The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, U. S. troops began arriving in Honduras as Nicaraguan President Ortega called for an emergency session of the U. N. Security Council. Israeli Prime Minister Shamir said the Shultz initiative could lead to the destruction of Israel. And the FDIC announced the one billion dollar bailout of a huge Texas bank. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, we examine the administration's show of force in Honduras. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy debates Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. Next, we have a newsmaker interview with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. And we close with an Ann Taylor Fleming essay about family ties. News Summary LEHRER: U. S. Army troops went to the rescue of the contras in Honduras today. President Reagan last night ordered 3200 soldiers of the Seventh Infantry Division and the 82nd Airborne to the scene. They began arriving this morning on C 141 transport planes at the Palmerola Air Force Base, 125 miles from the border area of the conflict with Nicaragua. Military officials in Honduras said some 2000 Nicaraguan soldiers remained in Honduras, but they were now surrounded by 4000 Honduran troops. In Washington, President Reagan was stopped twice on his way to a Capitol Hill meeting and asked about the U. S. buildup.

REPORTER: Mr. President, did you pressure Honduras to ask for our troops? Pres. RONALD REAGAN: They asked for it. REPORTER: Mr. President, did we twist their arms quite a bit, would you clear that up? Pres. REAGAN: No. LEHRER: Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said his country's troops were fighting contra forces on the border and said he would not withdraw them. He denied any had crossed into Honduras. He said the arrival of U. S. troops in Honduras was an escalation of the United States' war against Nicaragua, and he called for an emergency session of the U. N. Security Council to deal with it. Back in Washington, Secretary of State Shultz explained the U. S. troops' purpose this way to a Senate Committee.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: These troops are there, they're lightly armed, they will take place in an exercise, they're not near where the fighting is taking place. But they are designed to say to the government of Honduras that we are your friend, and we stand with you. And if you are invaded, you can count on the United States. And it also tends to get people's attention to something that's happening in the Central American region, that we feel is wrong. MacNEIL: The Administration's actions divided both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Jim Wright called the sending of troops ''unjustified'' and ''politically dangerous. '' Senator Majority Leader Robert Byrd said it was an overreaction and hoped it would not derail the peace process. But Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee backed the President, while some Republicans joined other Democrats in skepticism about the reported Sandinista invasion. Here's a sample of the opinions expressed.

Sen. DANIEL BOREN, (D) Oklahoma: So we see here, very clearly in my opinion, is the reaction by the Sandinista Government to the defeat of contra aid in Congress. I think they have taken the action of Congress as a green light to try now to crush the resistance there. Sen. CHICK HECHT, (R) Nevada: If we do not provide the contras with aid in the future, we'll have American forces down there. That's what worries me right now. Sen. ALAN CRANSTON, (D) California: President Reagan's obsession with the contra cause, a cause which is not supported by the American people, has driven him to take precipitous action, which I pray he and we won't regret. Sen. PAUL SIMON, (D) Illinois: I'm inclined to believe the whole thing is part of a ploy to get more votes for funding for the contras by the Administration. LEHRER: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir left Washington today with a parting shot at Secretary Shultz's peace initiative. He said in an interview with the NewsHour the proposal's international Middle East conference could lead to the destruction of Israel.

YITZHAK SHAMIR, Prime Minister, Israel: I cannot see any positive role for such a conference. I think we don't need it. I think it would be an obstacle on the way to get peace. And therefore, I would suggest to (unintelligible) to let it down. LEHRER: We will have the complete interview later in the program. Shamir will go to Los Angeles and New York before returning to Israel. Back in Israel today, four Israeli soldiers went on trial on charges of brutality against Palestinian demonstrators. Two were charged with burying alive two persons, two others with beating two Palestinians. Also, Israeli jets raided guerilla camps of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Southern Lebanon. The Associated Press said one person was killed, two others injured. MacNEIL: In Panama, General Manuel Antonio Noriega appeared firmly in control today after crushing an armed attempt to oust him yesterday. The military controlled radio blamed the coup attempt on what it called ''traitor officers trying to encourage a U. S. invasion. '' The radio said it was led by the head of military police, three majors and a captain. Troops took over the streets and essential services today, after demonstrations brought the cities almost to a standstill yesterday. Dressed in battle gear and armed with shotguns and tear gas canisters, the soldiers were seen throughout the nation's capital, Panama City. No demonstrations were reported today. And the military began restoring electricity, water and telephone services. LEHRER: The U. S. government moved today to save a big Texas bank company. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced a one billion dollar advance to the First Republic Bank Corporation of Dallas. It owns 73 Texas banks and is the state's largest bank holding company. FDIC Chairman William Seidman said the one billion advance was an interim step aimed at stabilizing the bank's failing state of affairs until a long range plan can be worked out. He said the FDIC would fully guarantee both the depositors and creditors of First Republic's 73 banks. On the trade deficit front today, the new monthly figures were announced by the Commerce Department. They stood at $12. 4 billion in January, up slightly from December's $12. 2. MacNEIL: Congressional leaders predicted today that Congress would override President Reagan's veto of the Grove City anti discrimination bill. The bill passed overwhelmingly by both houses was vetoed yesterday. It's regarded as a test by civil rights groups because it reverses a Supreme Court decision limiting the application of anti discrimination statutes in institutions receiving federal aid. Although the White House said it had offered a strong bill as a substitute, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said its chances were very poor. Jim Wright, Speaker of the House, which votes next Tuesday, said President Reagan may want to turn the clock back on civil rights, but the American people do not. LEHRER: The South African Supreme Court today postponed the hanging of the Sharpeville Six. The court stayed for four weeks the execution of six blacks who were due to die tomorrow at dawn for their alleged involvement in a 1984 murder. We have a report from James Robbins of the BBC.

