The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, the NATO summit opened in London and the leaders immediately decided to invite Soviet Pres. Gorbachev to attend a future meeting. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, we turn to a News Maker interview with one of Mr. Gorbachev's key advisers, Georgi Shaknazarov, [NEWS MAKER] then wherefore NATO [FOCUS - THE NEW NATO], after a report on today's developments at the summit, we will talk with former Secretary of State and NATO Commander Alexander Haig and former U.S. Arms Control Official Jack Mendelsohn. Next, a new study that says the aging process [FOCUS - FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH?] can be turned around, and essayist Anne Taylor Fleming [ESSAY - YOUNG SWINGERS] on the new craze for an old game. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The leaders of NATO today decided to invite Soviet Pres. Gorbachev to a future meeting. The idea came from Pres. Bush on the first day of the NATO summit in London. We have a report from London by Geoffrey Archer of Independent Television News.

MR. ARCHER: Pres. Bush made his proposal as part of a package of measures designed to reassure Moscow. In addition to inviting Mr. Gorbachev to a future NATO summit, he proposed the East European countries could base permanent representatives at NATO headquarters. Mrs. Thatcher and Pres. Mitterrand of France have expressed caution at another Bush proposal to reduce the role of nuclear deterrence in NATO. Pres. Mitterrand believes the threat of nuclear retaliation must be strong enough to nip any sort of war in the bud. In her speech, Mrs. Thatcher warned that NATO must keep a strong defense, because danger was not at an end.

MARGARET THATCHER, Prime Minister, Great Britain: The cornerstones of that sure defense must remain, though we don't know what the future holds, but its architecture may change in the new situation.

MR. LEHRER: Later in the day, British officials told reporters the summit leaders have agreed to Pres. Bush's nuclear policy proposal that would bound NATO to use nuclear weapons only as a last resort. Also a top Gorbachev political adviser told the Newshour he believed Pres. Gorbachev would accept a NATO invitation if formally invited. We will have that interview right after this News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: There were continued clashes of opinion of the Communist Party congress in Moscow today. They occurred in the smaller working groups into which party officials broke up. Mikhail Gorbachev addressed a group working on farming policy. This was day four of the congress and unlike the past three days, today's sessions were closed to foreign media. These pictures are from Soviet TV. The congress ends next week with a vote on whether to keep Gorbachev as head of the Communist Party. The Czech Parliament today re-elected playwright Vaclav Havel for a two year term as president. After the vote, Havel addressed thousands of supporters outside the castle that serves as his official residence. Havel led his party, Civic Forum, in the revolution last November which peacefully overthrew the Communist leaders. This was the first time in 55 years Czechoslovakia has had a freely elected president. Havel was the only candidate on today's ballot.

MR. LEHRER: The Albanian dissident problem got worse today. About 200 Albanians had sought refuge in foreign embassies in Albania's capital during the past week. Several hundred more did so today, and others were waiting outside the embassies trying to get in. Leaders of several Western European nations have asked Albania to let the dissidents leave the hard line Communist nation. Late today the Albanian government issued a statement saying they would grant passports to those citizens still in the foreign embassies. It was not clear whether they had to come out first.

MS. WOODRUFF: Federal regulators overseeing the savings & loan crisis announced today that they plan to call the President's son, Neil Bush, before a public hearing in September. The Office of Thrift Supervision wants Bush to explain why he voted to approve loans to a business partner while serving as a director of the Silverado Savings & Loan. That thrift failed in 1988 and was taken over by the federal government.

MR. LEHRER: There is news on the aging process. Researchers injected 12 men between the ages of 61 and 81 with a human growth hormone. Six months later, their muscles were larger and their skin looked younger. The results were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The researchers are at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. They caution the study is highly preliminary. We'll speak to one of them later in the program.

MS. WOODRUFF: Homeless advocate Mitch Snyder is dead. His body was found this afternoon in a Washington, D.C., homeless shelter. Police say they found a note with suicidal references. Snyder earned a national reputation for his 20 years of work with the homeless in Washington. He was 46. That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, a top Gorbachev adviser, the NATO summit, the aging study and essayist Anne Taylor Fleming on golf and yuppies. NEWS MAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight with a Newsmaker interview with one of President Gorbachev's leading advisors. He is Georgi Shaknazarov a leading political scientist known as one of the most progressive voices in the Gorbachev inter circle. I spoke to him this afternoon from Moscow about Gorbachev, perestroika and the Communist Party Congress now underway in Moscow. Mr. Shaknazarov welcome sir.

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: President Gorbachev said yesterday the leadership should go if there is not some progress on perestroika in two years. Do you believe there will be such progress?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: I think that nobody can predict today what is going to happen in three years but I am sure that we have every chance successfully to conclude our reforms.

