The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the headlines this New Year's Day. President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev made history with televised broadcasts to each other's countries. The pop music world mourned the death of singer Rick Nelson in a plane crash. Eight American tourists died in an air crash on a tour of Antarctica. Details of these stories in a moment. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: After the news summary we look at the great taped message exchange with the Reagan-Gorbachev messages in full, and then comment and analysis from a Soviet official, an American official and two Soviet-American experts. We close with a documentary report from Los Angeles on a new way to cope with Alzheimer's Disease. News Summary

MacNEIL: Besides the traditional parades and football games, Americans had something new this New Year's, a broadcast message from Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Simultaneously, Soviet television viewers saw a similar talk by President Reagan. This historic exchange of broadcasts at 1 p.m. Eastern time across the United States and on Soviet television's main news program at 9 p.m. Moscow time. Both leaders said their Geneva summit had marked a start towards better understanding and vowed to continue their efforts for peace in the New Year. Mr. Gorbachev invoked memories of World War II suffering and cooperation with the U.S.

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, Secretary-General of USSRCP [through interpreter]: We cherish the idea of peace, having suffered for it. Together with the pain of unhealing wounds and the agony of irretrievable losses, it has become part and parcel of our flesh and blood. In our country there is not a single family or a single home that has not kept alive the memory of relatives and friends who perished in the flames of war, the war in which the Soviet and American peoples were allies and fought side by side. I say this because our common quest for peace has its roots in the past, and that means we have a historic record of cooperation which can today inspire our joint efforts for the sake of the future.

MacNEIL: The White House said President Reagan watched Gorbachev's broadcast at the Palm Springs home of publisher Walter Annenberg and welcomed the tone as a continuation of our discussions in Geneva. In his own address to the Soviet people the President pointedly referred to American ideas on human rights.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Our democratic system is founded on the belief in the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual -- rights such as freedom of speech, of assembly, of movement and of worship. It is a sacred truth to us that every individual is a unique creation of God, with his or her own special talents, abilities, hopes and dreams. Respect for all people is essential to peace, and as we agreed in Geneva, progress in resolving humanitarian issues in a spirit of cooperation would go a long way to making 1986 a better year for all of us.

MacNEIL: This was the first time an American president has addressed the Soviet people on television since Richard Nixon did so during a visit to Moscow in 1972. A White House official said today that Reagan and Gorbachev will probably hold their second summit in the fall rather than next summer. The Washington Post reported that the Soviets had asked for a delay from June 'til September. Jim?

LEHRER: In South Africa the New Year began with no change from the old one wEleven bilacks were reported killed in violent incidents overnight, most of them, according to the police, in clashes with other blacks. There was also fresh violence reported today along a beach front in Durban, South Africa, after a march by 5,000 blacks. Police said blacks stoned police cars and other vehicles before finally being dispersed.

MacNEIL: In Northern Ireland, guerrillas of the Irish Republican Army ambushed a police patrol just one minute after the beginning of the new year. Two policemen died in the attack in a village near the Irish border. We have a report from Ian Webster of the BBC.

IAN WEBSTER, BBC [voice-over]: The two officers were on foot patrol near Armagh city center. They caught the full force of the blast from the five-pound bomb that had been placed in a litter bin attached to a road sign. The bombers had taken over a height overlooking the street. They held a family at gunpoint as they lay in wait for a police patrol to pass. Then they detonated the bomb by remote control, killing the two officers instantly. A third policeman on the other side of the street was also injured by the explosion.

LEHRER: Investigators began the hunt today for what caused Rick Nelson's plane to crash in Texas last night. His fiancee and five members of his band also died. They were on their way to play at a New Year's Eve concert in Dallas. Nelson, who was 45 years old, began his show business career with his parents on the "Ozzie and Harriet" television show, and became a prominent and popular rock singer in the 1960s. The singer's DC-3 caught fire and crashed into a farmer's field near DeKalb in northeast Texas. The pilot and co-pilot survived. Eyewitnesses said the pilot apparently was trying to land in the partly open pasture and crashed into a clump of trees. Federal investigators said they were not sure whether the fire began before the crash. Some relatives of those aboard the plane said it had been having engine trouble during the last few days, but the officials said they could not confirm that.

MacNEIL: The entertainment world lost another great with the death yesterday of one of Hollywood's legendary producers, Sam Spiegel. He died on the Caribbean island of St. Martin at the age of 84. Spiegel, originally a successful film director in Berlin, won Academy Awards for Hollywood films Lawrence of Arabia, On the Waterfront, and Bridge on the River Kwai. His films also included The African Queen, Suddenly Last Summer, The Night of the Generals and Nicholas and Alexandra.

Eight Americans died last night when their plane crashed on the way to an Antarctic base to see in the New Year. Two crew members on the Chilean charter plane also died in the crash on King George's Island at the end of the Antarctic Peninsula.

LEHRER: And that is our summary of the news on this New Year's Day. We go now to the great taped message exchange with an American official, a Soviet official and two Soviet-American experts looking at what Mssrs. Reagan and Gorbachev said and why. Then to a report from Los Angeles on a new way to cope with Alzheimer's disease. New Year's Messages

MacNEIL: Our principal focus tonight is the historic New Year's messages broadcast today by President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev to the peoples of their respective countries. Both were optimistic and full of good will. We have reaction and analysis coming from both U.S. and Soviet officials and from unofficial observers of the new course of Soviet-American relations. But for those who may have missed the broadcast during the day, we'll give you both short addresses in full. First, with the translation supplied by the Soviet Embassy and interpreter William Krimer, Mr. Gorbachev's message to Americans.

