The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. There was major news today on buses, cigarettes and the Baby Jane Doe case, as Greyhound's decision to operate prompted both violent and rhetorical reactions around the country. The surgeon general issued a major new report linking smoking to heart disease, and a federal judge threw out the federal government's request for the records of a severely disabled New York infant. We have full reports on all three stories, including a documentary look at the personal issues involved in cases like Baby Jane Doe. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: And we'll bring you up to date on the international crisis spots. In Lebanon, the French attacked the suspected suicide truck bombers; the Marine unit shattered by the worst truck bomb is rotated out; Arafat vows to fight to the end. Two U.S. soldiers are wounded on Grenada. The U.S. Congress condemns the declaration of a Turkish state on Cyprus, and we examine the long war in Afghanistan. Why does the U.S. limit aid to the rebels battling Soviet troops?Greyhound Strike

LEHRER: There were Greyhound buses on the nation's highways today for the first time in two weeks, which set off violence and clashes between striking employees and police in several cities, and a call for a nationwide boycott of the company by organized labor. Early this morning and throughout the day the red, white and blue Greyhound coaches pulled out of terminals in 27 states. The buses were driven by union members who crossed picket lines or by newly hired drivers. There were reports the buses carried few passengers, but a company spokesman in Phoenix said they were happy with the response, and said the company was now up and running to stay. The boycott call came this afternoon from AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, who accused Greyhound of hiring strikebreakers from America's army of unemployed. He said the company was putting inexperienced drivers behind the wheel, and asked all union members and their families to observe the boycott and all AFL-CIO unions to assist the Greyhound strikers in every way possible.

[voice-over] The heaviest violence today was in Boston. It started in South Boston when pickets tried to stop replacement drivers from driving to work. There was an arrest. Next there was trouble at Park Street in downtown Boston where the pickets succeeded in stopping two buses from leaving the terminal. There were more arrests. Then the 8 o'clock bus came out of the terminal, and the police forced it through the picket line. Finally, the strikers tried another tactic -- sitting down in the street -- and the police broke that up, too. During the day about 50 strikers were arrested and several policemen were injured.

[on camera] And in Seattle, strikers smashed headlights, ripped wipers and mirrors from moving buses and splattered them with eggs. There were incidents also in Philadelphia and other major cities, prompting the company to seek court injunctions limiting the number of pickets permitted at Greyhound terminals. The issue in the strike is wages, the company asking its 12,700 employees to take a 9.5% pay decrease on grounds Greyhound couldn't compete and survive without it. The Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents the employees, claimed the slash really amounted to 20 to 25 percent and declared it unacceptable. Since the company announced it would start operations today with or without its union employees, union officials have accused the company of union-busting, a charge denied by the company. The accusation was repeated again today in the boycott statement from the AFL-CIO, and denied again by Greyhound management. We first get labor's view of this from Murray Seeger of the AFL-CIO, one of the key officials involved in today's boycott call. Why is this union-busting, Mr. Seeger?

MURRAY SEEGER: Well, Jim, it's union-busting because the management has refused to negotiate with the union. From the beginning the company deliberately set out to provoke the union, refusing to bargain collectively, and immediately hung out the "help wanted" sing to threaten the union workers with losing their jobs.

LEHRER: You just don't buy the company's position that they needed these pay cuts in order to survive in this new competitive environment they're in as a result of deregulation?

Mr. SEEGER: Well, there's no doubt they're in a new environment, but it's hard to buy their poverty argument when they reported substantial profits last year, substantial profits right up to the third quarter of this year and when, in 1982, they gave their top two executives very big pay increases. The chairman of the board got a 48% pay increase, so the two top executives at Greyhound today are taking home together a million dollars a year.

LEHRER: What would the company have to gain by getting rid of the union?

Mr. SEEGER: Well, they want to bust the union; therefore, they could come in and hire people at much lower wages. We have millions of Americans out there hungry looking for jobs. This company has got jobs all the way from cleaning the toilets in the bus stations to running the buses as drivers. They've got a lot of jobs to offer, and there are millions of people out there willing to work, willing to go through a picket line today, during a recession, when they might not have done it in better times.

LEHRER: Is today's call for a boycott by the AFL-CIO a symbolic thing, or do you really expect anything to come of it?

Mr. SEEGER: Oh, we think this will give our people the reason, the basis to go support a relatively middle-sized union that needs help from its brothers and sisters. This gives our people all over the country the document they need to go out and help that union to win this strike.

LEHRER: Now, the statement also asked various other AFL-CIO unions to do things. What kinds of things do you want them to do or not to do as a result of this?

Mr. SEEGER: Well, the number one thing is for union members and their families not to ride Greyhound buses. The second thing is to help those families from the Amalgamated Transit Union that are on strike, to help them with various social benefits, any kind of moral support, financial support they can give them. Help them man picket lines. This is not a big union. Help them man picket lines so that everybody knows that there's a strike and a boycott, and to operate that 24 hours a day.

LEHRER: My reading of the statement from Lane Kirkland today, however, did not mention any call against violence by the union members of the Amalgamated Transit Union. Why?

