The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news tonight, an underground group in Lebanon promised to release some French hostages. The European Common Market voted sanctions, including an arms embargo, against Syria. Vyacheslav Molotov, one of the original Soviet leaders, has died at 96. The leader of the Organization of U.S. Catholic Bishops, warning of dangerous disaffection, called for talks with the Pope. We'll have the details in our news summary coming up. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: We have three main focuses on the News Hour tonight, starting with a look at the mysterious goings on between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the role Syria plays in terrorism. We talk with the British ambassador to the U.S., then to the ambassador to the U.S. from the Arab League, and finally with two experts on that part of the world. Next, the growing tensions between the Catholic Church in the U.S. and the Vatican. We have a report on an American bishop in trouble with Rome and talk with a journalist who's been following the story. Then Charles Krause fills us in on Nicaragua's growing military might. And finally, an essay from Penny Stallings about the new Betty Crocker.News Summary

MacNEIL: One of the underground groups holding hostages in Beirut promised a release some French captives tonight. Sometime later, an anonymous caller claiming to represent the Revolutionary Justice Organization phoned a Beirut newspaper and said two of the hostages had been released in West Beirut. Earlier, the organization, believed to made up of pro-Iranians Shi'ite fundamentalists, said the releases would result from mediation by Syria and Algeria. One message promised to release at 7:30 p.m. Beirut time at a hotel in Moslem West Beirut. Scores of newsmen turned up and a French diplomat, but no hostages appeared. The Revolutionary Justice Organization has also claimed to be holding two of the six Americans still missing in Lebanon: Joseph James Cicippio, controller of the American University; and Edward Austin Tracy, a writer. Judy?

WOODRUFF: White House spokesman Larry Speaks said today the Reagan administration had hoped that other American hostages would be released with David Jacobsen, but he said, "Our hopes were dashed again." Speaks told reporters he believed that news stories on the circumstances of Jacobsen's release had made the situation more difficult.

Meanwhile, the State Department insisted today that Secretary of State Shultz has no plans to resign, despite reports over the weekend that he might be considering quitting over the administration's policy of negotiating with Iran. Spokesman Charles Redman responded to reporters' questions.

CHARLES REDMAN, State Department spokesman: The secretary has no plans to resign. The story on the weekend was pure speculation.

REPORTER: Well, in this town, somebody could have no plans on one day and leave the next day, as you well know. Has he considered resigning?

Mr. REDMAN: That would always be the case, John. You could have no plans one day and have plans the next day. And what can I say to those kinds of questions? What I'm telling you is that the stories that appeared on the weekend were pure speculation.

REPORTER: But has he considered resigning?

Mr. REDMAN: And I've given you the answer to the question.

WOODRUFF: At the White House, spokesman Larry Speaks, in answer to other reporters' questions, said the President was not "ticked" at Shultz's remarks in recent days that he disagreed with the policy of negotiating for the release of hostages.

MacNEIL: In London, 11 of the 12 European Common Market nations adopted sanctions against Syria, including an arms embargo. The measures were punishment for Syria's alleged role in the attempted bombing of an El Al airliner. We have a report from John Simpson of the BBC.

JOHN SIMPSON [voice-over]: At their last meeting fortnight ago, they'd had had less than one working day's notice of the measures Britain was demanding against Syria, and it turned out to be a disorganized affair which ended without agreement. The intervening days have given them a chance to reflect on their priorities. And all but the Greek minister decided they had to line up with Britain at a time of terrorist threat, even though none of them really wanted to hit out at Syria.

Sir GEOFFREY HOWE, foreign secretary, Great Britain: We believe we must sustain unqualified opposition to terrorism and not engage in bargaining about the future of hostages or anything of that kind.

MacNEIL: In Washington, the White House praised the EEC action, saying the sanctions make clear that Syrian support for international terrorism is not acceptable.

There were demands for explanations both in Israel and Great Britain today over the so-called Vanunu affair, the incident involving an Israeli nuclear technician who passed Israeli atomic secrets to a London newspaper. In Jerusalem, Israeli politicians wanted to know why the Israeli security had failed to stop Mordechai Vanunu from talking to the British press. And in London, officials wanted to know how Vanunu came to be arrested and jailed in Israel shortly after he told the Sunday Times that Israel had been producing nuclear warheads for two decades at the top secret reactor where he worked for ten years.

WOODRUFF: Both the White House and the Pentagon today denied reports that the United States will exceed the limits of the SALT II nuclear arms agreement this week. But officials said the Reagan administration does plan to go over treaty limits before December 31. The Washington Post reported yesterday that arming a B-52 bomber at Carswell Air Force Base in Texas with nuclear cruise missiles would put the U.S. Over the limits set by the 1979 SALT agreement this week.

In Moscow, meanwhile, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze today characterized his meeting with Secretary of State Shultz last week in a retreat to the pre-Reykjavik position, referring to the recent summit between President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev.Shevardnadze accused the Reagan administration of trying to pull out of the accords reached in Iceland and likened the attempt to what he called a political theatre of the absurd.

Also in Moscow today, word of the death of one of the men who became symbolic of the ruthless era of Joseph Stalin. Vyacheslov Molotov was reported to have died Saturday at the age of 96. Molotov played a key role in launching the cold war after the end of World War II. Winston Churchill once said he had a smile like the Siberian winter.

