PBS NewsHour - 1996-02-12
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (YouTube automatic captions)
[0:00] Booth serving businesses throughout the
[0:03] Northwest. Tonk and Torque committed to
[0:06] clients and community.
[0:33] Join Yoyo Ma, Emanuel Axe, and some of
[0:36] their musical friends for an informal
[0:38] evening of music making next time on
[0:41] Live from Lincoln Center
[0:43] >> on OPB Wednesday at 9.
[0:49] >> Proud to be part of Oregon's history.
[0:51] This is OPB.
[0:59] Funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lair
[1:01] has been provided by CTR Business
[1:03] Systems. Serving business, building
[1:05] solutions with information technology
[1:07] since 1913.
[1:14] Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the
[1:16] NewsHour tonight, an Iowa Eve look at
[1:19] campaign financing with our regular
[1:21] historical team of Bes Goodwin and
[1:24] Johnson, plus David Mason. Two foreign
[1:27] affairs stories. Elizabeth Farnsworth
[1:29] sifts through the fallout from the
[1:31] London bombing. Margaret Warner talks to
[1:33] two writers about what peace has done
[1:35] for life in Bosnia and family values as
[1:39] observed by essaist Roger Rosenlat. It
[1:42] all follows our summary of the news this
[1:44] Monday. Major funding for the NewsHour
[1:47] with Jim Lara has been provided by the
[1:48] Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM,
[1:51] Supermarket to the World,
[1:55] and by New York Life, yet another
[1:58] example of New York Life's wise
[2:00] investment philosophy,
[2:04] and by the Corporation for Public
[2:06] Broadcasting, and by the annual
[2:08] financial support from viewers like you.
[2:12] This is the night of the important Iowa
[2:14] caucuses. Republicans will go to
[2:16] precinct meetings all over the state to
[2:18] select presidential convention
[2:20] delegates. There are nine candidates
[2:21] officially in the race and they were out
[2:24] campaigning today. Senate Majority
[2:26] Leader Bob Dole leads most of the polls.
[2:28] The big battle is expected for second
[2:30] place among Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes,
[2:33] Lamar Alexander, and Phil Graham.
[2:35] President Clinton is unopposed in the
[2:37] Democratic caucuses. Tonight, we'll be
[2:39] talking about the role of money in
[2:41] presidential politics right after this
[2:43] news summary. In Britain today, Prime
[2:45] Minister John Major said Friday's
[2:47] bombing in London will not halt his plan
[2:49] for elections in Northern Ireland. He
[2:52] said those elections are essential
[2:53] before full-scale peace talks can begin.
[2:56] He told the House of Commons the British
[2:58] government would no longer negotiate
[2:59] with Shinfane, the political wing of the
[3:02] Irish Republican Army. The IRA had
[3:04] claimed responsibility for the bombing.
[3:07] We will work for peace with all the
[3:09] democratic political parties and with
[3:12] the Irish government. But a huge
[3:14] question mark now hangs over the
[3:16] position of one of the parties over
[3:19] Shinfay.
[3:21] Their leaders have spoken often of their
[3:23] commitment to peace and peaceful
[3:25] methods.
[3:27] But they have always ducked and weaved
[3:30] when they have been questioned about the
[3:32] IRA and their methods. After the events
[3:36] of last Friday, their ambiguity stands
[3:39] out starkly.
[3:41] >> We'll have more on this story later in
[3:42] the program. In Bosnia today, Assistant
[3:45] Secretary of State Richard Hullbrook
[3:47] announced new rules for the arrest of
[3:49] suspected war criminals. He said the
[3:51] Bosnian government has agreed not to
[3:53] detain any suspects without
[3:55] authorization from the UN War Crimes
[3:58] Tribunal. Obrook spoke to reporters in
[4:00] Sievo.
[4:02] We feel that a better understanding
[4:06] what we would call rules of the road is
[4:09] now in effect
[4:11] and that the tensions that have risen in
[4:14] recent days should now begin to abate.
[4:18] >> The Bosnian Serbs broke off contact with
[4:20] the NATO peacekeeping force last week
[4:23] after the Bosnian government arrested
[4:25] two Serb army officers. NATO officials
[4:27] said those men were transported today to
[4:30] the International War Crimes Tribunal in
[4:32] the Hague. We'll have more on Bosnia
[4:34] later in the program. In the Middle East
[4:37] today, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon
[4:38] Paris said new parliamentary elections
[4:41] for May. They were scheduled for the
[4:43] fall, but he was free to call them
[4:44] earlier. Paris succeeded Yeetsac Rabin
[4:47] last November. Rabin was assassinated.
[4:49] In Gaza, PLO leader Yasa Arafat swore
[4:52] himself in as president of the
[4:54] Palestinian Authority. He won 88% of the
[4:57] vote in the first ever Palestinian
[4:59] elections last month. Arafat will lead
[5:02] an interim government and the 88 member
[5:04] legislative council in the West Bank and
[5:06] Gaza. Back in this country today,
[5:08] flooding continued in northern Idaho and
[5:11] parts of Montana. Many of the hardest
[5:13] hit areas in Oregon and Washington began
[5:15] cleanup efforts as water levels there
[5:18] receded. Flooding and mudslides in the
[5:20] Northwest have killed seven people and
[5:22] destroyed hundreds of homes in four
[5:25] states. And that's it for the news
[5:27] summary tonight. Now it's on to money
[5:29] and politics. What now for peace in
[5:31] Northern Ireland, what peace means in
[5:34] Bosnia, and a Roger Rosenblat essay.
[5:48] We go first tonight to money and
[5:49] politics. A fitting subject for this
[5:52] Iowa caucus night. Millions of dollars
[5:54] as well as campaign hours have been
[5:56] spent in Iowa. All aimed at the results
[5:59] that will come from the more than 2,000
[6:01] precinct caucuses being held there
[6:03] tonight. Preliminary ties show that more
[6:06] money has already been spent this
[6:07] primary season than ever before. The
[6:10] Federal Election Commission reported the
[6:12] five Republicans eligible for federal
[6:14] matching funds had spent over $63
[6:16] million just by the end of last year.
[6:19] Steve Forbes is spending his own money,
[6:21] so he does not have to file with the
[6:23] FEC, but USA Today estimated that his
[6:26] advertising buys alone have already cost
[6:28] him 12.5 million. And it isn't only
[6:31] Republicans spending money, even with no
[6:33] primary challengers. President Clinton
[6:35] has already spent over $12 million on
[6:37] his 1996 campaign. Now, an historical
[6:41] perspective on money and politics. It
[6:43] comes from three NewsHour regulars,
[6:45] presidential historians Michael Bash and
[6:48] Doris Karns Goodwin, and journalist and
[6:50] author Haynes Johnson. They are joined
[6:52] tonight by David Mason, vice president
[6:54] of government relations at the Heritage
[6:56] Foundation. Hannes, has money always
[6:59] been as important in presidential
[7:01] elections as it is this time? It's
[7:03] always been as important in our
[7:04] politics, never what it is now. Jim, I
[7:06] have a passion for historical prints.
[7:08] And years ago, I bought an original
[7:10] Thomas Nass cartoon in the 1870s, and it
[7:13] shows a veno politician with dollar
[7:15] signs all over his vest standing on a
[7:17] bag of cash and so forth. That's the old
[7:20] idea of money and pol. You buy
[7:22] elections. And we've seen it year after
[7:24] year. But now, the fact that we're
[7:25] talking through that camera tonight,
[7:27] that changed it all, didn't it's changed
[7:28] it. The cost of camp penny penny penny
[7:31] penny penny penny penny penny penny
[7:34] penny penny penny penny penny penny
[7:38] penny penny
[7:50] politics is unprecedented and each time
[7:52] it gets more and more and more and each
[7:54] time we say we're going to reform it and
[7:55] stop it. So it really began then in the
[7:57] 60s the big spending. Is that right
[7:59] Michael?
[7:59] >> It sure did. And it came at the same
[8:01] time as the decline of television
[8:03] because that's when television started
[8:04] getting into.
[8:04] >> Yeah, absolutely. And television really
[8:06] took the place in many ways of the
[8:08] political parties. In the 19th century,
[8:10] in the early part of this century, there
[8:13] was only really so much that money could
[8:15] buy. The main way that a voter found out
[8:17] about a candidate was from his or her
[8:20] precinct captain or perhaps from the
[8:21] newspaper. other ways, certainly through
[8:24] the political party structure mainly.
[8:26] And therefore, if you had an enormous
[8:28] edge in money, it couldn't buy you the
[8:31] kind of advantage that money now buys
[8:34] today because, as Hayne said, television
[8:36] is so important in shaping the voters's
[8:39] image of a candidate that if you have a
[8:40] lot more money than your opponent, it
[8:42] does give you a very big advantage.