JAMES ROBBINS, BBC: Outside the Supreme Court, the stay of execution transformed despair to jubilation. Families facing an all night vigil to the moment of execution were ecstatic, some convinced that international pressure played a part. The lawyer for the six, Prakash Diar, was a hero of the moment. REPORTER: Where are you going now, to the prison? PRAKASH DIAR, lawyer: I'm going to the prison to break the news to my clients.

ROBBINS: But it is only a temporary reprieve from the gallows for one month. The defense must now fight another legal battle to win a reopening of the original trial. Rev. DESMOND TUTU, Archbishop of Johannesburg: We are rejoicing in the fact that tomorrow we would not have to be mourning.

ROBBINS: The archbishop joined in condemning the car bomb explosion this morning outside another court house in Krugersdorf near Johannesburg. Three people, all of them black, were killed in the massive explosion. Many others suffered terrible injuries. The government will seize upon this carnage to increase its attacks on Archbishop Tutu. LEHRER: In Colombia, South America, a jetliner crashed today with 136 passengers aboard. The Avianca Airlines plane was on a domestic flight in the northern part of the country. Police officials said it was unlikely anyone survived. MacNEIL: In Belfast, Northern Ireland, Catholic mourners wearing shamrocks for St. Patrick's Day, buried an IRA sniper a day after another funeral became a battlefield. A nationalist leader accused Protestant police of collusion with the gunman who shot and threw grenades at mourners yesterday, killing three and wounding 50 before he was arrested. There were sporadic riots across Northern Ireland after the cemetery attack. Youths threw gasoline bombs at police and troops, set fire to buses and cars, and burned the house of a Protestant family to the ground. The violence in Northern Ireland cast a pall over the celebration of St. Patrick's Day in New York. Despite a turnout of more than 100,000 people for the annual parade down Fifth Avenue, enthusiasm was muted. The parade's Grand Marshall William Burke said the violence has to stop. He said, ''You shoot me, I shoot you. This can't go on any more. '' That's our news summary. Coming up on the NewsHour, is the Administration overreacting in Honduras? An interview with Yitzhak Shamir. And an essay by Ann Taylor Fleming. Show of Force MacNEIL: First up tonight, the American show of force in Central America. Following last night's decision to send 3200 U. S. troops to Honduras, Administration officials launched a series of briefings on Capitol Hill about the troop deployment and about the incident that precipitated it, the Nicaraguan attack against anti government contras who are based on the Nicaragua/Honduras border. On Capitol Hill, the reaction has been sharply divided. Some Democrats accuse the Administration of exploiting an incident in order to drum up support for more American aid to the contras. Some Republicans blame the situation on Democrats who oppose contra aid. Here's a sample of the House debate. Rep. MICHAEL DeWINE, (R) Ohio: What we are seeing is that the communists are engaged in a final wipe up operation of the contras. They have crossed over into Honduras to kill the contras, they have crossed over to get the last military material that the United States was able under the old law to deliver. So yes, this is the end, or nearing the end, unless this Congress changes its position and changes its mind. Let there be no doubt where the responsibility for what is going on in Central America, where that responsibility lies. It lies with those in this Congress who refuse to vote for additional funds for the contras. Rep. JAMES TRAFICANT, (D) Ohio: I believe the President is overreacting. In fact, I believe he's making another dramatic attempt to mislead this congress so that we would send more money to the contras who have not overthrown an outhouse, and who do not even enjoy the support of the Nicaraguan people. In fact, they have to operate out of Honduras. Rep. ROBERT WALKER, (R) PA: Some speakers here today have called it a relatively minor matter. The anti communist forces in Nicaragua were stopping this kind of invasion and were keeping us from having to deploy American forces. When we stopped helping the anti communist forces in Nicaragua, we produced a tragedy. Rep. EDWARD MARKEY, (D) Mass. : Two years ago, the White House lost the vote on the contras. And within a week, the White House was screaming about a Nicaraguan invasion of Honduras, while the Honduran government was saying there was no problem at all. We wound up sending boats to the Honduran Navy in response to a land incursion in the middle of Honduras. It was hyped the last time, it is being hyped this time. Rep. LEON PANETTA, (D) CA: For these reasons it's difficult to know whether this is a legitimate security threat and a response to that threat, or a political ploy to push for additional military aid to the contras. The only hope for resolving the conflict in Central America remains the five nation effort led by President Arias to finally negotiate a settlement. And in the middle of this effort for peace, it is wrong for the contras, Nicaragua, or the United States to intervene militarily in other nations. The fear is that this deployment threatens not only greater military escalation, but also the peace process itself. MacNEIL: For more on the story, we go now to Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, who's been briefing members of Congress, and to Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of Vermont. He joins us from the Senate Gallery. Senator, your Democratic leader Wright called it ''unjustified,'' Senator Byrd called it ''overreaction,'' what do you think? Sen. PATRICK LEAHY, (D) Vermont: Well, I think that Daniel Ortega, showing his usually inept sense of timing, has given the Administration an obvious excuse to overhype a situation. Ortega has a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; just when the Administration has been twisting arms for more