Sec.-Gen. GORBACHEV [through interpreter]: Dear Americans, I see a good augury in the way we are beginning the New Year, a year which has been declared to be the year of peace. We are starting it with an exchange of direct messages, President Reagan's to the Soviet people and mine to you. This, I believe, is a hopeful sign of change which, though small, is nonetheless a change for the better in our relations.

The few minutes that I will be speaking to you strike me as a meaningful symbol of our mutual willingness to go on moving toward each other, which is what your President and I began doing in Geneva. For a discussion along these lines we had the mandate of our peoples. They want the constructive Soviet-American dialogue to continue uninterrupted and to yield tangible results.

As I face you today I want to say that Soviet people are dedicated to peace, that supreme value equal to the gift of life. We cherish the idea of peace, having suffered for it. Together with the pain of unhealing wounds and the agony of irretrievable losses, it has become part and parcel of our flesh and blood. In our country there is not a single family or a single home that has not kept alive the memory of relatives and friends who perished in the flames of war, the war in which the Soviet and American peoples were allies and fought side by side.

I say this because our common quest for peace has its roots in the past, and that means we have a historic record of cooperation which can today inspire our joint efforts for the sake of the future. The many letters I have received from you and my conversations with representatives of your country -- senators, congressmen, scientists, businessmen and statesmen -- have convinced me that in the United States, too, people realize that our two nations should never be at war, that a collision between them would be the greatest of tragedies.

It is a reality of today's world that it is senseless to seek greater security for oneself through new types of weapons. At present every step in the arms race increases the danger and the risk for both sides and for all mankind. It is the forceful and compelling demand of life itself that we should follow the path of cutting back nuclear arsenals and keeping outer space peaceful. This is what we are negotiating about at Geneva, and we would very much like those talks to be successful this year.

In our efforts for peace we should be guided by an awareness of the fact that today history has willed our two nations to bear an enormous responsibility to the peoples of our two countries and, indeed, the peoples of all countries for preserving life on earth. Our duty to all mankind is to offer it a safe prospect of peace, a prospect of entering the third millenium without fear.

Let us commit ourselves to doing away with the threat hanging over humanity. Let us not shift that task onto our children's shoulder. We can hardly succeed in attaining that goal unless we begin saving up bit by bit the most precious capital there is, trust among nations and peoples. And it is absolutely essential to start mending the existing deficit of trust in Soviet-American relations.

I believe that one of the main results of my meeting with President Reagan is that, as leaders and on a purely human level, we were able to take the first steps toward overcoming mistrust and to activate the factor of confidence. The gap dividing us is still wide; to bridge it, it will not be easy, but we saw in Geneva that it can be done. Bridging that gap would be a great feat, a feat our people are ready to perform for the sake of world peace.

I am reminded of the title of a remarkable work of American literature, the novel, The Winter of our Discontent. In that phrase let me just substitute "hope" for "discontent," and may not only this winter but every season of this year and of the years to come be full of hope for a better future, a hope that together we can turn into reality. I can assure you that we shall spare no effort in working for that.

For the Soviet people, the year 1986 marks the beginning of a new stage in carrying out our constructive plans. Those are peaceful plans. We have made them known to the whole world. I wish you a Happy New Year; to every American family I wish good health, peace and happiness.

MacNEIL: For the official American reaction to what Mr. Gorbachev had to say to the United States, we have Mark Palmer, deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs. He is the State Department's top Soviet analyst.

Mr. Secretary, how does the administration react to Mr. Gorbachev's message?

MARK PALMER: Well, I think we very much welcome the tone of the message. It was a constructive message. We hope very much, as he does, that we will have results in the arms control talks in Geneva this week. President Reagan also agrees very much with him that we must overcome the mistrust that exists in our relations. I think, however, you perhaps noted there is some difference in the stress of the President's message when he focused on specifics. Mr. Gorbachev talked in more general terms. We believe the best way to overcome the distrust is through specific deeds in the various areas that President Reagan outlined, that atmosphere is useful but it's not enough.

MacNEIL: Mr. Gorbachev did allude, although indirectly, to the Strategic Defense Initiative when he talked about the undesirability of new weapons, and particularly in space. Was that seen as a negative in the administration?

Sec. PALMER: No. Those views are well known. They spent a great deal of time in Geneva talking about those differences, so we were not in any way surprised, and of course President Reagan also talked about his views, of the value of strategic defense. So I think that was an entirely legitimate thing to do.

MacNEIL: What is most impressive about this in the eyes of the administration?

Sec. PALMER: Well, I think what's most impressive is that we're talking now, not only in diplomatic channels, not only at lower levels, but that the leaders are talking directly to the two peoples, and that's terribly important in building a broader base to move ahead into the various areas that President Reagan talked about -- regional areas, human rights, arms control, the whole gamut of issues that exist in the relationship.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: President Reagan's message to the Soviet people was one minute, 20 seconds shorter than Mr. Gorbachev's. He also used his to make some points for his side, particularly for the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Pres. REAGAN: Good evening. This is Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America. I'm pleased to speak to you on the occasion of the New Year. This is a time for reflection and for hope. As we look back on the year just concluded and on the year that is to come, I want to share with you my hopes for the New Year, hopes for peace, prosperity and good will that the American and Soviet people share.

