friend and associate of Marcos, was acquitted along with 25 others in the assassination of dissident leader Benigno Aquino, and Monday Marcos reinstated him as armed forces chief of staff. Also, Moslem rebels freed an American and a West German who had been kidnapped 13 months ago in the wilderness of a southern Philippine island. The American was identified as John Rabinow of New York. He was said to be in his 20s.

HUNTER-GAULT: Coming up on the NewsHour, the causes and consequences of the McFarlane resignation as seen by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and a veteral political journalist. We hear about a promising experimental cancer treatment, and Corazon Aquino tells how she plans to defeat Philippine President Marcos. Calling It Quits

LEHRER: Robert McFarlane quit his job as President Reagan's national security adviser. His deputy, Rear Admiral John Poindexter, was named to replace him and thus became the fourth man to hold that position in the five years of the Reagan administration. We're going to talk about the incoming and the outgoing, beginning with this "who was that man?" look at the out-going Robert McFarlane by correspondent June Cross.

JUNE CROSS [voice-over]: Robert McFarlane, known as "Bud," had a reputation in government circles as the compleat military bureaucrat. He's a former Marine lieutenant colonel, the son of a Texas congressman, a low-keyed professional who worked with Henry Kissinger in the Nixon White House and on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. By October of 1983, Bud McFarlane had done the necessary political footwork to take over as National Security Adviser after William Clark resigned. He worked behind the scenes, forging compromises between Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, running interference between the administration and Capitol Hill. He was influential in encouraging deployment of the Marines in Lebanon, and when congressional opposition mounted, Bud McFarlane figured out a way to withdraw them. He channeled the President's enthusiasm for Star Wars into a comprehensive arms control proposal, but only recently had he gotten much publicity, most notably this cover story in The New York Times last May. Only slowly did he start speaking on the record about foreign policy issues like South Africa.

Mr. McFARLANE [August 14, 1985]: Change will only occur when the government of South Africa can present itself in a credible fashion, achieve the confidence of the black community and sit down at the table.

CROSS [voice-over]: And he was a principal voice in the days before the summit.

Mr. McFARLANE [November 18, 1985]: We must get along with each other. That implies competition, and the issue is, how can we make it peaceful?

CROSS [voice-over]: McFarlane's political problems weren't with the State and Defense departments, as his predecessors' had been. His political troubles started with the second Reagan term, when former Treasury Secretary Donald Regan took over as White House chief of staff. Regan also served in the Marines, and the two former colonels vied for the President's ear in a competition that grew more intense as Regan extended his reach into foreign policy, an area in which he has little expertise. An example, this official White House photo taken the final day of the summit shows not McFarlane but Regan smack in the center of the action. McFarlane was reportedly disappointed that the summit ended without the comprehensive arms agreement he'd been hoping for. But the two superpowers are talking, and McFarlane apparently considers it a good time to resign. In leaving his post as National Security Adviser, he is also leaving the politial infighting that's become a permanent part of that job, no matter who takes it on.

HUNTER-GAULT: We turn now to the educated-guessing part of the McFarlane story, and one of the best educated-guessers around. He is Laurence Barrett of Time magazine. He's been covering the Reagan team since 1979, first as Time's senior reporter, and now as national political correspondent.

Well, Larry, you heard both the President and McFarlane dismiss as misinformed and nonsense the Reagan-Regan flap with McFarlane as the cause of it.

LAURENCE BARRETT: Yes, and shortly before Al Haig was fired the President said that it was a bunch of smoke being blown by the press that Haig was in trouble. I think we have to take these statements for what they are, which is perfectly understandable cosmetic window-dressing. McFarlane went out like a gentleman; of course he was not going to say in public what is generally known.

HUNTER-GAULT: What is that?