[8:44] >> So, but where was all that money going
[8:46] in the Thomas Nast days, Doris? I mean,
[8:48] who was getting that money? What are
[8:49] they talking about in those time?
[8:50] They're under the small group of
[8:52] political bosses. Is that
[8:54] >> Well, yes. I think the big bosses got a
[8:55] lot of that money directly. I think it
[8:57] was really cash. I mean, earlier in the
[8:59] early days,
[8:59] >> cash for votes, you
[9:00] >> cash for votes or cash to pay people to
[9:02] be floaters as they called to vote
[9:04] repeatedly and and go back over and over
[9:06] again. So, it was much more blatant in
[9:08] the early days. But I think what's
[9:09] different now is that once John
[9:11] Kennedy's election took place in 1960
[9:13] where you had the confluence of a
[9:15] primary beginning to be important, that
[9:16] was the first really important primary
[9:18] race and you had television coming into
[9:20] it.
[9:20] >> Let me just remind people who were not
[9:22] around then that it was kind of it
[9:24] wasn't it the West Virginia primary that
[9:26] really really made primaries what they
[9:28] are today in many ways because that's
[9:29] when he became a viable candidate.
[9:32] >> In some ways he forced the convention
[9:34] people to have to put him into the
[9:36] nomination. He wasn't the choice of the
[9:37] bosses in 1960, but he went out and won
[9:39] those primaries and forced himself on
[9:41] them. And there you saw the role of
[9:43] money. I mean, poor Hubert Humphrey was
[9:44] traveling around West Virginia in a bus
[9:46] that would break down every now and
[9:48] then, whereas Kennedy had his conveyor
[9:50] comfortably custom fitted for himself.
[9:52] Humphrey had to go into debt in West
[9:53] Virginia. So, when a candidate starts
[9:55] worrying about money, whereas the other
[9:56] one knows he's got unlimited funds, all
[9:58] of which came together in 1960. So, I
[10:00] would say that that's the modern moment.
[10:02] Ever since then, everything has just
[10:03] escalated beyond imagining. So, we're
[10:05] almost in a different modern era now,
[10:07] but that was the beginning of the end in
[10:09] some ways.
[10:10] >> David Mason, the the the conventional
[10:12] wisdom is lot of money uh equal sign
[10:16] evil in politics. Sure. Do you see the
[10:19] equation that way?
[10:20] >> Don't see it at all. Uh they're right.
[10:23] Money has increased in significance in
[10:26] presidential campaigns in recent years,
[10:27] but we've got to put it in perspective.
[10:29] For all, for instance, the congressional
[10:31] campaigns last year, $725 million was
[10:34] spent. Automobile advertising, $3
[10:37] billion. Uh it depends a lot on whether
[10:40] you think uh what kind of automobile you
[10:42] buy is more important than who you elect
[10:44] to political office. The fact of the
[10:46] matter is that modern communications
[10:48] through television cost a lot of money.
[10:50] And we shouldn't be surprised that
[10:52] politicians are competing with one
[10:53] another to amass the resources to tell
[10:56] their story.
[10:56] >> And nothing wrong with that. Nothing
[10:58] wrong with that to my mind as long as
[11:00] it's disclosed. People do have a right
[11:03] to know who's funding the campaigns,
[11:04] where the money comes from. But beyond
[11:07] that, if that if if voters want to make
[11:09] that an issue, that's fine. But why the
[11:11] amount of money per se should be a
[11:13] concern, I don't see.
[11:14] >> So when the Hannes Johnson's of this
[11:16] world view this with alarm, catastrophe,
[11:20] calamity,
[11:21] >> calamity. What's the evil here? Okay.
[11:24] >> If you believe that the democratic
[11:26] process is supposed to be that all of us
[11:28] can rise up to be heard in this country
[11:31] to have our voice and message heard and
[11:33] be president of the United States. We
[11:34] all have our little soap box. It means
[11:36] unless you have money, you can't make it
[11:37] today. You've got to raise vast sums to
[11:40] be competitive. That's the problem. It's
[11:42] the being competitive and on a race that
[11:44] is just vastly expensive. The ordinary
[11:47] person can't possibly do it. That's why
[11:48] Steve Forbes all the all the things
[11:50] you're watching now. It's because he's
[11:52] buying or trying to buy through his own
[11:54] money over any limits because he's it's
[11:56] his personal money to do so. It makes a
[11:58] difference.
[11:58] >> Forbes is a great example, but uh a lot
[12:01] of people want to limit how you raise
[12:03] money as a way of equalizing that. I
[12:05] don't think that's going to work. We
[12:06] have this huge loophole called the First
[12:08] Amendment. As long as that's there,
[12:10] Steve Forbes or Ross Perau or anybody
[12:12] else who wants to spend his own money is
[12:14] going to be able to.
[12:15] >> And the government says he can't give
[12:17] that to Jack Kemp. those regulations
[12:20] hadn't been there, Steve Forbes wouldn't
[12:21] be a candidate. He'd have given money to
[12:23] somebody else and he'd probably spent
[12:26] less money because Kemp wouldn't have
[12:27] had to become known and we'd have had a
[12:30] better campaign, a cleaner campaign, and
[12:32] we wouldn't have had someone running in
[12:34] part because he had the personal
[12:36] resources to do it.
[12:37] >> See, I think the shape of the campaign
[12:39] is completely shaped by the request for
[12:41] money. I mean, candidates have to spend
[12:43] so much of their time begging, graveling
[12:45] for money, which undoes part of their
[12:46] dignity. They have to spend time doing
[12:48] that rather than talking to voters. I
[12:50] mean, are campaigns to the extent that
[12:51] they become
[12:52] >> Don't they talk to the voters when they
[12:53] ask?
[12:54] >> They do.
[12:55] >> No, but I mean, isn't that part of the
[12:56] process?
[12:57] >> How many voters? They're not talking to
[12:58] the ordinary voter, right? The middle
[13:00] class Americans are not the main
[13:01] contributors to the big money that the
[13:03] candidates get. And as a result, it
[13:05] skews who they concern themselves with.
[13:06] They're beholden to this people. It used
[13:08] to be that a campaign meant that you
[13:09] went around the country, you exposed
[13:11] yourself to people, and you learned
[13:12] about the country. When Truman was on
[13:14] his train in 1948, he got a feeling for
[13:16] people's feelings. Now, after Iowa's
[13:18] over and after New Hampshire is over,
[13:19] they are retail politics still, thank
[13:21] God. After that, it's a media campaign.
[13:23] They sit in a place they might as well
[13:24] sit here and have a backdrop of Texas
[13:26] and California behind them because all
[13:28] they're doing is projecting a media
[13:29] campaign financed by money on the
[13:31] country. They're not learning about the
[13:32] country anymore.
[13:34] >> I think there's a real problem also of
[13:36] equality of access. And this brings up
[13:38] the dreaded subject of Buckley versus
[13:41] Falo. January of 1976 said that a
[13:44] candidate can spend as much of his or
[13:47] her own money as that candidate would
[13:48] like to do. And the result is that it
[13:51] causes a situation. We saw it with Ross
[13:53] Perau in 1992. We're seeing it with
[13:55] Steve Forbes right now where a candidate
[13:58] not only has hugely more resources to
[14:00] spend on television, which is so much
[14:02] more important than many of the other
[14:04] channels, but also a situation, and I
[14:06] don't mean to single out Steve Forbes,
[14:08] but this is an example. He's been able
[14:10] to buy up television time in early
[14:12] states in a way that has prevented some
[14:15] of the other candidates from buying time
[14:17] themselves because the time has already
[14:19] been reserved.
[14:20] >> But wait, let me ask this question,
[14:21] Haynes. It's all well and good to say
[14:23] it's terrible the money part of it, but
[14:25] let me play devil's advocate. Who are
[14:27] the people who would who are watching
[14:28] these commercials and having their
[14:30] opinion shaped that way by by all this?
[14:32] I mean, isn't doesn't the public have a
[14:35] a a villainous role to play in?
[14:37] >> Of course, the in the end it all comes
[14:39] down to the public being able to sift
[14:40] through advertising a barrage of
[14:43] material, negative campaigns. We now
[14:45] hear today poll pushing pushing polls.
[14:48] >> Explain what that is. Well, you you have
[14:50] >> the nonprofessionals watching us.
[14:52] >> You have a focus group and you call up
[14:54] someone and you say, "I'm I want to find
[14:56] out how you would feel about Jim Lair as
[14:58] president. Do you think Jim Lair is a
[15:00] terrible guy? Would you vote for him?"
