thumbnail of The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
Hide -
ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The White House and the Kremlin continued their verbal sparring today over arms talks. In today's round the U.S. said it would turn up for talks in Vienna this fall, whatever Moscow did. The pressure mounted on Walter Mondale to choose a woman as a running mate. The Supreme Court said the Miranda decision does not apply to traffic arrests. New figures show the economy still growing fast. Jim Lehrer is off tonight; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in Washington. Charlayne?
CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: We begin the NewsHour with a look at the to-ing and fro-ing between the United States and the Soviet Union over linking space weapons talks to arms control talks. We get a sample of the thinking among women over what's at stake for the Democrats in choosing a vice presidential candidate. Kwame Holman reports on the latest flare-up of violence in the continuing battle over jobs at the Phelps-Dodge copper plant in Clifton, Arizona. We also talk with Nicaraguan guerrilla leader Eden Pastora, widely known as Commander Zero, followed by an assessment of what's happening within the deeply divided Nicaraguan opposition forces known as the contras. And, finally, we remember playwright Lillian Hellman, who died over the weekend at the age of 79.Broader Talks?
MacNEIL: Washington and Moscow went another round today in the battle of words over new arms talks this fall. In the end, Washington said the U.S. would go to Vienna to talk about banning space weapons, as the Soviets want, but would also use the forum to talk about getting nuclear arms talks restarted. Moscow said Washington was trying to wreck the talks by posing unacceptable preconditions; Washington said it was not posing preconditions. This latest exchange started on Friday when the Soviets invited the U.S. to take part in talks in September in Vienna on banning the use of all weapons in outer space. The U.S. replied the same day, accepting the invitation, but adding that it wanted to explore ways to resume the long-stalled Geneva talks on nuclear weapons as well. Yesterday the Soviet news agency Tass rejected that agenda. Today White House spokesman Larry Speakes said, "We will be there in September," and President Reagan told reporters the U.S. still wanted to discuss nuclear arms control at the Vienna talks. In Moscow today the British foreign secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, told the Soviets the United States is ready to negotiate at any time without preconditions. He said the Soviet refusal to resume nuclear arms negotiations was self-defeating. Here's a report from Tim Sebastian of the BBS.
TIM SEBASTIAN, BBC [voice-over]: Military matters already dominate Sir Geoffrey's trip in and out of the talks. The Russians felt it appropriate to remember the last war while stressing the need to avoid a new one, and the British side assembled at the tomb of the unknown soldier. The same ceremony is provided for most high-level visitors; these days the same static Soviet position is handed to them. Sir Geoffrey is no exception, as the initial talks were to show. They began at the Kremlin Palace, Mr. Gromyko the host; 74 years old and visibly increasing his power. His quiet, patient style was familiar, so was the theme of his remarks -- a consistent attack on United States policies; Washington didn't want talks on weapons in general and space weapons in particular. Perhaps Britain would be more constructive. Sir Geoffrey regretted the Russian position and urged them to think again. Tomorrow they talk about other issues, for today had been less than a complete success.
MacNEIL: We look more closely at the last few days' activities between Washington and Moscow with an analyst who's first-hand-experienced in the workings of both capital cities. He is Dimitri Simes, a former specialist at the Soviets' major think tank on Western affairs. He emigrated to the United States in 1972, and now observes the Kremlin as a senior associate at a Washington think tank on international issues. Mr. Simes, is this shadow or substance, all this maneuvering we've been seeing?
DIMITRI SIMES: I suspect both, Robin. On one hand, obviously, both Moscow and Washington are involved in public relations. They are concerned about European public opinion; they are concerned about relations -- or public relations in the United States. Moscow doesn't want Reagan; Reagan obviously wants to be re-elected. But I also believe there is some substance to it also.
MacNEIL: Well, in terms of subtance, what do we end up with tonight, as you see it, as a result of all this to-ing and fro-ing?
Mr. SIMES: Well, I am encouraged by the administration's willingness to go to Vienna without preconditions. Obviously the Soviets are not going to discuss strategic and intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Geneva, -- in Vienna, sorry. The reason they are going to Vienna, not to Geneva, is precisely because they want to make clear that anti-satellite weapons is an area of their interest. Anything else is forbidden at this point. But if the administration is willing to turn up there, obviously it is only logical to make the Soviets know that we are interested in other things on the arms-control agenda, and obviously American willingness to sign an agreement on anti-satellite weapons should belong with Soviet willingness to discuss other issues as well.
MacNEIL: Now, you said a moment ago that the Soviets didn't want to help Mr. Reagan. Why would they agree to any kind of talks before the U.S. election if they don't want to help him?
Mr. SIMES: Well, Robin, the first point to remember is that the Soviets, for a number of months, were indicating their willingness to start these talks, talks dealing with anti-satellite weapons. What they did now was simply to suggest a specific place and a specific time. Nothing more than that. So if there was a change in Soviet position, there was equally a change in Mr. Reagan's position, in his apparent willingness to go and discuss these issues with the Soviet government. The Soviets don't want Reagan to be re-elected, but first of all they assume that probably he has a very good chance to stay in the Oval Office. Also, they are not so mesmerized by Mr. Mondale to go out of their way to help him. And, finally, there is an element of propaganda. I am not sure that the Soviets were confident how the administration would respond. They were sick and tired of being portrayed as a hibernating, inept Russian bear, not able to negotiate anything, and they want to put the ball back in the Reagan's court: "Yes, we are willing. Now it is your turn to demonstrate your good will."