Mr. BARRETT: Well, there was serious personal friction between Don Regan and Bud McFarlane dating back many months, and McFarlane had been talking quietly and privately about leaving for at least the last two or three months. He held off because of the summit, obviously. He wasn't going to bail out before that crucial event. However, the personal static and lack of good chemistry between Regan and McFarlane, that was only one of the reasons for McFarlane's frustration. It's much deeper than that, and it goes to one of the central problems of the job of national security adviser --

HUNTER-GAULT: And that is?

Mr. BARRETT: -- particularly in this administration. Because Ronald Reagan's rather particular and peculiar view of cabinet government has prevented not only McFarlane but McFarlane's two predecessors, William Clark and Dick Allen, from carrying out that assignment in a satisfactory way, a satisfying way. I think McFarlane was the best of those three. He was very tenacious, quite skillful in some of the interior maneuvering. But Reagan -- well, there's been two factors here that you have to recall. From day one Reagan has not had a very clear view of his own foreign policy and national security priorities, a much less clear view than he had of his domestic agenda. And that's why the domestic agenda by and large has gone better than the foreign agenda. Secondly, Reagan sets a great deal of store by his view of cabinet government; that's why Caspar Weinberger has survived as long as he has, despite his lack of credibility around Washington these days, and that's why George Shultz continues to prosper, even though he is not the most assertive or imaginative secretary of state. McFarlane did attempt to serve as the good traffic cop. He was constantly rolling large boulders up the hill, and either Weinberger or Shultz would kick the boulder back on him. I think he was worn down by this. He never really made it into Reagan's club, so to speak, into Reagan's inner circle.

HUNTER-GAULT: It was rumored that he had Reagan's ear.

Mr. BARRETT: Well, yes. He did have -- yeah, it's an exaggeration to say that he lacked access. He had access, in gross terms. He saw the President frequently, sometimes three and four times a day. It wasn't the point of face-to-face exposure. But when they got to some of the crucial decisions, a Weinberger or Shultz or, in some cases one or two others with far less expertise and sophistication than McFarlane would come in and stop the parade.

HUNTER-GAULT: Can you give me an example?

Mr. BARRETT: Sure. McFarlane was instrumental in the birth of Star Wars.

HUNTER-GAULT: That's the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Mr. BARRETT: Exactly. And he was the one who really got it rolling while he was still the deputy national security adviser under Clark. He did that by some very adroit behind-the-scenes manipulating. Reagan then took it and ran with it very far and very fast. McFarlane always viewed that as the ultimate lever with which to extract an arms control agreement out of the Soviets. And it was partially successful. The Soviets did come back to the table after their boycott of the talks, and they put some new proposals on the table not long ago, proposals that were closer to the U.S. view than previously. Yet McFarlane was unable to take it the last crucial step, which is to use Star Wars as the ultimate bargaining chip.

HUNTER-GAULT: But also there are rumors about McFarlane's deteriorating relationship with Reagan, that he was as frustrated by Reagan himself as he was by Regan. Can you briefly --

Mr. BARRETT: Well, that's part of what I'm talking about. McFarlane, even though he comes across as the staunch, stiff-upper-lip, straight-backed Marine, is a very proud man. And he felt,in effect, that he was being slighted, that he wasn't getting the recognition that he deserved, and that his cases were not getting the hearing they deserved. A less dramatic thing than the Strategic Defense Initiative was the Gramm-Rudman problem, which has become a terrible problem for this administration. Regan promoted that very vigorously, very quickly, sold it to the President, even though it was clear from the beginning that the Gramm-Rudman budget deficit reduction program was going to have a severe impact on military spending. Now, Reagan wants to cut the deficit; Reagan also wants to maintain a high level of military spending. McFarlane saw that problem and that conflict at the beginning, tried to finesse his way out of it. Don Regan wouldn't have it, Regan ploughed ahead. Now the administration is at loggerheads with Congress over that same issue.

HUNTER-GAULT: So I guess what I hear you saying is that the bottom line is that this was just major frustration and that's about it?