[15:01] They say, "No, if I knew he was a
[15:02] terrible guy, I wouldn't vote for him."
[15:04] So then they use this and you push him
[15:06] pushing them into a position that that
[15:09] really it's a phony poll.
[15:10] >> It's a phony poll. That's right.
[15:11] >> Phony poll. And it's now considered a
[15:13] legitimate form of politics, is it not,
[15:15] David? Well, the push questions are used
[15:16] in polling to try to convince voters. In
[15:19] fact, that was what Forbes was
[15:21] complaining about in Iowa. It wasn't to
[15:23] try to put out a poll in the media to
[15:24] show that someone was ahead, but rather
[15:26] to call everybody they could call. Uh,
[15:29] and as Haynes pointed out, asked a sort
[15:31] of if did you know he beat his wife
[15:33] question to try to convince people to
[15:35] change their minds.
[15:36] >> What about the the point that a lot of
[15:37] people make here? Again, I'm playing
[15:39] devil's advocate here. uh that nobody
[15:41] would have cared or paid any attention
[15:43] to Ross Perau or cared or paid any
[15:46] attention to Steve Forbes if they hadn't
[15:47] had these millions of dollars of their
[15:49] own and they spent them.
[15:51] >> You're absolutely right. But the the big
[15:53] story of big money in politics is that
[15:55] these people make a big splash and then
[15:57] sink like a rock. In fact, Perau didn't
[16:00] get very far. Uh Forbes probably isn't
[16:02] going to win the nomination. Michael
[16:04] Huffington, who is the other big
[16:05] example, couldn't win. Money can buy you
[16:07] competition, but it can't win an
[16:09] election.
[16:10] >> It's true that the graveyards of
[16:11] politics are filled with some of these
[16:12] rich people who have not made it. Look
[16:13] at Connelly. He spent $12 million and
[16:15] got one delegate. True.
[16:17] >> But nonetheless, he has shaped this
[16:18] political process. Steve Forbes has. He
[16:20] would not have been, in my judgment, a
[16:22] visible national recognized figure if he
[16:25] hadn't bought his visibility by
[16:26] saturating television. And once you do
[16:28] that, you become almost a celebrity.
[16:29] There's an aura attached to you. Then
[16:31] people come to your rallies. He would
[16:32] have been sitting.
[16:34] It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And
[16:35] Ross Perau, I mean, I think perhaps we
[16:38] tend to see him as less successful than
[16:40] he really was. For a couple of months in
[16:42] 1992, if the election had been held,
[16:44] Ross Perau would have been president of
[16:45] the United States and he would have been
[16:47] president.
[16:47] >> She believes that would have happened if
[16:49] he hadn't had the problem.
[16:50] >> Absolutely. and and it would have
[16:52] happened without the kind of scrutiny
[16:54] that we later got. And we've got a very
[16:56] dangerous system now because you can be
[16:58] in a situation where someone starts
[17:00] spending money in a very big way at the
[17:02] beginning of the election year is able
[17:04] to get a very prime position in these
[17:05] early primaries and caucuses could get a
[17:08] lock on the nomination and only later do
[17:10] we find out things that otherwise might
[17:12] make people very skeptical.
[17:14] >> Play the devil's advocate again on
[17:15] another thing. Yes. But Steve Forbes
[17:17] with his money put on the on the agenda
[17:20] table flat tax uh opened up a lot of
[17:24] issues that wouldn't have otherwise
[17:25] gotten opened up because it was a rather
[17:27] kind of close race. A lot of people said
[17:28] it was a foregone deal. Suddenly this
[17:30] guy comes out of nowhere. People have to
[17:32] pay attention to him. He's an outsider.
[17:34] That appeals the way people think.
[17:35] >> That's fine. I mean anything that
[17:37] contributes to the democratic dialogue
[17:39] is a good thing. The problem with money
[17:41] is that it skews it in favor of those
[17:43] who have the most who can get their
[17:44] message good or bad over. And you see
[17:46] the negatives come along with that. And
[17:48] the Congress, David was talking about
[17:49] the Congress and advertising for cars.
[17:52] Every week in this Congress, people
[17:54] don't vote on Mondays and Fridays. You
[17:56] know why? Because they're going home
[17:58] raising money so they can win for
[17:59] election. It skews the process to a
[18:02] point they're beholden to the money
[18:03] purse.
[18:04] >> The process is skewed. But I want to
[18:06] point out the reason is that government
[18:07] regulation is has already been imposed
[18:10] limiting campaign donations to $1,000.
[18:13] That's a lot to the average voter. It's
[18:15] not very much when you're talking about
[18:17] running a political campaign. Anyone
[18:19] who's ever raised money understands you
[18:21] have to go for big dollar contributions
[18:23] to raise large amounts. And so
[18:25] politicians are out raising lots of
[18:27] money, talking to fundraisers and so on
[18:30] because they've got to raise the money
[18:31] in relatively small amounts. in the
[18:33] presidential race, it's got to get down
[18:34] below $250.
[18:36] And so, in fact, if we remove some of
[18:38] the government regulations that are
[18:40] there now, politicians would spend less
[18:42] time raising money and the financial
[18:45] advantages that a Bob Dole built up, for
[18:47] instance, after years and years and
[18:49] years of fundraising would be less
[18:51] overwhelming. And I think frankly, in
[18:52] the end, it's counterintuitive. You
[18:54] would see less spending on campaigns
[18:56] because it would be less of a factor in
[18:59] the competition. I'm always asking you
[19:01] all uh to look back. Let me look
[19:02] forward. Doris, if you were God, what
[19:04] would you do to change the system?
[19:06] >> Well, the most important thing would be
[19:07] to convince the American public that the
[19:08] system needs changing. We've got lots of
[19:10] things in Congress to change the system.
[19:12] There's talk about free television time,
[19:13] which I think would be critical. Britain
[19:15] does that.
[19:15] >> Paul Taylor make a point here. Former
[19:17] colleague of yours at the Washington
[19:18] Post, Paul Taylor, political reporter,
[19:21] was offered uh or was said by the
[19:23] Washington Post, come back and cover
[19:24] this campaign. Then he decided no. He's
[19:26] taking a leave to just push for free
[19:28] television.
[19:29] >> I think that's obviously going to change
[19:30] a lot if that happens. In Britain, they
[19:32] also cover the costs of election day so
[19:34] that all that canvasing and making sure
[19:36] people get to the polls is covered by
[19:37] the government. They also have free
[19:38] mailings. I think we got to think in
[19:40] those terms. But until the American
[19:42] public realizes that there's a direct
[19:43] link between money and the actual
[19:45] legislative process, and it changes
[19:46] their lives because the people they vote
[19:48] into office are worried about these
[19:49] money people all the time. Legislation
[19:51] is distorted. Regulations aren't done.
[19:53] Judgeships are bought. Ambassadorships
[19:54] are bought. Somehow these connections
[19:56] aren't made and it seems like a process,
[19:58] a good government issue. We got to make
[19:59] it sexy somehow.
[20:00] >> What is your good government solution,
[20:02] Mr. Bloss?
[20:03] >> Well, I support what Dora said and I
[20:04] think another thing if I had just one
[20:06] choice would be to find some way to rest
[20:09] restrict the ability to of people to
[20:11] spend these huge amounts of money in
[20:13] their own presidential campaign. As you
[20:15] know, there's a suggestion for a
[20:17] constitutional amendment by senators
[20:19] Bradley and Hollings. I hope it doesn't
[20:21] take that, but if it does, I would be
[20:23] supportive of it. Haynes,
[20:25] >> I think the free election time on
[20:27] television for candidates I've I've
[20:29] supported for 20 years, made speeches,
[20:31] that's how how much influence we have
[20:32] here in this program and other places.
[20:34] But but secondly, also I think it's
[20:36] shortening the length of the the
[20:38] process. Bravo. You talked about Jack
[20:40] Kennedy in 1960 with 13 primaries. We
[20:43] all thought it was the end of the
[20:44] Democratic. Now it's 50 and it's two
[20:46] years long and people running in in New
[20:48] Hampshire three years ago before even a
[20:51] vote was cast. And I think if we could
[20:52] constrict the time, free up the process,
[20:55] we do.
[20:55] >> You would you would if you if you could
[20:57] wave the wand, you would make all
[20:59] television, I mean, you would make
[21:00] television time free on the networks,
[21:02] cable, everybody who has a access to a
[21:04] TV set,
[21:05] >> Jim, they're the public airways. We
[21:06] license them. We own them.
[21:07] >> And then would you at the same time then
[21:09] prohibit paid advertising?