contra aid, he pulled a pointless attack. Having said that, however, let's put it in context. It's an attack against a contra camp, there's no question the Nicaraguan Army has come into Honduras. But it's contained in that area. The Honduras military are also responding to the extent that that country feels that it should. The major capital Tegucigalpa, major cities in Honduras, of course, are not at risk. But what do we do? We send down enormous amount of show of force -- at the same time the Administration says, ''They're not going to be used in combat. '' We just spent several millions of dollars to send them down there, really to influence the Congress. The State Department tells us this afternoon this was to raise the fright factor in Nicaragua. But if you look at the way the telephone lines have been jammed into the Capital, I think it raised the fright factor here in the United States. MacNEIL: Mr. Abrams, is that what it's for, to frighten the Congress? ELLIOTT ABRAMS, Asst. Sec. of State: Let me just start by saying the Senator called this a pointless attack. It's not pointless at all. The purpose of the attack is some very rich targets of the Sandinistas over in Honduras, including, for example, the last lethal aid currently in the hands of the resistance. They capture that and the war is very largely over. The Senator also said, as you said, that it was done to influence Congress. It was done because the President of Honduras asked for it. In the communique the Foreign Ministry of Honduras issued today, they talked about violation of their territory, artillery and bombardment by airplanes and helicopters from Nicaragua, demanded the withdrawal of the military units which had invaded Honduras, called on Nicaragua to cease its aggression, and called it an act of aggression and an invasion. It was done because we have an ally there in Honduras. They have a much stronger communist supported state across the border in Nicaragua. They asked for help. If you look at the inverse proposition, suppose this invasion force comes across the border and the Hondurans say, ''Would you give us a show of solidarity?'' and we say ''No,'' what does that teach the Sandinistas, and what does that teach the Hondurans, and the Salvadorans and the rest of the Democrats? Sen. LEAHY: Unfortunately, what it does is it is hard to accept an argument like that because Mr. Abrams and the policy he's espoused for the last couple of years here on Capitol Hill has lost credibility. Let me give an example. He says that the Hondurans have called for this aid, called for this aid to save their country. But what do we say we'll send? We'll send down a ten day training mission that's not allowed to go anywhere near the combat area. We'll spend several millions of dollars doing it, and then we'll bring them back. What does that say that we're doing to aid the integrity of Honduras, or aid them in defense? It reminds me very much of the situation March of 1986, when we had another raid by the Sandinistas into Honduras, about 1500 Sandinista troops. And the American ambassador went out, grabbed the President of Honduras, who was about to leave on vacation, said, ''Please, send a letter to the United States, say we need aid, we'll send you $20 million -- because you're under attack. '' The President of Honduras sent the letter. We sent the $20 million. A few hours later, he left for several days of vacation. Gives you some idea of the intention or the concern they had. But -- Sec. ABRAMS: Senator, if you think the Hondurans are not concerned, you might ask yourself why they bombed today across the border into Nicaragua. Sen. LEAHY: Well, I don't -- Sec. ABRAMS: I think they're deeply concerned -- Sen. LEAHY: Oh, they are. I think -- obviously they are, and obviously they went out there. But the point is, what are they getting from us? They're getting a training mission which we announced that -- that we suddenly send down, again spending millions of dollars, but it's not going to be allowed to get involved in combat. It's not going to be allowed to do anything, and it'll be brought back. If you ask me, that was designed far more to hype the situation on Capitol Hill. It always happens, something like that, just before a tight contra vote. And that's what it is. Sec. ABRAMS: Senator -- Sen. LEAHY: Was it wise, does it make sense for the Nicaraguans to do what they do? No, I don't accept that. It's obvious that they're going after the same target -- you did -- in our briefing, we were told, incidentally, the matter that you are discussing here -- in our briefing we were told that that was the part we were not to discuss. But as you've discussed it, sure that's their reason for going. But the point is -- MacNEIL: Well, excuse me, I don't -- Sen. LEAHY: And you asked us down there to get us -- the U. S. is down there to get votes in the Congress. Sec. ABRAMS: The U. S. is down there, Senator, because the President of Honduras asked us to help protect his country from an invasion. And you may think that this is an inappropriate way to respond. The President of Honduras made this request. By the way, you've been on this show now for about three or four minutes, you have yet to say one single word of criticism of the Sandinista invasion, 2000 troops, fixed wing aircraft and helicopter gunships into Honduras. Sen. LEAHY: Well, probably your earpiece isn't working, Mr. Abrams, but I started off as a very serious criticism of them, saying this shows the same kind of stupidity that they've shown time and time again. That is not -- Sec. ABRAMS: Why does it show stupidity? It's not stupid at all. You react to it the way you're doing, it doesn't show stupidity at all -- Sen. LEAHY: Well, Mr. Abrams, I think the point is we're not being asked to send money to Nicaragua. We're being asked to send money to the contras. You say that the president of Honduras has sent this request. Again, it's like the request in March, '86, the American Ambassador goes with him, helps him to write up the request, and up it comes. In March of '86, we said the same