MacNEIL: Some people are suggesting that the Reagan administration has finessed the Kremlin by quickly agreeing on Friday to go to these Vienna talks when the Kremlin perhaps expected them to reject it.
Mr. SIMES: No question about that. I don't know whether the Kremlin expected the administration to reject the Soviet proposal, but if you look at the Soviet language, at the language of the Tass announcement, the Soviets say, "a hasty reply by the Reagan administration." So clearly they were surprised, and they were displeased to be outgunned politically once again by the American President.
MacNEIL: What do you make of the fact that President Reagan apparently discussed this in an informal setting at a dinner, last -- a barbecue, last night at the White House with the Soviet ambassador, and seemed to be suggesting to reporters today that other lines of communication were more positive than the harsh Tass statement yesterday rejecting the U.S. agenda for the talks?
Mr. SIMES: Well, I think the President was quite right. There are other channels of communication, and there are some positive signals. I would say there are also confusing and ambiguous signals. Let me simply say that there are two different issues. One issue is whether the Soviets are willing to negotiate. Under some conditions in some context they are willing and able. A very different question is whether we can reach an agreement, and that would require very tough decisions in both Moscow and in Washington, and the administration is not there yet in terms of making these very difficult decisions being prepared to display flexibility at the bargaining table.
MacNEIL: Can you spell that out a little bit? What do you mean, the administration is not there yet? Where is it not?
Mr. SIMES: The administration has to decide what space weapons are we willing to discuss. Only low-altitude weapons? Also high-altitude weapons? Are we talking about piecemeal agreement, or comprehensive agreement, as the Soviets request? And, finally, as you probably know, there is going to be a test of a first American anti-satellite weapon; the test is scheduled for November, and I am afraid that the Soviets will demand some moratorium on American testing. As you know, there is a unilateral moratorium on their testing. So if we really want these talks to lead us somewhere and not these talks just to be limited to a propaganda extravaganza, there will have to be some very difficult decisions to be made inside the administration during two forthcoming months.
MacNEIL: What does the handling of these series of statements by the Kremlin suggest to you about the nature of the Soviet leader, the new Soviet leadership under Chernenko?
Mr. SIMES: Well, my feeling was for a long time that critics of the Soviet administration were quite correct in suggesting that strategically these people have no vision and that they have great difficulty making tough decisions, dramatic departures from many of their policies which were a total failure both at home and abroad. But they can make tactical decisions. Mr. Gromyko exercises an enormous authority in the Kremlin, and he is a very experienced and able diplomat. And Mr. Chernenko, well, he is not a great intellectual, to put it mildly, but he is a good chairman of the board. He has enough control, enough respect among the Soviet elite to be a credible bargaining partner.
MacNEIL: To sum it up, are you encouraged by these activities of the last week or so, the last few days?
Mr. SIMES: I am certainly encouraged. It is better to talk about serious issues than to have a veritable dialogue of the deaf, exchanging propaganda assaults. But let me say, we were encouraged many, many times in the past, and the real test will not be whether we are willing to talk, but what positions we are going to bring to Vienna. That is an ultimate test.
MacNEIL: Well, Dimitri Simes, thank you for joining us.
Mr. SIMES: My pleasure.
MacNEIL: In the Persian Gulf a South Korean freighter is on fire and apparently sinking after being hit by two missiles fired by Iraqi warplanes. The 10,000-ton ship was part of a convoy of seven ships that the Iraqis attacked in the channel leading to an Iranian seaport in the northern part of the Gulf.
In Lebanon, a miltiary council representing each of the six main religious sects agreed today on a plan to move the rival militias out of Beirut in an attempt to pacify that city. If the political leaders of the various factions support the plan, it will go into effect under supervision of the army. The military agreemet followed a night of heavy fighting in which at least 16 were killed -- civilians were killed, and 52 wounded.
HUNTER-GAULT: On the domestic political front, Walter Mondale today launched a critical attack against President Reagan for his handling of the Soviet offer to negotiate a ban on space weapons. Addressing the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher's union, Mondale said Reagan should have accepted the offer without conditions. Mondale urged the President to stop game-playing and start talking. Since the campaign began, Mondale has used the issue of arms control as a centerpiece of his attacks against the administration.
WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: Let's stop the posturing, the game-playing and start talking now. I pledge to you that as president of the United States I will work for a safer world on the first day that I am in office. And I will not wait for the first day that I seek re-election, as this administration has done. The Push for No. 2
HUNTER-GAULT: Mondale left the teachers and returned to his Minnesota home to continue his main order of business at the moment, finding someone to join him on the ticket. Today he saw the candidate who has emerged this week as a favorite in the vice presidential sweepstakes, New York Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro.Earlier today here in Washington the 1.3-million-member United Food and Commercial Workers, the AFL-CIO's largest affiliate, declared Ferraro their choice for the number-two spot, adding still more steam to the growing pressure on Mondale to select a woman as his running mate. Over the weekend, three congresswomen, in a private meeting with Mondale, endorsed Ferraro. And, at their annual convention, the National Organization for Women passed a resolution saying they would place a woman's name in nomination from the floor if Mondale picked a man for a running mate.
At the NOW convention, Mondale said he has broken new ground by seriously considering a woman, but he has yet to actually commit to selecting one. To look at the dilemma Mondale faces and the growing influence of women with the Democratic Party, we turn to Judy Goldsmith, president of the National Organization for Women, and Ann Lewis, political director of the Democratic National Committee. Starting first with you, Judy Goldsmith, how serious are the rumblings that women will walk out of the convention if Mondale doesn't choose a woman as a running mate?
