The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Democratic candidate Jesse Jackson saw Syrian President Assad today and asked him to release the captured Navy Flier Robert Goodman. We'll have a report. With two top political strategists, Robert Strauss and John Sears, we look at the political fallout from Lebanon for President Reagan and his Democratic rivals. We'll also try to answer practical questions consumers have about the phone company breakup. Jim Lehrer is off; Judy Woodruff's in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Also tonight we go behind the weekend's headlines to interpret events in Nigeria, where a military government has taken over. And we get a report from Charles Krause on the problems of refugees in El Salvador.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: For adults, no privacy; for most children, no toys.

WOODRUFF: And tonight we end with an economic interview that may be unlike any other done in 1984.

MacNEIL: The Reverend Jesse Jackson spent 90 minutes with Syrian President Hafez Assad today and said afterwards that Assad would decide later whether to release Lieutenant Robert Goodman, the captured U.S. Navy airman. Beforehand, Jackson had said he would appeal to Assad to make a humanitarian gesture that he said would contribute to a process now going on within our nation to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Jackson and his party saw Goodman on Saturday. The airman said he was being treated well and wanted only a ticket to go home. After the meeting Jackson spent a day waiting for a chance to make a personal plea for Goodman's release. The chance came today and the meeting began with a cordial greeting from the Syrian president at a villa 10 miles outside Damascus where Assad has been recovering from a recent heart attack. The meeting was scheduled to last for half an hour, but it went on for an hour and a half. Afterwards, Jackson refused to give any details to reporters, saying only that the negotiations were at a very sensitive stage. And the pictures of the meeting showed clearly that President Assad is looking vigorous and is apparently in good health despite rumors that his illness was a very serious one. Jackson was scheduled to leave Damascus early Tuesday morning, but late today he said Syrian officials had asked him to stay and he has agreed to stay on while the Syrians consider his request to free Coodman.

France announced today that it was reducing its part of the multinational force in Beirut by transferring 482 soldiers back to the United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. That would cut the 2,000-man French force in Beirut by about a fourth. The French military headquarters there was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade today, but no one was injured. Yesterday a bomb gutted the French cultural center in the northern city of Tripoli. In southern Lebanon today Israel reopened the checkpoint at the Awali River bridge, which had been closed for three days following a series of attacks on Israeli positions. Israel said it had closed the bridge and two other crossing points to cool down the local lebanese population. Judy?

WOODRUFF: President Reagan ended his six-day California vacation day and flew back to Washington in what his aides desribed as an upbeat mood as he nears the announcement later this month that most expect will confirm he's running for a second term. The president arrived at the White House this afternoon by helicopter, refusing to stop to talk with reporters. He has a meeting scheduled tomorrow with his foreign policy advisers and his special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld. They're to discuss some new ideas about the U.S. role in Lebanon and that Pentagon report on the Marine presence there.

The President returns to a Washington much more skeptical about his policy in the Middle East than it was just a few weeks ago. Over the weekend the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president, Walter Mondale, switched his position and called for Mr. Reagan to pull the Marines out of Beirut. Mondale accused the President of pursuing a policy of illusion that has made the Mideast far more dangerous than it was three years ago. The former Vice President said he had concluded, after reading the Pentagon report on the Beirut terrorist truck bombing, that the Marines can neither fight nor keep the peace nor defend themselves.In an interview published just a week earlier, Mondale had said he would not pull the troops out of Lebanon right now.

On Capitol Hill plans are going ahead for House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill to meet tomorrow with a group of House Democrats he's calling his Lebanon Monitoring Group. They will reassess their decision last fall to support the Marines staying in Lebanon for 18 months. Speculation is running high that they may call for withdrawal much earlier in the wake of that Pentagon report.

All this is in line with another in a number of public opinion polls that indicate the American people are giving Mr. Reagan credit for an improvement in the economy but are still concerned about his foreign policy. A Harris poll conducted last month shows a sharp drop in the percentage of hose people critical of the President's handling of the economy, from 69% critical a year ago to 53% critical now. But the 54% who didn't approve of the President's performance on foreign policy and defense issues a year ago has now grown to 58%. However, another poll conducted in November reflects quite good news for Mr. Reagan. That is that the attitude of Americans about the future is significantly more optimistic than it was at this point in the Carter administration. When people were asked to rank the way things are going in the United States on a scale of one to 10, in 1979 the past was given a better rating than the future, with the future rated a 4.31, while just last month the future outlook was better than the past. The future rated at 6.13.

Robin? Jackson's Syrian Trip

MacNEIL: The sudden change in Mondale's position, the wide publicity given to Jesse Jackson's trip to Damascus, underscored the strong political calculation that runs through the Lebanese situation for Mr. Reagan and the Democrats. And not only Lebanon. How will other foreign policy issues like arms control and Central America affect the early months of the 1984 election? We're going to analyze the political factors now with two veteran political strategists. On the Republican side, John Sears, former Reagan campaign manager; and Robert Strauss, former national chairman for the Democrats and a chief architect of the Carter presidential campaign. Starting with you, Mr. Sears, is Lebanon showing signs of becoming a political liability for Mr. Reagan?

JOHN SEARS: I don't really think you can say that yet, Robin. I think that the Middle East is an obviously different situation from many of the other foreign policy matters that have been involved in national politics in the past. It's a very difficult situation, but very frankly, no one has come up with a better solution at the moment, and I think the American people will rest with the President until they see what happens.

MacNEIL: Mr. Strauss, are the Democrats in the early months, if Mr. Reagan does not change his policy, going to be able to make any political headway with the situation in Lebanon?

