The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the day's top news headlines. President Reagan, warning of drugs and terrorism, met Mexico's President. The U.S. warned Americans living in Libya that they're in danger. Philippines President Marcos said next month's election might be invalidated if there was violence. Rioting prisoners in West Virginia released the last of their hostages, but the death toll rose to three. Details of these and other stories coming up. Elizabeth Brackett is in Washington this evening. Elizabeth?

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Here's your guide to tonight's NewsHour. First, an in exclusive interview. Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos discusses his campaign for reelection. Then essayist Roger Rosenblatt reflects on how the latest wave of airport terrorism is affecting travelers. Finally, the Bhopal tragedy. A year after the disaster, we get a replay of today's court hearings to decide on where the $100 billion case will be heard.News Summary

MacNEIL: President Reagan and Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid met today in the border town of Mexicali for talks covering Mexico's debts, border trade and drug traffic. Hundreds of troupe and police cordoned off the center of the usually sleepy town as the President sat down for an hour of private discussions and broader talks over lunch. It was Mr. Reagan's fourth meeting with President de la Madrid. After greeting each other, the two presidents were welcomed by a troop of Mexican dancers and a group of Mexican schoolchildren. The two presidents met for three hours altogether, and afterwards Mr. Reagan emphasized the fight both countries were waging against drug trafficking.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Cleansing our societies of this evil is not without cost. America joins with you in mourning the death of those valued Mexican officials who have been killed in the struggle against narcotics. There are tears on both sides of the border for the Mexican policemen killed recently in the state of Veracruz. They have shown honor and courage that transcends international boundaries. Our own DEA agent, Enrique Camerena, brutally murdered in the line of duty, exemplifies this. He was an American hero born here in Mexicali.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reagan also praised Mexico's efforts to bring down its $96 billion foreign debt, and President de la Madrid expressed support for the administration's proposals to help Mexico and other Latin American countries deal with their debt, which he said demanded urgent attention. Elizabeth?

BRACKETT: In Libya, the state-run radio said demonstrators in the country's major cities vowed again to defend themselves against American or Israeli attacks. But reports of the demonstrations could not be confirmed. Western reporters have been confined to their hotel rooms for the last day and a half. Meanwhile in Washington, the State Department repeated its objections to travel to Libya by Americans.

MacNEIL: Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos said today that a victory in next month's elections by opposition candidate Corazon Aquino might be invalidated if there were violence in the campaign. Marcos was interviewed by the NewsHour last night, Friday morning Philippines time.

If Mrs. Aquino should be elected, will you step down and let her assume the office constitutionally?

FERDINAND MARCOS, President, Philippines: If the election is without violence, which they're starting to utilize, yes. But if they utilize coercion and intimidation, we will probably have to file either a protest or a request from the [unintelligible] to do something about it.

MacNEIL: In the interview Marcos also criticized Mrs. Aquino for saying she would admit communists to the government if they renounced violence. Marcos said, "We cannot allow that in the Philippines." A team of independent U.S. observers will leave tomorrow to assess how free and fair the elections appear in prospect. Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said his committee would decide after hearing the group's report whether to send a congressional delegation to monitor the February 7th elections.

BRACKETT: Two and a half days of prison rioting ended in West Virginia today. Inmates released seven remaining hostages this afternoon. Three inmates were killed in the uprising, and West Virginia Governor Arch Moore says the century-old prison was heavily damaged by rampaging prisoners. Governor Moore promised to meet the prisoners and hear their grievances and went to the prison to receive the last seven of the original 16 hostages. The governor then escorted each one to an ambulance parked in the prison yard. The hostages seemed to be in good health, although some of them evidently lost their shoes during their two days of captivity. While this was going on, the prison guards were moving in to restore order. Later the governor told a news conference conditions at the prison would be improved.

Gov. ARCH MOORE, (R) West Virginia: This facility can be operated safely for the security not only of the inmates but the correctional officers. And if my past stewardship as governor of this state is any indication, the human treatment of these people are going to be a high priority in our whole discussion and our whole program.

BRACKETT: The governor's meeting with the prisoners began late this afternoon.

MacNEIL: The governor of South Carolina, Dick Riley, today decided not to grant clemency to a man sentenced to death for a murder-rape committed when he was a juvenile of 17. The decision means that James Terry Roach, now 25, will die in the electric chair. Here's a report by Sean Callebs of WIS-TV, Columbia, South Carolina.

SEAN CALLEBS, WIS-TV [voice-over]: Riley has been agonizing over his decision. It was clear by his somber face and tone. The governor has spent the past weeks reviewing Roach's trial records and the appeals raised by Roach's attorneys.

Gov. DICK RILEY, (D) South Carolina: As a result I can find no reason to intervene in the judicial process nor to grant a request for clemency.

CALLEBS [voice-over]: The governor read from a prepared text and would not answer any questions. Barring any dramatic change, Roach will die in the state's electric chair early Friday morning, January 10th. Roach confessed to the brutal murders of two Columbia teenagers more than seven years ago in late 1977. Roach's attorneys asked Riley to commute the death sentence for a dozen reasons, including the facts Roach was a juvenile, a 17-year-old when the crimes were committed, and he is on the border of being mentally retarded, with an IQ of about 70.