MacNEIL: Rumors of a coup were rife in the Philippines today, despite assurances by Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Armed Forces Chief Fidel Ramos that the nation is in safe hands while President Corazon Aquino is away on a four day trip to Japan. Craig Thompson of Visnews reports.

CRAIG THOMPSON [voice-over]: Hundreds of flag waving schoolchildren lined the fore-court to greet the Philippines leader and watch as she performed the honorary review of the troops. It was truly a red carpet welcome for a leader who has come to ask her Pacific neighbor for help in rescuring her country's impoverished country. And economic concern seemed to take precedence over all else at the moment. Her visit has gone ahead despite rumors that factions of the military are planning a coup attempt during her absence. The president met first with Japan's 85 year old head of state, Emperor Hirohito. Then it was on to talks with Prime Minister Nakasone. President Aquino is seeking a new package of loans and grants from Japan totalling some $1.6 billion.

MacNEIL: Japan did agree to a $250 million low interest loan, and an Aquino spokesman said Japan indicated that more aid was on the way.

WOODRUFF: The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops today warned of ill will between American Catholics and the Vatican and called on Pope John Paul II to meet with the U.S. hierarchy before he visits this country next year. Bishop James Malone of Youngstown, Ohio, opened the organization's four day annual meeting in Washington with a sober assessment.

Bishop JAMES MALONE, National Conference of Catholic Bishops: No one who reads the newspapers of the past three years can be ignorant of the growing and dangerous dissatisfaction of elements of the church in the United States from the Holy See. This division presents the church in the United States with a very serious question: how will we move to address this developing estrangement to strengthen the cognitive and effective bonds between the church here and the Holy See?

MacNEIL: A group of Eastern Airlines employees filed suit to block the pending takeover by Texas Air, saying they had the financial backing to buy Eastern themselves. The newly formed Eastern Airlines Employee Coalition Acquisition Incorporated filed suit in district court in Miami, charging that the proposed merger would deny shareholders, which include the Eastern employees, adequate payment for their shares. They said they had backing to buy the carrier for about $600 million. The employees represent about 25% of the shareholders. The airline said it still expected its shareholders to approve the Texas Air buyout offer of $676 million. Texas Air owns 51 of the shares.

WOODRUFF: That ends our news summary. Still ahead, the mysterious links between the U.S. and Iran, special correspondent Charles Krause on Nicaragua's growing military strength, a documentary report on the American bishop in trouble with Rome, and Betty Crocker's new look. Arming Iran?

MacNEIL: Our major focus tonight is on responses to terrorism, today's vote by the European Community to impose sanctions on Syria and the continuing debate in this country over American approaches to Iran to help gain the release of hostages. First, the story of Europe and Syria. As we reported earlier, 11 European nations, in response to British requests, agreed to stop arms sales and limit diplomatic relations with Syria. The British have accused Syria of being behind an attempt to place a bomb on an El Ai flight taking off from London to Israel. For more on why the British prodded their European allies to act, we turn to the British ambassador to the United States, Sir Antony Acland. Sir Antony, a career diplomat and the highest ranking civil servant in the foreign office, took over the ambassador's post this summer.

Mr. Ambassador, what are the measures exactly that the EEC voted for today?

Sir. ANTONY ACLAND, British ambassador: Well, there are four measures. The first is not to complete any new arms deals. The second is not to have any high level visits, either to Syria or from Syria. The third is to scrutinize the activities of the Syrian embassies and consulates in the 12 countries of the European Community and to take appropriate action to limit what are thought to be unacceptable activities. And the fourth is to consider security measures in relation to Syrian Arab Airlines. And I think that's a very satisfactory and very effective package of measures now taken by the European Community.

MacNEIL: Was it as much as Britain wanted?

Amb. ACLAND: Yes. We put those measures on the agenda, and we are very grateful for our partners in agreeing to them. And I think that all the 12 countries agree to the measures. Eleven of the twelve countries agreed to the communique.

MacNEIL: The report of the BBC we just showed said that a lot of them did so reluctantly. Is that because they don't believe the evidence the British presented of Syria's complicity in that attempted bombing?

Amb. ACLAND: Well, I don't know about that. And you'll have to ask them. But I think the important thing is that actions speak louder than words or, indeed, dare I say it, perhaps louder than press reports.

MacNEIL: How much does it weaken the European effort and its solidarity to have one of its principal -- one of the principal members of the EEC, France, currently bargaining for the release of -- with Syria for the release of its hostages in Lebanon?

Amb. ACLAND: Well again, I'm not going to comment on what another country is doing. I'll speak for British policies. And I don't know whether France is or is not bargaining. Our position is quite clear -- that there shouldn't be deals with terrorists, that if you accede to a blackmailer's demand or terrorist's demand, you encourage other terrorists to make further demands. But I'm not going to comment, and I really don't know what France is aiming at. That is British policy not to make deals which give the terrorist what he wants.

MacNEIL: Your -- we also just saw your own boss, the Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, underlining that rather strongly -- that point -- in the statement he just made.

Amb. ACLAND: Well, I'm glad I said the same thing.

MacNEIL: Who was that directed towards?