ROBERT STRAUSS: Yes, I suspect that it will be a political albatross for the President. I disagree with John a little on that. I think that the American people, while President Reagan has had a -- he had a good 1983 politically, I think these foreign policy issues are beginning to crowd him a bit now, and I suspect until he develops a policy or a strategy that the American people can understand, then he's going to have continuing trouble in the Middle East and in other areas as well.

MacNEIL: Mr. Sears, could Mr. Reagan go into the election with the Marines still in Lebanon in a situation roughly the same as it is now?

Mr. SEARS: I think he could do that if he had to. Obviously he would prefer not to. I think one of the greatest problems the President has on this issue is to extract the Marines without it looking as though the Americans are losing face. If he's unable to do that, he'll lose one way or the other on the issue. However, I really do think that at the moment the fact that there is no coordinated opposing position among the Democratic candidates is what's helping the President to gain support for his own stance.

MacNEIL: What's the significance of Mr. Mondale's change of mind, do you think?

Mr. SEARS: Well, I take this as a coordinated attempt, given what I suspect will happen on the Hill, for the Democratic Party to at least go on record early as calling for the removal of the Marines and hoping, in other words, that over the next nine months or so conditions deteriorate there, and therefore they have taken a position early on that might be preferable to the President's. It's a risk that they're taking.

MacNEIL: Is that what the Democrats are doing, Mr. Strauss?

Mr. STRAUSS: Well, I don't think the Democrats really are very coordinated. You know, parties out of office in an election year really aren't very coordinated. They always have a number of candidates and a number of positions growing out of those candidates. But I suspect that you're going to see more and more people, not just in the Democratic Party -- I might remind you that the President's leader, Bob Michel, in the House, has called for the removal of the Marines from Lebanon, as have others in the Republican Party. So the President has serious problems on that, not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. I think, strangely enough, a president can go into an election with a situation like the Marines in Lebanon if he articulates to the American -- first, if he develops a strategy and has a mission for them and can explain to the American people and the people stay with you. This President hasn't been able to do that in Lebanon, and that's the reason he's taken the worst of it. And deservedly so, I suspect.

MacNEIL: Mr. Sears, do you have a comment on that?

Mr. SEARS: Well, I think that again the key question is whether some Democratic opponent of the President's can articulate a solution to the situation over there that would sound superior to the people. No one has done that, and under those circumstances, I do think the people will trust the President in regard to what he's trying to do.

MacNEIL: Both of you gentlemen are political pros. What is the -- what are the pros and cons politically for Jesse Jackson in having gained all this publicity with his trip to Lebanon? Mr. Strauss? To Damascus. Mr. Strauss?

Mr. STRAUSS: Oh, I don't know. I wouldn't evalute that now. He's obviously captured the press and he's got a big story and he's playing it. He -- there is a drama to it; there's an emotional appeal there, and who knows? He may be successful. I don't know. I wouldn't want to pass judgment on it right now, either on the merits or demerits of his going or on his results. It isn't the kind of diplomacy what we're accustomed to expecting in this country, but he may get some results. We'll see.

MacNEIL: What do you think about it, Mr. Sears?

Mr. SEARS: Well, Mr. Jackson has succeeded in grabbing a great deal of public attention not only over this trip but the rest of what he's been doing. I think that's an indication of the lack of interest somewhat on the Democratic side among all the contenders. Mr. Jackson is in a position where, being a long shot, he can afford to take chances that other people with more substantial support might not be able to do. But so far he's carried off some of his activities quite well. The political difficulty this causes, I think, inside the Democratic Party is that the people who trail Mr. Mondale greatly need the kind of publicity that Mr. Jackson is getting, yet he's occupying the public attention right at the moment.

MacNEIL: Turning to another area, foreign policy, Mr. Strauss, you happen to be member of the President's commission on Central America. Is that commission report, which is due out very soon, going to neutralize central America as a political issue for the President?

Mr. STRAUSS: Oh, I suspect not. I think that the report will be out very shortly. I've been reading accounts in the press, leaked accounts, someway they get there, that everything is sweetness and light there and they've pretty well settled on a number of issues, the key issues. The simple truth of the matter is the commission hasn't taken any votes yet, and on a number of things I've seen reported in the press, things that the commission is supporting, I for one am a long way from supporting. We're just beginning to start this week in voting, and I'm a long way from being sanguine about where we're going and satisfied in a number of areas. These are strong people on that commission; they're good people.And Henry Kissinger has done a splendid job of chairing it, I might add, but there are strong-willed people in there and the disagreements are on very serious issues, and they run deep.

MacNEIL: What are the disagreements over?

Mr. STRAUSS: Well, I don't want to -- I said before I got into this, I wasn't going to do any commenting to the press on Central America [before] the commission report came out; I just kind of wanted to knock down those stories. But the obvious issues you would expect, and they don't really break down particularly on partisan lines, political partisan lines. They break down on individual lines. So we've got a long way to go and we're working very hard and the people are all trying very hard and I'm very hopeful. But these press accounts that this thing is in the final stage of being wrapped up are grossly exaggerated and --

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: While most predictions now are that foreign policy will play a larger than expected role in the presidential election this year, the state of the economy is sure to be part of the debate as well, and for right now at least it's playing to the advantage of President Reagan. New statistics released today on the U.S. industrial outlook for 1984 are in line with other optimistic economic indicators. This report, put out by the government's Commerce Department, says that business will get better this year for almost 90% of the nation's manufacturing industries, including even steel mills. But it points out that foreign competition will continue to plague the auto and machinery industries, and says that many workers laid off during the recession will never get their jobs back. Well, to continue talking with you, Mr. Sears and you, Mr. Strauss, how much mileage can the President get out of the economy?