Just over a month ago General Secretary Gorbachev and I met for the first time in Geneva. Our purpose was to begin a fresh chapter in the relations between our two countries and to try to reduce the suspicions and mistrust between us. I think we made a good beginning. Mr. Gorbachev and I spent many hours together speaking frankly and seriously about the most important issues of our time -- reducing the massive nuclear arsenals on both sides, resolving regional conflicts, insuring respect for human rights as guaranteed under international agreements, and other questions of mutual interest.

As the elected representative of the American people I told Mr. Gorbachev of our deep desire for peace and that the American people do not wish the Soviet people any harm. While there were many areas which we did not agree, which was to be expected, we left Geneva with a better understanding of one another and of the goals we each have. We are determined to build on that understanding in the coming months and years.

One of the most important thing on which we agree was the need to reduce the massive nuclear arsenals on both sides. As I have said many times, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Therefore, we agreed to accelerate negotiations where there is common ground to reduce and eventually eliminate the means of nuclear destruction. Our negotiators will soon be returning to the Geneva talks on nuclear and space arms. Where Mr. Gorbachev and I agreed, we will seek agreements on the principle of 50 reductions in offensive nuclear arms and an interim agreement on intermediate-range nuclear systems.

And it's my hope that one day we will be able to eliminate these weapons altogether and rely increasingly for our security on defense systems that threaten no one. Both the United States and Soviet Union are doing research on the possibilities of applying new technologies to the cause of defense. if these technologies become a reality, it is my dream that it will one day free us all from the threat of nuclear destruction.

One of the best ways to build mutual understanding is to allow the American and Soviet people to get to know one another better. In Geneva we signed a new agreement to exchange our most accomplished artists and academics. We also agreed to expand the contacts between our peoples so the students, teachers and young people can get to know each other directly. If people in both countries can visit, study and work together, then we will strengthen the bonds of understanding and build a true foundation for lasting peace.

I also discussed the American people's strong interest in humanitarian issues. Our democratic system is founded on the belief in the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual, rights such as freedom of speech, of assembly, of movement and of worship. It is a sacred truth to us that every individual is a unique creation of God, with his or her own special talents, abilities, hopes and dreams. Respect for all people is essential to peace, and as we agreed in Geneva, progress in resolving humanitarian issues in a spirit of cooperation would go a long way to making 1986 a better year for all of us.

A safe and lasting peace also requires finding peaceful settlements to armed conflicts which cause so much human suffering in many parts of the world. I have proposed several concrete steps to help resolve such conflicts. It is my hope that in 1986 we will make progress toward this end. I see a busy year ahead in building on the foundations laid in Geneva. There is much work to be done. Mr. Gorbachev will visit the United States later this year, and I look forward to showing him our country. In 1987 I plan to visit your country and hope to meet many of you.

On behalf of the American people, I wish you all a happy and healthy New Year. Let's work together to make it a year of peace. There is no better goal for 1986 or for any year. Let us look forward to a future of chistoe nebo for all mankind. Thank you. Spassibo.

LEHRER: We get some official Soviet reaction to what Mr. Reagan had to say from Vitaly Churkin, the second secretary at the Soviet Embassy here in Washington. Mr. Churkin, how would you grade Mr. Reagan's message?

VITALY CHURKIN: Well, I wouldn't do two things. I wouldn't give you an official Soviet reaction because I don't have it. I can give you what I think was the reaction of an average Russian, being a Russian, to what President Reagan has said. And the second thing I wouldn't like to do is to grade President Reagan's remarks. I think it was a good speech. Well, I think that what people in the Soviet Union have noticed is that the President of the United States is expressing his commitment now to improved Soviet-American relations, and that is certainly a positive development. But I think that people in the Soviet Union and the United States and all over the world will increasingly ask that famous question, "Where is the beef?" So the governments of the Soviet Union and the United States have to work even harder now in order to really in practice improve our relations, and this is where arms control, of course, comes into play first of all. We have to produce specific results towards the goal of reducing nuclear weapons, and we believe it is important to ban weapons from outer space. There is one thing which I found very tantalizing and which I'm sure people have noticed in the Soviet Union. President Reagan wished us "clear skies." I wonder if it's a hint --

LEHRER: That was his message there at the end in Russian?

Sec. CHURKIN: Yes, in Russian, clear skies. I wonder if it's --

LEHRER: Tell us the background on clear skies.

Sec. CHURKIN: It is a good wish, peaceful skies, clear skies. Basically it is a wish for peace, and it is a good wish, but I wonder if it's a hint that the United States is willing after all abandon its plans to put weapons in outer space. We cannot see how those two things can be compatible. But basically, yes, I think it was a positive development. I think --

LEHRER: Positive even though the President reinforced and restated his commitment to SDI?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, that is unfortunate. We don't see how our relations can be improving steadily if the prospect of weapons in space will continue to be there. I think this is something which will be a very heavy burden on our relations, but putting this and some other points of substance aside, it is positive that our both leaders have committed themselves so strongly now to improving Soviet-American relations.