thing, you said exactly the same kinds of things about we have this urgent request from Honduras. The President after we'd sent the $20 million, he left on vacation. It gives you some idea of the urgency. MacNEIL: Gentlemen, could I interrupt for just a moment, just to clarify this a little bit. There -- it is widely reported, Mr. Abrams, in Washington, or widely rumored, I think will be reported, that the decision to send these troops was made yesterday morning. The letter after a visit to the President, Oscar, from -- the letter from the President of Honduras, after a visit from the American Ambassador, Mr. Briggs, came last evening, or late yesterday afternoon. Sec. ABRAMS: Let's -- we can go through it. We can start in March '86, by the way, when the American Ambassador was instructed to say to the president of Honduras, This requires a letter. That is to say, an oral request of help is not enough. You need a written request of help. This is a serious business. That's just sensible policy for the State Department. The same thing was said yesterday. That is why there's a letter from President Azcona to President Reagan. MacNEIL: Why don't you publish that letter? Sec. ABRAMS: We don't publish that letter for a very simple reason. We asked President Azcona if he would allow us to and he said that he would not like the letter published. He'd use it as a private communication with President Reagan, and instead has done this foreign ministry communique, which is a public document. Which we'd be happy to -- which is in fact available to the public already. Well, let me be very clear about this. The final decision by President Reagan was made after the formal request on the part of President Azcona at about seven, seven thirty last night to Ambassador Briggs. Obviously there had been consultations with the Hondurans all day. President Azcona made a formal request only in the evening, and that is when President Reagan made his formal decision. You know, but let -- it's easy to get off the issue -- And the issue is -- Sen. LEAHY: What is the date on his letter? Sec. ABRAMS: I don't have the letter with me. As I say, a letter is not a public document. Sen. LEAHY: I see. Sec. ABRAMS: But I want to tell you, Senator, I think the real mistake you make is in saying that the Sandinistas have done something stupid. First of all, it isn't a matter of intelligence. The question here is whether they've done something that is a violation of the San Jose Peace Plan, and that is a violation of international law. Furthermore, it isn't stupid if you react to it by saying let's drop it. If they kill hundreds and hundreds of contras, capture the lethal aid, crush any contra activity for the next six months, why is it stupid for them to do this invasion of Honduras? It's smart for them unless you react. Sen. LEAHY: Well, let's take it another step further then. If indeed the security of a friend, and Honduras is a friend, is at stake, shouldn't we send in our troops and just go in and take on the Sandinista army? I mean, wouldn't that be more logical? Sec. ABRAMS: You know the President's position I think on the question of whether these troops will go into combat. He does not want them to go into combat -- Sen. LEAHY: But you're -- you talk about us going down there to protect an ally, you talk about the Rio Treaty -- I mean, which way do you want to have it? Sec. ABRAMS: I want to have it this way -- Sen. LEAHY: Are they down there to deter, are they down there to deter the Sandinistas, which would mean going into combat against them, or are they down there to influence the Congress, which would mean doing exactly what they're doing now? When the State Department says that they are there to increase the fright factor in Nicaragua, Mr. Abrams, you should see what the situation is on the telephone lines here at the Capital today from people throughout this country, wondering just what in heavens name is our policy. Sec. ABRAMS: You asked a question, which is what they're down there for. They're down there at the request of the president of Honduras, because his country is being invaded by Sandinista troops. The Hondurans are acting, they're considering more action. They've already done this one episode of bombing to get the Nicaraguans to get out of Honduras. And they said to us, ''We're a little bit scared about this situation, because of the heavy Soviet and Cuban support for Nicaragua, and we want a demonstration of your solidarity for us at a time when our country is being invaded. I would ask you again to think of what the situation would be in the minds of all Central American democrats had the President said, ''That's too bad, no, I will do nothing to support you. '' MacNEIL: May I ask you, Senator Leahy, how big do you think this incursion, invasion, whichever it was -- was? How significant, how important, how dangerous to Honduras do you think it was? Sen. LEAHY: Well, I think it was -- I think it was a significant one. Certainly is as significant as in March '86. There was about 1500 Sandinista troops. Here we're told there's probably about the same number. At that time, of course, as you know, the president of Honduras left on vacation. But I think it is of significance to the contras, and I think it has the potential -- I don't know how much damage it's done -- but it has the potential of doing very serious damage to the contras. And I think that everybody whether for or against aid to the contras, tend to agree on that factor. Certainly I do. But is it a threat to Honduras? I know that area, where they are, I've been up in that area. I don't see how, unless they were willing to make air strikes out of there, which they could do out of Nicaragua just as easily, that it threatens Honduras. But it is a significant threat to the contras. I think we're all agreed on that. MacNEIL: Mr. Abrams? Sec. ABRAMS: Well, I would frankly rather trust the president of Honduras who was elected by the Honduran people than Senator Leahy as to whether this commits an invasion, act of aggression, is something which worries the