Mr. BARRETT: Major frustration, and I think a certain fatigue. That is a very wearing job for anybody, no matter how successful he is in it. You're under constant pressure seven days a week. I think he is a resilient guy, but eventually he just lost the desire to keep rolling that boulder up the hill.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, Larry, we're going to hear something now about that difficulty of that job. Thank you very much for sharing those insights with us.

Mr. BARRETT: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, some further thoughts on the Poindexter-in-for-McFarlane development now from Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser for the entire four years of the Carter administration. He is now professor of government at Columbia University and a counselor at the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Is this an important development today, or just another personnel change?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: No, I think it's an important development because the position is so crucial. The job of the national security adviser is so proximate to the President, so central to the effective coordination of national security that any change in it is important.

LEHRER: Well, now, why are not the secretaries of state and defense able to do that job? Why is it so important that there be a national security adviser?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Well, basically because it's almost inevitable that the secretary of state after awhile begins to think that foreign policy is diplomacy, and the secretary of defense begins to think that national security is defense. And you need someone close to the President who can integrate these two perspectives and who can also take into account the President's political interests, and on that basis try to shape not only a coordinated approach but also to infuse this whole messy complicated process with a certain sense of strategic direction. So it's a very important position, and I think much depends on how the President guides and handles the national security adviser insofar as the performance of the job is concerned. I think Mr. Barrett was absolutely right when he said that access is important, but also rapport with the President is important. An effective national security adviser has to have a very close personal rapport with the President to be effective.

LEHRER: Now, does rapport mean influence? In other words, "I, Mr. President, believe we should do boom, boom," and Mr. President says, "Okay, Mr Adviser, I'm going to do it"? Is that what you mean?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: No, I don't quite mean that, although it means a little bit of that. It means a relationship in which the national security adviser can go to the President and say some of these things and hopefully be listened to occasionally. Not always, the President can't be a puppet of the national security adviser. It also means being willing to go to the President and tell the President he's wrong. And that requires a certain confidence and standing. And, last but not least, since the job of the President is all time consuming, the President has so many other balls that he has to juggle in the air, it means knowing what the President wants without asking him, being that close to him --

LEHRER: Isn't that dangerous?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: No, it isn't, because, first of all, if it really is crucial you are going to ask the President. But there are many times when it's marginal, still important but marginal, and if you know the President well enough you can anticipate his position on it and you can speak for him. And all of these things need to be done because otherwise there is a tendency for policy to go in several directions and for the heads of the department to feud very intensely.

LEHRER: Well, that was leading me to a hypothetical situation. You have the secretary of defense and you have the secretary of state in a meeting with the national security adviser and the President. The secretary of state says, I think we should do this, Mr. President; the secretary of defense says, no, sir, I think we should do that -- and it's just the opposite. Then what happens -- what role then does the national security adviser play or should play when the secretaries of defense and state disagree?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: Jim, the role he should play comes even prior to that meeting. Even prior to that meeting the national security adviser should tell the President, "Mr. President, on issue x the secretary of state will take the following position for the following reasons; this is his case. This is why he comes out this way."

LEHRER: And lay it out straight?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: And lay it out straight, as straight as he can and as objective as he can. And he tells the President, "And the secretary of defense has a different point of view for the following reasons. And this is what he'll be arguing." And then, at least that's my experience, the national security adviser should not simply step forward and say, "And my view is you could come out this way or that way." He should lay it out this way, and the President then says to him, "And what is your opinion?" Then you should give it to him. Then you should tell him, "Well, on this case I happen to agree with the secretary of state for the following reasons," or you might say, "There are also these domestic considerations you may wish to take into account, Mr. President, which may influence your judgment." And then the President makes a decision. A great deal of the job, in other words, is not just arbitrating a dispute when it's already before the President, but first of all trying to understand the issues involved and then to prepare the President for effectively dealing with these issues, and that requires the national security adviser, to repeat, who has a certain degree of strategic self-confidence and also personal self-confidence in dealing with the President. And I think one of the problems we have had in recent years is that while we have had very able people in the job, Dick Allen had an obligation to go through Mr. Meese before he could get to the President. Mr. Clark was very able. He wasn't very expert in foreign policy, but had to establish himself over time, and it took him time. I think he did towards the end. And now again a change.