LEHRER: Mr. Palmer, to bring you into this, is it possible to put matters of that great substance aside at this juncture in the relationship?

Sec. PALMER: No, and I don't think Vitaly really was trying to suggest that we should put them aside. Let me just say that I think the major significance of chistoe nebo, of "clear skies," would be that if we could rid all of our peoples of the fear that offensive nuclear weapons would rain down on them from the skies, and that is precisely the dream that President Reagan talked about to the Russian and other Soviet peoples today, ridding that fear by creating a defensive shield so we would no longer worry about the nuclear danger.

LEHRER: But to an innocent observer, who would just turn on the television and listen to what these two men had to say, both of them went out of their way to restate the most serious disagreement that they had.

Sec. CHURKIN: Serious disagreements remain, and I think, or actually I think the United States had an excellent opportunity which the U.S. government missed today in that I think people could expect in the Soviet Union that this opportunity would be taken, for example, to declare that the United States was joining today the moratorium on nuclear weapons explosions --

LEHRER: You really expected that to happen?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, I hoped beyond hope. Maybe it's that I am too idealistic, but it would have been, of course, an excellent political and public relations step. That has not happened. That of course only emphasizes the point you have made, that important political differences remain between us.

LEHRER: Mr. Palmer, when you listen to what Mr. Gorbachev had to say, was there anything that you were hoping was going to be there and you were terribly disappointed that it was not?

Sec. PALMER: I would have liked to have seen more specifics. I agree that the question is, where's the beef? I would like to have seen more beef.

LEHRER: Like what?

Sec. PALMER: It was a very general message. We would like to have seen a clear commitment to getting down to 50 reductions, to actual concrete talks now in Geneva about that, and to achieving those reductions this year and not to conditioning that to programs which are not going to come about until the 1990s, anyway. So we would like a clear commitment to do nuclear reductions without any pre-conditions, and it would have been nice if he'd said that.

LEHRER: Well, what about the SDI, though? You told Robin a minute ago that he said pretty much what you expected him to say; it was a restatement of position. Mr. Churkin says he was expecting President Reagan to throw in the towel. You were not expecting Gorbachev to do that, I assume.

Sec. PALMER: No, nor do I expect that he thought the towel was going to be thrown in today. I think both of us feel that this was a very constructive development, that it set the right tone for 1986, that it's giving encouragement which is necessary and giving all of us, the bureaucracy on both sides, a boot to get on with some things.

MacNEIL: Mr. Churkin, as you know, because obviously you're very conversant -- you know about "where's the beef." You also know about American politicians who tend to speak over the other politicians' heads to the American people. President Reagan is a master at that. Do you think that he may have done some good for his side in this message today in talking to the Soviet people about SDI?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, I don't know. I think that our people are very firm in their belief that building new weapons does not bring about greater security and --

LEHRER: The rank and file people of the Soviet Union?

Sec. CHURKIN: Yes. I think that our people are unanimously in favor of freezing weapons developments, be that nuclear weapons or any other weapons. This is the position of our government, and I think it's going to be extremely difficult, impossible, to persuade the Soviet people that building more weapons is going to be beneficial for anyone's security.

LEHRER: Mr. Palmer, is that reason that Mr. Reagan made such a strong reaffirmation of the position, though, was to get the message to the folks in the Soviet Union?

Sec. PALMER: Absolutely, and I've spent enough years in the Soviet Union and have enough respect for the Russian people and other peoples there not to believe that they are unanimous about any issue. Like any people there are different views there. There is, as the President mentioned, an on-going strategic defense program in the Soviet Union. So I don't believe they're unanimous, and I do think there is reason for this kind of dialogue.

LEHRER: But what about the reverse of that? As you were listening to Gorbachev, watching Gorbachev, did you say, "Oh, my goodness! What if the American people buy his argument after listening to this six-minute speech?"

Sec. PALMER: Well, what was unusual about today is that the American people hear representatives of the Soviet Union almost every week on programs like this and others, and that's welcome. What was unusual is that the people in the Soviet Union heard our point of view, and that was what was so welcome. So we're not afraid of the imbalance. What we would like, however, is more opportunities like we had today.

LEHRER: Are there going to be more, Mr. Churkin, or is this a one-shot deal?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, I hope there will be more. We are not afraid of the imbalance, either. I think that it can be safely assumed that today more people in the Soviet Union saw President Reagan in the United States than people in the United States saw General Secretary Gorbachev, if only because we showed that message at prime time. But generosity is a part of our national character. We don't care about that.

LEHRER: So in other words, Mr. Reagan is going to be allowed to address the Soviet people again?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, I don't know what's going to happen specifically. I think it would be a positive thing if our relations continue to improve and if, in that context, we'll have more opportunities of this kind.

LEHRER: Is the genie out of the bottle on this now, Mr. Palmer? I mean, is everybody really very pregnant on the issue of talking back and forth to each other's people on television?

Sec. PALMER: Well, we hope so. This wasn't in fact the first time. As you know, there was an interview with Izvestia and so President Reagan did get into the print media there. I was encouraged that on Thursday, November 21st, the last day of the summit, that his statement then was in fact run live on Soviet television, and in that case the Soviet Union did not know what he was going to say. So something is happening, and we're very encouraged by it.