government of Honduras. The answer to that question is yes. I go back again and say we've now been on here about ten minutes, and Senator Leahy has yet to condemn this Nicaraguan invasion of Honduras. He said it was stupid. He has yet to condemn this invasion. Arias has condemned it very strongly. I guess Leahy won't. Sen. LEAHY: You know, Mr. Abrams goes to his usual polemics, doesn't go into the thing. As I've said at least twice now, how stupid it was, if that's not condemning, if I were to say that Mr. Abrams is stupid, he would consider that condemning. I'm not saying that, of course, but -- Sec. ABRAMS: Well, I just want to go back -- Sen. LEAHY: But if we can get back to the point -- Sec. ABRAMS: The point is you're refusing to condemn this invasion. This is an invasion by Nicaragua on Honduras, President Arias has strongly condemned it. But you don't. You just think it's a silly thing the Sandinistas did -- Sen. LEAHY: Mr. Abrams, I don't know if your earplug is not working. I have condemned it over and over again -- Sec. ABRAMS: But you just said it was stupid -- Sen. LEAHY: Let us get back for a moment -- or maybe you think it's the opposite of stupid. Maybe you think it was wise. I think it was stupid. Sec. ABRAMS: It depends on your reaction. If you react by giving more support to the Hondurans, and to the resistance, then it will turn out to have been a miscalculation by the Sandinistas. If you react by saying, Aw, it's just silly, let's forget about it, then why was it stupid on the part of the Sandinistas? MacNEIL: How are you going to react, Senator, in terms of the Administration's forthcoming request for more aid to the contras? Sen. LEAHY: Well, I think that the aid to the contras in the Administration is done in different ways. They've requested aid to the Congress, they've requested where they've used aid from the sale of arms to Iran, in both cases I've opposed that. MacNEIL: And you -- what effect do you think this particular incident and the way the Administration has reacted to it is going to have on other opinion in the Congress? Sen. LEAHY: I suspect it will not change a single vote. The -- in the Senate there've always been enough votes to pass contra aid. In the House, there usually is too, they would have passed an aid package a week or so ago, but the White House said the Republicans were not to support that aid package. Now when virtually the same aid package comes up, I suspect the White House will say Go ahead and support it. I'm not sure what the difference is, but they'll get the votes to pass it. MacNEIL: How do you see that, Mr. Abrams? Sec. ABRAMS: Well, we haven't made a final decision about how we're going to proceed on the Hill. I do think in my briefings of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee today, and other briefings we've done, there are a lot of Democrats who are very troubled by the Sandinista behavior. What Ortega did after Congress cut off the resistance was not to seek peace and cease fire negotiations, but to try this killer attack. So I think there are a lot of troubled Democrats, and they may have an opportunity to vote on this, and we'll see how many votes change. I just wish -- I still wish that others would join President Arias and Senator Leahy would join President Arias in condemning this invasion on Honduras by Nicaragua. Sen. LEAHY: You know, it's fascinating to hear Mr. Abrams, who's done everything conceivable to cut the legs out from under President Arias and his peace plan now say, ''Let's join with President Arias. '' Of course I agree. I don't know anybody up here who disagrees with President Arias's views on this attack into -- Sec. ABRAMS: Finally, thank you. Sen. LEAHY: -- which is what I've been saying right from the beginning. But it is amazing, it is amazing, Mr. Abrams, and you know it's questionable how you can even sit here and say we must be supporting President Arias when you have over and over and over again done everything conceivable to undercut President Arias's attempts at getting peace in Central America. Sec. ABRAMS: Senator, you said before that isn't it curious that there is this kind of administration hype before a vote. Actually, no. In March, '86, it was after a vote, I believe. Right now, it's after a vote. Did it ever occur to you that it's the Sandinistas who right after a vote are doing this invasion? Sen. LEAHY: It's always before. You mean there's not going to be another vote in another week or so? You know, the Administration's been up here quietly doing a nose count on everybody to see if they brought forth virtually the same plan that you asked the Republicans in the House to vote down a week or so again, that they'd vote for it. Now, you know that is a fact. Your own people from the White House who lobby up here know that's a fact. Sec. ABRAMS: Sure it is. But did it ever occur to you that this invasion of Honduras was made (unintelligible)? Sen. LEAHY: Two minutes ago you said that you have -- you haven't made any decision what you're going to do, and now you admit that you're up here doing a nose count -- Sec. ABRAMS: And we'll see what that produces, and we'll see what we're going to do and no decision's been made. But did it ever occur to you this invasion follows on Congress's abandonment of the resistance? Do you think it's unrelated, the violence? Sen. LEAHY: We hear that every time a contra vote's coming up. MacNEIL: Gentlemen, sorry to interrupt you. But we'll have to pursue it in the future. Senator Leahy, Mr. Abrams, thank you for joining us. Jim? LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a newsmaker interview with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. But first, this is pledge week on Public Television and we are taking a short break now so your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air. Alternative Fuel MacNEIL: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the NewsHour continues with a report from Kwame Holman about Colorado's efforts this past winter to bring its air quality in line with Federal Clean Air standards.