JUDY GOLDSMITH: I don't know of anyone who is seriously talking about walking out. We worked very hard for a very long time to get into the process to make it work for women, and I don't know of anyone who feels that walking out would make a useful contribution to improving the situation. But what we are talking about is a very strong determination to have a woman on the ticket so that we can beat Reagan in November.
HUNTER-GAULT: What about the reports of a floor fight?Are you prepared to do that if Mondale has not picked a woman by the time you get --
Ms. GOLDSMITH: Yes. At our conference this weekend we passed a resolution saying that we would be prepared to introduce a woman's name into nomination.
HUNTER-GAULT: Ann Lewis, how harmful do you think a floor fight on this issue would be for the Democrats?
ANN LEWIS: Well, let's decide. An election, a vote, is not necessarily a fight. I think I want to say on behalf of the Democratic Party that we welcome dialogue, we welcome an open process. Of course, we're particularly pleased, first, with the way in which Vice President Mondale has gone about this process so that it's open, so that the American people can see him meeting with potential vice presidents.
HUNTER-GAULT: You don't agree with the critics who say that this process of parading all of these different people back and forth has really been sort of harmful to the party?
Ms. LEWIS: I certainly do not. I think when we talk about choosing a person who is going to be the next vice president of the United States with all that means for us as a country, that we ought to take it seriously, that we ought to take some time. I think it's good for the party and it's good for the country. And, second, I just want to make very clear, we are proud to be the party that has made history. We're proud to be the party in which women have been out there visiting with Vice President Mondale, in which we have set the tone in which Mayor Cisneros and Mayor Goode and Mayor Bradley -- but, again, to go back, we think the process has been good for us; we think the kind of history that has been made has been good for us. We think that this is a year in which any American child can watch the news and think, "I could be President." Now that's good for this party.
HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how consistent is it with the notion that a president has the option of choosing his own running mate, someone he's comfortable with, somebody he really wants? I mean, how consistent is that with the threat of a floor fight by the women?
Ms. GOLDSMITH: It's important, obviously, for the president to be able to choose his running mate for the presidential nominee.There is also a very powerful groundswell of support that has developed for a woman on the ticket that makes it very clear that it is going to make it possible to galvanize the women of this country. A woman on the ticket with Walter Mondale would be a constant, daily, visible reminder of the difference between him and the Democrats and Ronald Reagan and the Republicans.
HUNTER-GAULT: Where, outside of NOW -- your meeting and so on, is there this groundswell? I mean, what evidence is there that a woman would add substantially to the ticket?
Ms. GOLDSMITH: Well, really, the enthusiasm and the fervor that you saw for a woman on the ticket at out conference, our NOW conference, this past weekened is a reflection and a manifestation of the broadly based public support that exists.
HUNTER-GAULT: But I've seen polls that are very conflicting in their results. I mean, some say that there is this support, some say that women are ambivalent. I've even seen women in unscientific polls saying they didn't think a woman -- it was time.
Ms. GOLDSMITH: You know, clearly we care deeply about seeing to it that Ronald Reagan is removed from the White House in November. We are not about to take any chances. We are not about to take any risks with the ticket that has to do that. We have carefully analyzed all of the polling data, all of the political analysis since the time we called for a woman on the ticket last October. What we have seen is an overwhelming body of data that says a woman on the ticket gives you the magic to get people to go to the voting booth, which is what we need. There have been -- I have seen one or two polls that have talked about a woman on the ticket being, in effect, a wash. But, really, when you look at what those polls are saying, the people that are saying we'd lose are people who would not be voting for us anyway, who would go to Reagan. The people we pull in are key swing groups that we must not only bring in; we must motivate to get to the polls in November.
HUNTER-GAULT: Ann Lewis, is that the thinking over at the DNC, that a woman on the ticket really would bring in new voters, cause people to cross party lines and so on? Is that what --
Ms. LEWIS: Let me start by saying it is clear to the Democratic Party that this is a year in which voter mobilization, voter turnout is going to make the difference, and that all our strategy is structured on, what is it we do to bring the greatest possible number of people to the polls? We know that if we have that kind of turnout -- 100 million Americans vote this November -- then we are going to elect a Democratic president. We look again at the women's vote, we look at so many of our constituency groups that we're working with, because that's going to make the difference. It is getting new people to the polls. It is voter registration, it is voter turnout. Women, the votes of women are going to be very important to us in this election.
HUNTER-GAULT: But what evidence is there that this gender gap is really real? I mean, have there been enough elections that you could determine that women would be monolithic in their support of a woman on the ticket?
Ms. LEWIS: Well, we know that women aren't monolithic, but of course when we talk about a group that is perhaps 53.6% of the electorate, that is such a large bloc that a gender gap of 10 points, 12 points in favor of the Democratic candidate is enough to win elections. That's the examples we show in 1982 and in 1983, a gender gap of that dimension was enough to win the election.
HUNTER-GAULT: Judy Goldsmith, Mondale said that he had broken new ground in considering a woman as a running mate. I mena, do you think he's really serious about this, or is he sending a message that, you know, "considering is as much as I'm going to do this year"? And how would that set with women in your group and other women?
Ms. GOLDSMITH: There is no doubt in my mind that he is truly seriously considering women and equally considering women. I have talked to him; I am convinced of that. What he is going to do, obviously I don't know. Obviously, the word -- we don't have the word yet at this point. That question has not been answered. And no, we will not, in 1984, be satisfied with "considering." It is so critical to our ability to be successful in November to have a strong ticket and to have a woman on that ticket to make it as strong as possible that that is what we are looking for.