Amb. ACLAND: I don't think that was directed at anybody. And I think that he was stating, as I've stated, what is a very strongly held British point of view -- that there are circumstances were one has to do the best you possibly can for hostages. It's an agonizing situation for their families, for themselves, and for governments. And I think that you can see if you can improve the climate between your own country and the country that's holding hostages to see if, as a humanitarian gesture, they can be released. That the sort of thing that Mr. Terry Waite, acting entirely individually and for himself, not for the government, tries to do -- to create a better climate where there's a humanitarian gesture which could be made.

MacNEIL: A lot of European comment in the last few days has been -- British included -- has been accusing the United States government of hypocrisy in its reported dealings and arms shipments to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. What is the British government's position on the U.S. dealings with Iran?

Amb. ACLAND: Well, again, you're trying to draw me into making comments about another government's position. You really must ask the United States authorities about that. I'm not going to comment on -- I don't know the facts. I'm not going to comment on what the United States may or may not have been doing. I can restate British policy, which is, as Sir Geoffrey Howe has said on London, that there shouldn't be direct, linked deals to achieve the release of hostages.

MacNEIL: And the facts of the matter are that France has hostages in Lebanon, America has hostages in Lebanon, and you have two hostages in Lebanon. Is that not correct?

Amb. ACLAND: Yes, that's right. And as I've said, it is a very agonizing state of affairs. And we've lost some of our hostages in the Lebanon. Two British subjects were murdered not so very long ago who were held by the terrorists, and probably a third has been murdered as well. And this is a terrible situation. And one must do the best one can, as I say, to create a climate where the people who've held them don't think it's worth any longer holding them and out of humanity to them let some go. But you don't actually do a service to them in the long run or to other people who are in danger if you make direct, linked deals conceding to the terrorists' or to the blackmailers' demands.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us.Judy?

Woodruff: The Arab world is watching both the Syrian and the Iranian stories closely, because Syria is a major player in Mideast diplomacy and because Iran has been involved in a war for six years against another Arab power, Iraq. For an Arab perspective, we turn to Clovis Maksoud, the Arab League's representative to the U.N. and to the U.S.

Ambassador Maksoud, you just heard this -- the list of what the EEC has decided to do in the way of sanctions against Syria. Do you think those things will be effective?

CLOVIS MAKSOUD, Arab Leader: Well, I think that the uncharacteristic haste of Britain in breaking diplomatic relations with Syria necessitated that the European countries, with which Britain has very close relations and European solidarity, necessitated a face saving device. And I think that these measures, although unfortunate, do not constitute the sanctions. It must be noticed that in the declaration, it did say the alleged involvement of Syria. And therefore, the term alleged meant that the conviction on the part of the various European governments that the involvement is established is not there. And we feel also that, with due respect to the British judicial system and its integrity, that the way the evidence was collected and the jury system to judge on an issue of such complication --

WOODRUFF: This is against the --

Mr. MAKSOUD: The jury system, judging on evidence collected in a way which involves a very complicated situation, does make us have serious reservations about the nature of the collection of the evidence and not on the integrity of the judicial system.

WOODRUFF: This is against the gentleman who was --

Mr. MAKSOUD: Hidawe, yes.

WOODRUFF: Well, what do you think the effect -- in any event, what do you think the effect of these sactions will be that the EEC imposed upon --

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well, the practical effects are, I think, minimal and probably temporary. There is a great deal of reservations among many European countries. But I think that they must have weighed the insistence of Britain and the need to salvageits sort of face saving device, and they went along with a very diluted declaration which shows a great deal that there is a great deal of reservations. The sanctions that were mentioned are not really sanctions, because they did not involve economic sanctions. They did involve certain elements which we reject, but they are there. First of all, there isn't much arms going from Western European countries to Syria. Syria is not dependent on its arms supplies from Western European countries. The question of supervising diplomatic missions of Syria is something that is current. Everybody supervises everybody else in diplomatic --

WOODRUFF: So you don't think it will have much effect, in other words.

Mr. MAKSOUD: I don't think it will have much effect, except as an irritant in Arab-European relations.

WOODRUFF: All right, what about Arab reaction to the evidence, the growing evidence, that the United States was deeply involved, very secretly, in negotiating with the Iranians for the release of American hostages?

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well, on this issue we are deeply disappointed and disturbed by the fact that the United States has departed from its neutrality on the Iraqi-Iranian conflict -- a neutrality which we considered to have been very positive and contributive to the restriction of the operational zone of this unfortunate war and which would have been very useful in making the atmosphere conducive globally to bring about an end to this Iraqi-Iranian war. The second aspect is that we are very seriously concerned about the Israeli factor -- the nature of the -- this is an indication of the nature of the strategic relationship between the United States and Israeli and the fact that such a relationship, which is very -- has a great deal of duplicity, tends to show that the United States is utilizing Israel for certain objectives beyond its permissiveness to Israel on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

WOODRUFF: Just quickly, some of the Arab ambassadors have been seeking answers from the State Department on this whole episode. What have they been told? Do you know?

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well, the State Department, in its usual politeness, has been repeated -- repeating what it has always said: that the United States is neutral. They do not show, and they defer this to the White House.

WOODRUFF: They haven't -- okay. They haven't been confirming it, in other words.

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well, they seem to be having a duel situation between the White House and the State Department. And therefore, we can not elicit a clear response from the State Department at this moment.