MR. LEHRER: Should Mr. Gorbachev's statement be taken literally that he should step down if progress is not made by then?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: I think that yes because until now Gorbachev has always kept his word on everything concerning his statements on both domestic and foreign policy. There is another question are these three years enough successfully to conclude the reforms which have began. That is so because this is an enormous cause that we are involved in. All spheres of life and society are changing. There are a lot of very keen problems now existing we could have never foreseen three or four years ago.

MR. LEHRER: Listening to the speeches at the Party Congress and reading the reactions to those speeches is it fair to say the reactions from the conservatives as we as some of the radicals is one of skepticism whether these reforms can succeed in that short of time?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: I think that right now it is still difficult to say how things are going to take place at the Congress. So far is what we are neither the radicals or the conservatives dominating. I don't know what it is like in the U.S. but here I think we still have those concepts of left and right which have existed from the beginning of the French revolution but in my opinion those concepts are out of date. A some body who does political theory I prefer not to use those terms. The same thing applies to the concept of radicals and conservatives. I think that we have a great deal of confusion on his point but if you take on a whole these first few days of the Congress I think what is dominant is a critical mood a mood of criticism concerning the general situation in society that is perfectly understandable because there are economic problems and difficulties which are enormous. There are ethnic conflicts. What is particularly bad is the situation with food products food product shortages. All of this, of course, irritates people. It makes them look at events from the position of today that is this morning I couldn't buy what I wanted in the store then I don't attach so much importance whether is a historical epic or whether taking part in some events or not. This is a normal perception on the parts of people. Perhaps the biggest problem with perestroika is that these colossal changes which have began across the country and in society are accompanied by extremely serious problems and difficulties in terms of daily life but I think we need to over come these difficulties.

MR. LEHRER: Is Mr. Gorbachev discouraged?

GEORGI SHAKNAZAROV, Gorbachev Aide: Oh no not in any way. He is not that kind of person. He is a personality who I think has approached this idea of perestroika has been working for this his whole life. He is a very whole person. I am sure that he will never abandon his ideas or his objectives. Of course, no one can foresee what the fate will be of one or another reformer because a reformer always runs in to resistance from people and encounters very difficult circumstances. If we take a look at history. I we look to see what happened to such people as Martin Luther for example and we see a great many similarities there are many similar elements in these people's destinies. In this case we are dealing with a very firm self confident person who will continue firmly to move along the course which he has chosen. What course is this briefly? He says that my objective is to integrate the Soviet Union in to a World civilization and that these changes should take peacefully.

MR. LEHRER: Is here unappreciated by the leadership of the Soviet Union as he sits in this Congress and listens to people criticize him and his programs one after another?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: Yes, of course, his is running now in to very serious criticism. More over a lot of things are being criticized. The situation in the market. The fact that we have a lot of refugees, the problem of allocation of funds to resolve such problems such as rescuing people from the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The minors are expressing their dissatisfaction, people who work in the field of culture and art recently had a five minute symbolic strike because they are dissatisfied about what is going on in their sphere of life. Everybody is demanding something. But I think despite all this pressure from the bottom at the same time it is interesting that people criticize Gorbachev they also see in him as some who can lead the Country further and the surveys we have carried out and that the Japanese have carried out show that about 55 to 60 percent of the respondents given everything are in favor of having Gorbachev continue as leader of the country and continue to work.

MR. LEHRER: Can Mr. Gorbachev and his government reform the economy quickly enough without some assistance from the United States and the West?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: I am convinced that assistance from the United States and European states is necessary. We need that. But I could agree with what is being said by a lot of experts here both your experts and our experts. This should not be assistance like a gift. We are talking about assistance in technology, in personal training and particularly in setting up the market mechanisms including the area of finance. Because in our country in the distribution system was very bad in the old system and we have a problem here we don't have the network of banks that we needs, a system of interest and credits. We don't have experience with those things. That I think is the most important thing where the West can help us. In addition I think that it would play an important role if the experience of transnational corporations also were used in our country. Some thing is already being done in this area but so far very little.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush said yesterday that financial aid from the West to the Soviet Union may be possible if the Soviet Union would reduce its defense spending. Is that about to happen in a dramatic way?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: I think that reductions in defense expenditures are absolutely necessary in our country because quite recently Gorbachev said we are spending in admissibly large amounts. We are spending 20 percent of national income. That of course to a significant extent exerted terrible pressure on our economy and our standard of living. The issue is whether or not we need to, whether there will be reductions. Right now we are discussing another problem the scale on which this should take place, how it should be done so that a sizable part of these funds could be used for programs of peaceful construction and at the same time some of the funds released could be used for social needs because we recognize this right now the Soviet Officers are in a difficult position particularly since very recently we are going to have more and more troops withdrawn from Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia and this is causing serious problems. Further we are having discussions in society as to what kind of army we need and how defense should be insured. I think that there is an understanding in society that what was done by President Gorbachev together with President Bush and before that with President Reagan and with European Leaders in the sphere of reducing the arms race has helped us to review our ways of pursuing security and we place great hopes on a continuation of this process. At the same time as long as armies exist we have to be sure that we have a strong viable, sufficiently strong defense system. Now what are limits of that defense, what are reasonable expenditures. These are questions that will be resolved in context of military reform.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Shaknazarov, President Bush today won from NATO approval of his proposal to invite President Gorbachev to address a future meeting of NATO. What is your reaction to that?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: I, of course, here can express my personal opinion but I think that if President Gorbachev were to receive such an invitation then of course he would accept it.