Gov. RILEY: It is therefore clear that the court considered these mitigating factors in reaching its decision of imposing the death penalty. And in this situation the court was the appropriate body to make the sentencing decision.

MacNEIL: In New York, a federal judge heard arguments on whether the flood of lawsuits arising from the tragedy in Bhopal, India, should be heard in India or the United States. Over 1,700 people died and 200,000 were injured when toxic gas leaked from a Union Carbide plant. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed seeking $100 billion in damages. The plaintiffs want the suits heard in the United States where damages are higher. Union Carbide wants the hearings in India.

BRACKETT: The Moral Majority, the conservative organization headed by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, has a new name and a new image. Falwell told a Washington news conference that the press had beaten and bloodied his original group, so he was forming a new one, the New Liberty Federation. Falwell said it will include the old Moral Majority, but will have goals that are broader and more political.

Rev. JERRY FALWELL, Moral Majority: And we believe now with the Liberty Federation, getting involved on a broader basis and domestically, internationally embracing issues that were not ours seven years ago -- we believe that voter registration will be enhanced this year; we have a goal of registering one million new voters nationally this year. We have a goal of 200 of our people running for office this year at different levels across the country. I am not one of them. And we are hopefully going to be able by 1988 to bring 20 million religious conservatives to the polls nationally in the presidential election.

BRACKETT: The owner of a Maryland savings & loan institution that went down and triggered a disastrous run on other Maryland S and L's was indicted for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds today. The indictment charges that Jeffrey Levitt of Baltimore took money from the Old Court Savings & Loan that was supposed to be for the purchase and financing of properties in Maryland and used that money for himself.

MacNEIL: In the Middle East, Lebanese President Amin Gemayel returned to Beirut after secret talks with President Hafez al-Assad of Syria. Gemayel said the talks covered all aspects of a peace agreement that is intended to end the civil war in Lebanon, but he did not disclose exactly what was said.

In South Africa the police forbade a memorial service for Molly Blackburn, a white human rights campaigner who was killed in an automobile accident. Thousands of blacks attended her funeral yesterday and the police said a memorial service might endanger public safety. Four more blacks died in other violence overnight.

BRACKETT: Finally in the news, Hartford Gunn, Jr., the man who pioneered educational television and the founding president of the Public Broadcasting Service, died of cancer yesterday at the age of 59. Among other accomplishments, Mr. Gunn helped form Boston's public television station WGBH. He was also instrumental in forming a financial cooperative among stations that helped establish the MacNeilfiLehrer Report, Frontline and other PBS series.

That concludes our news summary. Still ahead, an exclusive interview with Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, some thoughts by essayist Roger Rosenblatt on terrorism and travelers, and the latest chapter in the multi-billion-dollar Bhopal court case. Marcos: On the Campaign

MacNEIL: First tonight, a newsmaker interview with Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos. Partly in response to pressure from the United States, Marcos has called elections for February 7th. The opposition parties have united behind one candidate, Corazon Aquino, the widow of the opposition leader Ninoy Aquino, who was gunned down at Manila Airport on his return from the United States. Last night, when it was actually Friday morning in Manila, I talked by satellite with the 69-year-old President. I asked first how he could reassure those who worried that the elections would be free and fair.

Pres. FERDINAND MARCOS: Well, as I have said, we are certain of a victory, and any anomaly that will be committed in the coming elections will be a reflection on the administration and on the victory. We're taking all steps to see to it that the elections will be fair, honest and free. We have all kinds of safeguards. All the ballots are counter-signed, or rather have counter-signs from both parties, the majority and the opposition parties.

MacNEIL: Would you during the campaign allow your opponent for -- presidential candidate Mrs. Aquino, access to state-controlled television, which she says she does not have now?

Pres. MARCOS: Well, she has been given free time and also equal time and space in all forms of media. In such areas what is known as the [unintelligible] daily so that if they cannot afford, say, television or radio, they are given part of this time, just like majority party.

MacNEIL: Her campaign has complained that she's not able to get on nationwide television, national television; that her only access to the electronic media is on local radio.

Pres. MARCOS: Well, that surprises me because I see her on television every day.

MacNEIL: Will the army be excluded from the elections?

Pres. MARCOS: The armed forces in the Philippines have been placed under the disposal of the Commission on Elections and will not be utilized except to counteract any violence, especially those committed by the Communist Party, which has started to campaign for the opposition.

MacNEIL: It is widely remarked here in the United States, in newspapers, for example, that with General Ver still in charge of the armed forces and many other senior officers loyal to you, the army will simply guarantee that you win.

Pres. MARCOS: Well, that's ridiculous. Right now all the surveys indicate a landslide for the majority party. I think that the placing of the armed forces under the Commission on Elections will neutralize any attempt on the part of anybody in uniform to participate in the elections.

MacNEIL: Are you planning any further reforms of the Philippine military?