WOODRUFF: Ambassador Maksoud, stay with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: The story of Reagan administration approaches to Iran to free the American hostages in Lebanon continued to roil the Washington waters. The administration still won't talk, except to say that when it can talk, its actions will be seen to be justified and legal. That was the line first taken by White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan in an interview Friday night.

DONALD REGAN, White House Chief of Staff: All I'll say to you, as I would say to anyone else in public life that's questioning what we're doing, please, hold the -- your opinion of us, hold your questions. As quickly as we can, we'll tell you the whole thing. I'll assure you and we're not breaking any laws. We're not doing anything illegal or immoral. And I think that when we can tell the story, the American public will appreciate the efforts of this President to get American hostages released.

MacNEIL: But many questions are being asked, and we're gonig to put some of them to two Middle Eastern analysts. William Quandt was a member of the National Security Council staff in the Carter administration and is now with the Brookings Institution. Shaul Bakhash is a professor of history of George Mason University in Virginia. He was a journalist and professor in Tehran until 1979.

Mr. Quandt, first of all, how did you interpret what the British ambassador just had to say about this affair?

WILLIAM QUANDT, Brookings Institution: Well, I think it's clear that the British position on not negotiating -- making linked deals, as he called them -- for the release of hostages is a solid principle. And I think that it seemed to be the principle that we were operating on as well, up until the recent stories that have come out in the past week and that presumably have more than a grain of truth to them -- that, in fact, we have been bargaining. I would say that in the real world of politics, there are occasions when you have to communicate with some very unpleasant people in the Middle East in order to achieve objectives such as getting hostages out. But I think the direct trade of arms for the release of hostages -- if indeed that is what we have been involved in, either directly or indirectly through third parties -- is a very dangerous precedent. And in fact, there are the same number of Americans held hostage in Lebanon today as there were when this whole business started a year and a half ago, because we have gotten three out, indeed, but three more have been taken.

MacNEIL: The administration says that it will be vindicated. Its actions will be seen to be, just to use Larry Speaks' words today, legal, moral, proper, right, in the best interests of the country and in the best interests of the hostages. What do you think?

Mr. QUANDT: It seems to me that the question of legality or illegality is not essentially what is at issue. The question is whether it's smart or dumb, in terms of American national interests. I think, insofar as we had objectives of getting the hostages released, and perhaps even a long term objective of improving relations with Iran, those are laudable objectives. The question entirely has to do with the means that we chose to achieve those objectives. Arms for hostages is simply an invitation to hostage takers to take more hostages. It's a good bargain from their standpoint. As far as improving relations with Iran, I think in the long term that is a desirable objective, but I can not imagine that in today's circumstances in Iran that any approach from us with an offer of arms is going to have political payoff. The Iranians will take the arms, because they need them. But to think that we are going to gain political influence in the future through these kinds of escapades -- and I think that is the word, if indeed the stories about Mr. McFarlane going to Tehran are accurate -- is simply a misreading of Iranian political realities. And therefore, it's dumb. It's not that it's moral or immoral; it's simply not going to achieve the objectives that we set for ourselves.

MacNEIL: Well, let's ask an Iranian about that -- a former Iranian. Professor Bakhash, is it dumb to expect through these means for the U.S. to pave the way to better relations with Iran?

SHAUL BAKHASH, George Mason University: I think it is, because the Iranians at this moment are in great difficulty internally, because of a deteriorating economy, the falling oil prices, and the damage the Iraqis have been able to do to Iranian oil and industrial facilities. What they are seeking are two things: arms and access to funds that have been frozen in france and the United States. They, I do not think, contemplate anything more in these contacts than an exchange of assistance in securing the release of hostages being held in Lebanon for access to arms and money. Indeed, given the internal political situation in Iran, it would be highly optimistic to anticipate any real improvement of relations between Iran and the United States.

MacNEIL: Let me ask y ou, how important are arms to Iran for the outcome of the war with Iraq?

Mr. BAKHASH: They are extremely important. Iran has shown again and again that it certainly has superiority in terms of numbers and probably in terms of fighting capability. What it has lacked are tanks, aircraft, air defenses and the like. Indeed, since Khomeini's goal reamins the defeat of Iraq and the overthrow of the Iraqi regime -- the Bath regime at Baghdad -- it seeks arms for this purpose. Now, recently, Iran has suffered from Iraqi bombing and needs protection, especially in the way of air defenses. So either for offensive or for defensive purposes, Iran needs arms very badly.

MacNEIL: Mr. Quandt, how will it affect the long term position of the United States and the way it's perceived in the gulf and in the Arab world generally if the United States has been directly or indirectly sending arms to Iran?

Mr. QUANDT: Well, it will raise a lot of questions about the coherence of our policy. On the one hand, we seem to be eager to see that Iraq is not defeated, and we have gone through the motions of stopping other countries from selling arms to Iran, apparently with some effect. And at the same time, these stories will suggest that we've been playing a double game. And perhaps we have. It will make us look rather sinister in the eyes of the Saudis and others, because they will suspect that, in fact, we have all along not supported the objective of keeping Iraq intact and trying to bring the war to an end on some kind of balanced basis. But have, in fact, been trying to keep the war going, which they've always suspected, and to keep a great deal of pressure on an Arab regime -- namely, Iraq. I think these suspicions are likely to be exaggerated. What the United States has probably authorized in terms of arms shipments is very small and will not affect the war decisively. But we're dealing in an environment in the Middle East where suspicions run very strong and where it doesn't take very much to lead people to the conclusion that the United States is not a reliable country, that they can't count on our word, that we always play double games. And therefore, we shouldn't be surprised when we're not taken seriously in the future.