Mr. SEEGER: We don't support violence. We're against violence. We're supporting legislation that would make clear our position against the violence. But we also can't understand how a company expects anything different to happen when they're out there taking people's jobs away from them. They're taking people right out of their work.

LEHRER: But I mean, from the union -- I'm not questioning. To be specific about it, why did Lane Kirkland not also call on these Amalgamated Transit members to knock off the violence today?

Mr. SEEGER: Well, I don't think you can criticize us for what we don't say, Jim. There are a lot of things we could have said in there we don't say.The question of violence, that's a question of -- just is not in our scope. We don't talk about violence.

LEHRER: You certainly don't condone it, though?

Mr. SEEGER: We certainly don't condone it. We don't encourage it.

LEHRER: Do you think it could backfire on the strikers if it continues?

Mr. SEEGER: It's going to backfire on the strikers. There's no doubt about it. They're the ones that are going to jail. It's not the company guards. All those buses have guards on them. It's not the company managers who provoked this who are going to go to jail. It's the strikers. But what the company is playing with here is a very serious item, and that is this is a nationwide company that's very conspicuous. There are a lot of frustrated people in America today who are out of work. This company, by strike-breaking, by hiring scabs to go into these shops, is going to provoke a reaction far beyond organized labor. How do we know any of that violence is caused by union members? We don't know. There are a lot of provocateurs out there just waiting for a chance like this to bust up a company.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: For a different point of view on Greyhound's actions, we have a lawyer who specializes in union problems for management. Alfred DeMaria is a New York attorney and the author of two books -- How Management Wins NLRB Campaigns and The Process of De-Unionization. Mr. DeMaria, Mr. Seeger says Greyhound is simply trying to break the union.How do you view that?

ALFRED DeMARIA: Well, I would view it this way. What alternative does a company have? You have a union, as small as it might be, has an exceptionally powerful weapon, the power to strike, the power to bring a company to its knees. The company has only really, one or two alternatives it can follow. If can watch its assets being dissipated and watch its profit picture being decreased and its loss of a share of the market and watch that happen slowly and surely as the strike wears on, or it can defend itself by appropriating constitutional means. Those means being operating the company to the best of its ability with people who are willing to work for a living at a fair wage, and that's exactly what it's doing now -- defending its assets:

MacNEIL: Doesn't the company have another alternative -- didn't it have -- and that was to engage in collective bargaining with the union?

Mr. DeMARIA: I'm not privy to the facts in terms of --

MacNEIL: Well, I mean, they made an offer, the union rejected it and went on strike, and two weeks later the company went back in business, as I understand it, without resuming negotiations.

Mr. DeMARIA: I am certain that if you check the record you will find that the company and the union have spent many, many hours at the bargaining table attempting to resolve this issue. You will also find that the union refused to even consider one of the company's latest offers. You will also find that the company made an offer to the union within the last 24 hours to resume bargaining.As far as the physical facts of bargaining and attempting to arrive at a negotiated solution is concerned, I think you'll find that the company has made every effort to make collective bargaining work.

MacNEIL: We should make clear that you don't represent the Greyhound company, and we did try to get executives from Greyhound, but we were unable for physical communications reasons to get them today. And you're talking about this point of view -- from the point of view of a lawyer who looks at these cases from a management point of view. I understand that. You think, given all those provisos, do you think the company is doing a reasonable -- taking a reasonable course of action in this case?

Mr. DeMARIA: From what I have read in the papers and in the trade journals, it seems that the union is so insistent upon preserving its position and avoiding agreeing to the concessions that the company is asking for -- and in this day and age, concessions are by no means unusual. We have a situation where the company's posture is rather common over the last two years, seeking concessions in order to remain competivive, and you have a union here which is unwilling to agree to those concessions.

MacNEIL: What about the point Mr. Seeger made that the company was actually so healthy financially that it was able to give its top executives recently very large wage increases?

Mr. DeMARIA: Well, that is a traditional red herring that unions often use. It has a tremendous union interest impact. It creates a superficial gloss of plausibility. But the true facts are that the market for executives is quite different than the market for people who man the windows and the wheels of Greyhound's operations. And so one can hardly compare the two.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Seeger, first of all, you heard what Mr. DeMaria just said, that making wage concessions really is something that is rather common now, and that the Greyhound union just flat refused to do it.

Mr. SEEGER: Well, there have been a lot of negotiations where unions have accepted modifications in their contracts. They've gone on, thousands and thousands of workers have accepted changes without strikes and management has done it without hiring strikebreakers. We've had the whole automobile industry go through that. We've had the steel industry go through that; the trucking industry has been going through that. Nobody went out and hired strikebreakers. They sat down and negotiated, and it's a very complex, long process. This company laid one offer on the table, "Cut wages and benefits 23%; we're going to start business on Monday, and we're going to start paying those wages to the people who are willing to come back to work." No bargaining. "Take it, or we're going to replace you."

LEHRER: You said 23%. The company says, of course, it's 9.5% in wage --

Mr. SEEGER: They're talking about wages only. You put the whole thing together. We have to take the union's figures.They know what they're talking about.

LEHRER: Mr. DeMaria, you heard that, that in these other cases -- the automobile industry, the other ones that Mr. Seeger just mentioned -- there was a spirit of cooperation and negotiation. He says in this case Greyhound did not follow that spirit.