[21:11] >> No.
[21:11] >> No, no, absolutely not.
[21:13] >> That is a free That is a free free press
[21:15] free amendment issue.
[21:15] >> You have a wand. And if you did, sir,
[21:17] how would you wear it?
[21:18] >> I'd get the government out of politics.
[21:20] The difference between me and and the
[21:22] other panelists here is they want the
[21:24] government in Washington to come in and
[21:26] micromanage and tell politicians and
[21:28] American citizens and television
[21:30] networks and everybody else how they can
[21:32] run campaigns. I don't think that's
[21:34] going to work. I think that's going to
[21:35] create more problems than simply letting
[21:38] us have a good free-for-all and let the
[21:39] voters sort it out.
[21:40] >> But what about what happens then?
[21:42] Doesn't the power go to the people with
[21:44] the money under under a lazair uh
[21:46] approach? I I think people as long as
[21:48] the money is disclosed, who gave how
[21:50] much, uh, who they are, and and what
[21:52] they're interested in is disclosed, then
[21:54] people are going to make rational
[21:56] judgments about
[21:56] >> and that would prevent what Doris is
[21:58] worried about. If if if I'm uh with a
[22:00] certain industry and I you're a
[22:02] candidate for whatever and I give you
[22:03] the money and then it's disclosed, that
[22:05] keeps the heat on you from doing what I
[22:06] want you to do.
[22:07] >> It's going to become an issue. I don't
[22:09] think that'll be protection enough
[22:10] because there's so many ways you can
[22:11] give money without disclosing your
[22:13] actual gift by giving it to your sister,
[22:15] your brother, your aunt, your uncle to
[22:16] give to making pack committees, making
[22:18] soft money. Until we make it clear that
[22:20] you're disclosed, I wouldn't accept
[22:21] that.
[22:22] >> Well, we worked this out tonight. Thank
[22:23] you all very much.
[22:34] Now we go on to two updates on two
[22:36] important foreign stories and a
[22:38] Rosenblad essay. The first overseas
[22:40] story is Northern Ireland. Elizabeth
[22:42] Farnsworth is in charge.
[22:44] >> In London today, police and work crews
[22:46] surrounded the site of Friday's bomb
[22:48] explosion that left two dead and more
[22:50] than 100 injured. But the explosion in
[22:52] the Docklands district destroyed more
[22:54] than lives and property. It also dashed
[22:56] hopes for peace. hopes built during the
[22:58] ceasefire of the past 17 months in
[23:00] Northern Ireland. We begin our coverage
[23:02] with an excerpt from a rare television
[23:04] address to the nation tonight by British
[23:07] Prime Minister John Major.
[23:10] Shinfane and the IRA have a choice. Only
[23:14] when they commit themselves
[23:15] unequivocally to peace and reinstate the
[23:19] ceasefire can they have a voice and a
[23:22] stake in Northern Ireland's future.
[23:26] But if they reject democratic principles
[23:29] and use violence, they can expect no
[23:32] sympathy and no quarter.
[23:35] We will hunt down the criminals who
[23:36] murdered innocent people last Friday. We
[23:39] will be vigilant against the threat of
[23:41] further attacks. The IRA will never bomb
[23:44] their way to the negotiating table.
[23:46] Until their violence genuinely ends,
[23:49] British and Irish ministers will not
[23:53] meet Shin Fay.
[23:56] There's a new spirit in Northern
[23:57] Ireland, a spirit for peace. We will not
[24:01] allow the gains made there to be lost.
[24:04] We shall intensify our work with the
[24:06] Democratic parties and with the Irish
[24:08] government.
[24:10] On Friday night at 1 minute 7, the IRA
[24:16] broke their word.
[24:18] They shattered promises made in their
[24:20] name.
[24:22] But I will never weaken my resolve to
[24:24] bring a just and lasting settlement to
[24:27] Northern Ireland.
[24:29] >> On the streets of Northern Ireland
[24:30] today, there were more police, but so
[24:32] far no signs of violence. And many
[24:34] voices in the British ruled province are
[24:36] calling for new efforts to preserve the
[24:38] peace which followed 25 years of civil
[24:41] conflict. Next, Alec Thompson of
[24:43] Independent Television News reports from
[24:45] Northern Ireland on the desire for peace
[24:47] and on the reaction from Shinfane, the
[24:49] political wing of the Irish Republican
[24:51] Army.
[24:52] >> Several thousand people gathered outside
[24:55] Belfast City Hall at lunchtime to
[24:57] express the overwhelming desire of
[24:59] people here for the ceasefire somehow to
[25:02] restart. Peace campaigner Anne Carr
[25:04] called on all politicians to find
[25:06] compromise. The politicians must ask
[25:09] themselves,
[25:10] what do I need to do to bring a just and
[25:14] lasting peace to our country.
[25:17] >> But down in South Armar, a different
[25:19] message after Friday. Business as usual
[25:21] for the provisional IRA. It may or may
[25:24] not be. There is talk here of a possible
[25:26] new tactic of push and pause.
[25:30] Large one-off actions like Fridays
[25:33] followed by an assessment as to what the
[25:35] effect is. The houses at Kalihana near
[25:38] Cross Mlenn nestle around a monument to
[25:40] IRA members who've been killed. Here,
[25:43] one of the area's leading Republicans
[25:45] told us John Major, not the IRA, can
[25:47] salvage the peace process.
[25:50] >> John Major could salvage it tomorrow
[25:51] morning by by drawing up a realistic
[25:54] time scale for all party negotiations
[25:56] and by saying to the unions, listen,
[25:58] we're calling the talks. If you don't
[25:59] want to call, well, it's too bad. That
[26:00] would be a pity. That won't help. But
[26:02] nevertheless, we're calling the talks.
[26:04] Now for Shinfane's Belfast leadership
[26:06] and Jerry Adams specifically, the coming
[26:08] days are critical. So far, the IRA is
[26:10] with him, but that's only one side of
[26:12] the equation which decides his future. I
[26:15] think when we do get a peace settlement,
[26:17] and we surely have to get a peace
[26:19] settlement, it will be because
[26:21] governments on both islands play
[26:23] leadership roles, bring all the parties
[26:25] together and start to figure out and to
[26:27] work and to accommodate and to to end up
[26:30] with an agreement. That's what we need
[26:32] to do.
[26:33] >> In Washington today, President Clinton
[26:35] said he would do everything he could to
[26:36] get the peace process back on track. But
[26:39] in a meeting with the leader of Northern
[26:40] Ireland's Unionist Party, the president
[26:42] refused to request that the US no longer
[26:45] allow Jerry Adams or other Shinfane
[26:47] members into the country. Now, we get
[26:49] two perspectives on Northern Ireland.
[26:50] Ray O'Hanlin is senior editor for the
[26:52] Irish Echo, a New York-based Irishame
[26:55] newspaper. and Michael Elliot is editor
[26:57] of Newsweek International and former
[27:00] Washington bureau chief for the British
[27:01] magazine The Economist. Thank you both
[27:03] for being with us. Michael Elliott, is
[27:05] the peace process dead?
[27:07] >> Elizabeth, I think a peace process is
[27:09] just about dead. That is to say, the
[27:11] peace process that we've had for the
[27:13] last 18 months, I don't think the peace
[27:15] process is dead. No, I think one of the
[27:17] things that's happened today is a
[27:19] determination in in three capitals,
[27:21] Dublin, uh, Washington, and London to
[27:24] try and put together a peace process.
[27:27] But we all lost our virginity on Friday.
[27:30] Uh, and it's going to be extremely
[27:32] difficult, extremely difficult to get
[27:35] back to a status quo ante. That's why I
[27:37] say the peace process that existed up to
[27:40] Friday is gone. The search now is to see
[27:43] whether we can uh whether we can build a
[27:45] peace process that lasts a bit longer.
[27:47] >> Ray O'Hanland, do you agree with that?
[27:49] >> Well, I I do agree that the there is a
[27:52] fundamental change in the peace process.