HUNTER-GAULT: But he said he would consider a feminist man. What would be the difference? I mean, you'd get a feminist one way or the other, wouldn't you?
Ms. GOLDSMITH: Well, part of it is the message that you send. Yes, we do want a feminist, and Mr. Mondale did make that commitment. But what has emerged since the time he made that statement is this fantastic groundswell of historic proportions for a woman on the ticket. Women across the country -- white women, black women, hispanic women -- are tired, they are skeptical that the political establishment is ever going to seriously address the problems that they face, and they need to get a signal. They need to get a message that this is not politics as usual; this is something different.
HUNTER-GAULT: But, you know, speaking of politics as usual, Mr. Mondale has had this problem of being labeled as a special interest candidate? I mean, what is the distinction? Wouldn't he suffer as much if he were seen to be giving in to this women's pressure to put a woman on the ticket? I mean, isn't that a special interest lobby?
Ms. LEWIS: Let us be very clear. The Democratic party does not believe that majority of the people of the United States of America are a special interest group. In fact, I'm not sure how it is that we've come in 1984 to somehow think of corporate America and the kind of interests that Ronald Reagan represents as mainstream, and all the people who live in this country as the special interest groups. I think that would be a terrible reversal, and I think as we get into this general election campaign we're going to sort that out very well. We're talking about representing the population of the United States. That's what government's supposed to be all about.
HUNTER-GAULT: All right, very briefly, from both of you, from each of you, what are the odds that he'll choose a woman, Mondale will choose a woman as a running mate?
Ms. LEWIS: I think we look at 50-50 today; we probably look at even money.
HUNTER GAULT: What's your sense of it?
Ms. GOLDSMITH: I think that's probably reasonable, but I think our determination is far greater than 50-50.
HUNTER-GAULT: Do you care to name any names?
HUNTER-GAULT: What about you, Ann Lewis? Are there any names? I mean, as I reported earlier, there's been a groundswell this week for Geraldine Ferraro. Is that one of the frontrunners as far as you can see?
Ms. LEWIS: It wouldn't be appropriate. You can make a news judgment. I'll just say on behalf of the party we are so looking forward to the Vice President making his decision and for the convention giving us our slate so we can all get in there and get to work.
HUNTER-GAULT: All right, Judy Goldsmith, Ann Lewis, thank you for being with us. Robin?
MacNEIL: The government released two fresh indications that economic growth remains vigorous. Both the figures for new factory orders and for new construction showed a rebound in May after a decline in April. New orders received by U.S. factories were up 1.9% in May. They had declined 3.4% in April. Spending on new construction rose 1.8% in May after declining 1 1/2% in April.The chief economist at the Department of Commerce, Robert Ortner, said the figures showed a shift towards greater business investment in factories and equipment.
Charlayne? Battling for Jobs
HUNTER-GAULT: One year ago this week, over 2,000 workers began a strike against the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, the nation's second-largest copper producer.At issue were company demands that the southeastern Arizona workers accept wage concessions. Phelps-Dodge said the givebacks were necessary because of declining world prices for copper and increased competition from imports. After the strike got underway, Phelps-Dodge hired non-union labor and declared the strike over. For its part the union has continued to picket Phelps-Dodge mines and smelters. As in the past, a rally this weekend turned violent. Kwame Holman filed this report from Clifton, Arizona.
KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: This was Clifton, Arizona, on Saturday. It was the first anniversary of a strike by copper workers against the Phelps-Dodge company; 200 Department of Public Safety officers clashed with 75 demonstrators. The police said that the demonstrators had stayed past the time allowed by their permit and that someone had thrown a Molotov cocktail. But many witnesses insisted it was the police themselves who started the confrontation. Once the conflict started, rocks and bottles flew, leading to 20 arrests and even one escape. It was Osella and Ronnie Sartin's first demonstration.
OSELLA SARTIN, striker's wife: I was scared to death. There was rocks flying. There was 15 people at once firing tear gas, you know? All you could do is run to try to get away from it, because it was just coming everywhere. And then I started to run, and I couldn't see to run, and I was kind of falling all over trying to get out of that place, because it was bad. The skin was burning, it was awful.
RONNIE SARTIN, striker: When they started popping gas like that, they dispersed the crowd, but they turned them into a bunch of animals.
HOLMAN [voice-over workers singing "Solidarity Forever]: Leaders of the 13 striking unions say an afternoon of violence was not the way they wanted to note the first anniversary of the strike. Their rally had been carefully planned for a site miles from the plant, with music, food and speeches for 2,000 people.
RALLY SPEAKER: And there's nothing we can do but win this strike and win it honorably, where every striker that's out on strike is assured that they have their job back. Thank you.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: But some of the demonstrators decided to move closer to the plant, and that's when the trouble started. The frustration that has been building in this town for over a year erupted into violence.
Ms. SARTIN: But they have been forced into this by the company, by the unions, you know. They feel like the unions aren't doing everything they could. They feel like Phelps-Dodge betrayed them. It was a bad situation.
Mr. SARTIN: Sure violence.
NEIGHBOR: So they just frustrated people.
Ms. SARTIN: They were very frustrated. Very.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: Striking families have gone a year without a paycheck. To make matters worse, Phelps-Dodge has fired the strikers. But the state says they are not eligible for unemployment because they are on strike.
Ms. SARTIN: My son -- we live right, what, two blocks from the pool, and we didn't have 30 cents so he could go swimming. That's never happened. We rake our pennies together for milk.