Mr. DeMARIA: Let me try to lay bare the union's claim. Where a company cannot operate with replacements, the unions are in a kingpin position. One cannot run a steel mill with replacements hired from the economy in general. One cannot make a Chevrolet automobile with people hired from the unemployment lines. With regard to the Teamsters, the Teamsters are an extremely pragmatic union and very clever. They saw that when the motor carriers had to compete in the open market due to deregulation --

LEHRER: You're talking about trucks here.

Mr. DeMARIA: Trucks, yes. That the carriers had to take a strike in the event the Teamsters pushed one on them. They were wise enough and pragmatic enough to see the handwriting on the wall, and instead of striking they agreed to concessions with the major motor carriers. This strike that we're discussing tonight may well be an unwise strike, and because it is so unwise -- unwise because Greyhound apparently does have the capacity to operate with permanent replacements -- because it's unwise, we have the cries and screams of inequity and bad-faith bargaining that we're hearing tonight.

LEHRER: He's right, isn't he? that Greyhound is in a special position just because of the nature of the work, that it's easy to replace the employees, and that makes it a different situation --

Mr. SEEGER: I hate to think you can take anyone off the street and put him in charge of one of those big buses and fill it up with 90 or 100 passengers and send them down the interstate at 60 miles an hour. I hate to think that that's what Greyhound is doing. We believe that's what they're doing.

LEHRER: Well, here again --

Mr. SEEGER: I don't think that's safe.

LEHRER: With Greyhound's position is that they're only hiring qualified drivers from other companies and they've put them through training positions --

Mr. SEEGER: Of course that's what they say. Of course.

LEHRER: But you say that's not happening?

Mr. SEEGER: We don't know what's happening. We do know they just put a sign up and they said, "Come to work." They put them through a little training propram and sent them out on the highway.Greyhound has a monopoly on a lot of these routes. They don't have any real competition on these routes. Those are assigned routes. They were given to them by the government. They don't have any big competition. They don't have to worry about losing markets like two airlines fighting over the same route.

LEHRER: Well, but, Mr. DeMaria, I'm aure you will say that's not so anymore under deregulation, correct?

Mr. DeMARIA: Well, it certainly isn't, but one of the company's prime areas of competition is coming, believe it or not, from the airlines. And the airlines are beginning with discount fares to compete with Greyhound, and that is leading in part to the problem that the company is experiencing today.

Mr. SEEGER: I've seen those airplanes stop all along the interstate at every little town and let the passengers on and off.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this finally, Mr. Seeger.From your perspective -- I realize you're not involved in negotiations or, you know, directly with the Amalgamated Transit Union, but sitting here tonight, does it look like this thing is going to be resolved, or is what we saw today the future?

Mr. SEEGER: I think it will be resolved. The company only went back into negotiations when their call for people to come back to work fell very, very short. They only went back into negotiations yesterday. They negotiated long into the night last night; they started again today.

LEHRER: They're not really face to face, however; they're in the same hotel, and there's a mediator walking back and forth, as I understand it.

Mr. SEEGER: That's progress compared to what was going on before when the company wouldn't talk at all.

LEHRER: Yeah. How does it look to you, Mr. DeMaria? Do you think this thing could be resolved?

Mr. DeMARIA: Well, there's an old saying among labor lawyers who represent both unions and management as well. Every dispute has an ending, and every strike will be resolved. This one is no exception.

LEHRER: And the violence wouldn't change that, Mr. Seeger?

Mr. SEEGER: I think the violence puts a tremendous pressure on the company because they have opened up a very dangerous gate here.

LEHRER: How do you feel the violence might affect this, Mr. DeMaria?

Mr. DeMARIA: Well. it's discouraging to see the news media searching and inquiring into a company's constitutional right to operate when struck, makes the company appear as if it is doing something which is not favored by society. And in no other area does the exercise of a constitutional right such as the exercise in this case bear the close scrutiny of the media. But somehow it does in this case. I think it's unfair that the exercise of a constitutional right should bring forth, a) violence directed towards the company involved for exercising that right, and b) as statements by union officials which do not even mention the issue of violence -- something which we hope they might be able to control in part if they made some kind of declaratory statement on the issue.

LEHRER: Mr. DeMaria and Mr. Seeger, thank you both very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: France today followed Israel in sending jet aircraft to attack suspected terrorists in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley to avenge recent suicide truck bombings. Fourteen French fighters from the aircraft carrier Clemenceau made two attacks just before and just after nightfall on a hotel on the outskirts of Baalbek. The hotel was believed to be the command center for 1,500 Iranian Islamic revolutionary guards. It was some 10 miles from the terrorist camp hit by Israeli jets yesterday. In Washington the State Department said the United States knew of the French attack in advance. A senior administration official told the Associated Press that if the terrorists weren't wiped out there might well be a need for the U.S. to carry out an attack of its own.

In northern Lebanon, a beleaguered and apparently wounded Yasir Arafat vowed to fight on as PLO rebel armies tightened their circle around him. Arafat's 5,000 fighters were driven out of the Beddawi camp into the city of Tripoli. Here is a report from Philip Haydon of the BBC.