KWAME HOLMAN: The people of Denver, Colorado no longer are allowed to buy normal gasoline. Instead, this winter they must buy something called blended fuel, fuel with additives mixed in that make car engines emit more oxygen and less carbon monoxide. It's all part of a plan to reduce Denver's wintertime carbon monoxide pollution. Gov. ROY ROMER, Colorado: The mandated fuel program will have two choices: one, MTBE, which does not have alcohol in it, and ethanol, which is alcohol based.

HOLMAN: Ethanol is not new. Called Gasohol, it was sold extensively in rural areas because it was made from surplus grain. But it was marketed heavily in Colorado a few years ago. Some critics claimed it caused vapor lock in newer cars, and eroded rubber and plastic parts in the fuel systems of older cars. Engineering student Jon Lesko who works as an auto technician said he saw such problems. JON LESKO, auto technician: We were seeing failure, premature failure, of fuel system components, fuel pumps, fuel filters, fuel distributors, they were all failing quite early.

HOLMAN: Barbara Charnes insists the alcohol fuel has a good track record and is being blamed unfairly. Charnes heads a clean air group that gets some support from the ethanol industry and from corn growers. BARBARA CHARNES, environmentalist: There has been about 8 billion miles driven in Colorado using ethanol. If the fuel didn't work, there wouldn't have been 8 billion miles driven.

HOLMAN: The second legal additive, MTBE, did not arouse strong reactions, in part because very little was known about it. It has been used in small concentrations as an octane booster. The oil companies like it better than ethanol since it's a petroleum product. But still, they are nervous. Mr. RIGG: We've never used MTBE at these concentrations in our fuels, sold for our vehicles, sold to our customers. So we really don't know how it's going to perform in the marketplace. We think it'll be perfectly satisfactory to virtually everyone. There may be some problems with it, but you never know.

HOLMAN: Since the fuel was introduced, Jon Lesko has heard many complaints about decreased gas mileage. He also saw three to four times as many cars that had flooded. Mr. LESKO: This is what we're seeing. We're seeing vehicles that come in where everything is correct, and yet they're having extreme flooding due to the MTBE based fuels. This vehicle's been in twice this week. All of the tuning is right on on it. The only solution at this point is to drain the fuel system and put a different blend of fuel in.

HOLMAN: Jerry Gallagher of the Colorado Health Department denies that MTBE is causing problems. JERRY GALLAGHER, Colorado Health Dept. : We have not documented one problem yet that's been associated with the fuel. It's usually a bad battery or cold weather or something else is wrong with the car. But it's not been associated with fuel.

HOLMAN: Lesko disagrees strongly with Gallagher about the short term and long term effects of MTBE. Mr. LESKO: I'm pretty convinced that we're going to see some damage due to these fuels in the long term. But we're still at a point where no research has been done to substantiate that. Mr. RIGG: You're bound to have some real problems, but you're also bound to have a lot of perceptual problems. We've always feared that it was going to be difficult to sort those out. And to deal truthfully with the real problems. And sort out the ones that are perceptual problems.