LEHRER: Did everybody -- did both sides know what was going to be said here before the tape arrived? Was there an exchange of texts?

Sec.PALMER: No. Both sides were aware once the tapes had been done what was going to be said, but there was no advance censorship or ability to censor, either.

LEHRER: Did you at the embassy here in Washington know what President Reagan was going to say before the tape was delivered?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, not before the tape was delivered, no.

LEHRER: But the commitment was made to run it in the Soviet Union before you knew what the President was going to say?

Sec. CHURKIN: Yes, exactly.

LEHRER: And the same here?

Sec. PALMER: Yes.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you. Robin? What's Ahead?

MacNEIL: Now we explore further the importance of this exchange of messages and how they're likely to be perceived on both sides. With us James Billington, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and author of The Icon and the Axe, an interpretive history of Russian culture; and Seymour Weiss, consultant on national security matters who formerly headed the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs from 1973 to '74.

Mr. Billington, how important is the fact of this exchange?

JAMES BILLINGTON: Well, I think it's quite important because in the dialogue between our two countries, between a closed society and an open society, it's very important that the open society have a chance to speak and that its leaders have a chance to speak, particularly in the case of the Soviet Union, because there's this long kind of fear and apprehension of the West which has been fanned and exaggerated by the leaders, really, almost up until the very moment of the summit. So it's very important for them to see first hand what this man is like, what he stands for, what he has to say directly to them. I think there was more substance in the Izvestia interview, which was already published and which they've had access to, but this was very important. It's also important because this is a time of transition in the Soviet Union, and the very fact of having such an interview indicates to the bureaucracy that the kind of extraordinary anti-American position which they were fanning and developing for a long period of time may not -- it hasn't been repudiated, to be sure, but that it isn't the automatic way to succeed in the bureaucracy. So it sends a more -- a somewhat more hopeful signal through the bureaucracy as well as satisfies the ordinary people, who are very different, of course, from the bureaucracy in their point of view that the President is himself a man of peace and that the intentions of the American people are not quite as horrific as they've been portrayed rather steadily for a rather long period of time.

MacNEIL: Mr. Weiss, how important do you think it is, just the fact of it happening?

SEYMOUR WEISS: Well, I must confess to you I really do not attach the kind of importance to this that my colleagues who are sitting here with me today do. I think one has to distinguish between form and substance. In terms of the form, I have absolutely no quarrel with the presentation of either Mr. Gorbachev or President Reagan. I think they both expressed the kinds of hopes that the world wanted to hear. In terms of the substance, frankly, I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans, and let me just explain why. In October of 1985, Secretary Shultz, in a very excellent speech, I thought, pointed out that the differences which separate the Soviet Union and the United States do not derive from either misunderstandings or from personalities, implying that a new personality coming onto the scene might make some difference, but perhaps not a profound one. What he said was that our differences were grounded in quite fundamental, moral differences as to how each of us viewed freedom and justice of the individual. Mr. Reagan, you remember, after the summit identified what he called a report card, and he suggested that there were four measures that he would seek to assess Soviet performance by. He referred to such things, for example, as attempting to bring peace into the regional disputes around the world and asserted that he thought it was important that the Soviet Union agree to permit these countries to determine for themselves the sorts of government, the societies that they wanted to have without outside interference. Now, he referred to that sort of thing again. I think that until we see some progress in measures of that sort, that exchanges of this sort, frankly, I think a put some value on, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Mr. BILLINGTON: Well, you don't expect a great deal of substance. The substance will come with policy, and to be sure there is a bit of pulling punches. There was no mention of Afghanistan, for instance, in the President's speech. But I think on this fundamental question of the difference of values he was communicating directly about some very fundamental American values. I mean, he mentioned the God-given rights, he mentioned human rights. He mentioned things which, to an increasingly educated population and a new generation in the Soviet Union, they will understand. You have to distinguish, I think, between ordinary people who aren't too interested in this and who will just be interested in a kind of gut feeling that this is a man of peace. I think they got a positive message in the Soviet Union. The educated people, which is a very large number, will have responded to some of the more interesting arguments about human rights and so forth. The leaders will of course be much more cautious in their response, as Mr. Churkin was. They will come back and hone in on the thing Gorbachev stressed, the beef for them -- it isn't the beef, they're just interested in the particular pickle they're pushing at the moment, which is the SDI, the whole other range of things. The President, though, was much more substantive, I think, than -- I thought General Secretary Gorbachev actually made quite a good statement. It was a muted, it was a sincere statement, and the President responded on the issue of peace. So I think it was -- I think it was a very positive exchange, but I think precisely it's important to communicate to the better-educated --

MacNEIL: Could I ask --

Mr. BILLINGTON: -- generation in the Soviet Union that there are these ideals, that there are these thoughts. Now, the ordinary people won't pick that up, but this new, better-educated generation in a time of generational transition will, and it's important to communicate that that's a basis of what American people feel, because it's not reported internally in the Soviet Union.

MacNEIL: Could I ask you both very briefly, Mr. Weiss first, is there any danger for U.S. policy in letting this happen?