PHILIP HAYDON, BBC [voice-over]: There's no doubt about who's in charge of the Beddawi camp now. The Palestine rebels who oppose Yasir Arafat are swarming through the camp in jovial and triumphant mood. Today was a time to savor victory after the recent battles against their former comrades in arms. There are some civilians still left in the camp. They don't seem to share the joy of the new fighters in their midst. Instead they wonder what's to become of their families with so many of their homes wrecked.

In the camp, rebel soldiers still seem to be trigger happy. We saw some Syrian troops and weapons around the camp, but the rebel commanders want everyone to think they did it all themselves.

SOLDIER: No Libyan soldiers. No Iranian soldiers. No Syrian sodiers. Everything Palestinian.

HAYDON [voice-over]: A few miles away from the camp in Tripoli harbor, a fast boat is apparently being made ready should Yasir Arafat want to escape. But Mr. Arafat won't say what he plans to do.

MacNEIL: Today, Arafat appeared, his hand bloody and bandaged, and ignored rebel calls to surrender.He said, "We will fight to the end. We have no other choice."

At the U.S. base near Beirut airport, fresh Marines began replacing the 24th Amphibious Unit which suffered such huge losses in the suicide truck bombing last month. Marines from the 22nd Amphibious Unit, fresh from the invasion of Grenada, arrived for a six-month tout of duty. Jim?

LEHRER: There was some unexpected and thus far unexplained military action off the coast of Grenada this morning. Two U.S. paratroopers were shot and wounded by snipers on a tiny island called Green Island, which is just off the northeast tip of Grenada. They were hit with small arms fire, one in an arm, the other in a leg. Their wounds were described as being very slight, and neither required hospitalization. Army spokesmen said the snipers have been neither found nor identified. The incident brought the toll of U.S. wounded to 115 since U.S. forces invaded Grenada three weeks ago. Eighteen U.S. Marines and soldiers were killed. Robin?

MacNEIL: In Congress, members of a Senate and House conference committee agreed to continue a 14-year ban on the production of nerve gas by cutting out a defense spending measure for the production of new nerve gas. And the House Ethics Committee today said it had evidence that three former members of the House of Representatives used drugs while they were in Congress, but dismissed similar charges against two present members, Democrat Ronald Dellums of California, and Charles Wilson of Texas. Committee Special Counsel Joseph Califano named former Democratic Representatives Fred Richmond of New York, John Burton of California, and California Republican Barry Goldwater, Jr., son of Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as the three it believed had used cocaine or marijuana between 1978 and 1982.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Mesquite Flat, California]

MacNEIL: A funny thing happened today. The Congress of the United States and the Soviet Union saw eye to eye. Both called on Turkish Cypriots to withdraw their two-day-old declaration of independence for the northern third of Cyprus. Both the U.S. Senate and House passed resolutions, unanimous except for one negative house vote, condemning the action and calling for it to be reversed. At the same time the Soviet news agency Tass said, "Leading circles of the Soviet Union believe the Turkish Cypriots should repeal their decision and resume constructive negotiations with the Greek Cypriot majority. At the United Nations in New York, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, Rauf Denktash, proposed immediate negotiations with the Greek Cypriots to establish an interim federal government on Cyprus.

In Geneva, U.S. and Soviet negotiators held another meeting on limiting medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, and scheduled yet another meeting for next week. There have been widespread predictions that the Russians were about to carry out their threat to break off the talks if NATO went ahead and deployed U.S. cruise and Pershing missiles.The first cruise missiles arrived in Britain this week, and the first Pershings arrive in West Germany next week. If the West German parliament, after a debate next week, reaffirms the decision to deploy the missiles despite popular protests, observers say the Soviets might use that as a pretext for breaking off the talks. The chief U.S. negotiator, Paul Nitze, has proposed that the current round of talks go on until December 15th, but Moscow has agreed to only one session at a time. Jim?

LEHRER: One of the rare times President Reagan has gotten really angry in public was two weeks ago in the White House briefing room. You may remember it. A reporter asked him the difference between the U.S. action in Grenada and the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [November 3, 1983]: Oh, for heaven's sakes. Anyone who would link Afghanistan to this operation -- and, incidentally, I know your frequent use of the word "invasion." This was a rescue mission.

LEHRER: One of the most significant things about the Grenada-Afghanistan analogy and Mr. Reagan's hot remarks about it is that it marked the first time in a long time that Afghanistan slid back into American public view and mind. It's been nearly four years since the Russians sent troops and tanks into that small, mountainous nation of great history and great poverty, and the battle goes on between the Afghan government and their Soviet backers on one side and the rebellious Moslem warriors on the other. It's a struggle that continues to produce refugees: an estimated three million Afghans have fled so far into bordering Pakistan, and it contines to produce death and destruction. Vicious attacks by the rebels on the Soviet-backed forces followed by equally cruel reprisals on defenseless rebel villages.

[voice-over] Last month this Afghan government convoy was attacked and destroyed by Moslem guerrillas. Forty Soviet soldiers were reportedly killed; the Afghan regulars got a reprieve if they agreed to join the rebels. A day later, two villages believed to be sheltering these guerrillas were said to be leveled by bombs, and then Soviet troops allegedly moved in to gun down the villagers, killing 123 in all.This brutal give and take started four years ago next month.