HOLMAN: Despite their concerns, the major oil companies all chose to market MTBE rather than ethanol. MTBE now has over 90% of the market. Ms. CHARNE: From a clean air point of view, that's unfortunate, because ethanol blended at its present rate provides more than twice the carbon monoxide reduction that MTBE does.

HOLMAN: Increasing the amount of MTBE in fuel would reduce carbon monoxide further. And indeed, that's the plan for next winter. But MTBE is very expensive. The oil companies fear that ultimately MTBE won't be competitive with ethanol at the pump. Jerry Gallagher says clean air decisions cannot be based on such concerns. Mr. GALLAGHER: I think the air quality benefits outweigh the special interests of economic incentives of the oil company, and that's the battle.

HOLMAN: Denver's program could be a precedent for the entire country. Congress is considering forcing other cities with high air pollution to adopt similar mandatory programs. MacNEIL: Denver's air pollution was reduced 9% by the two month effort. the program will start up again in November and last twice as long. Yitzhak Shamir Interview LEHRER: Now a newsmaker interview with the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir. He left Washington today after four days of talks with President Reagan and Secretary of State Shultz about a Shultz plan for peace in the Middle East. Shamir did not like the plan when he arrived, and he still didn't like it when he left. I spoke with the Prime Minister at his Washington hotel this morning. (to Shamir) Mr. Prime Minister, welcome. YITZHAK SHAMIR, Prime Minister, Israel: Thank you. LEHRER: What is your overall opinion of the Shultz initiative now? Mr. SHAMIR: So far, we differ. LEHRER: You said before you came that the only thing you agreed with was the Secretary's signature. Is that pretty much the same? Or have things changed? Mr. SHAMIR: I wouldn't say that -- again, you know, I have a great admiration for Secretary Shultz, and I'm very unwilling to criticize his position. But in this case, on the proposal related to our future, I have my positions, and I have my views, and I cannot give up. And while -- until nowwe have discussed in a very full manner the first stage of this proposal about international conference. And I cannot see any positive role for such a conference. I think we don't need it. I think it would be an obstacle on the way to get peace. And therefore, I would suggest to (unintelligible) to let it down. LEHRER: Just back off? Forget it? Mr. SHAMIR: About this part of this proposal. LEHRER: On the international conference, I assume that you told Secretary Shultz and President Reagan in as forceful terms as you could that you do not support that and you want them to drop it. And I assume you told them why. What did they say? What did -- they do not understand? They just disagree? Mr. SHAMIR: I think they understand very well my position. But maybe they think that they will be able to find some form of such a conference that will be acceptable to me. As I've explained last fall, there was a proposal about an international event of ceremony that could give some international legitimacy to King Hussein before starting the possible negotiations, and I agreed to it. And I said very clearly that I still agree to such a way to do things, and if there will be similar proposal I would consider it. LEHRER: What is the harm that you see that would befall Israel by going along with the Shultz suggestion for an international conference? Mr. SHAMIR: Well, if we will have such a conference, that will be a board composed of the five cabinet members of the security council, the Soviet, Chinese, Britain, France and the United States. And (unintelligible) surround us, Israel. Such a conference will become a tool against Israel, a tool against peace with Israel. Because all of us knows a anti Israeli position. A very clear, even extreme position. We know the Soviet position. We know the Chinese position. We know the position of the allied countries, of the European countries. Israel will be isolated. This conference will become a kind of tribunal that will try to make statements, talks of decision against us. Of course, there is clear, it is sad in this proposal that they will not impose the solutions, they will not have the power to veto some things, but it will not prevent them from doing some acts against Israel. And the most important of it, it will not serve the peace, the cause of peace, because all these participants and this conference say only a -- the most important thing I would say is to (unintelligible) Israel, to do harm to Israel. LEHRER: Why then would two men that you've said yourself are tremendous supporters of Israel -- that's Secretary Shultz and President Reagan -- urge you to participate in such a thing if you believe so strongly it would in fact destroy Israel? What have they got wrong in their heads? Mr. SHAMIR: You know, I cannot speak on behalf of (unintelligible) I cannot explain their position. But I suppose that they -- as they know that this is the demand of King Hussein. And King Hussein will not move without such a conference. They think there is a possibility by settling the conditions and adjustments to have such a conference in spite of their own positions that they don't need it. You know, the position of the United States was for a long time against such a conference, Secretary Shultz opposed it. And I've learned many arguments against this conference for me. But now he's changed his mind because he thinks that (unintelligible) Hussein in this conference (unintelligible) about such a conference. LEHRER: On some more general principles. Do you accept the principle Land for Peace that is also a part of this Shultz proposal? Mr. SHAMIR: Well, I don't think they have to go into these philosophical details. I say one thing that could satisfy all the participants in the negotiations. I accept the Camp David Agreements. In all their details. And in this agreements it was agreed between us and Egypt and the United States that on the second stage of the negotiations after five years of the existence of the autonomy, the parties will negotiate about the final status of the territories. Will negotiate without