[27:54] The peace process itself itself
[27:56] continues to exist, but it remains a
[27:59] rather unusual peace process. When we
[28:01] look at Bosnia, the Middle East, and
[28:02] South Africa, in every case, at one
[28:04] point or another, you had talks between
[28:06] the waring parties. And that's how
[28:08] Northern Ireland stands out as being
[28:09] very different. the lack of political
[28:11] talks between the waring parties and
[28:13] given what John Major has said today
[28:15] there seems very little early prospect
[28:17] of such talks taking place
[28:19] >> let's go back a little and try to figure
[28:21] out why all this is happening why do you
[28:23] think the IRA did this at this time
[28:27] the bombing Ray
[28:28] >> well uh it's been coming for some time I
[28:31] mean the signs have been there really
[28:33] since late last summer uh there have
[28:35] been some suggestions that it was almost
[28:38] going to happen just before the Downing
[28:40] communique uh at the end of November
[28:42] between the Irish from the Irish and
[28:43] British governments and the visit of
[28:44] President Clinton and really President
[28:46] Clinton's uh visit to Ireland put off
[28:49] the evil day. There has been obvious
[28:51] impatience uh among Irish Republicans
[28:53] and nationalists over the reluctance of
[28:55] the British and the Unionists to engage
[28:56] in talks. So really uh there was a
[29:00] feeling in some quarters of
[29:01] inevitability of this uh bombing and
[29:03] actually a wonder as to why it didn't
[29:05] happen earlier. So the warning signs
[29:07] have been there. Government officials on
[29:09] both sides of the Irish Sea have been
[29:11] suspecting that something like this is
[29:13] going to happen for some time. In fact,
[29:14] one Irish government official earlier
[29:17] last week wondered when the political
[29:19] graph and the what he called the the
[29:21] killing graph would intersect. That
[29:23] question was answered two days later.
[29:25] >> And why why did the uh the British
[29:28] government not want to talk with the
[29:30] IRA? What happened in that period that
[29:32] made this sort of inevitable? Well, I
[29:34] think talks will happen actually and I
[29:36] think I thought last week that we were
[29:38] getting quite close to a fudge with
[29:40] which uh everyone could just about
[29:42] agree.
[29:44] >> And I think
[29:45] >> and what was that fudge which you
[29:46] thought would happen?
[29:47] >> Uh everyone everyone gets something. The
[29:49] Irish government gets proximity talks,
[29:51] so-called proximity talks, talks uh
[29:53] rather like those that took place in
[29:54] Dayton, Ohio,
[29:55] >> where the parties are all in the same
[29:57] place, but they don't necessarily talk
[29:58] to each other.
[29:59] >> Right. the British government and the
[30:00] unionists get at the same time as the
[30:03] proximity talks are going on uh
[30:05] elections to a body that would have
[30:07] formal all party talks. uh the unionists
[30:10] say that they will accept all party
[30:13] talks at such an elected body and
[30:15] everyone gets a bit of something and I
[30:17] thought we were actually heading in that
[30:19] direction last week and it would have
[30:22] been messy and it would have been uh a
[30:24] fudge and uh there would have been all
[30:26] sorts of compromises and actually I
[30:28] think we might get back there. I mean
[30:30] the the the language used by Major in
[30:32] the House of Commons today was extremely
[30:35] clever and extremely careful. I mean, he
[30:37] has gone out of his way, I think, not to
[30:41] ask uh Jerry Adams to disassociate
[30:44] himself from the bombing on Friday,
[30:46] which in my view is an impossible
[30:48] demand. Uh which would arguably make the
[30:50] situation worse, not better. Instead,
[30:52] what Major has said is that Sin Shinfane
[30:55] must see if they can get another
[30:57] ceasefire. Now, that won't be easy
[30:59] either. But I think if they can deliver
[31:03] another ceasefire with which everyone
[31:06] has a degree of confidence, one might be
[31:09] able to move forward on a number of
[31:11] different tracks uh to talks within a
[31:14] few weeks, few months.
[31:16] >> Mr. O'Hanlin, the role of Jerry Adams is
[31:18] important here as the public spokesman
[31:20] for Shinfane, which is the political arm
[31:22] of the IRA. How do you and and he has
[31:24] been received by the president and the
[31:27] president has now been asked not to let
[31:28] him come back in the country. How do you
[31:30] understand his role? What he knew? What
[31:32] he didn't know? Who he informed?
[31:35] >> Well, in one sense, that's the $64,000
[31:38] question, and it is a problem for Jerry
[31:40] Adams. The more he says he didn't know,
[31:42] the more he looks isolated from the
[31:45] controlling center of the IRA. Then, of
[31:48] course, if he admits that he did know,
[31:50] uh, that would be a serious, uh, breach
[31:52] of the protocol that had been developed
[31:54] between him and his party and the White
[31:56] House. Adams did contact the White House
[31:59] shortly before the bombing more or less
[32:01] saying that there were rumors that
[32:02] something was about to happen. In all
[32:04] likelihood, Adams did have an inkling,
[32:07] but he has been seen to be somewhat
[32:08] removed from the IRA Army Council for
[32:10] several months now, both he and Vice
[32:13] President Martin McInness. So, it would
[32:15] appear that he perhaps did not know any
[32:16] of the details of what was to transpire
[32:19] and is saying the truth. Then again, of
[32:21] course, he does to a certain degree lose
[32:22] credibility because some will point to
[32:24] him and say, "Well, really, what
[32:25] influence does he have with the IRA and
[32:28] what's the point of President Clinton
[32:29] entertaining him at the White House,
[32:31] indeed giving him the red carpet
[32:32] treatment at the White House?"
[32:33] >> Michael,
[32:34] >> I agree entirely with that and and I'
[32:36] I'd go one stage further. I mean,
[32:37] precisely because Jerry Adams is so
[32:39] important to this process. I don't think
[32:41] it's wise to press him uh either on what
[32:44] he knew or didn't know on Friday or to
[32:47] press him to disassociate himself from
[32:49] it. Frankly, he can't. I mean, if there
[32:52] is one thing worse than the present
[32:54] situation, it would be a split in
[32:56] Republican ranks in which in which man
[32:58] with a good deal less commitment to the
[33:00] peace process than Jerry Adams might
[33:03] grab uh real power. So, I don't think we
[33:06] should put Adams on the spot uh of
[33:08] forcing him to uh disassociate himself
[33:11] from uh from what happened on Friday,
[33:13] odd though that sounds, because I think
[33:15] to do so really would marginalize him at
[33:18] a time when frankly he's needed.
[33:21] >> I want to talk about uh former Senator
[33:23] Mitchell's commission, the International
[33:25] Commission that looked at this matter
[33:27] and especially at the matter of
[33:28] disarming the IRA. Some reports lay the
[33:32] bombing at the at sort of at this point
[33:35] at the point at which the commission
[33:36] came up with an idea which the British
[33:38] basically rejected. Am I right about
[33:40] that? Could you give us some background
[33:41] on that?
[33:42] >> Well, it was an extremely complicated
[33:44] and in my view rather maladroid uh piece
[33:46] of work by the British British
[33:48] government. I mean essentially in their
[33:50] lives they accepted the Mitchell
[33:51] Commission's report but then said
[33:53] Mitchell Commission but then said let's
[33:55] go on and have elections. Now elections
[33:57] are a code word in in Northern Ireland
[34:00] uh to a place where all party talks uh
[34:03] will take place. Now from the British
[34:05] >> let's just start the Mitchell report
[34:07] said am I right about this
[34:08] >> decomission at the same time as all
[34:09] >> have all party talks and at the same
[34:11] time have disarmament whereas the
[34:13] British have been saying disarmament
[34:15] then talks and then the British said no
[34:17] we still want elections for the group
[34:19] that's negotiating at all. The British
[34:21] government's view I mean the way the
[34:23] British government would answer your
[34:24] question is to say we'll have
[34:26] commissioning at the same time as all
[34:28] party talks as Mitchell says but we will
[34:30] have elections to determine who will
[34:31] take part
[34:32] >> who will take part right now let's talk
[34:34] about the British government's demand
[34:36] that there be elections for this
[34:38] negotiating group. Why do they want
[34:39] that? Why don't
[34:41] >> the British government the British
[34:42] government case would be uh that
[34:44] elections are a way of getting all
[34:47] parties to all party talks. In other
[34:49] words, that if you don't have elections,
[34:50] which is what the unionists have asked
[34:52] for, the unionists won't come. The
[34:55] counterargument, which has equal force,
[34:57] is that in Northern Ireland, elections
[34:59] merely polarized the community, have
[35:01] often given new strength to unionist die
[35:04] hards rather than to unionist moderates.
[35:07] And moreover, rather sneakily uh show
[35:10] that Chinfane doesn't have huge
[35:13] electoral support, perhaps 12%. So,
[35:15] under them. So
[35:17] >> this is where everybody was blocked when
[35:18] the bomb went off. Right.
[35:19] >> Right. I I I personally thought it was a
[35:21] slightly maladroid move by the British
[35:24] government
[35:24] >> not to accept
[35:25] >> but they have they have as they say in
[35:27] Britain half a point you know that you
[35:29] have to get the unionist to all party
[35:31] talks otherwise you won't have all party
[35:34] talks.