Pres. MARCOS: Oh, yes. We have a board of generals actually working out the reforms of the military. The only delay was due to several matters, which included, of course, the fact that the investigations of some of the shootings where civilians were involved, prevented any further action on the part of the board of generals. But it is my hope that within the next week or so we'll be able to implement some more reforms. We have just transferred and moved about some of the higher commanders, so that they will be at the positions that are considered rather difficult right now because of the attack by the New People's Army and the Communist Party.

MacNEIL: So you will make some new changes before the election?

Pres. MARCOS: Well, if it is taken to mean that those changes are intended to help us, no. But if the changes will help in keeping the impression, the image that the armed forces will stay out of the elections, yes.

MacNEIL: Will General Ver, whom you reappointed when he was acquitted by the commission investigating the murder of Senator Aquino -- you reappointed him -- will he be retired?

Pres. MARCOS: He was not reappointed. He was on leave of absence, and --

MacNEIL: I beg your pardon.

Pres. MARCOS: -- as soon as he -- yes. As soon as he was acquitted he was allowed to return to his office. He may be retired before the elections.

MacNEIL: He may be retired before the elections. When will that be certain?

Pres. MARCOS: I am not sure about it because of various factors that go into it. The vice chief of staff and former acting chief of staff, General Ramos, is involved in a report by a civilian fact-finding group which may prevent me from keeping him in office as chief as staff. And there are no other officers whom I think are immediately qualified to take over the positioone other act that has been urged on you by people in the United States is that you retire some two dozen officers whom you've kept on beyond the retirement age. Is that also contemplated?

Pres. MARCOS: If I may comment on the fact that the internal appointments in our armed forces are our business. If there are recommendations from outside, we will consider them. But certainly we will not allow any foreigner to intervene in the reorganization of our armed forces.

MacNEIL: Will those two dozen generals who've stayed on past retirement age, will they be retired in this reorganization?

Pres. MARCOS: Ultimately, yes.

MacNEIL: Ultimately.

Pres. MARCOS: Ultimately. But as I said again, it is a matter of whether there are qualified persons for officers to take over their positions. Incidentally, the more we talk about this, the more sensitive our people are with respect to foreign intervention. [crosstalk] with respect for our armed forces.

MacNEIL: Just so I understand about General Ver, are you saying that he could be retired as the chief of staff if General Ramos can take over quickly, but if General Ramos can't -- is that what you're saying?

Pres. MARCOS: I didn't say that.

MacNEIL: I see.

Pres. MARCOS: I didn't say that. I was considering General Ramos as a temporary replacement of General Ver.

MacNEIL: I understand.

Pres. MARCOS: But now he has requested that he be allowed to go on leave on the grounds that the civilian fact-finding committee has involved him in a charge of administrative negligence. And there is no one who probably can take over immediately as chief of staff. And this is why General Ver and General Ramos, who have both submitted their resignations, might be considered to continue in the meantime.

MacNEIL: Let's come back to the election, Mr. President. Why would the Philippines be better off with you reelected than with Mrs. Aquino as president?

Pres. MARCOS: Because Mrs. Aquino, while a very intelligent lady, has no experience whatsoever in the running of anything, including a private corporation, much less a complicated machinery like the government. She has admitted that she doesn't know anything about government. She has admitted that she has no program of government. She more or less has, well, admitted indirectly that the Communist Party is supporting her. Therefore that, later, if she should by accident win the election, the Communists would probably be a part of the administration, and that we cannot allow in the Philippines.

MacNEIL: She said today in a campaign speech that while she would never be a Communist herself, that if the Communists renounced violence she might -- she would include them in her government. What is your reaction to that?

Pres. MARCOS: When does a tiger renounce its stripes? If they renounce violence, they're not Communists. Or they are adopting a tactical position to be acceptable to our society.

MacNEIL: You say Mrs. Aquino has no experience. She told us when we interviewed her recently, "We have had a very experienced man in Mr. Marcos. We've had a brilliant man in Mr. Marcos. And yet after 20 years, instead of our country progressing, we have a really deteriorated and we are a devastated nation." I think that's the core of her campaign.

Pres. MARCOS: The conclusions are completely wrong, of course, because as you very well know, while the population has increased from about 32 million, we have up to, say, 54 -- we have increased the literacy rate from 62 in 1965 to 92 nationwide and in Manila about 97-98. We have increased irrigation systems and improved our agriculture -- increased the irrigation system by almost five times, from 300,000 hectares to 1,500,000. We are now self-sufficient in rice unless we are hit by calamity. We started exporting rice in 1977, '78. We are now dependent on oil only up to 50 instead of 98 in 1965 when I took over as president. The fact that she alone, or she and the other opposition leaders can criticize openly in public assemblies is an improvement, because in 1965 they could not have done that.

