The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (PBS) - 1992-08-13
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:10] Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in
[0:12] Washington.
[0:13] >> And I'm Robert McNeel in New York. After
[0:15] tonight's news summary, we look at James
[0:17] Baker's switch from foreign policy to
[0:19] campaign politics with analysts David
[0:21] Gurgen, Mark Shields, and John New House
[0:24] of The New Yorker. And we examine his
[0:26] foreign policy record with Clinton
[0:28] adviser Michael Mandelbomb and
[0:30] Republican consultant Condisa Rice. And
[0:33] we have a newsmaker interview with
[0:34] Israeli Prime Minister Itsak Rabbin.
[0:39] >> Part of helping the world live and
[0:41] communicate better is keeping it well
[0:43] informed.
[0:46] That's why funding for the McNeel Lair
[0:48] NewsHour is provided by AT&T
[0:53] and by PepsiCo.
[1:00] PepsiCo
[1:02] and by the Corporation for Public
[1:04] Broadcasting and viewers like you.
[1:08] >> President Bush ended weeks of
[1:10] speculation and rumors today. He
[1:12] announced that James Baker will resign
[1:14] his post as Secretary of State to become
[1:16] White House Chief of Staff and oversee
[1:19] the president's reelection bid. The move
[1:21] will be effective in 10 days. Mr. Bush
[1:24] said he wanted Baker's help shaping his
[1:26] second term agenda. He spoke in the
[1:29] White House briefing room. From Tokyo to
[1:32] Toronto, Jim Baker is known for
[1:34] accomplishment. Now, he knows about
[1:36] change, how to distinguish wise moves
[1:39] from foolish ones, and he knows about
[1:41] America's government, having helped to
[1:43] develop and implement domestic,
[1:46] economic, and foreign policies. And
[1:50] perhaps most important, he knows our
[1:52] people are the source of our country's
[1:54] strength.
[1:55] >> Baker returned the president's
[1:57] compliment in a farewell speech to State
[1:59] Department employees. President Bush and
[2:02] I, as practically all of you, I'm sure
[2:05] know have been close friends for 35
[2:08] years. And I know what he can accomplish
[2:11] when he directs his resolve toward a
[2:14] purpose. I think we saw it in the Gulf.
[2:17] He's a trusted leader.
[2:20] And my friends, I think we will see it
[2:21] again as President Bush targets America.
[2:26] Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence
[2:28] Eagleberger will serve as acting
[2:30] secretary when Baker moves to the White
[2:32] House. Governor Bill Clinton praised Jim
[2:35] Baker's political skills today, but said
[2:37] he still expected a negative campaign.
[2:40] Clinton said, quote, "He's a very able
[2:43] politician. He's one of the best
[2:44] politicians, dealmakers, and political
[2:47] handlers they've got. I think it'll
[2:50] still be very negative, but it will be
[2:52] more cleverly negative." His running
[2:54] mate, Senator Al Gore, had this to say
[2:56] at a campaign stop in Chicago.
[2:59] >> I think that James Baker is the best
[3:01] they have. I think that he uh I I think
[3:05] he's very talented. I think his talents
[3:07] would be better put to better use in
[3:10] continuing the M East peace talks at
[3:12] this critical stage. I just think that
[3:15] Bush and Quail are in a state of
[3:16] political panic and they're they're
[3:19] throwing everything including the
[3:21] kitchen sink into their political quest
[3:25] to to try to convince the American
[3:28] people that that uh the country needs
[3:31] four more years of the same old approach
[3:33] that we have had. And the people aren't
[3:34] buying it.
[3:36] >> We'll have much more on the story just
[3:37] after the news summary. Also on the
[3:40] campaign trail today, Governor Clinton
[3:42] made what he described as a major
[3:44] foreign policy address to the Los
[3:46] Angeles World Affairs Council. He spoke
[3:48] about his priorities.
[3:50] >> My first foreign policy priority will be
[3:54] to restore America's economic vitality.
[3:57] I have laid out a strategy to raise our
[4:00] people's skill levels, boost
[4:01] productivity, spur innovation and
[4:04] investment, reduce the national debt,
[4:07] and make us the world's strongest
[4:09] trading power. I will elevate economics
[4:12] in foreign policy, create an economic
[4:15] security council similar to the National
[4:18] Security Council, and change the culture
[4:20] in the State Department so that
[4:22] economics is no longer a poor cousin to
[4:25] old school diplomacy.