[35:34] >> Uhhuh. Mr. Hanland do you have anything
[35:36] to add to that? Well, I think the
[35:38] feeling uh among nationalists in
[35:39] Northern Ireland and indeed I think it's
[35:41] shared by the Irish government that
[35:43] elections in Northern Ireland are indeed
[35:45] quite predictable. What they want to see
[35:47] is that understandings are set up in
[35:49] advance of any elections for any
[35:51] assembly that would take into account
[35:53] the minority position. What essentially
[35:55] is to be discussed is a form of power
[35:57] sharing uh which has not been evident in
[35:59] Northern Ireland really ever. and also
[36:02] talk of a bill of rights and a whole
[36:03] series of new formula uh upon which an
[36:07] election could take place. In other
[36:08] words, the parties would go into an
[36:10] elective process uh feeling that they
[36:12] they're all going to get some something
[36:14] out of it because the problem as
[36:15] mentioned is that each and every party
[36:17] fears the potential outcome so much so
[36:20] that they will not enter into talks are
[36:22] indeed elections one or the other. So
[36:24] why the why the talks first is to hammer
[36:27] out a series of understandings that will
[36:29] alleviate these fears and allow the
[36:30] various parties to take part in an
[36:33] election process that they all feel that
[36:34] they have a stake in.
[36:35] >> And Mr. O'Hanland, how important is the
[36:37] US role in all this? Now the US
[36:39] government's been very involved in this
[36:41] up to now. Must it still be involved to
[36:43] move this forward?
[36:44] >> I think absolutely. I think that the US
[36:46] role I think more than ever uh as a
[36:49] broker in this is is needed. It's a
[36:52] difficult one for President Clinton. In
[36:53] one sense, he was basking in reflected
[36:55] glory because he was handed a ceasefire
[36:57] and a plate. Now, he's dealing with a
[36:58] very difficult situation. And he's also
[37:00] dealing between friends who are at odds,
[37:02] the Irish and British governments. It's
[37:04] it's much easier to deal with enemies
[37:05] and impose blockades or bomb them. But
[37:07] this is a very very difficult diplomatic
[37:09] situation for President Clinton. Also
[37:11] going into an election campaign with
[37:13] many Irish Americans, looking at his
[37:15] performance very closely. But I think
[37:17] more than ever now there is a need for a
[37:19] US role. the US has its foot in the door
[37:22] and I think would be very reluctant to
[37:23] actually take that foot out.
[37:25] >> Uh I agree that the American government
[37:27] has been uh useful more than useful I I
[37:31] increasingly come to the view essential
[37:32] to the whole process and that they have
[37:34] a role in bringing the uh the British
[37:36] and Irish governments to to some
[37:38] diplomatic demar where they can move
[37:39] forward on a on a whole number of
[37:41] fronts. What the American government
[37:43] cannot do, I think genuinely cannot do,
[37:47] uh, is force Jerry Adams and the IRA uh,
[37:51] to announce that there is a new
[37:53] ceasefire. I mean, it does not seem to
[37:55] me that it is in
[37:56] >> the US can't do it because it doesn't in
[37:58] the gift of the American government to
[38:01] force Adams to do that. And what we
[38:03] don't know is whether it is in the gift
[38:05] of Adams himself to persuade the IRA
[38:09] that a new ceasefire is necessary.
[38:11] >> Well, Michael Elliot, Ray O'Hanland,
[38:13] thanks for being with us.
[38:24] Now to Bosnia, our second foreign
[38:26] affairs story. We first get an update on
[38:28] the latest threat to the Dayton peace
[38:30] plan. the Bosnian government's detention
[38:32] of two Serb army officers. The two were
[38:35] accused of war crimes. The reporter is
[38:37] Gabby Rado of Independent Television
[38:39] News.
[38:41] The continued detention after nearly two
[38:42] weeks of General Georgia Jukage and of
[38:45] Colonel Alexa has created the most
[38:48] serious threat so far to the Dayton
[38:49] peace plan. These pictures received in
[38:52] the past hour show the two Bosnian Serb
[38:54] officers being escorted roughly out of a
[38:57] building in Sievo by members of the
[38:59] French Peace Implementation Force. After
[39:01] some confusion, it was confirmed by the
[39:03] Bosnian government that the men were
[39:05] being sent to the UN's war crimes
[39:07] tribunal at the Hague. The tribunal has
[39:10] said it wants to investigate the two
[39:12] men's cases, but hasn't formally charged
[39:14] them. What's uncertain is whether all
[39:16] this was known by US mediator Richard
[39:19] Hullbrook when he today announced an
[39:21] agreement with the Bosnian government to
[39:22] diffuse the crisis. The deal was that
[39:25] the Sievo leadership would only arrest
[39:27] those on an official HG tribunal list
[39:29] which did not apply to the Bosnian Serb
[39:31] officers when they were detained. Four
[39:34] soldiers of lower rank were released by
[39:36] the mainly Muslim Bosnian government
[39:37] over the weekend. It's reported tonight
[39:40] that another four will shortly be set
[39:41] free. It's far from certain that such a
[39:44] move would temper the Bosnian Serb's
[39:46] anger after their officers have been so
[39:48] suddenly extradited.
[39:50] >> Now, how Bosnia has changed for the
[39:52] Bosnian since the troops arrived.
[39:54] Margaret Warner has that.
[39:57] >> Now, we get an assessment of life on the
[39:59] ground in Bosnia since NATO troops were
[40:01] deployed there. It comes from two
[40:03] writers who've spent considerable time
[40:05] in the region. Laura Silber is the
[40:07] Balkans correspondent for the Financial
[40:09] Times of London. She's the co-author of
[40:11] Yugoslavia, Death of a Nation. David
[40:14] Reef is the author of Slaughterhouse:
[40:16] Bosnia and the Failure of the West. He
[40:18] is also working on a book about
[40:20] humanitarian efforts in the Balkans and
[40:22] other parts of the world. Welcome both
[40:24] of you. Laura Sober, let me start with
[40:26] you. How has life changed for the
[40:28] average person in Bosnia since NATO
[40:30] troops arrived?
[40:31] >> Well, it's changed dramatically. For the
[40:33] first time, Muslims and Crowats can now
[40:37] drive through Serbeld territory which is
[40:39] secured by the US forces in the north of
[40:43] Bosnia and they can drive through. They
[40:45] can pass through land they haven't been
[40:47] able to cross in three and a half years.
[40:49] >> David, what strikes you most vividly
[40:52] about the change there?
[40:54] >> Well, what strikes me particularly in
[40:55] Sievo, I think, is the absence of death.
[40:58] that for all the problems with this
[41:01] peace agreement and above all with its
[41:03] implementation and all the recent
[41:06] difficulties we've been seeing I think
[41:08] the the amazing experience for those of
[41:12] us who lived through the siege of
[41:14] walking of driving through as Laura
[41:16] Silver says areas that were hot front
[41:19] lines of people living some kind of life
[41:22] rather than simply trying to survive.
[41:25] Now, is the experience though different
[41:27] for different ethnic groups, Laura?
[41:30] >> Well, of course. I mean, for the Muslims
[41:32] and Crowats, I think they have a sense
[41:34] of NATO finally came. There are finally
[41:38] troops on the ground, troops that are
[41:40] there in some way to see that they are,
[41:43] if not protected, certainly that the the
[41:46] lines of the peace agreement are
[41:48] implemented. For the Serves, I think
[41:50] this was what they wanted the least.
[41:52] They didn't want NATO there. They didn't
[41:55] want an international presence that
[41:57] really had military might. So obviously
[42:00] we have a very different perception of
[42:03] the international force.
[42:05] >> And is that true for average Serbs,
[42:07] average Bosnian Serbs as well as the
[42:09] leadership or is it just the leadership?
[42:11] >> Well, it's very difficult to distinguish
[42:14] the leadership from the Bosnian Serbs in
[42:16] the sense of it's still too early. I
[42:19] think I asked a policeman on the ground,
[42:21] someone who about a week ago was now a
[42:24] friendly traffic cop, whereas a month
[42:26] ago he would have been beating you up
[42:28] and saying you couldn't cross the line.
[42:29] And I asked him, "Well, why did you
[42:31] fight the war? Aren't you angry at your
[42:32] leaders?" Well, they're not angry yet.
[42:34] It's still too early, I think, for the
[42:37] people to realize just what disaster was
[42:40] wrought on them by their leadership.