any (unintelligible) conditions. That's enough for all of us. And I'm not ready to say now of what will be my position in these negotiations. I don't know if I do participate in these negotiations. LEHRER: It has been said that your own personal feeling is that you believe that the West Bank and Gaza are not occupied territories, that they are in fact part of Israel. Is that true? Mr. SHAMIR: You know, there is a lot of confusion about these definitions of occupied territories. For most of the Arabs, all of Israel is an occupied territory. All of Israel. In our view, it's different. There is a conflict. There is a conflict about existence of Israel, a conflict between us and the Arab world. There is a conflict about the borders of Israel. There is a conflict about the status of Jerusalem. There is a conflict. And we have to find ways to resolve this conflict. And it is our (unintelligible) that we can do it by negotiations. By direct negotiations face to face. And I personally, I am convinced that if we start the process of such negotiations, we will find solutions. We will find the great solutions. And I have in my mind some ideas about the character of the solutions. But until we will be there in this situation of the negotiations, I will say nothing about my position. LEHRER: Do you have any sympathy for the young Palestinians who are in a state of revolt on the West Bank and Gaza? Mr. SHAMIR: Well, I know they suffer, I know they're suffering. First of all, I absolutely am for the solution of this terrible problem of the camps of refugees. We have to change the conditions of life in these camps. It's unbearable. It's an insult to every human principle. It's impossible. It's not (unintelligible) fault, but I think these changes have to be part of any peace program, of any peace plan. We have to put an end to these camps. We have to give decent housing to all these refugees. It hurts, you know, to (unintelligible) on this, of this population. I wouldn't say that it has to come instead of a political solution. Not that. But we have to solve this problem. Then about the violence, I cannot tolerate the violence or their attitude. And if you have seen in the last days, there were some interviews on the TV that some of the youngsters of the Palestinian youngster, these rioters, have been interviewed, and they have been asked, What is your goal? Do you want a Palestinian rule in these territories? And their answer was no. They say all of Palestine has to be an Arab country. And another said, ''I want an Islamic State. '' Well, it's not realistic. But this is the situation. LEHRER: So the violence will continue and the Israeli policy toward the violence -- there will be no change, in other words. Mr. SHAMIR: I think we have to put an end to this violence because it is our duty to restore normal life. To restore order. And then we have to look for ways to negotiate. LEHRER: Are you in complete accord with the methods that your government is now using to restore order? Nearly a hundred of the protestors have died as you know -- four more yesterday. Is that going to continue? Mr. SHAMIR: Sure, what the army is doing it's in accordance with the decisions of the government, with the instructions of the government. But we have to take into consideration that these war -- and it is a war -- has a special character. It's not a military war. But it is a war. Because there is violence. And the goal of these people participating in this violent demonstrations is to destroy our country, to kill our soldiers. And we have to defend ourselves. But the difficulty is by which means. Because we are determined not to shoot at these people, not to kill many of them. You know our army has strict orders not to shoot except in extreme cases of personal danger. That is the main reason for the lasting of these disturbances. Because this is not the methods of the Jordanians and the Egyptians and the Syrians in similar cases. LEHRER: Mr. Prime Minister, you've gotten a lot of advice from Americans, I'm sure, over the last four or five days. And I guess more before you go. You got some this morning in the New York Times. William Safire says the first thing you ought to do when you go back to Israel is fire your foreign minister. Shimon Peres. Are you going to take his advice? Mr. SHAMIR: Well, I'm getting many advice. And, well, I will have to decide about the future, and the main subject of my voice and my thoughts now is not internal situation of our coalition, but how to get peace and how to put an end to this situation of violence. LEHRER: You are not concerned about Israel's apparent speaking in two voices on this issue? Because if I had done a similar interview with Peres that I just did with you, on many of this questions he would have given exactly different answers. Mr. SHAMIR: Well, this is a difference. And we have to handle it. I think it will come to an end, this unbearable situation, with the elections. And we are going to elections -- we will have at the end of this year elections. And there are some proposals to make earlier these elections. We will have to decide about it. And there is not other solution than elections for such a situation. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much. Recap MacNEIL: We had hoped to bring you an Ann Taylor Fleming essay on family ties, but our Honduras discussion ran long, and we will reschedule the essay for another night. Again, the major stories of this Thursday. Thirty two hundred U. S. Army troops went to Honduras in a show of force against alleged Nicaraguan incursions into Honduras. Nicaraguan President Ortega denied again his troops had crossed into Honduras. And late today, the U. N. Security Council agreed to his request to hold an emergency meeting tomorrow. On the NewsHour tonight, Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams confirmed that the Honduran Air Force had bombed a Nicaraguan target just inside the border in the Bocay Valley. And Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said in a NewsHour interview the Shultz proposal for an international Middle East peace conference would result in the destruction of Israel. Good night, Jim. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.