Mr. WEISS: Yes, as a matter of fact, I think there really is. I don't want to paint too black a picture, but let me say I nd it ironic that we are sitting here talking about addresses to the people of each country without distinguishing the asymmetries between the two societies. The Soviet Union is an oligarchy. It is ruled by a very small group of people. I think that no one, with the exception of my Russian colleague sitting at the table here, would deny that it's an oppressive society. It seems to me that the possibility that the Soviet people are going to have very much effect upon the policy of the Soviet government is almost ludicrous. That's certainly not the case in our own government. If I might make just one other very brief comment. I noted in Mr. Gorbachev's comment a very warm note about U.S.-Soviet wartime cooperation. Well, I hope the American people are aware that when the Soviets speak to their own people they do not speak in these terms at all. They tend to denigrate the U.S. contribution during the war. I think that's a lot of soft soap that is meant to appeal to the American public.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, Mr. Churkin, what about that, that the whole thing's a pointless exercise, because the Soviet people are an oppressed people and they don't have anything to do with what goes on anyhow?

Sec. CHURKIN: First I'd like to point out a factual blunder. When the 40th anniversary was celebrated of our joint victory over Nazi Germany, the participation and the role in it of the United States was very prominently mentioned in the Soviet Union, including in the speeches of General Secretary Gorbachev, whereas the Soviet Union was not mentioned at all when President Reagan addressed that subject.

LEHRER: Mr. Weiss?

Sec. CHURKIN: As to -- as to --

LEHRER: One thing at a time. Mr. Weiss?

Mr. WEISS: I think one can always find an exception to the rule. Why don't you ask our colleague whether I am correct or incorrect with my assertion that in general when there is a discussion of U.S.-Soviet wartime collaboration the U.S. involvement is denigrated?

Sec. CHURKIN: Incorrect, and I'm saying --

Mr. WEISS: Well, we disagree on that.

Sec. CHURKIN: -- I am saying that very sincerely. I am a student of history and I know how we present history in our history books, textbooks; the role of the United States is always mentioned there. Everyone in the Soviet Union, every intelligent, educated person, will tell you that 4 of the material things we put into that victory came from the United States in the form of lend-lease. So it's not a correct statement.

LEHRER: Okay, what about his major point, though, that this exchange today doesn't really mean that much because the Soviet people don't have that much to say in the government?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, I think it is a misperception. Of course our countries are very different. They work differently. But it is the strongest desire of our people which General Secretary Gorbachev spoke about today, to have peace, and that, to a large extent, explains the fact that the preservation of peace, working for peace, is a major -- is the cornerstone of the foreign policy of our government.

LEHRER: Mr. Palmer, what do you say to Mr. Weiss' point that this is all well and good, but the fact is we're talking about two different societies. I won't repeat it again; you heard what he said.

Sec. PALMER: I agree with Mr. Weiss that no single act, no one set of remarks is going to change fundamentally the problems that we face, and in fact I think I mentioned early on that I think it's terribly important to look at the issues and to deal with problems and not just with atmospherics. So in that sense I think it's right. But I also agree very much with Dr. Billington that it's of fundamental importance for us to be able to communicate directly with the Soviet peoples. It's a long-term question.

LEHRER: Now, why? Why?

Sec. PALMER: Because I think that I agree very much with Dr. Sakharov and others who believe that there is a long-term process underway of bringing Russia into the modern world, and that this is part of that process. There are many other elements of it, but this is part of it.

LEHRER: Mr. Weiss?

Mr. WEISS: Well, may I say I'm delighted that Mr. Palmer mentioned Dr. Sakharov. When the Soviet government chooses to honor human rights, to permit a distinguished scientist such as Dr. Sakharov to speak out freely, not to be isolated in a town distant from where he lived, then one can begin to have a little confidence in the relationship and believe that there is something fundamental going on that's bringing the two sides together. It's certainly not happening now.

Mr. BILLINGTON: Well, that isn't the point. The point is that, how do you communicate with this kind of a society? Now, Part of the problem is that although there's been a great growth in education, the communication has been largely monopolized by a few professionals from the Soviet Union. There is very little access to that society and we can't always be sure to judge from the reported performance of some of the so-called experts, whether they're reporting accurately the genuine feelings and the complexity of the United States. I disagree with my Soviet colleague. I'm as student of history as well, and there has been in the last year a greater recognition, I agree. But if you look at the history of textbooks, if you look at the non-mention of Lend-Lease, if you look at the denigration of the American war in the Pacific, there's really a lamentable record of reporting of just the factual history. There is also bad reporting on their own history. Will they resume de-Stalinization, which Khrushchev started and was artificially arrested in the last year? So there are a great many deep issues and blockages. And this kind of direct link I think's very important.

LEHRER: Mr. Churkin, let me ask you this, a point that was raised earlier. Do you believe, substance aside, to use your expression, do you think that the Soviet people who saw President Reagan's message today would have a good feeling about him as a person?

Sec. CHURKIN: Well, I think so. I'm not an expert in public relations or on television. I think that they will have a general picture --

LEHRER: I mean his -- I'm sorry.

Sec. CHURKIN: -- how President Reagan talks, how he delivers speeches. I don't think that it will carry the day and that people will have the policy of the United States very much on their mind and they will look for changes in the substance of the U.S. policy, and hopefully they will look for improvements in our relations and specific things happening in our relations in the future.