[42:42] David Reef, how do you think the
[42:45] different groups there regard the uh
[42:47] international forces now? Well, I think
[42:50] that certainly the Bosnian government
[42:52] side, the side that's so often and by
[42:55] all of us misidentified in a kind of
[42:57] shorthand way as the Muslim side, is the
[43:01] most comfortable because, as you know,
[43:03] in June of 1995,
[43:05] the Bosnian government made a kind of
[43:07] lastditch attempt to break the siege of
[43:09] SVO and failed catastrophically.
[43:12] So the NATO bombing, however much it may
[43:14] have ratified the partition of Bosnia in
[43:17] effective terms, still saved them. For
[43:20] Croats in Western Herzuggavana eager to
[43:24] unify with Croatia proper or for Serbs,
[43:27] it's a much less uh happy experience.
[43:31] Serbs in particular, I think Laura is
[43:33] absolutely right, haven't yet really
[43:36] experienced the full extent of this
[43:39] waste that the war has been. But I I do
[43:42] see or at least the beginnings as I
[43:45] travel around on on their side of the
[43:47] line some realization that that this
[43:51] this war was was a lie from beginning to
[43:55] end. The things their leaders told them
[43:56] were lies and that their leaders
[43:58] betrayed them.
[44:00] >> Tell us too, as you drive around, we we
[44:02] read a lot here about the zone of
[44:04] separation between these various areas
[44:06] that the NATO forces have enforced. What
[44:09] is the zone of separation like? I mean,
[44:11] do people live there? Is it a no man's
[44:12] land, Laura?
[44:13] >> Well, it's incredibly desolate. I mean,
[44:15] I just was in one in particular in
[44:18] northern Bosnia, and it is totally
[44:20] desolate. You can see the lines of where
[44:23] there's nothing nothing alive, not even
[44:25] trees that have been just killed by
[44:27] fighting. There's no one on the front
[44:29] line. And then as you get a little bit
[44:31] away, you can see the beginnings of life
[44:34] again. And then depending if it's a Serb
[44:36] side, all of a sudden the all the signs
[44:38] will be in the cerillic alphabet. If
[44:40] it's on the Bosnian side, all the signs
[44:43] will be in the Roman alphabet. And then
[44:44] you can see, well, the signs of life
[44:47] again, but the front line still, there's
[44:49] no one yet in this zone of separation,
[44:51] but in time, we can hope they'll be
[44:53] rebuilding. And that's what's the most
[44:54] important thing to concentrate on.
[44:56] >> So, David Roof, was this zone of
[44:57] separation, did this used to be
[44:59] inhabited? Are there buildings in that
[45:00] area?
[45:01] >> Well, the zone of separation
[45:04] technically is actually a very small
[45:06] area. I think no more than two miles
[45:08] wide between the forces and that's been
[45:10] pretty much carved out into a freef fire
[45:12] zone filled with obstacle belts of
[45:15] landmines. I don't actually think that's
[45:17] where the rebuilding will take place.
[45:19] Although I entirely agree with Lauren. I
[45:21] think the thing that we ought to keep in
[45:23] our minds is that without reconstruction
[45:26] this is not the end of the war. This is
[45:28] halfime. That's really the essential
[45:31] point. Just as without the Marshall
[45:33] Plan, Europe would not have recovered. I
[45:36] would argue without the Marshall Plan
[45:38] and the Nuremberg trials, there never
[45:40] would have been a rebuilt Europe, at
[45:42] least not in the time it took. And there
[45:44] won't be one in Bosnia unless the money
[45:47] is made available. And what I see rather
[45:50] from my point of view desparingly is
[45:53] that while I4 has done a terrific job
[45:56] separating the forces, yes, excuse me,
[45:58] the NATO force that succeeded the UN
[46:00] peacekeeping force, the international
[46:02] force did a great job separating
[46:05] >> the armies. But the real trick is this
[46:08] reconstruction and above all getting the
[46:10] refugees back. And I have a terrible
[46:12] fantasy that at the end of this year,
[46:14] Admiral Smith, the commander of the
[46:16] international force, will say, "Well, I
[46:17] separated the forces." And Mr. Built,
[46:19] the UN's high representative, will say,
[46:21] "Well, I facilitated the civilian
[46:24] dialogue." And and the ambassador for
[46:26] the Organization for Security and
[46:28] Cooperation in Europe, will say, "Well,
[46:29] I supervised the elections." And then
[46:31] they'll turn to poor Mr. Jessen Peterson
[46:33] of the United Nations High Commission
[46:35] for Refugees and say, "Hey, what about
[46:36] those 2 million refugees?"
[46:39] Uh the the danger is that we lose the
[46:41] peace. We've stopped the war, but can we
[46:44] succeed in really building out of this
[46:47] end of the war a durable peace?
[46:49] >> Well, let's look at some of those
[46:50] elements. Take let's take economic
[46:51] reconstruction. I mean, Laros, do you
[46:53] see any are there any signs yet that
[46:55] that is starting at all?
[46:57] >> No, it hasn't started yet.
[46:58] >> Nothing's happening yet on the economic
[47:00] front.
[47:00] >> Very, very little. There's been some
[47:02] pledging, but as we know, everyone's
[47:04] reluctant to give money. Are you also
[47:06] saying there's been no progress on the
[47:07] refugee front, letting refugees return
[47:09] to their homes?
[47:10] >> Well, not yet. Now, we all agree it's
[47:12] early days and we can't expect
[47:14] everything to happen overnight, but it's
[47:16] something we have to stick to. David
[47:18] Reef, do you see any progress on these
[47:20] elements that you just outlined,
[47:21] economic reconstruction, return of the
[47:23] refugees? I don't want to be unfair here
[47:25] because it has only been two months, but
[47:27] would you have expected to have seen
[47:29] more? Well, what I would have expected
[47:31] would be a commitment to to creating a
[47:36] durable peace rather than what I discern
[47:39] increasingly among the foreign actors in
[47:43] on the ground in the former Yugoslavia,
[47:46] which is an insistence that their
[47:47] mandate for action, whether they're
[47:50] military or civilian, is very narrow.
[47:52] The criticism of the UN peacekeeping
[47:55] effort in Bosnia was that it had a huge
[47:58] mandate and very small means. And
[48:00] sometimes it seems as if the
[48:02] international force wants to behave as
[48:05] if it can give itself the narrowest of
[48:07] mandates with overwhelming means. That's
[48:10] no better than what happened with the
[48:12] UN. We're going to have the same
[48:14] failure. That is the same failure to
[48:16] confront the real political and economic
[48:19] issues that were at the root of the
[48:22] conflict and still could rekindle it. I
[48:25] mean, one very central event in Bosnia
[48:28] right now is the demobilization of
[48:31] forces. I was in Zenitza in central
[48:34] Bosnia not that long ago and I was
[48:36] sitting in a cafe and suddenly these two
[48:37] buses pulled up and these boys got out
[48:40] and they were simply soldiers who were
[48:42] being demobilized from the confrontation
[48:44] lines. These kids have no work, no
[48:47] future. At best they can be runners for
[48:50] the black market without jobs for them
[48:53] and in other words without the kind of
[48:55] international credits because Bosnia is
[48:58] a devastated moonscape.
[49:01] uh these kids will be the cannon fodder
[49:04] of the next war.
[49:05] >> Let me ask you about something else. It
[49:07] was often said by those who advocated
[49:09] some sort of western intervention that
[49:11] most people in Bosnia or greater
[49:14] Yugoslavia didn't really want to be at
[49:16] war that they've been stirred up by the
[49:17] political leaders that if only a a sort
[49:19] of stable environment could be created,
[49:21] the fighting would stop. You would see
[49:23] moves toward reconciliation. Do we do
[49:26] you see that yet? Do you see yet that
[49:28] these people really do want to live
[49:29] together or is it way too soon for that?
[49:32] >> I think it's way too soon. It's way too
[49:34] soon because there's such an element of
[49:36] fear and that's the importance of the
[49:39] international force that they when the
[49:41] refugees are brought back to their homes
[49:43] that that they feel secure and that's
[49:45] only with an international presence
[49:47] there to make them feel secure. I
[49:49] witnessed this conversation between this
[49:52] Serbian policeman and a Muslim. They
[49:55] both turned out they were from the same
[49:56] town. Of course, the Muslim had been
[49:58] expelled from it three and a half years
[49:59] earlier. Yet, they exchanged information
[50:02] about what school did you go to? And
[50:04] well, it turned out they were neighbors.
[50:06] And I asked the Serb afterwards, I said,
[50:08] "Well, why did you fight the war?" He
[50:09] said, "We needed our own territory." So,
[50:11] it's still early, I think, for the sense
[50:14] of yes, they want to live together, but
[50:16] I don't believe that they're ancient
[50:18] hatreds. I don't believe that these
[50:20] people are historically antagonistic and
[50:22] can't live together. David, what do you
[50:25] see on that front about whether these
[50:27] whether people want to live together or
[50:29] can't live together?