MR. LEHRER: Back to the Party Congress for a moment. Does the Communist Party have a viable future in the Soviet Union?

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: Our Party right now has almost 20 million members. It is a huge number of people and it includes the most progressive, politically active strata of society. That is why to consider that it will simply leave the historical scene is I think not serious. The question is the form it will continue. If it turns in to a truly democratic party, truly democratic socialism with all of this liberal values which we are now putting in our program then I say it not only has a future but it will be a leading force and perhaps will repeat its successes at election but in a new form. We can't exclude the fact that it might split parts mainly social democratic, socialist and communist. But all of this I am very soon will become much clearer in the next few days in the experience of these last years has shown the idea of socialism is still viable. That its elements exist in the structure of Europe to and to a certain extent I think they exist in the U.S. Japan and so forth but as for the idea of communism right now it is a dear to us that this is not a realistic idea for our future but we haven't proved that it is totally impossible. Its an idea toward which mankind will also aspire. Whether we succeed or not is premature. We can't tell that yet.

MR. LEHRER: That is fine sir and Mr. Shaknazarov thank you very much for being with us.

MR. SHAKNAZAROV: Thank you. All the best. Good by.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the Newshour an update and discussion on the NATO Summit. A talk with the leading researcher on the new study that says the aging process can be turned around. And some thoughts on the game of golf. FOCUS - THE NEW NATO

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight the NATO summit. The heads of the 16 nations in the Western military alliance started a two day meeting today in London. The summit has been billed as one of the most significant in the organization's 42 year history. At stake is agreement on NATO's role now that it no longer faces a monolithic Soviet threat. We start with a backgrounder on today's session by Nik Gowing of Independent Television News.

MR. GOWING: Pres. Bush helicoptered into a blustery Regents Park en route to the summit, walking wearily and a little jet lagged despite a five day holiday, but carrying with him a host of new American proposals to set the agenda for this meeting just as in the past two NATO summits when sweeping American initiatives unblocked a host of obstacles in arms control. Bringing together at Lancaster House in London the heads of state of the 16 alliance nations was the product of concerted international lobbying by Mrs. Thatcher, the foreign secretary and senior British officials. A combination of important new proposals brought here by the Bush team and a massive reassessment by all 16 nations of NATO's new role in the light of a vastly diminished Soviet threat will make the summit a watershed in NATO history. Pres. Gorbachev has left no doubt of the importance the Soviet leadership attaches to the outcome of this meeting. Mrs. Thatcher personally is clearly delighted that London will be remembered as the place where NATO's new role for the 1990s and beyond will have been set in concrete, the place where NATO is seen to respond unequivocally to the new strategic realities of Chancellor Kohl's soon to be united Germany, and a newly democratic Central Europe by defining a new political mission for the alliance. Here the politicians will also begin scaling down the military mission for the Supreme Allied Commander General Galvin and his offers to the minimum necessary to ensure deterrence against any threat from wherever it comes. Central to NATO's future is the access between Chancellor Kohl and Pres. Bush; the Chancellor's impatience and determination to settle unresolved issues of German reunification are driving discussion here. Pres. Bush is taking the lead because the presence of 1400 American nuclear warheads and substantial U.S. forces on German soil continues to be a major Soviet concern. Having already said the short ranged Lance nuclear missile in West Germany will not be modernized, Mr. Bush has offered to unilaterally withdraw all nuclear artillery shells from Germany, because there is now no logical reason for them to be there. Allied troops and still what remains the front line in Germany would be substantially thinned out and then be restructured in small, mobile, multi-national forces. But more fundamental here is the Bush proposal is to rewrite some of NATO's strategic jargon. Instead of no first use of whatever nuclear weapons NATO retains, they would only be used as a last resort. The principles of nuclear deterrence for defense and flexible response would be significantly modified in line with the clear new principle presented today by the NATO Secretary General.

MANFRED WORNER, NATO Secretary-General: The cold war belongs to history. Our alliance is moving from confrontation to cooperation. Our objective is not only the preservation of peace, but the building of peace.