HAFIZULLAH AMIN, former President of Afghanistan [1979]: We have had friendly relations with the Soviet Union since 60 years or more, and this friendship with the Soviet Union has developed to the brotherhood since the [unintelligible] revolution.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Just a few weeks after this tribute to the Soviet Union, Afghan President Amin was dead, killed in a coup by his vice president, Barbrak Karmal, who took over the government with the help of some 80,000 Soviet troops and their weaponry. On a snowy night in January, 1980, an unhappy U.S. President took the first of several futile steps.

Pres. JIMMY CARTER [January 1980]: The 17 million tons of grain ordered by the Soviet Union in excess of that amount which we are committed to sell will not be delivered.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. The Soviet grain embargo hurt U.S. farmers and was so politically unpopular President Reagan later lifted it. And all the while, the Soviets stayed in Afghanistan, their numbers growing to more than 100,000 troops. Although the Russians suffered casualties and faced bitter opposition, they seem to have adjusted to the stalemate. Russians and Afghan regulars control the urban areas of Afghanistan, leaving the mountainous wilderness and rural villages to the mujaheddin, the Moslem holy warriors who wage guerrilla warfare against the invaders. Afghanistan's cities, the capital of Kabul in particular, bustle with [unintelligible]. Soviet soldiers can be seen on street corners. Russian civilian technicians are conspicuous in their Western attire. But the Soviets generally keep a low profile, letting the Afghan regulars reinforce the military presence. In an attempt to defuse opposition, religion is not discouraged. Mosques are under construction and Moslems worship freely on their Friday sabbath. President Karmal insisted that Islam and his brand of Marxism are not mutually exclusive.

BARBRAK KARMAL, President of Afghanistan: No, resolutely no. Principles, the program and the objectives of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan is completely compatible with the progressive Islam.

LEHRER [voice-over]: A more traditional Islam is practiced by the Moslems who have declared a jihad or holy war against the Soviet-backed government.The counterrevolutionary warriors are now bringing the struggle to urban areas, with bomb attacks on schools, theaters and other public buildings. They seek large, symbolic targets, not necessarily military ones, which remain well fortified. The Kabul government says the damage is costly.

SULTAN ALI KHESTMAND, Afghanistan prime minister: We have given a figure that around 24 billion Afghanis worth of damages which have been done by the bandits and the terrorists here in our country. Almost half of the schools have been destroyed, and almost half of the hospitals also have been bombed and destroyed.

LEHRER [voice-over]: Yet the rebels remain hopelessly outgunned by the Soviets and Afghan regulars. Helicopters and tanks take the war to defenseless villages where simple adobe-type structures are vulnerable to assault.The Soviets appear to remain mired in a stagnant struggle, one they would like to get out of, and the present Afghan government fully expects them to leave.

MOHAMMED DHOST, Afghanistan foreign minister: When we are sure that the interference and intervention completely have stopped, and of course the refugees have returned peacefully to their country, and of course then we will take this question of withdrawal of the limited front [unintelligible] of the Soviet armed forces from Afghanistan with the Soviet Union. This is a matter strictly between the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union.

LEHRER: A further update on what's happening in Afghanistan now from Syed Madrooh, director of the Afghan Information Center in Peshawar, Pakistan.He is an Afghan who collects information from refugees and guerrilla fighters,and is considered one of the most knowledgeable sources on events in Afghanistan. He is in the U.S. now for consultations with U.S. officials and other interested parties, and is with us tonight from the studios of public station KQED, San Francisco. What signs do you see, if any, of the Soviets' desire to get out of Afghanistan any time soon?

SYED MADROOH: I think the sign for them to get out we don't really see evident signs, but I think they are more in trouble inside Afghanistan. Especially since last year the resistance was able to increase its activity, to increase its efficiency. The resistance for the first time was able this year to infiltrate inside the Kabul city and other urban areas, and it has increased also its attacks on the convoys going along the main highways. And we think that the Soviets are -- have paid already, and will be paying a very high price for the invasion of Afghanistan.

LEHRER: But the Soviets, of course, are in a position, if they wish, to come in there with much more military might and destroy the opposition. Why do they not do that?

Mr. MADROOH: I think what they are doing is the most destructive operation now. You know, they are systematically destroying the countryside, especially the rural areas -- this systematicdestruction of the villages. They have disrupted the people's agricultural life. Now there is a very serious food shortage inside Afghanistan.And then these operations are constantly generation refugees. You know that now there are about three million refugees in Pakistan, about -- over one million in Iran. It means that one-third of the country's population is out of the country. And what we have lost since the coup of '78 -- April, 1978 until now -- over 200,000 civilians died, and among this 200,000 there were 30,000 of our most qualified people, the best educated people were arrested, put in prison and killed.

LEHRER: What is the military ability, among other things, of the rebels to continue this fight?

Mr. MADROOH: I think I'll not call them rebels. I'll call them rather resistance fighters.

LEHRER: All right.

Mr. MADROOH: These resistance fighters are more -- they have more experience; they have learned how to become more efficient. Of course they need better equipment, especially they are still -- one rebel weak point is that they have nothing against aircraft, and the Soviets are using extensively their air superiority. They are, especially this gunship helicopter. For the rest, I think the resistance is more able to cope with the land route than the Soviet army.