Mr. STRAUSS: Well, I think it's not that the President gets so much mileage out of it, Judy; if the economy hadn't turned around, he was in dire straits. It has turned around and it's helped him a great deal politically, but overall politically the President -- you have to remember a Republican president works with a very narrow margin to move around in. He has -- first, the Republican Party is the minority party of the two and, second, this President is a member of the pretty far right of that party.And he can't stand politically, he doesn't have the maneuverability and much room to maneuver in, so he needs that economy turned around to give him anything to run with.

WOODRUFF: What do you think, Mr. Sears? Do you think it's an unmixed blessing for him?

Mr. SEARS: Oh, definitely. The recovery of the economy certainly has helped the President immeasurably, it will help him through 1984 if it continues. I don't think that means there won't be issues in the 1984 election.All it means is they will be different issues than we might have expected without a recovery in the economy.

WOODRUFF: But we still have, as you know, have a $200-billion deficit. Are the Democrats going to be able to exploit that in any way?

Mr. STRAUSS: Judy, I don't think -- oh, excuse me, go ahead.

Mr. SEARS: Well, over the years it has been the Democratic Party which has come to the elections with large deficits. This is a bigger one, but I think it would be difficult for the Democrats to depend upon their ability to exploit a deficit to win the election.

Mr. STRAUSS: I don't think--

WOODRUFF: Do people really care about the deficit?

Mr. STRAUSS: I was going to make that point. I'll let you ask me. People really aren't interested in paying attention to the deficit in this country. The business community pays attention to the deficits; bankers do. Most of them vote Republican anyway, and they should pay attention to it. It frightens me to death. It alarms everyone, whether -- it makes no difference who runs them up. It's an unhealthy situation. But I don't think that deficit is going to defeat a president.

WOODRUFF: But there are polls that are showing that there's a real split out there among people of different invome levels, that the poor, the people at the lower end of the income scale are much less favorably disposed to support the President than are those in the upper-income levels. Is there a real economic split in this country that the Democrats can exploit?

Mr. SEARS: Well, I think already there are groups of people who have not recovered in this recovery who I can expect will vote Democratic, and I doubt if that will change very much by Election Day. They aren't enough to beat President Reagan, but the difficulty the President has is if the economy becomes more mixed because he can't shop, as Bob was indicating before, very widely for extra votes. So he does depend a great deal on sustaining a recovery in the economy. Now, the real problem in the economy is really not the deficits, but for instance, if interest rates went up again. Now, that would become a political problem that would hurt the President rather badly. There are other examples of that.

WOODRUFF: What about the Democrats, Mr. Strauss? Does Mondale have it sewed up?

Mr. STRAUSS: Oh, no.Overnight's the last time in politics, Judy, and you can go back from '64 on, young as you are, and remember that these things change in the primaries. Walter Mondale is obviously far ahead. John Glenn has obviously been a disappointment to his supporters in not being closer or ahead of him right now.

WOODRUFF: Well, how do you --

Mr. STRAUSS: And Glenn sort of keeps -- but he provides sort of a damper, Glenn does, on the others getting much attention, and now you have Jesse Jackson getting into this thing, so it looks good for Mondale. But he has a long was to go, and a lot can happen.

WOODRUFF: How do you see the scenario playing itself out through these early caucuses and primaries? Do you see some of the dark horses dropping out or will they hang in there util the convention, or?

Mr. SEARS: Well, you don't really have that option. The minute the first few events are over with a whole lot of people, whether they like to or nor, have to get out. They can't raise any money under the system that we presently have. So I expect that this'll be down to basically a two, possibly three-man race after the first few events, with the winner of those events having the better of it from there on out.

WOODRUFF: What's going to distinguish the presidential election of 1984 from other presidential elections? Is there something that's going to make it seem different?

Mr. STRAUSS: Judy, people always think there's something new that's taking place this particular election year, but if you look back it's always the same. Four years ago the incumbent was a Democrat and you had half a dozen or more Republicans traveling around the country, and they were having a difficult time getting their act together and they weren't unified and people talked about the great splits in the party and John had to deal with that kind of problem. And I was helping the President in the White House; we didn't have that kind of problem. The same thing's true now; they're just wearing different hats. And this looks very much like the others. I do think that the --

WOODRUFF: But you do have a President, and We've alluded to this earlier, who in his third year in the White House is more popular than presidents tend to be.

Mr. STRAUSS: Well, there's no question, but presidential popularity goes up and comes down, and this President, I've said, is having a good year. He is riding a good wave right now, but a few months can make an awful lot of difference, Judy, and it can make a lot of --

WOODRUFF: But you would agree it's going to -- that he's --

Mr. STRAUSS: Oh, I think the President is in good shape to go into an election year. I said that. He's had a good year. They handle him very will. The White House is very good politically. They keep him away from bad news, and they've let him -- they structure him well for the good news.But the American public is fickle, and they move pretty quickly from one to the other, and you'll see those polls go up and down a couple of more times before we get into real serious fall politics.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Sears, to you think the President is -- do you think he's got it locked up? The conventional wisdom is now that it's going to be very difficult to beat Ronald Reagan, assuming he runs.