MacNEIL: Professor Bakhash, do you agree with Mr. Quandt that the net effect of trading arms for hostages, if it's true that that's what has been done, will be to encourage the taking of more hostages -- that if the Iranians, certain Iranians, have influence with the hostage takers, that it will result in more hostages being taken?

Mr. BAKHASH: I think they will be very tempted, people who've been taking hostages, to take more hostages if the price to pay is not very high. I think if one looks at the other side of this coin, one can see that, despite what has often been said, sanctions, pressure, denial of arms, denial of trade, does have an influence. Indeed, if there has been a moderation in Iran's foreign policy, it has been due to the kinds of pressures to which Iran has been subject. And if it turns out in the long run that the high price to pay for taking hostages or encouraging such actions is not very high, then more hostages will be taken.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Mr. Ambassador Maksoud, let me come back to you. We're hearing here all around that the United States has done something that was dumb, it wasn't smart, it will result in more hostages being taken. But just let me play devil's advocate. Things are done for practical reasons all the time. What was wrong with the United States acting in a very narrow way to get its American hostages out of Lebanon?

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well, first of all, we do sympathize with the urgency of getting the hostages out of Lebanon. We have all been trying to do that. I think Syria has been instrumental in the release of some of the hostages. What is wrong with this issue is that --

WOODRUFF: That's not what the administration says.

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well --

WOODRUFF: The Reagan administration.

Mr. MAKSOUD: But it has in the past -- has been instrumental in bringing out some of the hostages. But what I'm really worried about in this instance is, first of all, arms to Iran at this particular juncture, when there are international efforts and the Islamic conference efforts to bring a reconciliation between Iran and Iraq, it is very obvious that there is a convergence of interests. Israel wants to keep propping up these hemorrhaging conflicts on the one hand, and secondly, with due respect and understanding of the need of the United States to bring these hostages out, also Arab lives are equally important, inasmuch as these arms are ultimately going to be bleeding Arab blood in Iraq and maybe other places.

WOODRUFF: What about the Israeli point, Mr. Quandt, that the ambassador raises?

Mr. QUANDT: I think the United States should make up its own mind what its policy is in the United States. Sometimes we will agree with the Israelis, and sometimes we won't. But if we need to approach Iran, it seems to me that we have better ways to do it than going through the Israelis. The danger of doing it that way is, first, it's bound to come out in public. And in Iran itself, it is terribly sensitive to be dealing with both the Israelis and the United States. I think we should find other intermediaries to deal with the Iranians when we have to deal with them. There are Islamic countries who have quite good relations in Tehran -- Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria. And for the kind of business that we can realistically do with Iran today, I would rather find those kind of intermediaries and not confuse the whole Arab-Israeli issue with our gulf interests. I think it can --

WOODRUFF: And you think that's been done here.

Mr. QUANDT: Well, to some extent. And it doesn't take very much, as I say, in terms of reality, to inflame suspicions that are always just beneath the surface that the United States and Israel go hand in hand everywhere in the Middle East together. And I don't think that's true, but the perception that that's true means that our perceived ability to act independently is degraded in the eyes of countries with whom we have to business on the Arab side.

WOODRUFF: Professor Bakhash, what do you think the prospects are for getting other -- getting the other American hostages out of Lebanon now?

Mr. BAKHASH: Well, that's obviously very difficult to say. Because if we are all correct in assuming that there have been discussions to exchange help in securing the release of hostages for arms or for access to funds and what have you, then it depends on a great deal of willingness of the two sides to deal and the ability or willingness of the United States, if the Iranians have leverage in getting hostages in Lebanon released, the willingness of the United States to hand over to Iran or to give Iran what it has been seeking. It looks, doesn't it, that the deal that seemed to be in the making last week fell through, because the Iranians wanted more than the Americans were able or willing to deliver.

WOODRUFF: There are also some reports today and over the weekend that oil politics were involved here. I guess there was a report out of London saying that the United States had been encouraging higher oil prices in order to placate Iran, that we maybe even had a hand in urging the Saudis to fire Sheik Yamani, the oil minister. Any -- do you put the plausibility in that or do you think that's just --

Mr. MAKSOUD: Well, I think that what has taken place in Geneva in the last OPEC meeting is that there has developed a uniformity in the pricing policy of all the member states of OPEC. And to the extent that this uniformity needed a political casualty, perpaps in that context it can be looked upon. However, this does have a salutary effect, and it could have led to a political diffusion of the confrontation that characterizes the Iraq-Iranian conflict. And this uniformity of oil pricing in the economic can have a spill-over on the political. And that is why we encourage the United Nations to become more visible in executing its mandate between Iraq and Iran.

WOODRUFF: A quick comment: any plausibility there?

Mr. QUANDT: I don't think there's a direct link. The United States has no business trying to push oil prices up and collaborating with OPEC, and I don't think we did.