Mr. SARTIN: My wife at one time was ready to wring my neck because I didn't want to go across, but I told her, I says, "Honey, if I -- I've been in the union for 14 years, and I feel that what I'm doing is right."
Ms. SARTIN: The only reason I wanted him to go back in was because I was scared. I was petrified of losing everything we've ever had.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: Now, Osella says she will support the strike 'til Hell freezes over. She, her husband and their two sons, live on $50 a week provided by the union. They have learned to survive on beans and surplus cheese.
Ms. SARTIN: Yeah, I don't want to overdramatize it, but that's what's going on. You know, this is real life; this is reality. That's what's happening here in this town.
JACK LADD, Phelps-Dodge labor relations: The strikers that gave up their job have made their beds and that's where they're going to lay.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: Jack Ladd is labor relations director for Phelps-Dodge. He says the company will never accept a contract that forces it to take back striking workers.
Mr. LADD: What the unions have done is cost the jobs, cost the strikers their jobs. And now, with the return of the strikers to the jobs as a condition for settlement, the unions and essentially doing themselves out of the possibility of coming to a settlement.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: Despite the company's hard-line position, the strikers refuse to give up. In fact, union leader Ray Isner, whose father-in-law was killed in a Phelps-Dodge mine, doesn't believe the company's position is final.
RAY ISNER, union unity leader: Forever is a long time. You know, they said the same thing at Greyhound, and the workers went back to work at Greyhound.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: The union leadership thinks that a defeat by Phelps-Dodge will hurt the labor movement, so they keep up the fight. But the strikers themselves say they have even more to lose.
Ms. SARTIN: This is our home. We were -- I was -- my adult life has been spent here. My mom and dad are buried right over there, you know? And why should we have to pick up and leave? We're fighting for a lot of things. This is our home land -- ground, you know? We're home people.
BOBBY MERINO, striker: You figure you have something good going for you, you know, for retirement, and all this and all of a sudden the company says that's it, you either take it or leave it or move on, you know?
HOLMAN [voice-over]: Bobby Merino is a fourth-generation Phelps-Dodge worker. The company once was proud of this family. Now most of them are on strike.
Mr. MERINO: I used to see my dad, you know, struggling when there was 12 of us in the family. And you think about everything that he struggled for, you know. And I say, well, was all of that in vain?
HOLMAN [voice-over]: It may be in vain. Phelps-Dodge has hired replacement workers and may even have trouble keeping them employed because the international copper market is severely depressed.In fact, the low prices appear to justify the company's position against union wage demands.
Mr. LADD: One of the primary reasons that we are still operating is because we did not agree to the pattern settlement, and we're operating much more efficiently and much cheaper than the companies that did.
HOLMAN [voice-over]: Strikers realize that the copper market is in trouble, so last month they offered the company large wage concessions. Phelps-Dodge turned them down and revoked their own original wage offer. Today, strikers say they are realistic about the state of the copper industry, but they are adamant in their stand against the company they say is trying to bust their union.
Mr. SARTIN: We don't feel that we're ever going to give up. You know it's -- you don't give up in the 12th round or the 13th round. You know, you go the whole game. We don't have any intentions of backing out.
HUNTER-GAULT: Labor's problems within the copper industry are expected to continue. This week Kennecott, the nation's largest copper producer, begins laying off 2,000 workers in Utah because of economic hard times. That will raise to 5,000 the number of workers Kennecott has laid off in Utah over the past three years. Robin?
MacNEIL: The Supreme Court ruled today that police who stop people for traffic offenses do not have to tell them their constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the so-called Miranda decision did not apply to traffic offenses because those stopped were not in custody. Under the 1966 Miranda decision, police who want to interrogate suspects in custody have to tell them they have a right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present, and that what they say may be used as evidence against them.
In a different ruling today the Court said that judges have the power to impose death sentences on convicted murderers, even though juries have recommended life imprisonment.
In a third ruling, the justices said that public radio and television stations cannot be barred from expressing editorial opinions just because they receive federal money.
HUNTER-GAULT: Today was the 20th anniversary of the day when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, ending segregation in public places. Looking back over the intervening years, black leaders said there have been many gains, but there are still areas where equality has yet to be achieved, especially in economic areas. Benjamin Hooks, the executive director of the NAACP, said at their convention in Kansas City that blacks now hold more than 5,000 elective offices. But Hooks noted black unemployment is still double that of whites, with many blacks still living in slums.
Still to come in the NewsHour, Nicaraguan opposition leader Eden Pastora explains what he wants from the United States government. We look at where he and the other opposition factions stand today. And we remember playwright Lillian Hellman.
[Video postcard -- Blue Mesa Park, Arizona] Commander Zero Talks
HUNTER-GAULT: Nicaraguan opposition leader Eden Pastora, widely known as Commander Zero, was in Washington today seeking help for his campaign for free elections in Nicaragua. Pastora met with top State Department officials and U.S. congressmen. The Sandinistas have scheduled elections for November, but opposition leaders have said they are unable to participate because of a lack of political and press freedoms needed to carry out an effective campaign. Pastora, the hero of the Sandinista revolution that drove from power Anastasio Somoza in 1979, broke with the Sandinistas and has been fighting them since the early 1980s. On May 30th, Pastora was seriously wounded, and five others were killed, when a bomb exploded while he was giving a news conference at a jungle camp inside Nicaragua. Pastora has steadfastly refused to join forces with anti-Sandinista guerrillas operating outside of Honduras, because the leaders of that group include former members of Somoza's National Guard. Late this afternoon I interviewed Pastora in our studio with the aid of an interpreter. I started by asking him what specifically he wanted from the U.S. officials he met with today.