Mr. SEARS: Well, as Bob's indicating, we're sitting here at the very beginning of the year when the conventional wisdom doesn't mean very much, as do not the polls, really. People won't get serious about this until some time this summer; the first polls that'll at all be meaningful will be taken in September, and we'll see what they look like then. There's no doubt the President, being the incumbent, comes into this race not only with the great advantage of his own personal popularity but the office behind him, which is a great political advantage. But it's very, very early to say that anybody has anything locked up.

WOODRUFF: Well, what would you say his great vulnerabilities are? If you were telling Walter Mondale what to do right now, assuming he's the nominee, or whoever the nominee is, what would you tell him?

Mr. SEARS: Well, I probably would have told him a lot of other things than he has evidently heard up until now. His basic problem, in my view, is that he's coming at the race too far to the left even in his own party to be able to approach the vast middle, which is what you have to win in the general election. And he longer he spends dallying with the special interests to the left in his own party, the more time it will take him to make whatever move is necessary by fall. So if I were to speak to him today, I would tell him to move right now. Assume that you're going to be nominated. Take some risks with that, but make it to the center by June.

WOODRUFF: And if you had some advice?

Mr. STRAUSS: Well, I would remind you that Ronald Reagan was running from the right as a right-wing candidate at this time four years ago, and well into the primaries, and he shifted to a centrist candidacy, just as John has said. And I think it takes a centrist candidate to win in this country, and getting the nomination is one problem for a candidate. Winning an election is another problem, and as John says, somewhere along the road Walter Mondale must run a national compaign instead of a campaign to get the nomination. He, or whoever does get it.

WOODRUFF: So you disagree with is strategy, you're telling me?

Mr. STRAUSS: No, I don't disagree with it. I think they've done exceedingly well, and I think that those polls show that he has. It isn't my opinion, it's a historical fact. If you look at poll after poll after poll, Walter Mondale is doing very well.The others have not been able to lay a glove on him. Whether they will or not -- there's a great risk that they will, and that's what he has to be concerned about.

WOODRUFF: All right, thank you both, Bob Strauss and John Sears, for being with us.

Mr. STRAUSS: Nice being here.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: At the Justice Department an official said today that President Reagan has agreed to ask for a $200-million increase in the Department's budget for the 1985 fiscal year which begins next October 1st. That would be an increase of about 6% and the official said most of it would go into law enforcement, including 250 more FBI agents and a smaller number of drug enforcement agents. Some of the money will also go into building additions to federal prisons.

And we'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- New York, New York] Refugees in Salvador

WOODRUFF: A report out of Miami lays the blame for most of the unrest in Latin America to economic problems, not outside subversion. The report calls on the united States to send more aid to the Latin countries and to give them more favorable treatment on trade, all in order to help them reduce their multi-billion-dollar debts. The report, prepared by a group of economists, college professors and business executives, accuses the Reagan administration of creating a permanently sick continent on the U.S. doorstep. It also suggests that aid and the support for Latin governments should be conditioned on a respect for human rights. It went on to recommend that the Reagan administration inform Moscow and Havana that Latin America's problems cannot be exploited to the detriment of U.S. interests.

In Havana, Cuba's President Fidel Castro has made a speech sharply critical of the President. At ceremonies marking the 25th anniversary of the Cuban revolution, he accused Mr. Reagan of pursuing policies that he said are warlike, adventurous and irresponsible.

Still more criticism of the Reagan administration from a third source: another report released today on Latin America singles out Guatemala and El Salvador as the worst human rights violators for the fourth straight year. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs says that more than 10,000 civilians died of political violence in both countries in 1983, most of them victims of security forces and so-called right-wing death squads. The report indicates the Reagan administration is partly to blame in that it's had a policy of carrying a big stick against relatively minor human rights violations by leftist regimes while glossing over or lightly admonishing crimes by Washington's allies in Central America.

A team from the State Department and the Agency for International Development is scheduled to travel to El Salvador later this month to examine the refugee problem that is a by product of the civil war there. Last year the U.S. earmarked some $5 million for Salvadoran refugees. Next year that figure is expected to climb to around $15 million. Refugees in Salvador face the same problems confronting refugees anywhere in the world -- crowded conditions, despair and an uncertain future. However, because of a civil war, refugees and those who care for them in Salvador face a different problem. Their political loyalties are often considered suspect by the government, who fears that they are assisting the rebels.

Charles Krause has a report from El Salvador.

CHARLES KRAUSE [voice-over]: As in any war, the fighting in El Salvador has produced its own set of grim statistics. Forty thousand men, counting both government soldiers and guerrillas under arms. Billions diverted from needed economic development for guns and ammunition. Thirty to forty thousand killed, mostly civilians, since the fighting began three years ago. Whole towns abandoned or destroyed.But there is one statistic that overwhelms the others in terms of numbers and day-to-day human suffering. That statistic is the number of refugees -- 400- to 500,000 by official count -- who have been forced from their homes, their land and their families because of the continuing violence.

Most of the refugees are innocent victims of the war. Some are the wives and children of guerrilla fighters. But all the refugees are in danger because all are under suspicion. Although they've escaped the fighting, they haven't escaped the passions or the politics that fuel the conflict. Tens of thousands have sought refuge, most in government camps, others in camps like the one we visited, called Fe y Esperanza, "Faith and Hope," it's run by the Lutheran Church of El Salvador with help from Lutheran church groups in Europe and the United States.

Six-hundred-fifty refugees live here, crowded into buildings that have the look of human warehouses. Fe y Esperanza is considered one of the better camps in El Salvador. It's small; there's enough food; it's relatively clean and well cared for. But there are no beds. People here sleep in hammocks or on the hard cement floor. There are few chairs, no storage bins. For adults, no privacy; for most children, no toys.