MacNEIL: And yet, Mr. President, as they point out in their campaign, Senator Laurel, her running mate, said today that you have devalued the currency; there is $25 billion in foreign debt; there is great poverty and hunger in the Philippines -- we've seen evidence of it on our own program; you have a military insurrection against you; and you have charges of corruption against your own person and family. Those are all their --

Pres. MARCOS: The corruption charges are all false, and this was proven. When this was brought up in an impeachment petition in the legislature of the Parliament they were asked point blank to prove the charges and they could not. They were asked where this corruption was committed, by whom, how much was involved, and how was it done. And they were practically shocked into silence because they didn't expect that this matter would be brought up in this manner. And so up to now we are waiting for them to prove their allegations on corruption, on hidden wealth, all this wealth that we are supposed to have hidden in the United States. And unfortunately the media in the United States prints these charges of corruption but does not print what follows after that.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you about another matter. Mrs. Aquino charges day after day that you are the person most responsible for the murder of her husband. She says if she is elected -- she has said -- she would put you on trial. What is your reaction to that?

Pres. MARCOS: My reaction to that is she must be affected by the present temper of the elections. The elections have turned into the opposition raising all kinds of hatred. Now, look, we were given -- we have given the opposition three years within which to prove charges, not against me, of course, but against the military. And they presented perjured testimony, as the decision indicated.

MacNEIL: To have his widow repeating day after day that same charge, to large crowds or small crowds, whatever, does that not seriously erode your credibility as a leader of the country?

Pres. MARCOS: Well, I think on the contrary she has shown her true character. The candidacy is motivated by vengeance, vindictiveness, and not for the welfare of our people. I think I should tell you that this has turned away many of her own leaders, who find this campaign of hatred, of personal vengeance, unacceptable.

MacNEIL: If you are so confident of winning, that your party is the majority and will remain so, why are you spending a reported $106 million on your reelection campaign, which these reports say is three times what Mrs. Aquino will spend?

Pres. MARCOS: I am surprised at this quotation of figures, because we are sticking to the requirement of the law. And the requirement of the law is one and one-half pesos per registered voter for both the president and vice president and again for the party. Now, the accounts are open; the receipts of monies that have been spent are a part of our records. It's open to public scrutiny. We have a certified public accountant going through all this. I don't think that the opposition can open up their books the way we have opened up our books. So we place this at the disposal of the [unintelligible], the Commission on Elections. All this talk, this hearsay, which is propagated by media, I think should stop. Why don't they just take a look at our accounts?

MacNEIL: If Mrs. Aquino should be elected, will you step down and let her assume the office constitutionally?

Pres. MARCOS: If the election is without violence, which they're starting to utilize, yes. But if they utilize coercion and intimidation, we will probably have to file either a protest or a request from the [unintelligible] to do something about it.

MacNEIL: Well, President Marcos, thank you very much for joining us.

Pres. MARCOS: Thank you.

MacNEIL: On one point, access to television for Mrs. Aquino, the Philippine opposition said today that they had been given some but not the equal television time they were seeking. In Washington, U.S. officials said they were disappointed with the amount of time Marcos had made available.

BRACKETT: Still to come on the NewsHour, an essay by Roger Rosenblatt on the latest wave of terrorism and its effect on travelers, and the latest on the legal battle from the Bhopal tragedy. Travel Phobia

BRACKETT: The fear of flying took on new meaning over the holiday season. Travelers now worry as much about terrorist attacks as they do about flying in bad weather. Essayist Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts tonight about this latest travel phobia and its consequences.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The line forms here. Please place all carry-on luggage beneath your seat. No smoking beyond this point. Please present passports to inspectors. No shooting beyond this point. Are you bringing any plants or livestock out of the country? Are you bringing any bazookas or flamethrowers out of the country? How many machine guns did you purchase during your visit? Ticketed passengers may proceed to terminals. Terminal passengers may proceed to ticket counters. Authorized personnel only. No terrorists beyond this point. Hi, I'm Stacey, your hostess. Fasten your seat belts. Fasten your holsters. In case of loss of oxygen, pull down our noose above your head, face the wall, start screaming and have a good flight.

Do you find the mixture unnverving? Who would not? We are intended to find it unnerving, which concerns the fact that terrorists, while mad as hatters on the moral level, are crazy as foxes when it comes to the emotions. The day is coming, or is it here already, when an ordinary fear of flying will seem nothing compared with wondering whether some group of inspired murderers will decide to choose your flight, your ticket line. Or should you go Monday instead of Wednesday? It isn't merely flying that's affected. Planes and boats and trains are all prime targets these days. The railway station in Bologna, the TWA hijacking, the Achille Lauro job, and Christmas week Rome and Vienna, bodies thrown among the suitcases.

So terror strikes travel, a very good place to strike. The mind as it contemplates the journey is already intent on mortality in a low-key way. It thinks not only "Will this plane crash?" but quieter scenaria: "If it all should end right now, have I led an upright life, are my loved ones provided for, will I panic at the end?" and so forth, all normal notions as one considers being carried from place to place by vehicles not in one's control. Add terrorism to the trip and the anxiety is heightened enormously, which is precisely what terrorists are in business for, how they make themselves known to the civilized world. But what happens then? Will the civilized world grow afraid to travel altogether? Will you call off that jaunt to Duluth or to Paris, if God knows it isn't worth your safety to swing that deal with Hotchkiss? And Uncle Harry can visit you for a change. Stay put. Sit tight. Travel is overrated anyway, don't you think? Half the fun is staying alive.