LEHRER: You heard what Larry Barrett said, that it's a frustrating, wearing job that, regardless of what problems that were unique to McFarlane's tenure in this administration, this is a job in and of itself is a difficult one. Is it that difficult?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: It is a difficult job, but it's one of the most challenging jobs in the U.S. government. I think that after the position of President it is the most challenging job in the U.S. government, and one which potentially gives you also the greatest satisfaction of really doing something for the commonweal.

LEHRER: Challenging is a word that means different things to different people. What does that mean to you? Define challenging.

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: It means that you have to face major obstacles, you have to undertake very difficult assignments, you have to shoulder very major responsibilities day in and day out, and be guided at all times -- and I mean this with utter seriousness -- by the national interest and never lose sight of that.

LEHRER: Let's bring Larry Barrett back. Where does Admiral John Poindexter fit into this now? What is known about him?

Mr. BARRETT: Not a great deal. Admiral Poindexter does not have a public record aside from his resume. But he has not written extensively or lectured extensively. We don't really know with much certainty where he would come down on the Middle East, should that flare up again, or what he will do --

LEHRER: What about arms control?

Mr. BARRETT: We can assume that he generally has been in sync with McFarlane on that, but we don't know it for a fact, and he has not been -- he has not had a great deal of personal, intimate involvement with that. McFarlane tended to run that on his own with a couple of other specialty aides. One of the things that's troubling at this -- I mean, I don't want to predict whether he'll be great or the opposite. What's troubling about it is that he will now have to establish his own credibility with the President, with some kind of outside constituency, certainly with the secretary of defense and the secretary of state. He is, to my way of thinking, not enough of an entity at the moment, and there is a danger here that he will be driven over by the heavier weights.

LEHRER: Do you see that as a problem?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: I would put it differently. I think the President has had a very major personal success at the summit, largely by the force of his personality, without having to resolve any of the central issues, particularly the American-Soviet relationship. In the next 10 months we have to resolve fundamental issues regarding arms control, regarding the Strategic defense Initiative, regarding regional conflicts with the Soviets, and we have to resolve them in the context of fundamental bureaucratic divisions between state and defense. And that will need either a very actively involved President, and I think Mr. Reagan tends to lay back on these issues, or a truly assertive, dominant and confident national security adviser who is not subordinated to the domestic chief of staff.

LEHRER: And what does that say about the Poindexter appointment, then?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: That he has a rough road ahead of him and that he will have to assert himself. I noticed, for example, in the dispatches that he says Donald Regan assured him he'll have access to the President. It shouldn't have been Don Regan who was assuring him of that. That's something of which he should have assured himself with the President directly. That's the way to begin.

LEHRER: But if you were chief of staff at the White House, wouldn't you want the national security adviser to go through you?

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: But if I was the national security adviser I'd go directly to the President and I wouldn't let anything stop me except the President himself, in which case I would no longer be his national security adviser.

Mr. BARRETT: Traditionally the national security adviser has had a clear channel, another big difference --

LEHRER: As you said earlier, Dr. Brzezinski, that is up to the President to work that -- each President has to --

Dr. BRZEZINSKI: The President has to decide that, but I don't think the President will get the maximum out of his national security adviser if he subordinates him to someone who is essentially a domestically oriented political figure.

LEHRER: I hear you. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Still to come on the NewsHour, a look at a promising experimental cancer treatment, and Corazon Aquino talks about her hopes for defeating Philippine President Marcos.

This is pledge week on PBS, and we're taking a short break now so that your public television station can ask your support. That support helps to keep programs like this on the air. We'll be back shortly.