Some of the refugees have been in the camp for almost two years. Most are women, here without their husbands. Fe y Esperanza is well organized.Most adults have assigned duties in the kitchen, in the laundry, or in the chicken coop, which provides the refugees with their only luxury -- a chicken dinner once a week. But life at Fe y Esperanza is monotonous. The women often become lethargic and depressed, not knowing if their husbands are dead or alive, if they'll ever see them again, if they'll ever be able to leave the camp for home.

Josyane Sechaud is a Swiss nurse who works at the camp.

JOSYANE SECHAUD, nurse: We have a lot of depressed people and some women are just persuaded and they cannot -- they cannot live anymore in this situation. They don't have any privacy. They live all the time together. They never have a moment to be alone. The psychologists come and try to talk with them, but they say, "You cannot do anything for me. All I want is to get out from here."

KRAUSE [voice-over]: But were they to leave the camp the refugees would be risking their lives. Government security forces suspect that those who seek refuge in church-sponsored camps are leftist sympathizers or directly related to the guerrillas. There's some justification for these suspicions. The fence at Fe y Esperanza discourages occasional visits by guerrilla militants -- visits that could endanger the entire camp. It also clearly defines the camp's boundaries to deter government security forces from violating the sanctuary traditionally accorded church property. But the fence provides no protection for those who work with the refugees.

Phil Anderson, a Lutheran minister from Washington, D.C., serves as a liaison between the Lutheran Church of America and the Lutheran Church of El Salvador.

Rev. PHILIP ANDERSON, Lutheran Church, U.S.: We're here at this moment to give some support to the local Lutheran Church at this moment, which has had a few of their people detained by the national police, give some presence to them, moral support, and assist them in finding out if we can get these people freed.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: One of those arrested was the Reverend Jaime Medardo Gomez, titular head of the Lutheran Church in El Salvador. He was released after only three days in custody, reportedly because presidential counselor Edwin Meese, a Lutheran, personally intervened on his behalf with Salvadoran authorities. We asked Pastor Gomez why he had been arrested.

Rev. JAIME MEDARDO, Lutheran Church of El Salvador [through interpreter]: They suspect everyone and the help given to the masses and the poor because those who give the help could be doing so with the idea of directing the poor and training them with anti-social ideas that could result in anti-government attitudes. As a result, the government suspects everyone, including this church and every church that has these programs. They're viewed as dangerous. The government thinks it's possible that the churches are involved in political acts.

DRAUSE: Do you think that the church is being persecuted because it's helping the refugees?

Rev. ANDERSON: I think the government sees that there is a connection between those who help the refugees, the displaced people, bringing them food, medicine and the like. And they think that that aid is going to the people who they consider to be subversive to the government.

KRAUSE: Well, surely you make sure that the food that you bring in here is used by these people, I suppose.

Rev. ANDERSON: We get the food to the people who are in need.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Ernesto Rivas Gallont is El Salvador's ambassador to the United States. We asked him for the government's view of the church's relationship with the FDR-FMLN guerrilla forces fighting in El Salvador.

ERNESTO RIVAS GALLONT, EI Salvador Ambassador to the U.S.: There isn't very much evidence that priests have been involved in actual combat. However, ideologically, ideologically many of them will identify themselves with the philosophy and ideology supported by the FMLN and the FDR. What is important to realize, of course, is the fact that there is a war going on in El Salvador and that the legal army of El Salvador -- my army -- is fighting against an illegal army in El Salvador, and anyone found guilty -- anyone found guilty of collaborating with the enemy should be prosecuted, cecause it's a war. Nobody should have any complaints or qualms about that fact.

KRAUSE: Mr. Ambassador, how does the government distinguish between the refugees who are leftists and the refugees who are not politically involved?

Amb. RIVAS GALLONT: We don't.I mean, there is no -- no one's trying to distinguish between who has sympathies, sympathies with the guerrillas or who doesn't. What we do distinguish is the fact that in some of these camps the terrorists use the camps as safe havens, and they move out in the day to do what they have to do, to plant the terror, and they come back at night. That, of course, we have a right and a duty to prevent.

KRAUSE [voice-over]: Almost inevitably there is a conflict between what the church views as its duty -- helping those who are poor and who suffer -- and what the government of El Salvador views as its duty -- defeating the guerrilla insurgency. The conflict between the church, the government and the guerrillas is fundamental. Both the Lutheran Church and the predominant Catholic Church oppose a military solution to what they view as essentially political problems. The churches believe that El Salvador's government and the left should negotiate an end to the war because more fighting can only mean more death, more destruction, more dislocation and more refugees.

MacNEIL: Over the weekend military leaders in Nigeria seized power from the civilian government in a bloodless coup. Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and a major oil producer.Today, Venezuela's energy minister, Jose Inacio Moreno Leon, said that the coup could set off an oil price war within OPEC, to which both countries belong. He said it was likely the new military government would cut oil prices and raise production. Nigeria was apparently quiet today but was sealed off from the outside world: the borders and airports closed, telecommunications blocked, and a curfew in effect. According to Nigerian radio, the new military ruler, General Muhammed Buhari, announced a crackdown on government corruption and warned that crooked civil servants would be jailed without what he called the nonsenses of legal proceedings. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has more on what Nigeria's new regime is likely to do. Charlayne? Nigerian Coup