Take that route, of course, and soon the terrorists would have the world standing still, the vast populations on every continent not merely afraid to go to Duluth but perhaps a bit reluctant to walk across town or across the room or to get out of bed. That's the way fear works -- we all know that. If you make us afraid to travel, you make us afraid to be.

We are a mobile species. We move to live. That's how the vast populations got hold of the continents in the first place, by traveling and circling 'til humans ruled the roost. Terrorists are called subhuman, and they are. They mow down little girls and cheer themselves for heroism. But they are antihuman too. They strive to make us act against biology, to sit struck dumb with fright until eventually we join the terrorists in their shadow world. We see their point. They win.

We will not do that. We will continue to be anxious, for that is human. And to mourn, for that is human. And to fight back as best we can without protecting ourselves out of existence, for that is human as well. And we will continue to travel, for that is the way we know one another, the way we assure ourselves that to be human is not merely a state of evolution, but an ideal of kindness, fairness and rationality which must be borne from point to point perpetually on our round, well-traveled home. Bhopal Suit: Which Court?

MacNEIL: Finally tonight, we turn to the mammoth legal battle under way to win compensation for the victims of Bhopal. It is exactly a year and a month since a cloud of toxic gas escaped from the Union Carbide plant in the Indian city of Bhopal and created the worst industrial accident in history. The Indian government counts 1,757 killed, although other estimates say 2,500 or more. Two hundred thousand people were injured, with 60,000 claiming permanent lung damage that prevents them from working. More than 5,500 lawsuits have been filed in India, and at least 130 in the United States, on behalf of more than 100,000 Indian plaintiffs. A small army of lawyers is seeking $100 billion in damages from Union Carbide. But all those lawsuits are temporarily on hold, pending the outcome of a hearing held today in New York. A federal judge will decide in several weeks whether the case should be tried in India, where Union Carbide wants it, or in the United States, where the plaintiffs insist. One of the lead lawyers for the Indian plaintiffs is Stanley Chesley of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Mr. Chesley, why are American courts the proper forum?

STANLEY CHESLEY: American courts are the only courts, Robin, that are experienced and have had experience. I would say that from a standpoint of technological development, our litigation and legal system is the most finely honed and finely tuned. We have had these cases before, and they are masters of the legal system. You've got to remember that the Indian legal system is only 40 years old. It would be like saying could the American legal system handle it in 1812.

MacNEIL: So your argument is efficiency.

Mr. CHESLEY: No question, no question.

MacNEIL: Is it not also part of your motive that awards, damage awards in American courts are much higher, therefore your clients, whatever you win, are likely to get more money?

Mr. CHESLEY: I think it's secondary, because delay, justice delayed is justice denied. We had affidavits and information, including from the Supreme Court justice, that the legal system is in decay and collapse. But more importantly, it's estimated that in order to try a case in India through the appellate procedure is 25 years. If these Indians have to wait 25 years, then they haven't gotten any justice at all. So I believe the key is the delay or the absolute inadequacy of the legal system in India to cope with this type of litigation, whereas here in the United States this case, the plaintiffs could literally be ready to try this case on liability, on the liability issue, in September of 1986.

MacNEIL: But your clients, assuming their argument is accepted by the court, would stand to gain larger damage awards in the American courts than in Indian.

Mr. CHESLEY: That's up to dispute. There are certain people that believethat since the Indian government is allied with us in this litigation, that -- and there is no jury system in India -- they could go back and try a case against Union Carbide and get untold amounts of money because it would be in the hands of just one judge without a jury. I think that's speculative. I mean, that's something that they always -- I think that's the bogey man that's been advocated by the defendants and the insurance bars, insurance industry, to the effect -- and I guess Vic Schwartz and I will debate that in a little bit -- about how big that verdict is going to be in the United States. I think it's unknown. We have no idea, and I think it's speculation at best. They keep saying that we want to be here. The other side of the coin, does Union Carbide want to be there because the verdicts are much lower? That's to me every bit as insidious, or much more insidious, that they want to be there because they think they can save money. What we want is full and fair compensation.

MacNEIL: And thus is it part of your argument that they would thus be putting a lower value on human life in India than in the United States?

Mr. CHESLEY: Correct. Pain and suffering has no geographical boundaries. In my estimation, conscious pain and suffering -- I'm not talking about economic loss, because we're the first to recognize here in the United States that a bank president is going to be -- his family is going to be awarded a higher amount than a bag lady. But from the standpoint of conscious pain and suffering, if you have pain and suffering in India, you should receive the same compensation as you would in the United States.

MacNEIL: On one small point of efficiency, Union Carbide has said that if you insist, and the court decides the cases should be heard here, they will insist that all 103,000 Indian plaintiffs come here to testify. Are you prepared to do that?