MR. GOWING: But within that new spirit, Mrs. Thatcher, who spoke first, reflected the delicate and complex balance the heads of government here must try to achieve.

MARGARET THATCHER: Our signal from this meeting must continue to be one of resolve in defense, resolve and unity in defense, coupled with willingness to extend the hand of friendship to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

MR. GOWING: Later in a closed session, Mrs. Thatcher, unlike others, cautioned against giving too much ground. The Soviet threat, she said, was still formidable. The Kremlin are still building six tanks and two aircraft each day, a submarine every six weeks, hence her earlier advice.

MRS. THATCHER: The cornerstones of that sure defense must remain, so we don't know what the future holds, but its architecture may change in the new situation.

MR. GOWING: With agreement in principle by lunchtime, then came the exact wording of the communique. Foreign ministers dispatched to spend the afternoon analyzing an American draft line by line under the chairmanship of the Dutch.

RUUD LUBBERS, Dutch Prime Minister: My impression is that there is a broad consensus around the table and that there will only be discussions about certain details.

MR. GOWING: What about the issue of last resort, of nuclear weapons, and the joint declaration on non-aggression, is there agreement on that?

MR. LUBBERS: Mainly on the first one. On the second one we have to see how it works out. There is always the question of phasing. We have some historical reminding of non-aggression declarations and that sort.

MR. GOWING: Tonight this summit appears set to agree what's described as a short, crisp declaration that until just a few months ago would have been considered impossible. It will include an invitation to Pres. Gorbachev and other Eastern European leaders to individually address NATO, and a declaration of non-aggression to eventually be signed jointly with what can loosely be called now the nations of the Warsaw Pact. In addition, Britain appears satisfied by compromise wording of an American proposal that instead of no NATO first use of nuclear weapons, NATO would only ever use them as a last resort.

MS. WOODRUFF: We get two American perspectives now on the NATO summit. Alexander Haig was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces from 1974 to 1979. He was Secretary of State in the first term of the Reagan administration. Jack Mendelsohn was a U.S. representative at NATO from 1977 to 1979, and subsequently was an arms negotiator and deputy assistant director of the Arms Control & Disarmament Agency. He is now Deputy Director of the Arms Control Association, a public interest group here in Washington. First of all, gentlemen, just how important is this NATO summit? How much do we look for them to accomplish? Secretary Haig.

ALEXANDER HAIG, Former NATO Commander: Well, I think it is very important from the standpoint of adjusting to the changes that have occurred, and this NATO summit is really designed in my view to retain the essence of the NATO alliance while reassuring the Soviet Union that its objectives and outlooks have been modified. There's also the third player in this imperative, and that's the West German anxiety towards reunification and Washington's and France's and Britain's fear that they don't relinquish some of their overall sovereignty or the essence of NATO in an effort to achieve that too early.

MS. WOODRUFF: How important is this summit, Mr. Mendelsohn?

JACK MENDELSOHN, Arms Control Analyst: I think it's very important. The changes, the external changes in Europe have been enormous over the last year or two. The Warsaw Pact has disintegrated. The Soviet Union is preoccupied with domestic turmoil. It's withdrawing its troops from Central Europe. The glue, if you will, against which the NATO alliance was arrayed is dissolving, the threat. There's a second big internal change taking place in NATO, and as the Secretary mentioned, the most powerful country in Europe is taking shape, Germany. So while the threat is decreasing, NATO potentially could be much stronger with the integration of a united Germany. I think the issue is how do we address these two things. How do we square the circle? The threat is diminishing. NATO could potentially be stronger. We'd like the Soviet Union to agree to German integration into NATO, and I think that these are the issues that are being addressed.

MS. WOODRUFF: And are they addressed by the three things that we were just told in this report that are likely to come out of this summit, No. 1, inviting Mikhail Gorbachev to speak to a future meeting, how big a deal is that?

SEC. HAIG: Well, actually what Mr. Bush put forward in a letter to the NATO membership was four bundles. One was to reaffirm the need for the alliance, but at the same time reassure the Soviets with respect to its future carrier, the second had to do with the defense sector, and there they're talking about CFE and getting a ceiling on the Bundesbank.

MS. WOODRUFF: Wait a minute. When you say CFE, you're referring to the 35 nation --

SEC. HAIG: The 23 nation conventional arms control talks, and the third has to do with the question, the last resort statement, which is a more benign way of reaffirming what has already been NATO policy, and the final was to grope for some political role for NATO and its interrelationship between the CSCE, 35 nation grouping, perhaps the EC and --

MS. WOODRUFF: European Community. We throw out these terms, we have to tell, remind people like me what they stand for. But how significant, Mr. Mendelsohn, do you think the invitation to Gorbachev is? Is this just the sort of window dressing?