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Of all the problems facing Nigeria now, the main ones are economic. Africa's most populous nation, with 100 million people living in an area that is roughly twice the size of California, has an economy largely dependent on the sale of oil. Nigerian crude is highly regarded on world markets for its low sulfur content. Nigeria is the second-largest oil supplier to the United States. In 1980, Nigeria earned some $22.4 billion from oil revenues. Mismanagement and the decline of worldwide oil prices sent Nigeria's oil income plummeting to approximately $8 billion in 1983. The country now carries some $14 billion in foreign debt, forcing it to appeal to the international monetary fund for a $2-billion line of credit to prop up the shaky economy. President Shehu Shagari, the country's first elected leader, had been moving to deal with Nigeria's growing economic problems. This past Thursday he unveiled an austerity plan designed to bring Nigeria's economy in line with tough IMF requirements. But Mr. Shagari's government was also criticized for widespread corruption. His replacement, General Buhari, who served as Nigeria's oil minister from 1976 to 1978, is the seventh leader of the country since Nigeria gained its independence from Britain in 1960.

For more on events in Nigeria we talk now with Joe Okpaku, a Nigerian political analyst who heads The Third Press, a publishing house with offices in New York and Lagos, Nigeria. Mr. Okpaku recently returned from a six-month visit to Nigeria and has talked with members of both the Shagari government and the miltiary government that took over Saturday. Mr. Okpaku, how much of a surprise was the coup?

JOSEPH OKPAKU: To Nigerians it came only a little bit perhaps too late. In other words, things have gone wrong long enough in Nigeria that it is pretty much common knowledge that someone had to take over the helm of government.

HUNTER-GAULT: How long?

Mr. OKPAKU: How long? For at least a year and a half to two. The rest of the problems we had in Nigeria, fundamentally there's a problem of a tired presidency. More than anything else. No amount of planning, including the budget addressed a few days ago, would have made a difference but for a virile, aggressive president.

HUNTER-GAULT: But how could that be? I mean, this was Nigeria's first elected president. Just four or five months ago he was elected to a second term. There was no indication that this was about to happen.

Mr. OKPAKU: Well, there are several things, actually. I think the complexity of government, whether in America or in Russia or in the Third World, has counted to call on the presidency as a profession, to some extent. I don't think that the [unintelligible] world looked very closely at a situation were ever really satisfied that Alai Shehu Shagari should in fact have become president in the first place.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what were some of the problems that he just couldn't deal with?

Mr. OKPAKU: Decision-making, for example. Take the economy. There was a time when Shagari simply had to say to his Cabinet, "Look, if you act corruptly one more time, you'll be fired; you'll be tried." He never did that. There were promises even right up to the time of the new [unintelligible] period when people really waited. This coup did not come as something anybody wanted to do. In fact, I think the military did not want to return to power. That's very important in trying to understand the new government. It did not want to return to power.They held back as long as they could.If you go back to General Buhari's statement, they came in because nothing was happening anymore.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what kind of corruption are we talking about? I mean, how serious was it?

Mr. OKPAKU: Oh, it's difficult as a Nigerian to really say that without a feeling of remorse. Substantial. This is not to repeat the allegations of "60 Minutes," really, but to say that -- you see, Nigeria is a country of 100 million people, so to start with it would be difficult way to become a rich country, no matter the substantial revenues from oil. So to the extent that a handful of individuals might have taken for themselves anywhere from 10 to 50 percent of the national revenues you would call it substantial.

HUNTER-GAULT: Did this kind of thing include President Shagari?

Mr. OKPAKU: See, to undertand Shagari you have to understand the very first civilian head of state who was also overthrown, and that's Alhaji Balewa. Is there any virtue in being the only honest head of a corrupt government? That's the problem.

HUNTER-GAULT: So in other words you're saying that there was widespread corruption. It didn't touch the president personally but that you feel he was responsible for not rooting it out?

Mr. OKPAKU: Well, I'm saying the second part; I'm not saying the first p;art. I have no personal knowledge of any corruption by Shagari himself, but it became irrelevant, really.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about his ability to deal with the economic problems? He was moving to institute austere measures to conform to IMF requirements. Why didn't that satisfy the new rulers?

Mr. OKPAKU: Well, I don't think anybody really, towards the end, felt that Alhaji Shagari could make any decisions. I got a summary of the budget address of last week. What is clear was that the problem was one of leadership. You can write a program anywhere in the world, and there's only one man who can execute that program; that's the head of state.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, why is this government -- well, do you expect this government to be more successful in dealing with both the problems of corruption and the problems of the economy more successful than Shagari and why?

Mr. OKPAKU: Well, first of all, for their own sake they'll have to be. Now, in other words, now when the military takes over from a civilian government, the only ther possible next move is military against military. That gets bloody. So also you cannot -- they have the blessing of the people because of the promise to clean out corruption and set the national course back on track. That would have to be done. But also the members of the [unintelligible] council are actually partially a continuity of the last military regime. They are all -- they are all experienced administrators from the head of state himself who, for one thing, handled the petroleum portfolio for three years.

HUNTER-GAULT: He was oil minister.

Mr. OKPAKU: He was oil minister.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, do you feel that this coup ends Nigeria's experiment in democracy or just postpones it?

Mr. OKPAKU: Well, I don't think it's a relevant question for adifferent reason. Democracy really today is more a style than any substantive system of government. I think that we need to update that definition to be functional. What I think will happen is this, that this government will be more responsive to public needs, more responsible in the way that it administers the national objectives, and definitely will have a much broader based support, which are really the functional elements of a democracy.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you expect elections to be held once again any time in the near future?

Mr. OKPAKU: I would hope that they succeed in rectifying the situation and in ensuring next time around that the same people are not allowed to return.