WOODRUFF: Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Bill Quandt, Professor Bakhash, Ambassador Maksoud, thank y ou all. Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come in the News Hour, and update on Nicaragua, strains between U .S. bishops and the Vatican, and an essay on Betty Crocker's changing image. Preparing for a War

WOODRUFF: We shift not to Nicaragua. Saturday was the 25th anniversary of the founding of Sandinista's political party. It was an anniversary the Sandinista government used to show off its military equipment and to send a message. Special correspondent Charles Krause reports from Managua.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: Saturday's military parade proved what the Reagan administration has long contended: Nicaragua now has the largest and the most powerful armed force in Central America. According to U.S. intelligence, more than 100,000 Nicaraguans have volunteered for the regular army or have been drafted into militia and reserve units. Their training is reportedly uneven. But as the parade demonstrated, Nicaragua's best troops are well trained, well armed and highly motivated. Thus far, they've proved extremely effective against a force of 15,000 to 20,000 counter-revolutionaries backed by the United States. The contras, based in neighboring Honduras and Costa Rica, will soon receive another $100 million worth of U.S. arms and training. As a result, the war inside Nicaragua is expected to escalate.

Saturday's parade marked the 25th anniversary of the Frente Sandinista, a Marxist political party that's moved Nicaragua further and further to the left since it came to power seven years ago. For the first time this weekend, the Sandinistas publicly unveiled many of the weapons they've received from Cuba, the Soviet Union and other East Bloc countries: BRDM-2 armored reconnaissance vehicles; ZU-23 antiaircraft guns; D-20 Howitzers, the largest field artillery pieces in Central America; BM-21 multiple rocket launchers and SA-7 ground to air missiles, like the one that brought down the mysterious contra resupply plane last month. The sole survivor of that flight was Eugene Hasenfus, who's become a symbol for the Sandinistas of U.S. efforts to overthrow their revolutionary government.

On Saturday, Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega accused the Reagan administration of preparing to invade Nicaragua. "We're victims of a new phase in which Yankee imperialism is trying to destroy the Sandinista revolution." Ortega's charge was echoed by Brian Wilson, the U.S. Army Medal of Honor winner who served in Vietnam.

BRIAN WILSON: I speak on behalf of the four veterans who fasted: George Mizo, Duncan Murphy, and Charlie Liteky, who is still in Washington D.C., and thousands of other United States citizens who protest against our government's war being waged against your sovereign nation and the killing and maiming of your beautiful people. We smell, taste and feel another Vietnam.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: But despite the charges, the historic references and the rhetoric, many observers noted that the crowds this year were smaller and less enthusiastic than in years past. One of those observers was Enrique Bolanos, a Nicaraguan businessman who's also a leading opponent of the Sandinistas.

[on camera] Why do you think they chose to have such a massive military parade at this time?

ENRIQUE BOLANOS, opposition leader: The military might is a product of the socialist or communist countries. That's their way of being. And sometimes they like to show it. Why the Frente Sandinista decided to show it at this time, that's a very good question. But I think, in a way, to terrorize the Nicaraguans. Also to show it to the United States and other countries. "Look what we have." And also to the Central American countries, telling us and the world, "We're ready even for a holocaust, but we are going to stay here, fight it out to the end."

KRAUSE [voice-over]: There was a time not long ago when both the Sandinistas and the Reagan administration professed to be interested in a negotiated end in their differences. But that possibility appears to be increasingly remote. Washington is now openly funding the contras while in Managua this weekend the Sandinistas made a deliberate decision to make a public show of their military force. Whether or not they ever use their Soviet tanks and helicopters against their own people or against their neighbors, clearly the Sandinistas are ready to defend their revolution against the contras and, if necessary, the United States. Rebuke from Rome

MacNEIL: Next tonight, a look at controversy within the Catholic Church. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, in an unusual public statement, the leader of America's 300 Catholic bishops, James Malone, spoke today of a growing and dangerous disaffection between the Vatican and parts of the American Catholic Church. The "developing estrangement" is such that he urged his fellow bishops to travel to Rome to discuss with the Pope before his visit to the United States next fall. The talk at the bishops' conference today was about one of their own -- Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, whose trouble with the Vatican has split many members of his own diocese, as we see in this report from Barry Mitzman of public station KCTS, SEATTLE.

REV. JON NELSON, Hunthausen supporter: I know all of us are grateful tonight to be here with the person who is and who will be the bishop for all of us in this Puget Sound Area, Archbishop Hunthausen.

BARY MITZMAN [voice-over]: Raymond Hunthausen is a popular and liberal archbishop. He first gained national attention when he withheld his taxes to protect nuclear arms spending. Today, the archbishop is at the center of a different controversy -- one that is a growing source of tension between the American church and Rome. In September, the Vatican took the unprecedented step of stripping Hunthausen of much of his authority, saying he lacks the firmness to govern. The Vatican and conservative Catholics in his own archdiocese criticized what they see as Hunthausen's departure from orthodox practices.

WILLIAM GAFFNEY, Hunthausen critic: He does not accept the moral absolutes of the church on the issues of the sacraments for divorce and remarried Catholics, on the issue of birth control, on the issue of sodomy, and probably a few other issues.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: Local critics like William Gaffney wrote to Rome about the archbishop's alleged abuses.

Mr. GAFFNEY: He has encouraged girls and women to serve mass, in violation of the teaching of the church. There is a laxness in this archdiocese. A very great laxness.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: In 1982, Hunthausen allowed Dignity, an international gay and Lesbian Catholic organization, to celebrate mass in Seattle's cathedral. Conservative Catholics like Gaffney reacted angrily. Last month, the Vatican issued a strongly worded statement specifically condemning the use of church buildings by homosexual Catholic groups such as Dignity.