[Pledge Week Intermission] Challenging Marcos

LEHRER: Next tonight, a newsmaker interview with the woman who wants to be the next president of the Philippines, Mrs. Corazon Aquino, widow of assassinated dissident leader Benigno Aquino. Yesterday she announced she would oppose President Marcos in the February 7th election, even though she was a novice in the ways of politics. I talked to her last night from her home in Manila about her efforts to get another opposition candidate, Senator Salvador Laurel, to be her running mate and about the nature of her candidacy: a symbolic gesture for her husband's memory or a real effort to win?

CORAZON AQUINO: I think it will have to be more than just a symbol of my husband. Perhaps I can offer them the hope that we will still be able to bring about the necessary changes so necessary to bring our country back to its recovery.

LEHRER: Is it your conviction that the majority of the people in your country want President Marcos out of office?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, definitely so, and you can just see the present economic crisis we are undergoing. There is almost a total lack of credibility as far as the Marcos government is concerned, and so people are really hoping there will be a change.

LEHRER: How do you know that? How do you know that the majority of the people want him out? He says, as you know, that he still has the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of the Philippines.

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, I only have to ask people whom I meet if life is indeed better for them after 20 years of Marcos' rule, and they don't even have to answer me, because I can see how miserably they are living now. I have been to Negros and I have witnessed at first hand the suffering and the hunger that is going on in that province. And not only in that province but throughout the country people are suffering, people are complaining. They just want a change.

LEHRER: Do you believe that the February 7th election will in fact be a free and fair election?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, of course that is what I would hope for, but I am not naive enough to think that Marcos will make it easy for us, the opposition, to win. In fact, I am sure he will make it very difficult and almost impossible for us. But I have faith in the Filipino people and I appeal to them to help us in what could probably be the last elections.

LEHRER: The last election?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, you know, if we who comprise the moderates in the opposition will still fail to win in the coming elections, then maybe the people will opt for more radical measures.

LEHRER: You mean the guerrilla movement, the communist-led guerrilla movement, might in fact take over the country? Is that what you're suggesting?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, not only -- maybe the majority of the Filipino people will tell us, the leaders, you know, comprising the moderate sector, "We have tried it your way and if we do not succeed, then maybe it is time to look for other options."

LEHRER: You said that you were planning to invite Senator Laurel, who is already an announced candidate for president, to run with you as vice president. Have you done that yet?

Mrs. AQUINO: Oh, I have already invited him a long time ago, almost two weeks ago, and in fact today we will be seeing each other again. And I am really hoping that he will agree so that we can present one ticket in the opposition.

LEHRER: Do you agree with those who say that unless you're able to run together -- I mean, unless you're able to come together and do not run separately, that there is no hope of defeating Marcos?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, I think there is still hope, even if we have two tickets, but then it would be so much easier if we only had one ticket so that the Filipino people will not be confused.

LEHRER: What are you going to say if he says, "Hey, wait a minute, Mrs. Aquino, I think I am more qualified to run for president than you are. Why don't you run for vice president and I will run for president?"

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, it is not just a question of being more qualified. I think it is more a question of presenting to the Filipino people somebody who is, as I said, the complete opposite of what Mr. Marcos is. I happen to be one of the victims of the Marcos regime, and the great many of our countrymen who have also and -- who are also victims of the Marcos regime may find it easier to identify with me.

LEHRER: You're not concerned at all by those who would question your qualifications to be president?

Mrs. AQUINO: Perhaps experience is not the total answer to our problems, because we have had a very experienced man in Mr. Marcos. We have had a brilliant man in Mr. Marcos. And yet, after 20 years, instead of our country progressing, we have really deteriorated and we are a devastated nation now.

LEHRER: Mrs. Aquino, do you personally believe that President Marcos personally ordered the assassination of your husband?

Mrs. AQUINO: Definitely. He was in on the planning. I don't think anybody in the military could have proceeded to do such a monstrous act as this without getting clearance from the supreme commander.

LEHRER: And you think that the Filipino justice system would never uncover such a plot?

Mrs. AQUINO: Not under the present government, because it is very clear now that this country is operating not under the rule of law but only under the rule of one man.