MR. MENDELSOHN: Well, there are several packages. One package is the political package, and that is a kind of outreach effort by NATO to engage democracies, the emerging democracies in Central Europe, and to engage the Soviet Union, and to say that the air of confrontation is over, now we can talk in a way that we haven't been able to talk in the past, but this is political, and it's talk. There's a second aspect to it and that is the military aspect. Is NATO going to look any different in light of the fact that [a] Germany is joining and [b] the Warsaw Pact is disintegrating, and so there's been an effort to address some of those, and that's, as your previous piece showed, we're talking a little bit about hopefully withdrawing a large number of nuclear weapons in Central Europe and revising a policy of first use towards sort of a last resort use. This is intended to give a kinder, gentler face, if you will, to NATO.

MS. WOODRUFF: Okay. Let me just go back to the question I was trying to ask about the invitation to Gorbachev. How big a deal is that?

SEC. HAIG: It is not a big deal. It's all part of this first bundle I spoke to to reassure the Russians. It involves not only an invitation to Gorbachev, but perhaps to liaison functions established for the Eastern European countries.

MS. WOODRUFF: Perhaps be permanent observers.

SEC. HAIG: Exactly. And that clearly is to give more transparency to everything that NATO does in the future.

MR. MENDELSOHN: Something Gorbachev has been saying for some time or Soviets have been saying is that they cannot be isolated from Europe in the future. I mean, they recognize that their alliance is disintegrating, and that they're destined to withdraw their forces from Central Europe. But what kind of role, how can the Soviets interact in the future European security arrangement? And what I think we're telling Gorbachev is here's a chance to interact with NATO, here's a chance to interact at the 23 nation conventional forces discussions in Vienna, there'll be a chance to interact at the 35 nation conference on security and confidence building measures in Europe. That's also going to be part of the NATO declaration.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. What about one of these other proposals? Pres. Bush went over there saying we want to do away with, or we would like to have a situation where we say we would use nuclear weapons only as a result. At least that apparently is the wording that has come out, is reported out of the meeting of foreign ministers.

SEC. HAIG: That's an American twist and a very creative one I think on the part of Mr. Bush to deflect the no first use proposal which --

MS. WOODRUFF: Which wasn't going to fly.

SEC. HAIG: It could not fly because it legitimizes conventional conflict and that's not deterrence and Mr. Mitterrand spoke against the dangers of that today, so what it is really saying is that we're not going to use a nuclear weapon until we're in extremists and that's always been our policy in any event.

MS. WOODRUFF: So that's not a big deal either.

SEC. HAIG: It's not a big deal.

MR. MENDELSOHN: Let me --

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you agree?

MR. MENDELSOHN: -- just add a little twist to that. To say you're only going to use weapons as a last resort is a statement of employment policy that you have. What we're saying is in terms of time, we're not going to use these weapons early in a conflict, a conventional conflict, we're going to lose them late. What's really important, and what I hope is being foreshadowed by this is what is the deployment policy for these tactical nuclear weapons, and I think there's an indication and I welcome it that we're about to withdraw some of the thousands of these tactical nuclear weapons that have been arrayed, many of them right up against the mortar. If that's the direction that this says we are moving in, I think it's a very good direction.

SEC. HAIG: Let me point out there's a potential hooker here. What the Soviets want above all is to get control of that Bundes there, to reduce it.

MS. WOODRUFF: In reference to Germany?

SEC. HAIG: So that is a problem. The German, the German forces. Secondly of course what they're trying to do is to castrate the NATO deterrent and that is essentially found in the nuclear component, so there's a little difference developing between the United States, on the one hand, who made a compromise at this conference and said that we will withdraw these artillery, these nuclear artillery rounds, when the Soviet forces have withdrawn from Eastern Europe, and they'll be out at the same time. And we previously said the forces had to be out first before we would reduce them. But it's also very important to rememberthat if we conclude that we don't need any nuclear weapons, we have changed the fundamental deterrent of the alliance, which is not to win a war if God forbid we are faced with one, but more importantly to prevent the outbreak in the first instance and nuclear weapons will be needed in Europe for that purpose and to link those forces to our central strategic --

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you agree with that?

MR. MENDELSOHN: Well, I don't see any indication that we're getting rid of nuclear weapons in Central Europe. My point is that maybe we're getting rid of the ones that don't make a lot of sense.

MS. WOODRUFF: The artillery shells, the tactical --

MR. MENDELSOHN: The ones that fly 30 kilometers and can only land on citizen members of NATO seem to me to be pretty hard to justify now that we've got a united Germany. So hopefully, and I think this is explicit though, we're going to get rid of the very very short range things like artillery shells and certainly enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union over reducing, but I doubt eliminating, reducing the rest of the weapons, nuclear weapons that are in Europe. But I think nuclear weapons in Europe as a part of the NATO deterrent are likely to be with us for a while. What I think is encouraging if, indeed, it develops this way, is that we're going to get rid of some of the thousands of them that we somehow thought we might use in a narrow battlefield.