Mr. CHESLEY: Absolute, absolute poppycock. My belief is that if the Union Carbide company, once we achieve a liability verdict, if they're brave enough to let 103,000 people come in and have damages assessed against them, then they're about as ill prepared as Texaco was in the recent $10 billion case. That's what we call window dressing or shop talk. Quite candidly, there isn't a sophisticated corporation in the world, once liability is established and if punitive conduct is established, that would be crazy enough to put their whole corporation on the line and have damage cases against them. I would take that gamble. In other words, I challenge them, if they want to -- after we win liability, and they want us to bring them here one by one to try it, we'd take that. It'll never happen. The case will settle far before then.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Elizabeth?

BRACKETT:

Union Carbide executives and lawyers declined our invitation to appear tonight. But here to outline their legal arguments is Victor Schwartz, a Washington attorney who defends corporations in similar personal injury cases.

Mr. Schwartz, most people say that Union Carbide wants that trial in India because the damages would be much less, would cost them much less.

VICTOR SCHWARTZ: Well, I think there's common sense involved here. All the people that were hurt lived in India. Almost all of them were Indian citizens. We have thousands of documents involved in this case. Most of them are in India. A lot of them are in language and dialect pertinent to the Indian country. The court systems there, where you have the government itself being the principal party and the party of greatest concern, can act. They've already passed a statute that will enable us to do so. I think if somebody heard about this a few years ago, they'd dismiss it as not having any common sense at all.

BRACKETT: But is it not correct that it will cost -- if the case is moved to India, and the judge is going to make that decision apparently in several weeks after the hearing today, won't it cost Union Carbide much less? Won't those damage awards be less in India than in the United States?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: They well could be. The damages for pain and suffering, as Mr. Chesley points out, are not as high in most foreign countries. But it's a question of whether we want to export our personal injury system. Are we proud of this and we want to export it all around the world, where there's a tangential connection with the facts of the case? Let's assume in another country that the damages would be higher. Would we then say, okay, we're going to hold the hearing in another country? I think we ought to get away from the issue of where the damages would be higher and look at the document the court is focusing on, which is a fancy Latin name called forum non conveniens.

BRACKETT: Meaning it's more convenient to try the case in India.

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Right. Where is it more convenient?

BRACKETT: Let me ask you, would the parent company of Union Carbide be liable if that case is moved to India? Apparently the parent company, the one here in the United States, has assets of $10.5 billion, which would be accessible for damage claims, but Union Carbide in India has assets of only $70 million. How much does that play in this?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, I think the facts are going to be determined theoretically the same way in either place, and if a finding is made that somehow the parent was responsible for acts of the subsidiary, that factual finding would be made the same in India as it would in the United States. In fact, in India they'd be more inclined, I think, to try to protect their own citizens, and if there's a tilt it's going to be more for the injured persons in their own country.

BRACKETT: Can the Indian legal system handle this case?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, the Supreme Court justice of India has said the courts can work. Most Indian scholars say the courts can work. And just think about it, again common sense. In a country a lot of people are killed. Can't the government open up its court system so that the people that have been hurt in that country can receive compensation? I think they can.

BRACKETT: All right, Robin? Back to you in New York.

MacNEIL: Yes. Mr. Chesley, how do you answer that?

Mr. CHESLEY: Well, there's one thing that Mr. Schwartz forgets. A plaintiff has a right to bring its forum -- to bring a case where he wants, he or she wants. There is no mystery here. Union Carbide had control of this company, of this operation. It's their technology --

MacNEIL: It owned 51 of the --

Mr. CHESLEY: Well, more importantly, the development of the technology of storing vast amounts of the world's most dangerous chemicals, that decision was not made in India; that decision was made in the United States. The entire technological package -- how to do it, the technological skills, the people that put that plant together, the people that trained it, as late as 1982 they went to the Indian government -- this was Union Carbide of India -- and said it is necessary that we have Union Carbide in America to work with us because they understand the safety.

MacNEIL: Okay, let's put that point to Mr. Schwartz, that Union Carbide was in control, the parent company was in control and responsible; therefore it should be heard here.

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, all the employees, all the boards of directors in that plant were Indians. The Indian government insisted on that type of control. They insisted on autonomy in details of the operations of the plant. Design plans were temporary design plans made years ago. The modifications, the changes, and what happened on that particular day was known by people who are there and present, not somebody who's 18 hours' flight time away.

MacNEIL: So it's how it was operated, not how --

Mr. CHESLEY: Well, I wish Mr. Homan was here and not Mr. Schwartz, because Mr. Homan has been working with the documents and I don't want to discuss evidence. The only thing I want to discuss today is what transpired in court, but Mr. Schwartz is incorrect. He is totally incorrect. Mr. Rahfield, who is executive vice president of Union Carbide of America, testified under oath that he was on the board of directors of Union Carbide of India. And I don't want to get into the factual aspects, but clearly the control, all of the control -- for example, in 1984, Union Carbide wanted to dismantle this plant, prior to this incident. And this was in May, June, July, August and October to dismantle this entire plant because it wasn't profitable. And who do you think made the decision to dismantle? That decision process was made in the United States without anybody being there from Union Carbide of India.