Mr. GAFFNEY: The priests who are conducting this service are encouraging these people to practice sodomy. If it is not necessary to have a liars' mass, a thieves' mass or an adulterers' mass, I doubt that it's necessary to have a homosexual mass.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: But many of Hunthausen's priests defend him.

Fr. DAVID JAEGER, Seattle priest: When you don't agree with someone, when you think something is wrong, you don't eliminate them.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: Father David Jaeger of Seattle believes Hunthausen has come under fire because he tries to reach out to Catholics who have fallen away from the church of feel excluded by it.

Fr. JAEGER: And the archbishop will state the teaching of the church, but he doesn't try to eliminate people who are homosexuals. As a matter of fact, he reaches out, wants to understand.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: Bishops like Michael Kenny of Juneau, Alaska, are worried that Rome's action against Hunthausen reflects a trend toward greater Vatican interference in local affairs.

MICHAEL KENNY, Bishop of Juneau: I think there's a real concern on Rome's part to preserve a kind of orthodoxy, particularly in matters of morality. And it's coming out in many, many instances.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: Hunthausen himself has remained quiet about the Vatican's action, but his supporters have been vocal. At this nuclear disarmament event held recently at a Lutheran church in Seattle, the ecumenical community used the occasion to express support for the archbishop.

SUPPORTER: I think the archbishop has been treated unjustly by a church that speaks justice.

SUPPORTER: I think the Pope should take a look at his decision and reverse it.

SUPPORTER: I think it's scandalous andit's shameful.

SUPPORTER: I think the archbishop is a saint.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: Over 13,000 Catholic parishioners in Western Washington have signed petitions calling for the restoration of authority to Hunthausen. Pro-Hunthausen laity have organized a letter writing campaign to reach every Catholic bishop in the country. Mary Pat Olson is the organizer of the campaign.

MARY PAT OLSON, Hunthausen supporter: I believe that Archbishop Hunthausen has reached out and ministered to everybody out there. He is a real example to me of what we should be doing and how we should be living our Christian faith.

MARILYN MADDEFORD, Hunthausen's secretary: This is the one from the parish service at Our Lady of Loretta Parish in New York.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: National and international support for Hunthausen has poured into the archbishop's office since the Vatican announcement was made.

Ms. MADDEFORD: We've received 26,000 letters of support for the archbishop and probably I think, that, 50, 60 against. Some of them are against his ministry and what he's done here, and some of them are simply saying, "The Pope has spoken, you know. Obey. Do what you're told."

Bishop KENNY: I think the people in the Vatican -- I think the Holy Father, starting with him, I think he's a very holy man. But that doesn't mean that he can't make a mistake.

MITZMAN [voice-over]: American Catholic bishops meeting this week in Washington D.C. will discuss the Hunthausen case in closed session. Their stance in the controversy may have a powerful impact on the future of the American Catholic Church.

HUNTER-GAULT: The bishops' closed door meeting to discuss the Hunthausen case will take place tomorrow afternoon. Today, Bishop Malone explained why.

Bishop MALONE: We recognize that our conference of bishops has no competence to interject itself into the special relationship between the Holy Father and a local bishop. The purpose, therefore, of addressing this matter in our executive session is simply this: to offer fraternal support to Archbishop Hunthausen and Bishop Wuerl in their future efforts to minister to the church in Seattle. We look to this as a constructive expression of the collegial experience which unites us with one another and with the Holy Father.

HUNTER-GAULT: For the record, Auxiliary Bishop Donald Wuerl was the Vatican choice to share diocesan duties with Bishop Hunthausen. For more about the Hunthausen story, the highly secretive world of church politics and what it all means, we talk now with veteran church watcher Kenneth Briggs, former religion editor of the New York Times, a position he held for 11 years. He is currently writing a book about American Catholics.

Ken, what's the likely outcome of this Hunthausen showdown tomorrow, particularly in light of those comments we just heard from Bishop Malone?

KENNETH BRIGGS, journalist: I think what we heard from Bishop Malone today comes as close as a confrontation as there will be. That's a guess. But Bishops are not accustomed to dealing in confrontational terms, either among themselves or toward the Vatican. And I think Bishop Malone was sending a message farther down the road, by saying to Rome, in effect, I think, "Be very careful about doing this again. We are brothers with Archbishop Hunthausen. We give him our," what he called," our fraternal support. And we are standing by and hope to caution against any such further action."

HUNTER-GAULT: So tomorrow what's likely to happen?

Mr. BRIGGS: It's very hard to tell. I don't see any real strategy or design to reverse what's been done. So my wild guess at this point is that they'll be as supportive as possible, without being able to pledge any particular course of action that would be -- at least, anything that would become public.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what's your guess as to what's really behind the church's -- the Vatican's stand on Hunthausen? Is it his position on nuclear arms? Is it his -- what they called his lax grip on the diocese, or what?

Mr. BRIGGS: Archbishop Hunthausen is really not the issue. The issue is what's happening among American Catholics. American Catholics are moving in some significant degree away from the positions held by the church, at least as they are interpreted in Rome. And as that church has moved, some bishops have responded to that movement. And it's not Archbishop Hunthausen alone, but what's happening to the, I would say, majority of American Catholics.