EDEN PASTORA, Nicaraguan rebel leader [through interpreter]: We are developing it. We have a certain number of demands, of requests, to have free elections in Nicaragua and to have this done according to democratic laws. We would like to have freedom of press also, political freedom, and also within a framework of rules in which the army, the party and the state will not be one single entity, that the electoral process take place without the intervention of military forces. As in this case, there are 3,000 Cubans with two Cuban generals who have come over with all their experience from Angola, Ethiopia and Mozambique.And also according to rules in terms of our not being aligned to one of the two powers which are disputing power in the world. We want to have these conditions met and thus be able to follow an electoral process, a democratic process where all Nicaraguans can participate.
HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what help do you think U.S. government officials and elected representatives could be to you in this effort?
Mr. PASTORA [through interpreter]: For example, as was the case with the Americans, the Europeans and the Latin Americans, they could tell the Managuan government that it give way in these demands in order that they will be able to recognize the process of a legitimate electoral procedure.
HUNTER-GAULT: And you're saying that you and your group are ready to participate in the elections if these conditions can be established?
Mr.PASTORA [through interpreter]: Definitely, yes. As a Nicaraguan, I believe that the politics comes before military. We would participate, helping any candidate to the presidency, any opposition representative, if these conditions are met.
HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any reason to believe that the Sandinistas would go along with this, this proposal?
Mr. PASTORA [through interpreter]: Yes, of course. There is a reason, and that is legitimacy, which they are seeking by way of recognition of the free world, the democratic world.
HUNTER-GAULT: You thinkthat they feel that way now more than they did, say, three months or six months ago, that there's more pressure for more of a need for them to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the United States and the rest of the world?
Mr. PASTORA [through interpreter]: Yes, they do have more of a need, and the pressures, or at least this recognition for the project has changed very little.So what we are seeking is to have this accentuated, this demand be accentuated, be exercised more forcefully, to have these demands be met, let's say, in a democratic process.
HUNTER-GAULT: Are you prepared to lay down your arms and stop fighting the Sandinista government in order to participate in the elections?
Mr. PASTORA [through interpreter]: Yes, we've always been willing to do this against Somoza, for example. We were willing to give up the armed struggle if Somoza granted free elections. At the present time, if the totalitarian government in Managua provides the imposition of these conditions, then we are quite willing to give up the struggle, the arm struggle.
HUNTER-GAULT: But you don't -- well, let me ask you this. How seriously do the divisions within the contras -- you represent one group; there's a group fighting out of Honduras that's backed by the CIA. Are you willing to unite with that group, as it's been reported that the American government has been pressuring you to to in order to come with a united front against the Sandinistas in this crusade?
Mr. PASTORA [through interpreter]: Well, in the first place, we're not counter -- we're revolutionaries, not counterrevolutionaries. Our positions are Sandinista positions. We want to save the revolution. We're not against the revolution, by any means. We're against deviation from the original process. We are willing to get together with the FDN, as we have got together with another six organizations within [unintelligible], always as long as a series of condition are met -- moral, political and ideological. Considering that there are three FDNs, one FDN in Miami, one FDN in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and one FDN within Nicaragua, in the mountains and on the battlefields. With them we have no problem whatsoever. We have no objection to their activities, and this last FDN in the mountains, we are willing to get together with them immediately. Right now, today.
HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have enough funds to continue an effective struggle against the Sandinistas?
Mr. PASTORA [through interpreter]: No, we do not. We've had very little help very limited aid. Sometimes just at subsistence level, which has led us, which has obliged us to fight with 8,000 men in a guerrilla war in inhuman conditions, minimal logistics, with minimal resources and, in the south, we're suffering from hunger. We have very few resources.
MacNEIL: For a broader view of the contra movement and the political storm swirling around Eden Pastora, we turn to Robert Leiken, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. Mr. Leiken is editor of the recently published book, Central America, Anatomy of Conflict, and as a close observer of Nicaraguan politics. Mr. Leiken, what is the significance of Eden Pastora coming here now?
ROBERT LEIKEN: Well, I think he feels, Robin, that this is a moment in which he can appeal to democratic forces in this country and in Europe. He has recently received, apparently, the support of Carlos Andres Perez, the former president of Venezuela, and a very important figure in the Socialist International, the vice president of the Socialist International; and Arturo Cruz, a leading Nicaraguan statesman; Alfredo Cesar, another important Nicaraguan. They all are supporting his efforts right now, and I think he feels that this is the moment to get his political message across.
MacNEIL: Is he hoping to bring moral pressure from Europe and the rest of the Western world, the United States, on the Sandinistas and have them change their ways and grant the freedoms he's just listed, just out of moral pressure? Is that realistic?
Mr. LEIKEN: Well, it's true that the Sandinistas have been concerned with international public opinion; I wouldn't call it just moral pressure. Obviously, Western countries, Latin American countries, have played an economic role and a political role in supporting Nicaragua, and he believes that the Sandinista government wants them to continue that role.
MacNEIL: I'm not clear, because the reports seem to be in conflict, how much he approves or disapproves of the aid the CIA, the Congress through the CIA, was giving to the contras fighting in the north.
Mr. LEIKEN: Well, I think he disapproved it -- of it in the sense that he felt that it was conditioned, that the CIA wished to subordinate the FDN and, for that matter, the Nicaraguan opposition to the United States. I think if aid were given unconditionally to a group that was independent of the United States, Eden Pastora would probably be very pleased.