SEC. HAIG: I think we've got to get the record straight. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn over 2,000 nuclear weapons over the last five years.

MS. WOODRUFF: Already.

SEC. HAIG: And we're talking short range systems, we're talking mines, and all of the other paraphernalia. I agree we want lower levels, but we have to be very careful not to arrive at the conclusion that because a friendly nuclear weapon can land on friendly territory it's irrelevant. Some of what you said suggests that. That means that once the Soviet forces, if God forbid they cross the Polish border, that the war is over, because hopefully Poland will be a friendly nation very soon as well.

MS. WOODRUFF: The view is already being offered that there may not even be a need for a NATO, that NATO may not even be around in another year or so.

SEC. HAIG: That's a very current and important question and I think there lies a unanimous thank God in reaffirming that coalitions for collective security are far more stable than national means of defending one's self. We've had two wars in Europe in this century which show the madness of that.

MS. WOODRUFF: But if its focus is not the Soviet Union, then what is it, is it Germany?

SEC. HAIG: Well, wait a minute. The Soviet Union will remain, whether it's a Russia dismembered or a Soviet Union as we know today the largest ground force in all of Europe, and they will have the largest strategic nuclear inventory in the world which they're approaching today, so I think it's premature and naive to discount what has preserved the peace in Europe for 42 years now.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Soviet Union is still our biggest worry?

MR. MENDELSOHN: Well, I think the Soviet Union still remains a major power, even though it's having tremendous internal difficulties. I don't think NATO is about to disappear. I think NATO is about to make some reasonable adjustments to what has changed in Central Europe, and it's also actually going to become potentially more powerful with the integration of Germany, as I mentioned earlier, but I think the feeling, certainly in Europe if not in the United States, is that this is an opportunityto take advantage of the changes and to reduce some of the levels of standing forces that have existed, of keeping the NATO alliance intact. It'll be a very useful affinity grouping, a caucus of some kind that can be used in the future in larger group negotiations.

MS. WOODRUFF: But to do what? I mean, for example, there was an article today that suggested NATO could play an enhanced so-called out of area role in places like the Middle East.

MR. MENDELSOHN: I don't think that's in the cards. I think it will work as a grouping of nations whose security interests and whose policies are shared. It will interact, this group of 16 will interact with a larger group of 23, the ones that are negotiating in Vienna. It will interact again in another group of 35, this sort of pan European security structure, and we're going to suggest I gather at NATO, that this pan European structure be given a permanent secretary, it be given some actual role to play, and NATO will be a sub grouping within that larger one where the United States can have a very influential and important force.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you see it that way?

SEC. HAIG: Very much that way. In fact, that's one of the imperatives facing the United States. This is the only forum in Europe in which the American role is assured and continues. We're not in the economic community and if that body were to become overridingly important for policy and politics, which it's inherently unable to do, then we're going to see a very different Europe in the period ahead.

MS. WOODRUFF: And no doubt in your mind that a role for the United States in Europe is critical?

MR. MENDELSOHN: I think it's critical. I think our security interests begin in Europe, they don't end at our shore, and I think our role in Europe is a clear one, and I think it's, I'm very encouraged by the position that the President and the administration are taking at this summit which we called. I think we're on the right track. It remains to be seen exactly how this works out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Jack Mendelsohn, Sec. Alexander Haig, thank you both for being with us.

SEC. HAIG: Thank you.

MR. MENDELSOHN: Thank you. FOCUS - FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH?

MR. LEHRER: Now major news from Wisconsin via the New England Journal of Medicine about something of interest to possibly more than a handful of people, the aging process. Charlayne Hunter-Gault takes it from there. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Today's study is about a treatment that may be able to turn back the biological clock. In a clinical trial, 12 men in their 60s and 70s were given repeated injections of human growth hormone over six months. Doctors monitored their condition and at the study's end patients like 72 year old Robert Bensing appeared years younger and felt stronger.

ROBERT BENSING: Oh, I feel very great. I mean, I gained a little pep and energy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Fat levels were lower and body weight increased significantly, the result of more muscle. Doctors think part of the weight increase is due to the body's rebuilding of vital organs such as the heart and kidneys, which often shrink with age. We learn more about the study from its lead author, Daniel Rudman. He's affiliated with the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. He joins us from public station WMVS in Milwaukee. Dr. Rudman, is this really a treatment that could turn back the biological clock?