MacNEIL: Mr. Chesley, let me ask you another point that is frequently raised in this argument, is that you lawyers, who are American lawyers, who are representing the Indian plaintiffs, want the case here, not only because the damage rewards will be larger here, but because your contingency fees, which wouldn't obtain in India, will profit you?

Mr. CHESLEY: Let me put that to rest. That's the great bogey man that's been advanced by the insurance industry, who Mr. Schwartz does a lot of lobbying for. The bottom line is we have submitted today and have always submitted that as to any and all attorneys' fees we should be at the sole discretion of Judge Keenan. And we will abide by whatever fee awards he deems to be appropriate. We are not looking for contingency fees. There is risk. The question was asked today, how will we advance the costs to try this case, how will we transport those witnesses that are necessary? And I stated to the court and I state -- just reaffirm that we will pay them; that's part of the contingency factor and the risk. But more importantly, the fees that -- any fees that are going to be generated out of this case will be paid for based solely upon the discretion of the federal court.

MacNEIL: Mr. Schwartz, does that satisfy you in that matter?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Not at all. If things were reversed and India had the contingent fee system and we didn't, you can bet your bottom dollar, and the American public knows this, that the plaintiffs' lawyers would be over in India trying the cases there. It's the damages and the fees that were the motivation for people to travel thousands of miles to pick up cases that have nothing to do with the United States of America, and that was the prime motive, and common sense dictates it.

Mr. CHESLEY: I don't know, I've never been to India, Mr. Schwartz, and I've yet to go there.

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, somebody went over there to get your contingency sign-up, some people who couldn't speak English and many didn't know what they were even signing.

Mr. CHESLEY: Mr. Schwartz, I don't have any contingency fee contracts. I've been asked to get into this case because of our experience, having been involved in mass disaster. The one thing that you do not want to touch base with is the reality that the name of the plant over there is Union Carbide. It has the diamond shape. It is Union Carbide. It is the technology that was sent by the United States corporation, a multinational corporation, over there to create the world's worst industrial disaster. And therefore they must pay the piper here in the United States.

MacNEIL: Brief comment, Mr. Schwartz?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, the company over there is a wholly independent operating subsidiary. And I say again, if India had the contingency and we didn't, and India had the full and rich damage awards that are in the United States, the position of Mr. Chesley, I submit, and many plaintiffs' lawyers, would be totally reversed.

MacNEIL: Let's get another view of the legal maneuvering. We have another lawyer, but this one makes his living as a legal journalist. He is Stephen Adler, executive editor of the magazine The American Lawyer. He's been to Bhopal and has written extensively on the tragedy.

Mr. Adler, how critical is this issue and which side has the most at stake in it?

STEPHEN ADLER: I think it's critical in the sense that the amount of money, and I think we're really talking about money. I think if the two sides don't want to say it's money there, they're not being totally candid with us. The point is that if the case is handled in India, the great likelihood is that the judgments will be on the order of perhaps of $50 million. That's Union Carbide's own estimates. They looked at insurance records for the number of different accidents that took place in India, and although there have been almost no lawsuits involved, the Indian government itself has provided money in some of these cases. And they found that the amount paid per wrongful death in these cases was sometimes $500, sometimes it was $700, sometimes it was $1,000. In the United States you just don't talk on that level of money. So it just makes an enormous difference, and the main thing that makes a difference is the amount of money.

MacNEIL: You were in the hearing today. Do you have an educated guess as to how the judge will decide?

Mr. ADLER: I think the judge probably wants to keep it here. It's a big case.

MacNEIL: Why?

Mr. ADLER: Well, it's an important case, and it's one which I think if he keeps a handle on, he can push towards settlement. If he lets it out of his hands, if he lets it into India, there's a real likelihood it'll take 10, 15, 20 years. That's certainly the record in the Indian legal system. If he leaves it here --

MacNEIL: Despite Mr. Schwartz' point that with the Indian government firmly behind this and with an interest in it, that it could be -- move more expeditiously through their system?

Mr. ADLER: I think the theory and the practice is very different in this case. If you go to the court in Bhopal, which I've done, and you sit there, you really don't believe it. You don't believe that the system is capable of handling it.

MacNEIL: Describe it.

Mr. ADLER: Well, it was a small room and there were maybe 200 victims of the Bhopal accident sitting on the floor, and there were ceiling fans and flies all around. And the victims were seeking what they called interim relief. They were trying to get just money in the short term. And Carbide was arguing in Indian court that the complaints were inadequate because the people were illiterate. They were saying the people didn't understand the complaints that they had filed and therefore that the complaints themselves should be thrown out. And the Indian legal system is very amenable to that type of technical argument. It's a system which is very form-oriented, and very technically oriented, and Carbide will go in there and will make every procedural argument imaginable, some of which are not available in the U.S. system. The system's very slow -- they use manual typewriters to keep the records, there's no computerization of the system in Bhopal. When I asked for some of the records, the clerk pulled down these huge sheets of paper from the back file that were coated with dust. It doesn't give you the impression of a system that could handle this number of cases and they can do it adequately. And Bhopal is the place where -- that would have jurisdiction in this case.