LEHRER: I see. Well, thank you very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: For another perspective on the situation in Afghanistan, we have Eqbal Ahmad, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies here in New York. He closely follows events in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Soviet policy in the region. Mr. Ahmad, do you see any sign that the Soviets are looking for a way out?

EQBAL AHMAD: If the reports from the United Nations are any indication, yes. It is my understanding that the Soviet Union has, by and large, agreed to four points. Five. Five points, none of which seem at the moment to be acceptable to the United States and the government of Pakistan. They are, one, the Soviet Union appears to be agreeing, along with the Afghan government, to broaden the Afghan government to include elements from the opposition.

MacNEIL: In other words, a kind of coalition government, you mean?

Mr. AHMAD: A coalition government. Second, the Soviet Union has expressed willingness to work out a timetable for the return of the refugees in Pakistan.

MacNEIL: Who number now how many?

Mr. AHMAD: The Pakistan government and the Afghan dissidents claim three million, as you heard Mr. Madrooh say. My estimation is that the number is probably closer to 1 1/2 to two than to three.

MacNEIL: Still a lot of refugees.

Mr. AHMAD: Still a lot of refugees.

MacNEIL: So what are the other points, briefly, that the Soviets you think agree to?

Mr. AHMAD: Three, the Soviet Union is reported to be insisting on maintaining the regime of Barbrak Karmal as heading the government within the broadened coalition. Four, the Soviet Union is willing to work out, coincidental with the return of the refugees, a timetable for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.And, five, both the Afghan government and the Soviet Union have indicated a willingness to settle the dispute over the boundary between Pakistan and India, which has been between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has been a long-standing dispute. The broad outlines of that settlement is the Duerand Line, which Mr. Bhutto and the previous government had already agreed on.

MacNEIL: Now, why is this not acceptable to the West and Pakistan? Can you tell me briefly why that is not acceptable?

Mr. AHMAD: Well, fora number of reasons.The United States under President Reagan has not seemed to indicate a policy of achieving detente with the Soviet Union. Therefore the United States is pursuing essentially a policy of fighting the Russians to the last Afghan, and if possible, to the last Pakistani. Why would the Pakistan government, however, be sensitive to American pressures or American opinion? That's the second question that arises. The answers to that are complicated, but in simple terms, one, the Pakistan government today is an exceptionally isolated military dictatorship, frightened of its own population. Two, therefore it has become increasingly dependent on military and economic aid from the United States. Beginning with the Afghan crisis in 1979, it made a contract for $3.5 billion worth of aid, and it fears that if the Afghan crisis was not there the basis of American support will have dwindled.

MacNEIL: I see. Let's go back to Mr. Madrooh. What do you say to this thesis that the Soviets have offered the outline of a settlement, but the United States and Pakistan -- and the United States particularly -- doesn't want to get into that because it wants to see the Russians fought to the last Afghani?

Mr. MADROOH: Oh, yes. Our perception is a slightly different. We appreciate, of course, the effort of Pakistan for the negotiation for a peaceful settlement because we know that we need a political solution for the Afghan problem. And we think that the best frame for this solution is the United Nations. But we are not very sure of the sincerity of the Russians in this discussion. And the other point is that the Afghan resistance is fighting aganist two things.One is the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan. We want them to get out. We want that our friends help us to make them out, not to make them stick in Afghanistan and to pay for their mistakes. However, is fighting for the liberation of the country.

MacNEIL: Are your freedom fighters or resistance fighters, as you call them, are they interested in a coalition government between Karmal and their forces, or do they want the Soviets out totally and Karmal out totally?

Mr. MADROOH: No, that was the second point I was going to mention that -- our second point that the resistance is fighting is the Marxist regime imposed in Kabul. And the resistance will never be able to make any kind of concession to any kind of Marxist regime in Afghanistan.

MacNEIL: So, Mr. Ahmad, if it's not just the United States but the resistance fighters themselves don't want a coalition compromise.

Mr. AHMAD: I think Mr. Madrooh has made a very good point. The resistance fighters also -- at least, say, four out of the eight groups that make the resistance in Afghanistan -- are not amenable at the moment to this particular outline of the settlement. And so the United States --

MacNEIL: So it's not just the United States that's --

Mr. AHMAD: Not just the United States.

MacNEIL: Let me ask --

Mr. AHMAD: However, I think it should be -- it should be underlined that without the support of the Pakistan government, more than the United States, the resistance will be nowhere.

MacNEIL: What do you say to Mr. Madrooh's statement that the resistance fighters need more arms, and particularly need weapons against the Soviet aircraft? Do you think the United States should give them more arms to increase the bargaining power?

Mr. AHMAD: It is my understanding that the United States is on the brink of giving these missiles, especially the SAM-7s -- the big push at the moment is for SAM-7s. It's the Pakistan government that is somewhat divided over whether or not to play that one.

MacNEIL: Let me just ask -- we have just a moment. Do you know about that, Mr. Madrooh, or do you share that hope that the United States is about to give you those SAM missiles?