LEHRER: Mrs. Aquino, if you are elected, what would be your attitude or approach toward the leftist movement in your country and the guerrillas who have taken up arms against the Marcos government?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, I will appeal to them to lay down their arms and to dialogue with the new government, and I will tell them that as long as they will not resort to violent methods, I am sure that there is a way for all of us to work together.

LEHRER: Have there been any indications thus far that they would do such a thing?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, no, because I guess they will have to see first whether I will be successful in this campaign or not.

LEHRER: Another question, of course, that people in this country are interested in: if elected, what would be your attitude toward relations with the United States?

Mrs. AQUINO: As far as the military bases are concerned I will respect the agreement up to 1991, but even before the date of expiration there will be negotiations between the two countries, and I am sure whatever differences there will be can be worked out by talking sincerely with one another.

LEHRER: As a matter of principle are you opposed to the bases being there?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, like my husband, I am for the eventual removal of the bases, but I am also careful not to have the bases removed if we are not certain that no other foreign power will take over and, you know, install their own bases here.

LEHRER: What possibility would you be referring to there?

Mrs. AQUINO: Again I'd like to quote my husband. While he was against the establishment of any foreign bases here, he said that, "I would prefer the devil I know to the devil I do not know." I am sorry to put it in such terms, but that is how my husband described it.

LEHRER: I see. Finally, Mrs. Aquino, what about your campaign? What are you going to do? You've been in this country, you know how American politicians run for office. How are you going to run for office?

Mrs. AQUINO: Well, I wish I could run it along the American system and just go on television, but you see we are living in a country under a very authoritarian ruler, and it will be even difficult for me to get on local television. It is unfortunate that I am seen at a greater frequency in other countries. And so I will have to rely on the videotape so that my message to the Filipino people will reach them, and I will just have to visit as many of the towns and barrios as is possible, and many people will help me in the campaign.

LEHRER: Mrs. Aquino, again, thank you. Soviet-American Television

HUNTER-GAULT: We had hoped to bring you a segment on an experimental new cancer treatment that is very promising, but unfortunately our guest, Dr. Vincent DeVita, head of the National Cancer Institute, was detained due to traffic problems. Instead, we take a look at one of the things President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev agreed on at their summit last month in Geneva. It was a resumption of cultural exchanges. The first one occurred Monday when teenagers in a television studio in Minneapolis participated in a joint TV program with young people in a Moscow studio. It was a space bridge, a television interconnect by satellite linking the two countries. The resulting program will be carried both on commercial and public broadcasting stations in the United States as well as on Soviet state television. Fred de Sam Lazaro of public station KTCA in Minneapolis-St. Paul filed this report.

PETE: David, this is Pete in audio. We would like to do as soon as possible an audio check through to Moscow.

AUDIO TECHNICIAN: Oh, wait, we're getting something up on the Moscow monitor.

FRED de SAM LAZARO, KTCA [voice-over]: It was less than a half-hour before showtime that technicians here in Minneapolis established their first contact with Moscow, linking two stages 9,000 miles apart for one show on one TV screen. The stage was then set for the children's summit.

DON SHELBY: In the Soviet Union, ladies and gentlemen, the noted Soviet journalist Vladimir Pozner, and in Minnesota, U.S.A., ladies and gentlemen, John Denver.

JOHN DENVER: Thank you. Well, Vladimir, what a great pleasure it is to see you again.

VLADIMIR POZNER: It is a really great pleasure, and I haven't seen you in awhile, but you look great.

Mr. DENVER: Okay.

Mr. POZNER: Okay. I think we should get down to the theme of this space bridge, and if you'll permit me, I'll do that in Russian.

Mr. DENVER: Please do.

Mr. POZNER [through intepreter]: The purpose of this program is to recall the children, especially the girl Samantha Smith.

CHILD: But I don't want to be diplomat. I want to be peacemaker. To teach people to love each other.

DON SHELBY : That would be great.