MacNEIL: You've observed this case and written about it. Should it have been settled before, now in your view?

Mr. ADLER: Yeah. I mean, to me the big question isn't where it's going to be but why it's taken a year to settle. And I think that --

MacNEIL: Why hasn't it?

Mr. ADLER: Well, I think it's both sides' fault, frankly. And I think that the plaintiffs' lawyers, the American plaintiffs' lawyers, are in it for the fee. And I think that's a good thing, to one degree. They went over there, they got interested in it and they put the world's attention on it, which might not have been there otherwise. Union Carbide has a great incentive to delay. The later you pay the money, the less it costs you and the more possible different things that could happen that would make it more difficult to have to pay the bills. And the plaintiffs' lawyers I think want to run up a fee. Now, I mean, I'd like to challenge Mr. Chesley as to why they couldn't come up with a settlement or something on the order of $300 million? Let me just say why $300 million. If you take $300 million and you divide it among the victims, you could provide something like $15,000, let's say, for a wage earner who had been killed. And that would provide something like $100 a month in interest for the rest of their lives. It's not a lot of money compared to what they're all talking about, but it would be maybe three times what that wage earner would have earned for his entire life. And I don't understand why the American plaintiffs' lawyers can't come through with a settlement on that order.

MacNEIL: Why not?

Mr. CHESLEY: You have me on one disadvantage, and the disadvantage is that I will not discuss settlement or what the figures are. I am a member of an executive committee, and I feel that that is a confidential thing which the court has --

MacNEIL: Well, on the principle. I mean, why couldn't there have been a quick interim settlement?

Mr. CHESLEY: Because the bottom line is Union Carbide is unwilling. They talk in terms of compassion and they talk in terms of compensation, but I think Mr. Adler put it right. They then go into an Indian court and delay everything. Do not be fooled for one moment and do not believe that just because Union Carbide has said since December or January that they have a moral obligation and they want to pay full and fair damages -- do not be deceived, because the same company went out and hired Indian experts to pay them to come forward and say that the value of the case is $40 to $48 million. The bottom line is, at that time that Union Carbide is willing to pay fair compensation -- we're talking about a compromise between what we would get in a courtroom and what is fair compensation -- the plaintiffs' committee is ready, willing and able to sit down and will continue to sit down. Whatwe find in these mass disasters, Robin, is that for some reason, and the bottom line is, the person who holds the money the longest gets to keep it the longest. For some reason there is no incentive for Union Carbide to pay now.

MacNEIL: Mr. Schwartz, what's your view of that?

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, I think that the whole system has been one where there's been delay because of this issue being thrown into litigation. And you have litigators on both sides. Time means more money for the attorneys. Filing it here, with cases all over the United States, has done nothing but delay the situation. What we have done if we have the cases here is that we will have a situation if somebody's injured on a stepladder in Japan, they'll sue here if it's an American stepladder. If it were not such able lawyers to create smokescreens, people would find the whole situation just laughable.

Mr. ADLER: That fact is, however, that in India there are almost no suits in personal injury cases. And to defend the American lawyers as far as I think they should be defended, their going over there put enormous pressure on the Indian system. There've been train wrecks, there've been floods; there haven't been lawsuits, and nobody's collected any money. In this case the Indian government was pressured by the American lawyers to set up a legal aid system, to waive filing fees, to get involved, and to make it clear that just politically they had a responsibility to do this.

MacNEIL: What about the point Mr. Schwartz just made, that if this case goes to American courts, anybody who falls off an American-made stepladder in Japan is going to be suing in American courts and with enormous consequences down the line?

Mr. CHESLEY: Nonsense. The economics do not dictate for lawyers, good lawyers, to go around and sue the United States and take all of the discovery necessary to try that case based on the stepladder. It's the old game of red herring, and the best red herring was pointed out by Mr. Schwartz when he says that there's these delays. I know of no mass disaster case that has ever been resolved within a year.

MacNEIL: Let's ask Mr. Schwartz about that.

Mr. SCHWARTZ: Well, mass disaster cases do delay in this country and they do delay in India. And I think if the government of a country where 2,000 of its citizens, just about, have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have been injured, can't get a thing moving, that we've reached a point in our society where we have to become the personal injury capital of the world. That does not seem an appropriate place --

Mr. CHESLEY: That's nonsense.

MacNEIL: Gentlemen, I'd like to hear more, but I'm afraid that is the end of our time this evening. Mr. Schwartz in Washington, Mr. Adler and Mr. Chesley in New York, thank you. Elizabeth?

BRACKETT: Turning to a last look at the top stories this Friday, President Reagan met with Mexico's president and warned of drugs and terrorism. The State Department told Americans in Libya they are in danger. Philippines President Marcos said on this program that violence might invalidate next month's elections. And the West Virginia prison takeover has ended. The final hostages were released safely. Three prisoners died in the two-and-a-half-day takeover.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Elizabeth. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.