Mr. MADROOH: I'll not be able to give you precise information about this question, but anyway you know the need is there. The need is there. That is our only argument against Soviet in Afghanistan is our efficiency -- military efficiency.

MacNEIL: We have to leave it there, Mr. Madrooh. I thank you very much for joining us from San Francisco --

Mr. MADROOH: Thank you.

MacNEIL: -- and Mr. Ahmad in New York.

Mr. AHMAD: Thank you very much.

MacNEIL: And we will be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Zion National Park, Utah]

MacNEIL: More tan 200,000 complaints about General Motors cars, likely to cost the company as much as $100 million, will be settled by arbitration. That method was announced today by the Federal Trade Commission, which said it was the only alternative to a series of lawsuits that would have lasted at least until 1990.General Motors customers complained that the company failed to notify them of engine, transmission and fuel-pump or fuel-injector problems involving perhaps 20 million cars dating back to 1974. FTC officials estimated that settlements under the arbitration will range between $400 and $600 for each complaint. However, some consumer advocates, including two members of the Commission itself, complained that the agreement let GM off too easily. A majority of the Commission agreed that it provided the quickest relief to the car owners. Jim?

LEHRER: The heat was on the smokers of America today to give up their cigarettes, at least for 24 hours. It was the day of the annual Great American Smokeout, sponsored by the American Cancer Society. Nobody was in a position to count the number of people who actually went along with it, but the Society hoped that at least 10 million of the nation's 55 million smokers would. And it was no coincidence that the surgeon general of the United States chose today to reinforce the government's view on the health risks of smoking. Dr. Everett Koop issued his annual report on the subject, and this time it dealt solely with smoking's connection to heart disease, one of his statistics being smokers are two to four times more likely to die of sudden heart attack than non-smokers. He explained today's report, the strongest ever on the subject, at a morning news conference.

Dr. EVERETT KOOP, U.S. Surgeon General: The relationship between smoking and lung and other cancers is direct and strong, and recognized by most Americans. However, the relationship between cigarette smoking and heart disease is not as well known by the public, and yet is responsible for more deaths than is cancer. We can say that cigarette smoking is a major cause of coronary heart disease in the United States for both men and wonen. Because of the number of cigarette smokers in the population and the increased risk posed for coronary heart disease, it should be considered the most important of the known, modifiable risk factors for coronary heart disease. Overall, cigarette smokers experience a coronary heart disease rate about 70% greater than non-smokers. Those who consume two or more packs per day have two to three times the risk.

LEHRER: There was also news about heart disease from Anaheim, California, where the American Heart Association today was wrapping up a four-day scientific conference. Researchers said sickle cell anemia may lead to heart attacks. Doctors at the University of Southern California said a study suggests doctors should give electrocardiograms to patients with sickle cells, even those normally considered too young to be at risk for a heart attack. Sickle cell anemia primarily affects blacks. At the same conference another research team said there's a drug which can stop heart attacks in progress by dissolving blood clots that prompt them. Dr. Burton Sobel of Washington University in St. Louis said the drug is called tissue plasmenogen activator, or TPA. He said it's been used successfully thus far on seven patients. Robin? Baby Jane Doe Ethics

MacNEIL: We close tonight by coming back to the story of Baby Jane Doe, the severely handicapped infant on Long Island, New York, whose parents decided not to have surgery to correct her birth defects. The federal government wanted to see the baby's hospital records to ensure that she was getting proper care. The hospital and the state of New York said the government had no right to the records, that the decision was the parents' to make. Today a federal judge in New York agreed with the parents and threw out the government's case. This case has attracted a lot of attention because the federal government stepped in, but in fact thousands of such babies are born every year, and their parents face the same agonizing decision -- whether to withhold treatment that might prolong life. Whether made in private or in public, that decision is no less painful, as we see in this report by Lee Luse from public teleivision station KTCA, Minneapolis-St. Paul.

LEE LUSE [voice-over image of mother with baby]: In a world that is every hopeful parent's dream, nine months of waiting produce a healthy baby, alert and eager to begin the process of living. For many parents, however, that dream can quickly become a nightmare. Of the 3 1/2 million babies born in the United States this year, over 250,000 will require neonatal or newborn intensive care at birth. In the last 15 years technology has helped cut this nation's infant mortality rate by over 50%, but many of the babies who survive are so severely damaged that their parents are faced with a difficult decision -- a life of handicaps and suffering, or allowing the child to die.For physicians and families alike, these decisions have opened up a Pandora's Box of medical and ethical dilemmas. Many feel that perserving life for life's sake may no longer be enough. Dr. Dana Johnson.

Dr. DANA JOHNSON, neo-natalogist: I think it was much easier to err on the side of life. Traditionally physicians had erred on the side of providing all possible support to continue life, but I think that the historical context is no longer valid. I think that our ability to prolong life has far superceded our ability to make good judgment as to who should have their life prolonged.

LUSE [voice-over]: Haere at the University of Minnesota's Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, all infants are fed and cared for. Many of these babies will someday go home. Others will not.

Dr. JOHNSON: This is real difficult and certainly a heartbreaking problem for the parents. Not only is there absolutely no chance of any significant intellectual development or other type of development, but she has other significant difficulties so we want to prevent any type of therapy that's not going to add to her quality of life.