Mr. BILLINGTON: May I make the briefest of comment on that very point?

LEHRER: Sure.

Mr. BILLINGTON: This is the one positive thing that I myself see coming out of this exchange. Up until quite recently, you know, President Reagan was described in terms suggesting that he was a man very close to Mr. Hitler in his attitudes and so forth. It will be very difficult for anybody listening to President Reagan on television today to believe that typification of him which was in the Soviet press consistently.

LEHRER: And having put him on their own television, Mr. Palmer, do you believe that that kind of rhetoric, that strong anti-Reagan, anti-American rhetoric now has to go by the boards?

Sec. PALMER: I think we can already see that the rhetoric about the President has been modified; however, of course the attitude toward the rest of our policies, for example, even toward Secretary Shultz, has recently been very tough. So I don't think there's going to bea sudden change overall. If you look at even during the height of detente in the '70s, the Soviet domestic media was really quite firm about the United States, and I will anticipate that that would continue.

LEHRER: All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you all for being with us. Robin? Alzheimer's: Coping

MacNEIL: New Year's Day is of course a time of optimism and new hope for most people, but for some it cannot be. Among them are the sufferers from Alzheimer's disease, a brain disorder affecting approximately one person in 10 over the age of 60. The disease is characterized by loss of memory and personality. It is degenerative and there is no cure. Much of the attention paid to the disease has dealt with how families can best care for their loved ones afflicted with Alzheimer's. But what if there is no family or the victim is poor? In Los Angeles there's an unusual center that helps such people preserve some independent life and dignity. Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET reports.

HAZEL STEGNER, Alzheimer's victim: Here I am. Here I am. I don't know why, and I don't know how, and I never dreamed that I would be in a condition like this. Never, never.

JEFFREY KAYE: What are you feeling?

Ms. STEGNER: Feeling? Oh, that I'd rather be dead.

SPEAKER: Why don't you bring us up to date, Christine?

CHRISTINE RAYA, social worker: Okay, first of all, Hazel Stegner is a female Caucasian. She is approximately 88 years old.

KAYE [voice-over]: At the St. Barnabas Senior Center in downtown Los Angeles, social workers discuss Hazel Stegner's future with medical and mental health experts. The center tries to help victims of Alzheimer's disease who live with senility.

Ms. RAYA: Her eating is her primary problem right now, and how we can keep track of exactly what she does or does not eat. Physically she seems to be very, very thin, very small, very petite. So her diet is the primary question. She is very disorientated most, 90 of the time.

2nd SOCIAL WORKER: I agree that her feeding problem is her number-one problem, as is her isolation from family, friends, peers. I don't think that we could agree that she'd be just a good friend anyway, so, you know, she's probably lost any friends that she might have had.

KAYE [voice-over]: These days Hazel Stegner's best friend, in fact her only friend, is Christine Raya, a social worker with the St. Barnabus Center.

Ms. RAYA: She was a teacher early on in life. She was in the business community. The Hazel that I know now, that I met five months ago, is a warm, happy person, and she's frightened. She has moments of weakness, but she still remembers the part of her that's Hazel, and that's what I remind her of. I don't want non-entity clients.

KAYE [voice-over]: Almost every day Raya or somebody else from the center looks in on Hazel. They pick up her mail, bring her groceries and make sure she remembers to eat.

Ms. RAYA: Hazel, do you think you'll remember to have some dinner for me? Would you like me to leave the can open for you?

Ms. STEGNER: I can do it for you, but not for me. It's just delicious.

Ms. RAYA: Well, good, I'm glad you're enjoying it.

Ms. STEGNER: Well, I hadn't had fruit for so long.

Ms. RAYA: Hazel, in the refrigerator there will be a can of chile beans already open, and I want you to have some toast and some grapes and some milk for dinner, okay? And I'll call you and remind you where everything is.

KAYE [voice-over]: The St. Barnabus Senior Center provides a variety of services to 19,000 clients, mostly poor, mostly single. It is funded by the Episcopal Church, the University of Southern California, government agencies and private sources. The center's Alzheimer's program is relatively new and relatively small, with 24 patients. It diagnoses and treats people suffering from extreme senility. The goal is to help people like Hazel Stegner stay out of institutions for as long as possible.

SPEAKER: What about finances? Are you managing finances?

Ms. RAYA: She has money but the problem is that she does not connect that you have to go to the bank, take it out and spend it. She is not paying lights and gas or phone unless it's being done for her.

Hazel, do you remember how much we need to pay the rent? Is it $318?

Ms. STEGNER: No, it isn't.

Ms. RAYA: How much is it?

Ms. STEGNER: Well, as I remember it's $200 and something.

Ms. RAYA: But we had a rent increase in July so it went to $318, I think.

Ms. STEGNER: It did?

Ms. RAYA: Yes.

Ms. STEGNER: Well, then I wasn't here. I guess.

KAYE [voice-over]: Hazel Stegner is facing eviction because she's forgotten to pay the rent. Christine Raya must intervene to assure the landlady the payments will be made.

Ms. RAYA: I appreciate you understanding about Hazel. That's really important. The receipt. Thank you. I'd appreciate that.

Hazel, this is the check for the gas company.