DR. DANIEL RUDMAN, Author, Aging Study: [Milwaukee] Well, Charlayne, the body composition changes which did seem to be benefited by human growth hormone are only one aspect of the aging process. I think that needs to be emphasized. There are many changes that occur as we grow older and one of these changes has to do with the body composition. As you mentioned, after the prime of life, the working part of the body or the lean body mass tends to progressively shrink and be replaced by fatty tissue, and that change in body composition does seem to have something to do with the diminishing supply of growth hormone in the body as we grow older and can, in part, be reversed or perhaps prevented by human growth hormone treatment in those elderly who lose their supply of growth hormone. But I want to emphasize there are many other aspects of the aging process that probably aren't going to be influenced or benefited by growth hormone.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We'll get to those in a minute. But let me ask a question that really isn't facetious. I mean, why would anybody want to retard the aging process, or turn back the clock? I mean, what would be the benefit of doing that?

DR. RUDMAN: Well, the shrinking of the limbardi mass and its component organs -- we're talking about muscles and certain important internal organs like the kidneys, the digestive tract - - these organs, as they lose size, as we grow older, they also lose some of their working efficiency or their functional capacity, and that can prove to be a handicap in old age. It leads to weakness, loss of endurance, diminished quality of life, and it can be a handicap particularly during medical or surgical illnesses.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So can you give me some -- before we get into exactly what it is and everything -- can you give me some examples of the specific benefits of this whole process.

DR. RUDMAN: Well, the strength of the breathing muscles, the strength of the coughing muscles, the muscles by which we stand, sit, move around. As the muscles shrink, those activities become less efficient and the power and the strength of the body may diminish. The vitality diminishes. In the case of the kidneys, the ability of the kidneys to filter and cleanse the blood diminishes at the kidneys shrink. Now any measure that would improve the size and the functional capacity of those organs would be an advantage in the elderly, and particularly in the frail elderly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So can you tell me now then, what exactly is this growth hormone and how it works?

DR. RUDMAN: Well growth hormone is a protein hormone made in the pituitary gland, which is a gland inside the head, and actually, the pituitary gland is controlled by a center in the brain called the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus send signals to the pituitary gland, which tell the pituitary gland to release growth hormone, and then the growth hormone travels through the body and through certain mechanisms stimulates cells of most parts of the body to synthesize protein and enlarge and become more active.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And so what you have done in your experiment here?

DR. RUDMAN: Well, in this study, 21 men in the Veterans Affairs Medical Center who were between the age of 60 and 80 and whose body supply of growth hormone had pretty well disappeared -- there's a simple blood test by which we can identify these individuals and they represent about a third of the elderly population -- these men had a six month base line period during which we measured their body composition, many aspects of their health, then 12 of the men were treated for six months with the synthetic human growth hormone, while the other 9 men were untreated controls. And what was observed in the 12 men who were treated in a very similar fashion among all 12, they all responded the same way, is that the lean body mass or the working part of the body expanded by about 9 percent, the mass of fatty tissue in the body diminished by 15 percent, and one of the important sections of lean body mass, which is the skin, and the skin tends to become quite thin in old age, it was observed that the skin regained some of its youthful size and thickness during the treatment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any sense of what the long-term effects of this use would be?

DR. RUDMAN: Well, I think as investigators look into the future, they're interested in both short-term, potential short-term uses and potential long-term uses. The potential short-term uses would be in frail elderly who are virtually entirely deficient in growth hormone. It may in the future with more information prove advantageous for short periods of time, periods of several months, perhaps up to six months, to use growth hormone as an adjunct to other forms of treatment to help them through difficult periods of rehabilitation, convalescence, prepare them for surgery, improve muscle strength and vitality in order to get through a difficult medical or surgical period.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At this point, is there a down side to any of this, or -- you mentioned that this was only one part of the overall aging process, suggesting that there need to be a bit of caution here -- can you tell me a little bit about the risks that are involved?

DR. RUDMAN: Okay. I'd like to make two cautionary statements. First of all, some of the very important aspects of aging that will not be influenced by growth hormone are the aging events in the brain. The brain is one of the organs in the body which is not dependent on growth hormone. Some of the changes in the eyes, the ears, elastic tissues and certain connective tissue, proteins in the body, we have important aging changes there which will not be benefited by growth hormone. There's no reason to expect that the human life span will be influenced by growth hormone. Another caution is that a condition of excess growth hormone in the body will lead to adverse side effects. If there's too much growth hormone in the body, there will be a risk of developing diabetes, rising blood pressure, excess fluid in the body, irritation of joints, and for that reason, growth hormone, which is a very powerful medicine, is going to need to be supervised and administered with great care.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about cancer? Because one doctor I read quoted today said that growth hormone stimulates growth, so that while it's stimulating growth of the muscle tissue and you know, fiber, it is also possible that it could stimulate growth of cancers.