HUNTER-GAULT: We just have 20 seconds and I would like to know, do you expect this government, as the Shagari government was, to be pro-Western and pro-American?

Mr. OKPAKU: To be aggressively Third World, non-aligned, yes.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you, Mr. Okpaku. Judy?

WOODRUFF: In the Persian Gulf, Iraq claimed that its navy and air force destroyed five Iranian naval targets and shot down an Iranian helicopter gunship, but Iran said that its jets shot down two Iraqi warplanes and also claimed to have destroyed an Iraqi missile-launching pad. The Iraqis said they spotted a convoy near an Iranian oil port at the northern end of the Gulf and attacked, destroying four vessels on the spot and one as it tried to get away. The Iranians said they shot down the two Iraqi planes in a dogfightthat began when the Iraqis flew into Iranian airspace.

And while tensions remain high between the United States and the Soviet Union, the so-called hot line between the two countries got a little warmer over the New Year's holiday. The technicians who work on the American side of what is actually a teletype unit in Frederick, Maryland, open 24 hours a day between Washington and Moscow, they sent a friendly message to their counterparts in Russia. It read, in part, "We warmly and sincerely congratulate you on your contribution to the continued success of our joint venture during 1983 and wish you good health, good fortune and great success in your personal lives and endeavors during 1984." The Soviet technicians were expected to respond, but not immediately.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Fidalgo Island, Washington]

WOODRUFF: In his annual report on the nation's courts made public today, Chief Justice Warren Burger said the system may bog down in backlogs and delays unless more federal judgeships are created. He said the United States has fewer judges and more lawyers for each 1,000 people than many advanced European countries. The report, which went to all members of Congress, blamed Congress for not acting to provide new judgeships until the court system was thereatened with collapse. The Chief Justice suggested that at least 51 new trial judges and 24 new appeals judges are needed. At present there are 515 trial judges on the federal bench and 144 on federal appellate courts.

Robin? AT&T Changeover

MacNEIL: Yesterday, New Year's Day, the court-ordered breakup of the telephone system and its parent company, AT&T, took effect. From today, all American telephone users live in a world of choices that raises a number of questions for consumers. If you rent your present phone, it now belongs to AT&T, not your local phone company or its new regional parent company. Would you do better to go on renting or to stop renting and buy your own phone? For long distance, your local phone company won't automatically provide it, and you'll have a choice between AT&T and a number of newer long distance companies like MCI, GTE, Sprint and ITT.Which should you choose? To help us answer some of these questions we have Gene Kimmelman, an expert on consumer issues and telecommunications policy with the organization Congresswatch. Mr. Kimmelman, let's go through some practical questions. First of all, who do you call now if you have trouble with your phone service?

GENE KIMMELMAN: Well, the real question is, what kind of problem you have, and it's difficult for consumers to tell. If there's a problem in the line it's a local company problem, but if there's a problem with the telephone itself you should call whoever you bought it from, either AT&T or the other vendor.

MacNEIL: Coming to whether you own it or rent it in a moment, how do you know whether it's a problem with the phone or a problem with the line?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Well, this is the real difficulty of the breakup. You can't know for sure but the best analogy is to compare it to a light going out in your house. You don't know if it's the bulb or the wires. The best thing to do is put in another bulb. With the telephone, if you have a second telephone you plug that in to see if it works. You can by logic figure out in general whether it's the telephone or the line. The thing to do is be as resourceful as possible because the change from the past is that a local company or AT&T coming out to service your line is going to cost an arm and a leg. So consumers should try to do as much as they can to figure out the problem themselves.

MacNEIL: So it'd be worthwhile having a second phone so you can use it to check?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Yeah. It's a backup and it's becoming more and more important in this new era of competition.

MacNEIL: Now, when does a customer have to do something about the present piece of equipment that's in his home right now?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: You really never have to do anything unless you have a problem or if you're moving. If the equipment is working and you're satisfied with it and you're satisfied with the price, you just leave it the way it is.

MacNEIL: Now, you're satisfied. The phone that's in your house right now presumably belongs to AT&T and most people would be renting it from them.

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Correct.

MacNEIL: Now, what should you do about that? Do you have to do anything?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: You don't have to do anything.

MacNEIL: If you don't do anything, what happens? You get a bill from your local phone company that continues to charge you rental for that, is that right?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: That's correct. It makes sense now to start looking into the option of buying a telephone. The prices of telephones is going down and for the cost of renting a phone for a year or two you could just as well go out and buy one and have it for many years if it's a good quality phone.

MacNEIL: Now, before you decide whether to go and buy a phone, is the cost of renting it, if you do nothing, is that going to go up considerably?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Well, in some states it's going up because of surcharges, like New York. In other states it will remain stable in terms of renting from AT&T. They've already announced their prices. But compared to the price of purchasing a telephone, renting is going to become more and more expensive.

MacNEIL: I see. So okay. You decide that it might be a good deal to go and buy a phone. Who do you buy it from?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Well, here's where you have a choice.You can't get it from your local company anymore unless they have a retail store separate from their service store. Many of them don't. You can buy from AT&T; you can go to other vendors -- Radio Shack, GTE, ITT make telephones. Numerous companies are now getting into the business.

MacNEIL: Department stores are selling them.

Mr. KIMMELMAN: All sorts of stores will be able to sell them and you'll be able to shop around everywhere. The important thing to look for is the price, the warranty that's offered, who will do repairs and how difficult it will be to get repair work. It's a different environment from when the monopoly company would come out and take care of every one of your problems.