HUNTER-GAULT: You mean there are other -- the majority of dioceses around the country would embrace the kinds of things that have been going on that we just heard articulated in the tape -- the homosexual masses and women and young women serving in the church offerings and so on?

Mr. BRIGGS: Well, let's consider what Rome is trying to do here. On the issue of homosexuality, the church has attempted to send a duel message. On one hand, it says being homosexual by itself is not sinful. But acting in a homosexual manner is. And it's very hard to maintain that kind of balance. So that on one hand, the church has attempted from the top down to be very pastoral and understanding toward homosexuals. That would lead one, naturally, to think that it was perfectly all right to have masses for homosexuals. If being a homosexual by nature is not sinful, what would be the problem? On the other side, however, there is a strong moralistic movement against the behavior of homosexuality. And as the church more or less coincides with the fear and distrust of homosexuality in the culture at large, it begins to clamp down more and more. However, many homosexuals believed that the church was saying for the first time that homosexuality in itself was not condemnable at all.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, where do y ou see -- I mean, that, of course, is just one of the more, you know, outstanding conflicts with the Vatican. Where do you -- Malone said that the bishops should go to Rome and talk to the Pope before he comes to America next year. Where do you see all of this heading? I mean, how big of a confrontation can there possibly be?

Mr. BRIGGS: Well, it's a confrontation that's been going on for some time more quietly than this and will continue to go on. Whether the bishops express that in terms of any kind of action against Vatican policy or not, the body of American Catholics themselves are changing. And they have been changing, and I would think they're going to continue to change. And as they do, they're evolving into a style of Catholicism that is at odds with much of what traditional Catholicism, as it's interpreted in Rome, would be all about.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll have to watch and see.Thank you, Ken Briggs, for being with us. Better Batter

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, we have an essay on the changing image of Betty Crocker by freelance writer Penny Stallings.

PENNY STALLINGS: Remember when feminine roles were more limited and strictly defined?

[clip from Leave it to Beaver]

JUNE CLEAVER: Here, have some pancakes before they get cold.

STALLINGS: Back in the '50s, for instance, when most women seemed to be either Harriet Nelson style mommies or Mamie Van Doring. Nowadays, of course, women are no longer so easy to pin down. They're feminists, they're total women, they're mothers and daughters, they're gay and straight, they're fitness freaks and they're big, beautiful women. They're not getting older; they're getting better. And yet, they're the backbone of the billion dollar anti-aging industry. Women are earning more money then ever, while at the same time inflating the ranks of the so-called cheap labor force. It's gotten so that it's almost impossible to make any kind of definitive statement about just who the American woman is. Is it any wonder, then, that even Betty Crocker has periodic identity crises?

In the 50 years that the cake mix queen has been on the scene, she's undergone no less than seven image changes -- changes that have taken her from middle aged housewife to a thirty-ish careerist in a business suit. Yes, Betty Crocker has become a yuppie -- attractive, assured and white as all purpose flour. She's all that expensive marketing research can buy. Still, given the fragmented identity of the '80s women, you wonder who her boss, General Mills, could come to any graphic consensus on Betty at all.

I suppose we're supposed to be gratified that Betty has been sprung from permanent KP, and naturally, I am. Still, there's something a little sad about it too. You see, in the back of my mind, I'd always just assumed that eventually I'd become Betty Crocker. Not the new Betty Crocker, you understand, but the old one.

[clip from TV ad]

BETTY CROCKER: Hello. I'm Betty Crocker.

STALLINGS: Why not? I've been Nancy Drew, Jane Fonda and various other fictional females. It seemed perfectly natural that one day I'd wake up to find myself in a spotless kitchen whipping up some big batch cookies, safe, secure, protected.

Maybe you've had these fantasies too. Well, wake up and smell the coffee crystals, baby. The sad truth is that the old Betty Crocker was unceremoniously canned in the mid-'60s.And the new Betty? Well, she's out here with me in the big, cruel world, trying to keep her head above water. Yes, Betty may be dressed for success, but it's doubtful that she's really an exec. More likely, she's not particularly well paid. If she were, she wouldn't be bothering with brownie mix, now would she? She might have a husband who helps with the household chores, but even so, three squares a day are tough to manage. Really, with Betty's grueling schedule, it's a wonder she has time to whip up anything more than TV dinners and Ding Dongs.

Betty also knows that she'd better stay current, or she'll end up in logo heaven, deposed, perhaps, by Bob Crocker, the significant other. After all, it's men who do 40% of the grocery shopping in this country. Besides which, fewer and fewer high achieving professional women are marrying. And of those who do, less than half will have children. That makes it even less likely that the executive beaming out at us from the Suddenly Salad box would really spend time slaving over a hot stove.

So maybe the new Betty Crocker has more to do with wishful thinking than with reality -- with what we thought the women's movement would lead to than the way things really are. But still, it's a start.

WOODRUFF: Now for a recap of the day's top stories. An underground group in Beirut said it would release two French hostages held in Lebanon. And unconfirmed reports late this evening said they had already been freed and were in Damascus. The European Community voted to impose an arms embargo and other sanctions against Syria for its support of terrorism. And in Washington, U.S. Catholic bishops began a meeting amid concern of dangerous dissatisfaction with the Pope. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's our News Hour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.