DR. RUDMAN: Okay. The way growth hormone promotes the growth of tissues in the body is first of all to make cells larger, and secondly, in many organs, growth hormone will stimulate the multiplication or the division of cells. As long as the multiplication and division of cells proceeds in a normal, orderly fashion, that's perfectly normal. If anywhere on the body there are foci of precancerous or early cancerous tissue, then the use of growth hormone in that and such individuals might be problematic. That's another thing, another reason why we have to very cautious in the development of the potential use of human growth hormone in elderly people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The argument has been made that, you know, losing of the human growth hormone gradually is nature's way of preparing older people for death. I mean, do you see this, is this fixing, improving on nature, or interfering with nature in any way that you see as a part of the downside of this?

DR. RUDMAN: I don't think we have enough information to answer that question. One bit of information that's relevant is the recent studies by other investigators have shown that those elderly people who continue to have youthful amounts of growth hormone, and that would be about a third of the elderly population, they appear to have a larger body mass and a greater muscle strength and a greater work capacity than their age matched counterparts who have lost their supply of growth hormone. I think we need to look further at a comparison of those elderly people who are continuing to have a youthful supply of growth hormone compared to those whose growth hormone has stopped before we'll be able to accurately answer the question you just asked, Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said that this is not the fountain of youth in a quote I read today. What briefly should the general public take away from this, and how soon can they expect to have some definitive answers?

DR. RUDMAN: Well, I think with the pace of research in this field, now that synthetic human growth hormone is widely available for research of this type that over the next few years we'll see a clearer understanding of the pros and cons of the use of human growth hormone in the elderly and we'll have a better understanding of how growth hormone affects structure and function in the elderly body. Those of us in geriatric medicine feel encouraged that one aspect of the aging process that we used to think was inevitable and unavoidable, that is, these changes in body composition, now see that these can be reversed or prevented, so that's a cause for optimism.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Sorry, Dr. Rudman, it's inevitable that we have to go now, but we'll be coming back to you as this study progresses. Thank you for being with us.

DR. RUDMAN: Thank you. ESSAY - YOUNG SWINGERS

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, a Thursday essay. Los Angeles writer Anne Taylor Fleming has some thoughts about the latest sports fad for baby boomers.

MS. FLEMING: Grown-ups used to play it, make that male grown-ups in funny, colorful clothes, people's fathers, in other words. It had an elegant edge, a gentile country club, martini in the bar after feel, the sport of the well off and slightly lazy who rode around beautiful parks in little carts, occasionally getting out to swipe at a tiny ball with a long club. Golf, what else? The sport of the Republican ruling elite from Pres. Eisenhower to George Bush. In fairness, John F. Kennedy played it too. Kennedy's been gone almost 30 years now and the kids he inspired back then with his high minded rhetoric are now dads and moms, and would you believe it, golfers themselves? It's the hot and new old sport among aging baby boomers, harried over achievers looking to cool out on the greens. Nearly 25 million Americans now play golf, up from 15.1 million in 1980, and here in California, the state with the most golfers, Japanese investors are buying up courses right and left. Golf is hot real estate too. So those upgradingly abrasive NIKE ads are as likely to mean this now as this, not exactly what NIKE had in mind probably. It's bye bye to the '80s with their marathons and muscle building, their vigorous aerobic patriotism. The athletic decibel level is turning down a bit. Leotards are out; golf garb is in. Flip through one of the high tone ladies fashion magazines now and you're likely to see this, a spread on chic golf wear to conjure up sunny afternoons with Gatsby and friends. Women, in fact, now account for 40 percent of all new golfers. There have been other changes too. Golf has finally lost its hifallutin' tone a bit, those fancy ads notwithstanding. About 45 percent of all golfers are clerical and blue collar workers, and most of the country's nearly 14,000 golf courses are municipal. Pay your 15 bucks, get in a foursome and tee off as long as you're prepared to duck. All this I learned firsthand from my husband who recently took up golf again after a two decade sabbatical during which he like everyone else lunged at tennis balls, ran, hiked, biked, lifted weights, you name it. Inveterate Californians, we tried everything along with the pack, save hang gliding and wind surfing, we did skip those. Golf, my husband says, is like coming home, a spiritual retreat from hand to hand and head to head combat, the purest sport. When the day gets too much for him, he goes to the local driving range to whack a bucket of balls, an elegant silver haired figure in day glow socks. I brace for the plaid pants or knickers. What I am now is a golf widow, Mamie to his Ike. How in the world did this happen to me, a '60s kid who'd just as soon in my subversive soul see some of these lovely green courses liberated and turned into people's parks. But clearly that's not going to happen. Golf is the fad of the moment, the graying boomer's game of choice. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Jane Fonda, herself, came out with a golf video or at the very least a line of shapely bermuda shorts. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, the NATO summit opened in London, the Western leaders immediately bought Pres. Bush's idea of inviting Soviet Pres. Gorbachev to a future meeting. One of Gorbachev's top advisers said on the Newshour he was sure Gorbachev would accept. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.