MacNEIL: So there are a lot of very cheap phones on the market now, at least low in price phones. Are they risky to buy?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Many of them are risky. You can get a phone for $5 or $10 and I think people should beware that it might be a good backup phone but I wouldn't rely on it as the first phone.

MacNEIL: How does a person find out what's a good phone and what's good, a reliable one?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: It's like any other product. You just have to shop around and really look at the quality of the product itself in terms of just how it looks, what materials go into it, and look at what warranty is being offered. If it's a long warranty you have a pretty good feel that the manufacturer believes it's a good quality product.

MacNEIL: Okay. Now, turning to long distance, you want to make a long distance call and it used to be all AT&T; now there's a choice. What -- how do you know which to choose, and when, for most telephone users, can they begin choosing, in practical terms?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Well, to be most practical about it, today most people cannot get an alternative service. You have to have something other than the normal rotary dial telephone. You have to have a touch-tone phone to get the MCI or GTE, Sprint offerings. So for almost 50% of the population they can't get an alternative.

MacNEIL: Not yet.

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Not yet. Within a year or two it will be available because of the requirements of the consent decree that AT&T filed with the courts. But right now, for the people who have it available, it makes sense if you do considerable long distance calling to look into the alternative long distance companies. Usually they have --

MacNEIL: Why? Because their rates will be lower if you do a lot of calling?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Their rates are lower per minute use. They also have a subscription fee that AT&T does not have now so that if you only make a few calls a month in general it doesn't pay to get the alternative service.

MacNEIL: A subscription fee that your local phone company would charge you to connect you with Sprint or GTE or --

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Well, those companies themselves charge it.

MacNEIL: They charge it directly.

Mr. KIMMELMAN: It would be the same as if the local company charged you.

MacNEIL: When you opt, do you have to opt for one or the other or for the rest of your life can you go on making some long distance calls on AT&T and some on Sprint? Can you shop around day by day as you choose to?

Mr. KIMMELMAN: Well, right now the local company is under a mandate to provide equal access to all these companies by September of 1984, and in some areas, September of '85 and '86. At that point you will be able to choose a primary carrier. In some places you'll only be able to choose one. In other parts of the country for awhile you'll have an option, and for extra-digit dialing you'll be able to have two or three different long distance carriers.

MacNEIL: All right, Mr. Kimmelman, thank you very much. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Turning now to a final look at today's news, Democratic presidential hopeful Jesse Jackson met with Syria's President Assad. Still no word on the release of captured U.S. pilot Robert Goodman.

And Ronald Reagan returned to Washington after his New Year's holiday in California. A key problem of '83, Lebanon and the U.S. Marine force there, tops the President's agenda at a meeting tomorrow.

Political analysts welcome the advent of 1984 as the start of the race to the White House.

The chief justice has issued a call for more federal judges. Justice Burger said at least 75 more federal judges are needed to keep the court system from bogging down in delays.

And the technicians who run the Washington-Moscow hot line sent their counterparts in the Soviet Union a New Year's greeting on the top-secret communications link. No reply as of yet.

Finally, one member of our NewsHour staff conducted an unusual interview on today's edition of the Public Broadcasting System's program, Sesame Street. It was a story about small business, and our reporter went on the air face to face with one of Sesame Street's best-known characters, Oscar the Grouch, who seems to be operating an ice cream store.

MacNEIL: Good morning, Oscar.

OSCAR THE GROUCH: Eh, good morning yourself, pal.

MacNEIL: I see that you're in the ice cream business.

OSCAR: Oh, did you figure that out all by yourself or did Lehrer helpyou? Heh, heh. Of course I'm in the ice cream racket. Why else would I have this sign here that says ice cream?

MacNEIL: Well, you could be in the sign business.

OSCAR: Better watch myself with this guy.

MacNEIL: Well, how is business? Are you selling lots of ice cream?

OSCAR: Oh, hey, business is terrific. Why, as Ralph Waldo Groucherson once said, "If you build a better ice cream flavor, the world will beat a path to our ice cream stand," heh, heh, heh.

MacNEIL: Oscar, I notice that you have a sign that says you have nine delicious flavors of ice cream.

OSCAR: Yeah.

MacNEIL: Do you have a sign that tells us what those flavors are?

OSCAR: Why, of course.

MacNEIL: Well, I don't see it.

OSCAR: Well, that doesn't mean I don't have one.

MacNEIL: Well, could I see it?

OSCAR: What's in it for me?

MacNEIL: Well, if our television audience saw your sign, they might like some of your new flavors and come to Sesame Street and buy a lot of ice cream.

OSCAR: Oh, hey. Since you put it that way, here we are. All right, here's the first flavor: one, salami; two, salmon salad: three, sardine flavor ice cream; four, sauerkraut ice cream; five, sausage ice cream; scallion ice cream is six; seven is sour cream ice cream; eight is spaghetti; and, finally, nine is spare ribs ice cream. That's nine delicious flavors: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Heh, heh, heh.

MacNEIL: You may have nine flavors, Oscar, but they don't sound delicious. In fact, if I may editorialize a little and express my own opinion, they sound terrible, abysmal and yukky.

OSCAR: Oh, yeah? Well, I don't like your tie.

MacNEIL: Well, I do, and I'm sure my tie tastes a lot better than your ice cream. Good bye.

OSCAR: Yeah? Well, I still hate your tie. But I like your attitude.

WOODRUFF: I'm not so sure about your attitude, Robin, but I do like your tie. I think you've got a future in this business. Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: No comment. That's our NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.