LAZARO [voice-over]: At the heart of the 90-minute program was a performance of the musical play, "Peace Child." The uncomplicated story tells of a friendship between an American boy and a Soviet girl he meets while on a visit to Moscow. [Soviet and American Children sing duet] Monday's performance of "Peace Child" was an abbreviated version. Much of the dialogue was dropped in favor of musical portions. Organizers said they wanted to emphasize its entertainment value. For the cast, this week's show was a reunion with Soviet co-performers. "Peace Child" played to a packed audience at Moscow's Gorky Park this past summer and got top billing on state television.

Fourteen-year-old Alexis Vaubel of Minneapolis was among 17 American children who went to Moscow this summer.

ALEXIS VAUBEL: I just got involved in there, just an advertisement in the paper that said there were auditions for a "Peace Child" play. And I'm really interested in theater and I'm really interested in the whole peace movement. So I went to auditions and I got in the play.

LAZARO [voice-over]: For the past few weeks Vaubel has spent a good deal of time both inside and outside class rehearsing, brushing up on her Russian and even coaching the children's chorus for the show.

Ms. VAUBEL: The people can get along, and through that, peer communication and cultural exchanges and just getting to know each other, that we can make peace.

LAZARO [voice-over]: In addition to the play the program included a 20-minute informal dialogue back and forth.

SPEAKER: Do you study Russian?

SPEAKER: I think we can basically answer that. Well, okay, we have one interesting answer.

LAZARO [voice-over]: Organizers took special pains to steer clear of politics in the question and answer section, and for the most part the kids went along. There was one unexpected question, however, one for which there was no shortage of answers in the Moscow audience.

SPEAKER: We would like your opinion on Star Wars to help us decide if it's a good idea.

SPEAKER [through interpreter]: This is terrible. It shouldn't happen.

SPEAKER [through interpreter]: Since we have weapons in space, how can we then contact you through space? We won't be able to meet like this in space. We must not let space be militarized.

LAZARO [voice-over]: Although meant as a tribute to Samantha Smith, the timing of the program, close to the recent Geneva summit, was no coincidence. Nick Hayes is a Soviet affairs scholar at Hamline University.

NICK HAYES, Hamline University, St. Paul: All over the Soviet Union anybody who had contacts with the Western media somewhere got a signal this fall to start priming, to start prepping up, and so this was in anticipation of it and various other things we can say about how they're trying to touch American public opinion now with the media, to get to Minnesota.

LAZARO [voice-over]: Ifthe Soviets had more than just a good-will exchange between kids on their minds, so did the state of Minnesota, which co-sponsored the event. Governor Rudy Perpich, who proposed the show during a visit to Moscow last year, says it could be just the tool to pry open doors that have been shut since the 1979 U.S. embargo on Soviet grain sales.

Gov. RUDY PERPICH, (D) Minnesota: When we were selling to the Russians things were going well here. If we could get back on track as far as the agricultural community, you know, it'd be -- all of us would be smiles.

LAZARO [voice-over]: Although the state of Minnesota is an official sponsor, most of the program's $60,000 production cost is being raised privately, through the Virginia-based Peace Child Foundation. No one expects this so-called space-bridge program to do much to thaw superpower relations. The fact that there were only one or two technical foulups was miracle enough. But for those involved with the show it was a symbolic start.

DAVID WOOLCOMBE, Peace Child Foundation: There are difficult things to do in the Soviet Union, and this space bridge wasn't easy to put together. But nothing is impossible. You know, there was such a beautiful emotional connection across the bridge today, and that's something that kids can show, and every human being watching the screens tonight can get a sense of that emotional bonding. And I think it's important.

HUNTER-GAULT: Once again today's top stories. Robert McFarlane resigned today as national security adviser to the President, and Mr. Reagan appointed Rear Admiral John Poindexter to succeed him. NASA's James Beggs, under criminal indictment, took a leave of absence from the administration. And government researchers announced promising results with an experimental cancer-fighting treatment. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.