KAYE [voice-over]: For now Hazel Stegner can remain in her apartment, at least as far as the landlady is concerned. But Stegner requires the continued assistance of the St. Barnabas Senior Center. The center combines social work with medical and psychiatric treatment. Alzheimer's disease is difficult to diagnose. Steve Lobo is undergoing a series of tests to determine the extent of his illness.

DOCTOR: Yes, what is this?

STEVE LOBO, Alzheimer's victim: Nurse's purse.

DOCTOR: What do you do with this?

Mr. LOBO: [unintelligible]

DOCTOR: Is this a pencil?

Mr. LOBO: Yeah.

DOCTOR: Say that.

Mr. LOBO: It's a pencil.

DOCTOR: Good. What is this?

Mr. LOBO: What is this? I don't know.

DOCTOR: What do you call this?

Mr. LOBO: I don't know.

DOCTOR: Glasses?

Mr. LOBO: Yeah.

DOCTOR: Say that.

Mr. LOBO: It was a pencil.

KAYE [voice-over]: Alzheimer's disease per se cannot be cured, but the center's co-director, psychiatrist William Bondareff, believes some of the symptoms of the disease can be treated.

WILLIAM BONDAREFF: One can certainly treat difficult behavioral problems like volatility or hostility or aggressiveness and that sort of thing can be certainly treated. Sleep problems, which are very common in Alzheimer's disease, can be treated.

KAYE [voice-over]: The center's difficult task is compounded by the nature of the community it serves; the neighborhood, located in the shadows of downtown Los Angeles, is a poor one. It contains some 45,000 elderly people. Christine Raya believes keeping her clients in marginal housing is better than institutionalizing them.

Ms. RAYA: What you do to a patient, especially an Alzheimer's patient, when you remove them from the environment that they're familiar with, they totally go downhill at a rate far more rapidly than if they'd been tried to maintained in their home. It's sad. You lose them, and I don't like to lose.

It's me, Steve. Hi.

KAYE [voice-over]: Steve Lobo is unable to take care of himself. A neighbor in his rooming house, Anna Lopez, is paid by the state to attend to him. Christine Raya makes sure Lopez is getting the assistance she needs to care for him properly.

Ms. RAYA: Do you remember what you ate a little while ago for lunch, Steve?

ANNA LOPEZ: Lobo, what did you eat for the lunch? Do you remember what you eat at your lunch? Let me see. What did you eat it?

Mr. LOBO: I don't know.

Ms. LOPEZ: You forgot?

Mr. LOBO: I forgot.

SPEAKER: He's obviously totally dependent on that chore provider at the moment, and he is severely demented, and there's not much question about that. It looks like we can keep him where he's living right now because he has this chore provider who is --

Ms. RAYA: Because they're rooting for him.

SPEAKER: Well, who's motivated to keep him there. So we take advantage of that and leave him there.

KAYE [voice-over]: The inevitable deterioration of Alzheimer's patients requires they be given more and more care. Hazel Stegner's dependence has become a debating point.

SPEAKER: I'm wondering whether we're trying to hold back the tide. It's the goal of the agency to maintain independent living as long as practicable. I'm wondering with Hazel if it is practicable.

STAFF: Yeah, because this is just a poor use of your staff time, I mean, it's timing to have to donate two hours a day to one person that's just not --

Ms. RAYA: I don't ever think this is a losing battle, whether it's one more day I gain of her independence, I haven't lost anything. I've gained. And if five months down the road it's time for the nursing home or time for the boarding care, then I'll do that.

KAYE [voice-over]: Despite Christine Raya's daily struggle to help her clients maintain their fragile lives, the odds she knows are always against her. Hazel Stegner will soon have to go to a nursing home. The only question is when. In their delusion, some of her clients have come to think of Christine Raya as their child. She remembers one early-morning phone call from a hospital informing her that her father was dying.

Ms. RAYA: And he wasn't my father; he was a client. But he was asking to see me and he was dying. So I got to the intensive care and I held his hand for half an hour, and then he says, "Don't forget the promise," and he closed his eyes and died. Now, the promise was to get back to my office, get his body released from the hospital, get the funeral home to pick it up, call the priest, finagle him to come and give a rosary to somebody who had no money to donate, close his bank account, call Social Security, stop his checks, put a change of address to St. Barnabas so that I would take care of his last bills, and go to his funeral. And that I did all of it in a day and a half, and as they lowered his casket into the ground, I cried, and I said, "I kept my promise." I do that with a lot of my clients. I don't deal with life and death every day, but that's a reality of my job. That will happen with Hazel Stegner. That will happen with Steve Lobo. I will be there 'til the end.

MacNEIL: That report by Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles.

LEHRER: The Lurie cartoon of the day is about the major story of the day.

[Lurie cartoon -- Reagan and Gorbachev deliver their solemn speeches, then reach behind one another's heads to make silly hand movements]

The major news story of this New Year's Day was the great taped message exchange. President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev swapped television messages to each other's people, and it went off without a hitch. Both leaders spoke of peace and cooperation, but also got their major disagreement on the line as well, Mr. Reagan defending his Strategic Defense Initiative, Mr. Gorbachev attacking it.

Good night and good '86, Robin.

MacNEIL: Same to you, Jim. Good night to you. We'll be back tomorrow night and I'll see you then. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.