[50:31] >> Well, I think the ancient ethnic hatreds
[50:33] argument was a refuge for people who
[50:36] didn't want to do anything and found
[50:37] this scurless and completely inaccurate
[50:41] account of Balkan history uh to justify
[50:44] their own inaction, not to say
[50:46] cowardice. But I think the element again
[50:50] of justice is essential. I think you're
[50:53] you have to remember that you're talking
[50:54] about places where the traditions of
[50:58] authoritarianism and anti-democratic
[51:01] outcomes are the norm. Unless you make
[51:05] justice a part of political life, you're
[51:08] just in a sort of break between now and
[51:11] the next war. But I don't think there's
[51:14] any reason to be fatalistic about this.
[51:17] These people haven't been at each
[51:18] other's throats for hundreds of years.
[51:21] or rather they've been at each other's
[51:23] throats and by each other's sides at
[51:25] different points in their history.
[51:26] History is not inevitable. But if we get
[51:29] out too soon, or worse, if we just think
[51:33] we're there, as some NATO officials and
[51:36] some international officials, to my
[51:39] distress,
[51:40] seem to think at the moment, that we're
[51:42] there to help them work out an agreement
[51:45] they undertook at Dayton rather than to
[51:48] shoulder our own responsibility, which
[51:50] fundamentally is that we imposed a piece
[51:52] on the parties at Dayton, then we'll
[51:55] fail.
[51:56] >> Well, we'll have to leave it there.
[51:57] Thank you both very much.
[51:59] >> Thank you.
[52:08] >> Finally, tonight we initiate some order
[52:11] to our broadcast of essays. Here now
[52:15] begins the NewsHour's regular Monday
[52:17] night essay with some thoughts about
[52:19] family values by Roger Rosenblat.
[52:22] The deeper we get into this year's
[52:24] presidential campaign, the more we will
[52:26] hear about the inviability of the
[52:28] American family. What inviability?
[52:32] What family? Historically, Americans
[52:35] have been working to pull families apart
[52:37] since before the nation was a nation.
[52:40] Under the poor laws in the 18th century,
[52:42] children were considered property. The
[52:44] state could and did separate them from
[52:46] their parents and make them go to work
[52:48] for others.
[52:50] The Boston Act of 1775 allowed the state
[52:53] to ship boys off to work for tradesmen,
[52:55] girls to serve as housemmaids.
[52:58] Poor and immigrant parents in the 19th
[53:00] century would see children removed from
[53:02] households for what was said to be
[53:03] insufficient moral instruction.
[53:06] The Children's Aid Society bound out
[53:09] city kids in the mid- 19th century in a
[53:11] forced immigration. They called them
[53:13] captives of urban wretchedness and sent
[53:16] them to live on farms. There was an
[53:18] effort to Americanize ethnic children by
[53:21] separating them from their families and
[53:23] giving them a segregated education.
[53:25] Juvenile courts arose as mechanisms for
[53:28] taking children away from parents who
[53:30] were deemed unfit.
[53:32] Foster care developed with the aim of
[53:34] separating children from parents
[53:35] forever.
[53:37] Daycare, economically important as it
[53:39] may be, was created in the interest of
[53:41] the labor market, not the cohesion of
[53:43] the American family.
[53:45] Even the indisputably successful Head
[53:48] Start program has functioned as a way to
[53:50] free parents to go to work.
[53:53] Intentionally or not, and it has often
[53:55] been intentional, the government has
[53:57] forced parents to choose between the
[53:58] unity of the family and financial
[54:00] survival.
[54:02] While the government has not torn
[54:04] aunder, the people have done informally
[54:06] on their own. Divorce is so commonplace
[54:08] these days, no one would consider
[54:10] entering a marriage without
[54:11] acknowledging that it's a 50/50 gamble.
[54:14] Once having embarked upon a marriage,
[54:15] which fewer young people are doing,
[54:17] fewer and fewer are having children.
[54:20] Children compete with grown-ups for
[54:21] money, resources, for love. Why have
[54:24] kids? The clear message of such highly
[54:27] rated TV shows as Seinfeld and Friends
[54:29] is don't have a family.
[54:34] Friends is a crowded college dormatory
[54:36] room of arrested development adults. The
[54:39] theme song of Friends is I'll be there
[54:42] for you. Where
[54:45] >> Seinfeld is about four or five very
[54:47] funny social misfits who couldn't start
[54:49] families if they wanted to and they
[54:51] don't.
[54:52] >> You can talk about the extended family
[54:54] or the differently constructed family,
[54:56] but those are not the traditional ideals
[54:58] in the American imagination. When
[55:01] political candidates exume the American
[55:03] family, they mean Azie, Harriet, and the
[55:05] boys. The trouble is that Harriet is
[55:08] working full-time. The boys, if they
[55:10] exist at all, are out on the town. And
[55:12] Aussie is probably deserted. Maybe he
[55:15] has become a deadbeat dad. The faintly
[55:18] cute term the press invented for
[55:20] irresponsible criminals. Perhaps to take
[55:22] the sting out of the crime. That guy who
[55:25] was recently arrested for failing to pay
[55:27] half a million in child support. There's
[55:29] a family man for you. One could go on
[55:32] and on, but the matter is fairly easy to
[55:34] prove. The American family is closer to
[55:36] an oxymoron than a fact. Individual
[55:39] happy families thrive, of course, but
[55:42] the thrust of both government and
[55:43] society has been either to break up the
[55:45] family or not to make one in the first
[55:47] place. It might be interesting in the
[55:50] coming campaign if the voters brought up
[55:52] this issue whenever the candidate starts
[55:53] spouting speeches about how wonderful it
[55:56] is that America has the family at its
[55:58] core.
[55:59] I'm Roger Rosenlat.
[56:04] Again,
[56:09] the major stories of this Monday.
[56:11] Republicans attend caucuses in Iowa
[56:13] tonight to select presidential
[56:14] convention delegates. Polls show Bob
[56:17] Dole running first among the nine
[56:19] candidates. In Britain, Prime Minister
[56:21] Major said Friday's bombing in London
[56:23] would not halt his plan for elections in
[56:25] Northern Ireland. And in Bosnia,
[56:27] Assistant Secretary of State Richard
[56:29] Hullbrook announced new rules for the
[56:31] arrest of suspected war criminals. We'll
[56:34] see you tomorrow night with full
[56:35] analysis of the Iowa caucus results. I'm
[56:38] Jim Lara. Thank you and good night.
[56:42] Major funding for the NewsHour with Jim
[56:44] Lara has been provided by the Archer
[56:46] Daniels Midland Company, ADM,
[56:49] Supermarket to the World,
[56:52] and by New York Life, yet another
[56:55] example of New York Life's wise
[56:58] investment philosophy,
[57:01] and by the Corporation for Public
[57:03] Broadcasting, and by the annual
[57:05] financial support from viewers like you.
[57:31] Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim
[57:33] Ler are available from PBS video. Call 1
[57:37] 800 328 PBS1.
[57:45] This is PBS.
[57:54] Funding for the NewsHour with Jim Lair
[57:56] has been provided by CTR Business
[57:58] Systems. Serving business, building
[58:00] solutions with information technology
[58:02] since 1913.
[58:19] The world of insects is a deadly
[58:22] battleground.
[58:23] Some fight their own private wars.
[58:26] Others rely on the instincts of millions
[58:28] for their survival. Together or alone,
[58:32] they function like tiny perfect machines
[58:35] and don't let anything stand in their
[58:38] way. On the next Alien Empire,
[58:41] cure surrounded
[58:43] >> on OPB tonight at 8.
[58:49] >> Next on the American Experience Flight.
[58:52] No one had figured it out until two
[58:55] brothers from Dayton came up with a
[58:56] deceptively simple solution. Courage.
[58:59] perseverance and the
[59:00] >> good good indeed. They will remember the
[59:03] day you took them skiing at Timberline.
[59:06] Isn't it time you took your family to
[59:09] Timberline?
[59:11] >> Things aren't always what they seem.
[59:13] Sometimes you get more than you expect.
[59:17] Introducing the incredible i30. One look
[59:19] inside and you'll be amazed at the
[59:21] spaciousness and attention to detail. In
[59:24] fact, the i30 has a larger interior than
[59:26] a Rolls-Royce Silver Spur. When was the
[59:29] last time you got more than you expected
[59:30] from a $30,000 luxury car?
[59:35] >> Now, for a limited time, lease the
[59:37] Infiniti i30 with no down payment.