MacNEIL: I see. And now, how effective, when you add up all that's been done with the aid of CIA money by the contras operating in the north and Eden Pastora in the south, operating out of Costa Rica, what have they achieved in this last two years or so?
Mr. LEIKEN: Well, Robin, in some ways I think it's been contradictory. They have obviously received support, material support, but that support, certainly in the case in the north, has created a mechanized army, one dependent on the support, and to some extent, because that group has been, at least part of it, associated with the Somocistas, it has limited --
MacNEIL: Somocistas were the supporters of former President Somoza.
Mr. LEIKEN: Right, former National Guardsmen, the people who politically have been associated with the past dictator. That is a fraction of the group. It's particularly important in the military wing of it. But their association with people who have a pretty shady past means that their appeal in Nicaragua, where discontent towards the government from all reports seems to have grown, that that appeal has been limited. So, and in the second place the association with the United States, such a close association to the United States, again, I think, has limited its support or its appeal. As a result, they've gotten, in exchange for military benefits, I think perhaps they've had some -- gained some political liabilities.
MacNEIL: What about Mr. Pastora? What kind of support does he enjoy inside Nicaragua?
Mr. LEIKEN: Well, I think Pastora's group is essentially fighting a classic guerrilla war, which is -- whose main source of support is the peasants, the Indians, the population where he is located. I mean, he makes the point -- and I think there's some truth to it -- that he has gone into Nicaragua and stayed there, whereas the FDN, the group in the north, has gone into Nicaragua many times and left. He's there. He occupies a piece of territory in the country which is somewhat isolated but which does have a population, and at least in southern Nicaragua and in northern Costa Rica, which is populated largely by Nicaraguans, there is a great deal of support for him.
MacNEIL: Well, what's going to happen now? Both houses of Congress have refused to given President Reagan the additional $21 million he wanted for covert aid to the contras in Nicaragua. That isn't going to happen for awhile. They're going to run out of funds, by all reports. What is going to happen to Pastora's movement and the FDN movement?
Mr. LEIKEN: Well, in the first place, I think the FDN movement has accumulated, stockpiled weapons. So they'll probably survive for the next few months. In the long run, however, I think they will be hurt. They have been dependent on aerial -- on airlifts of supplies into Nicaragua.And that, I think, you'll begin to see that ending. That will hurt them a great deal. Pastora's group has not been dependent so much on sources like that. Again, I think they've been getting most of their food, logistical support, inside the country. I think they'll be hurt somewhat less. They're going to have to find ammunition, guns elsewhere. And in that respect I think they'll also be hurt. But probably comparatively Pastora will be strengthened. Now, it might be that the FDN, to the extent that it has been dependent on the United States, will be weakened and that Pastora will pick up some more support, perhaps even from people fighting up to now within the FDN. That's one possibility. In all events, I wouldn't expect that the war will end. The great problem for these groups, these fighting against the government, is how to link up with this growing sense of popular discontent. There was a report a week ago in The New York Times, a little less than a week ago, a lengthy report, showing that there was considerable draft resistance, widespread draft resistance throughout the country. So far, the insurgent groups have not really linked up with this. There have been numerous deserters, people who have refused military service, and they have gone and enlisted, joined up with Pastora and with the FDN. But there hasn't been a real linkage yet.
MacNEIL: Mr. Leiken, thank you for joining us.
Mr. LEIKEN: Thank you, Robin.
MacNEIL: Charlayne?
HUNTER-GAULT: Anne Gorsuch Burford, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was back in the news today. President Reagan picked Mrs. Burford to take a non-paying job as head of a national advisory committee on oceans and atmosphere. Mrs. Burford was forced to resign from her EPA post in 1983 after criticism over the agency's handling of a toxic waste cleanup program and her dealings with Congress.
[Video Postcard -- Wilhoit, Arizona] Hellman Remembrance
MacNEIL: We devote our closing story tonight to Lillian Hellman, the playwright and author who died Saturday at the age of 79. Ms. Hellman's most famous plays were "The Children's Hour," "Watch on the Rhine" and "The Little Foxes." She also enjoyed critical and commercial success with her books of memoirs -- An Unfinished Woman, Pentimento and Scoundrel Time. Pentimento, published in 1974, was the basis for the popular movie "Julia." Lillian Hellman was also well-known for her relationship with the writer Dashiell Hammett, with whom she lived on and off for 31 years. During the McCarthy era, she gained more notoriety for refusing to testify about friends and fellow writers, and was blacklisted as a writer. In 1952, in a letter to the House Un-American Activities Committee, she wrote, "I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions." In 1974, in an interview with Bill Moyers, Lillian Hellman spoke of the McCarthy era, of her relationship with Dashiell Hammett and of her beginnings as a writer.
LILLIAN HELLMAN, writer [1974 interview]: I'd gone from college to work for a publishing house, and then I wanted to be a writer all my life, and I had written short stories and one or two of them were published in unknown magazines and they weren't very good. I'm not being modest. Even I knew they weren't very good. And then I stopped writing and thought, well, this isn't any good and I'm not meant to be a writer. And I was married then and went to Hollywood with my husband and got a job reading in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer reading department for the magnificent sum of $50 a week where you had to read in two languages or you didn't get the job. And you worked from 9 'til 6 at night. And then I got a divorce and I went to live with, as you know, Dashiell Hammett. And I suppose -- I don't know. He encouraged me, I think, to start again.
BILL MOYERS: What was there about Dashiell Hammett that enabled you, the question-asker, to really give yourself to him?