LUSE [voice-over]: In the past, such quality-of-life decisions have been made by the parents of these children and their physicians. But on April 9th, 1982, the birth of a child known as Baby Doe challenged the right of parents to deny life-sustaining treatment. In this highly publicized case, parents refused to authorize a corrective surgery that could have saved their retarded child's life. Despite the hospital's objections, courts upheld the parents' decision, and on April 15th, Baby Doe died. Reaction from Washington was swift. President Reagan and the Department of Health and Human Services sent the nation's hospitals a series of regulations known as the Baby Doe rules. Designed to protect the rights of all handicapped infants, the regulations stated that failure by a hospital to feed or care for handicapped infants would result in possible criminal prosecution and a loss of federal funding. The ruling slao required that these regulations were to be prominently displayed on posters which included a hotline phone number that anonymous callers could use to report suspected violations. A month later, the Baby Doe ruling was withdrawn. Minnesota Human Life Alliance member, Mary Senander.

MARY SENANDER, Minnesota Human Life Alliance: Infanticide cases are happening frequently, perhaps more frequently than the public is aware of. It has been estimated that some 4,000 to 5,000 newborn infants are being left to or encouraged to die each year in American hospitals. What's happening and what we're seeing as happening is that in the trauma of having a baby born who is less perfect than the hopeful parents had expected, bad decisions are being made. Doctors oftentimes create an atmosphere of hopelessness versus hope. What we need is someone there to intercede and to be the advocate of the baby at a time when others might not be making just decisions.

LUSE [voice-over]: Protecting the rights of future generations of handicapped children may well be the strongest point in support of Baby Doe advocates. Today, many handicaps once considered fatal are correctable with new surgical techniques. One such disease is spinal bifida, a malformation of the spine that often causes paralysis and retardation. Currently, many spina bifida children like five-year-old Joey Soderlund live meaningful lives despite the limitations this handicap imposes. But even now, not all spina bifida children are being treated. Two recent court cases involving parental failure to authorize corrective surgery have again raised questions about the need for stronger protective guidelines. Joey's parents, Laurie and Don Soderlund, agree that many immediate medical care decisions should not be left to the parents.

DON SODERLUND, father of handicapped child: Well, I guess I thought if it was going to be that bad, why let him live? If he's going to be such a burden on -- they had me feeling it was, you know, just -- he was just going to be like a vegetable for the rest of his life.

[with children] Laurie, you be catcher and holder, you play third base, I'll play on this side, okay? Let's throw the ball around the court.

[voice-over] The feelings a person, I believe, has the first few days after a situation like that is not the true feelings. There are feelings that are just -- all of a sudden a situation is sprung on you and they're irrational feelings. The more you thought about it, of course, the more you associated with the child fighting to live than you have a tendency to, you know, make a more rational decision and fight with the child.

LAURIE SODERLUND: I think Joey helps too. Just him, his personality, you know? He's real outgoing. He's never -- he's never down.So why should we be down?

Mr. SODERLUND: When he had surgery on his club feet, the first thing he did when he came out was smiled. [Joey playing]

LUSE [voice-over]: If children like Joey represent a triumph of medical technology, many other survivors of this brave new world face a far more uncertain future. As more and more severely disabled children survive, the question of their rehabilitation and long-term care is becoming an increasingly important social issue. The cost of maintaining these children can be astronomically expensive. A ventilator-dependent child in a hospital intensive care unit can incur expenses of over a quarter of a million dollars a year. No one wants to put a price on life, but as Reagan critics are quick to point out, the same administration that protects the lives of handicapped infants continues to cut federally funded assistance programs for their families. This mixed message has left parents of special children like Aaron feeling frightened and confused.

PARENT: I'm real terrified of his future. My major fear is dealing with having to institutionalize him because of the severe need for custodial care, and because it's very unclear what's going on with him cognitively. I really feel that it's critical that if the community decides to have children like Aaron live that we need the community's support.

LUSE [voice-over]: Today, debates over the legal status of the Baby Doe rules continue in Washington. Meanwhile, in homes across the nation, families still search for the answers to questions our society has yet to resolve. In the last 48 months, this couple have lost two babies in premature deliveries. Their third child Jessica was born with Jarcholevin, a rare and fatal genetic disorder. Unable to breathe without assistance, Jessica was connected to a life-supporting ventilator from which she could never be removed. Despite the legal and moral implications raised by the Baby Doe ruling, for them the decision to withdraw life support became an affirmation of life itself.

FATHER: The decision we made was not based at all upon the Baby Doe thing. It was based solely on this was our daughter, and these are the things that we think are right for her.

MOTHER: We were in a room and they brought her to us and we were able to hold her until she died. They took her off the respirator. Our families were there, but we decided that we wanted to be with her alone and then they could come in afterward. Holding her, it was very, very hard to hold her and watch her die. I was praying that she would die soon and not suffer too long. When she did finally die, I felt happy in a way that -- because she would be at peace, and she wouldn't be suffering any more, because just watching her on the respirator and breathing, trying to get breaths when she was dying was too hard, and I know she suffered.

FATHER: It's the type of thing that -- the hurt of that will never go away. It's something that will be painful for the rest of my life. Like Sue said, I do think we made the right decision.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.