Ms. HELLMAN: That's a very complicated question, what enables anybody to love somebody else. God knows. He was a very remarkable man, no question of that. He was also a very difficult man. Maybe partly he was willing to answer the questions, I don't know. But it's a very hard question, isn't it, to ask anybody why they loved one person and didn't love another.
Mr. MOYERS: Respect often cancels out romance, as I think you said of Dorothy Parker's marriage.
Mr. MOYERS: But in your case --
Ms. HELLMAN: No, in my case, it didn't.
Mr. MOYERS: There was respect and romance?
Ms. HELLMAN: Yes, there was. Yes, I had great respect for him. I hope I didn't ever write that we had an easy life together. We didn't. We had a very difficult life together. But --
Mr. MOYERS: Did he help you with your writing?
Ms. HELLMAN: Oh, yes, enormously. Enormously. I can't ever pay him enough gratitude for what he did. Beyond the obvious things that writers can help with. He was so enormously patient, and more than patient. He was honest. Sometimes rather sharply and brutally honest. But without that I don't think I would have done very much.
Mr. MOYERS: Did he tell you, "This is no damn good"?
Ms. HELLMAN: Oh, yes, indeed. In stronger words than that. In very strong words.
Mr. MOYERS: Did you take it from him?
Ms. HELLMAN: Oh, yes, I took it. Once in awhile I would get terribly pained and miserable about it, and yes, certainly I took it because I recognized that it had -- I think you can always take what people say if you know there's no malice in it and no self-seeking in it. Then whether they're right or wrong, they've shown that amount of love to take the chance on your hating them, which has always impressed me in people.
Mr. MOYERS: You've never written extensively about your own political beliefs or activities, and yet you say that the McCarthy era changed your life.
Ms. HELLMAN: It's such a complicated period. It's such a -- in my mind, at least. Because it simply wasn't just McCarthy. Everybody now uses this word to sort of blame one man or 10 men or 15 men. It was much more pervasive than that. And it even includes many, many liberals, many liberals still living. And I suppose perhaps I feel more sharply about them than I do about McCarthy.
Mr. MOYERS: Why?
Ms. HELLMAN: Well, I had foolishly told myself that they would stand up in such a period, and most of them did not. And that, evidently, is still so difficult for me to understand. Many of them were my close friends. I suppose that's so difficult for me to understand, and I don't -- and I'm so frightened of it happening again in some form that I can't -- it's also difficult because many of them now deny it. Maybe they believe what they're saying. I don't think they do.But -- and perhaps that isn't my only reason. It's -- I was very ruined in that period, financially very ruined, I mean.
Mr. MOYERS: When you were blacklisted?
Ms. HELLMAN: Yes. And, you know, what money we both had went, and I don't think I like to think of -- I don't enjoy periods of pain.And I find it a little embarrassing to talk about it, particularly since I did all right afterwards. Maybe if I never had, it would have been --
Mr. MOYERS: But the country's recovery from that period, your own recovery from that period is a sign of hope, isn't it?
Ms. HELLMAN: Yes, indeed. Indeed. Indeed, it is. Indeed it is. I hope we're not entering another one. But it never could be the same.It could be much worse, but it would never be the same. But of course it is. And I think I sort of always knew that if one lived long enough and had any kind of break, and I did have a break -- many people didn't, of course. It depended on what age you were and what talents you had, I suppose, and what health you were in, many things. Many people didn't survive. I suppose I always thought that if one just could hang on long enough one would survive.
MacNEIL: Funeral services for Lillian Hellman will be held tomorrow in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, where she died.
HUNTER-GAULT: A last look at today's top stories. The Reagan administration said it would show up for talks with the Soviet Union about space weapons and arms control this September in Geneva.
Political pressure continued to mount on Walter Mondale to pick a woman as his vice presidential running mate.
The Supreme Court said today the Miranda ruling, which requires police to give suspects a review of their constitutional rights, does not apply to traffic arrests.
And the government released new statistics showing the economy is still on the fast track.
Good night, Robin.
MacNEIL: Good night, Charlayne. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.
The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour
Producing Organization
NewsHour Productions
Contributing Organization
NewsHour Productions (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/507-513tt4g929).
This episode's headline: Broader Talks?; The Push for No. 2; Battling for Jobs; Commander Zero Talks; Assessing the Contras; Hellman Remembrance. The guests include In Washington: DIMITRI SIMES, Soviet Analyst; JUDY GOLDSMITH, President, NOW; ANN LEWIS, Political Director, Democratic National Committee; EDEN PASTORA, Nicaraguan Rebel Leader; ROBERT LEIKEN, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Byline: In New York: ROBERT MacNEIL, Executive Editor; In Washington: CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT, Correspondent; Reports from NewsHour Correspondents: TIM SEBASTIAN (BBC), in Moscow; KWAME HOLMAN, in Clifton, Arizona; BILL MOYERS, 1974 Interview with Lillian Hellman
Asset type
Global Affairs
War and Conflict
Military Forces and Armaments
Politics and Government
Copyright NewsHour Productions, LLC. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: NewsHour Productions
AAPB Contributor Holdings
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-0216 (NH Show Code)
Format: 1 inch videotape
Generation: Master
Duration: 01:00:00;00
NewsHour Productions
Identifier: NH-19840702 (NH Air Date)
Format: U-matic
Generation: Preservation
Duration: 01:00:00;00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” 1984-07-02, NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 13, 2021,
MLA: “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.” 1984-07-02. NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 13, 2021. <>.
APA: The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Boston, MA: NewsHour Productions, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from