[4:27] >> We will assess Governor Clinton's
[4:29] remarks at length on the NewsHour
[4:31] tomorrow night. Robin,
[4:33] >> the United Nations Security Council
[4:35] today overwhelmingly approved the use of
[4:37] force in Bosnia. The council authorized
[4:39] military intervention only as a last
[4:42] resort to ensure the delivery of relief
[4:44] aid and open detention camps to
[4:46] inspection. There are no plans for the
[4:48] immediate deployment of troops. In
[4:50] Geneva, Red Cross officials accused all
[4:52] of Bosnia's waring parties of human
[4:54] rights violations. They did so at the
[4:57] first ever emergency meeting of the UN's
[4:59] human rights commission. A US official
[5:02] laid the blame for atrocities at
[5:04] detention camps squarely on Serbia and
[5:06] Montenegro. the two remaining republics
[5:08] in the Yugoslav state.
[5:14] >> We now know that camp prisoners are
[5:17] being moved from Omar, Baluca, and
[5:21] perhaps elsewhere in an effort to hide
[5:25] the horrors inflicted upon them. We ask
[5:28] the people of Serbia, Montenegro this
[5:31] simple question.
[5:33] Do they wish to go down in history as
[5:36] the last fascist state in Europe?
[5:42] >> The Yugoslav representative force
[5:45] forcefully denied reports that Serbs
[5:47] were running concentration camps. The US
[5:50] has requested a special investigator to
[5:52] report on all rights violations for
[5:54] possible war crimes trials. In Sievo
[5:57] today, sniper fire hit the convoy of the
[6:00] Yugoslav prime minister. A producer for
[6:02] ABC News was killed. Louise Bates of
[6:05] Worldwide Television News narrates this
[6:08] report.
[6:08] >> The murder of David Kaplan turned
[6:10] Panichi's peace mission into tragedy.
[6:13] The ABC team was supposed to accompany
[6:16] the prime minister in an armored
[6:17] personnel vehicle, but due to lack of
[6:20] space, Kaplan hitched a ride in another
[6:22] TV cruise van. He tried but discarded a
[6:25] bulletproof vest. There was a single
[6:27] shot through the back of the van. It hit
[6:29] Kaplan in the back. Surgeons struggled
[6:31] for two hours to save his life but
[6:34] failed.
[6:38] >> Panich was deeply distressed and angry
[6:40] at the killing.
[6:42] >> I think criminal killed them. I think
[6:45] terrorists killed them.
[6:47] No Serbs, no Muslim. Good. No Croat
[6:51] good. These are people mentally
[6:55] ill. Killing people like this.
[6:58] >> Hours later, the shocked ABC crew
[7:00] boarded a plane back to the safety of
[7:02] Belgrade.
[7:04] Guarded by UN troops, the prime
[7:05] minister, the man who'd come in search
[7:07] of peace, stepped aboard the same jet.
[7:11] >> Kaplan was the 30th journalist killed in
[7:13] Yugoslavia's 14-month-old civil war.
[7:17] Rebels in Afghanistan launched a rocket
[7:19] attack on the capital today, killing at
[7:21] least a hundred people. Hundreds more
[7:23] were wounded. Kabell has been shelled
[7:25] repeatedly over the past week as rival
[7:28] Muslim faction struggle for power. 1,200
[7:31] people have died in the shelling, which
[7:32] is the worst since the country's
[7:34] communist government fell in April after
[7:36] 14 years of civil war.
[7:38] >> In economic news, inflation remained low
[7:41] in July. The government said consumer
[7:43] prices inched up just onetenth of 1%
[7:46] last month. Retail sales gained half a
[7:49] percent after falling the previous
[7:51] month. And firsttime claims for
[7:53] unemployment benefits fell 66,000 in the
[7:56] week ending August 1st. New claims had
[7:59] surged the week before due to a spate of
[8:02] temporary layoffs in the auto industry.
[8:05] Federal investigators said today that
[8:07] sabotage was the likely cause of last
[8:09] night's Amtrak train derailment just
[8:11] outside Newport News, Virginia. 70
[8:14] people were injured in the accident. A
[8:16] National Transportation and Safety Board
[8:18] member said a switch had been manually
[8:20] opened to divert the passenger train
[8:22] onto a side track that has a maximum
[8:24] speed of 15 m an hour. The lock on the
[8:27] switch had been removed and a pair of
[8:29] bolt cutters was found nearby.
[8:31] That's our news summary. Now it's on to
[8:34] James Baker's job switch and Israeli
[8:36] Prime Minister Itsak Rabin.
[8:46] The much anticipated move of James Baker
[8:49] from the State Department to the White
[8:51] House in the Bush reelection effort is
[8:53] our lead segment tonight. The decision
[8:55] has implications both for presidential
[8:57] politics and for US foreign policy and
[9:00] we will explore both. First, the
[9:03] politics. After the president's
[9:04] announcement of the job switch this
[9:06] morning, Baker talked to State
[9:08] Department employees and foreign service
[9:10] officers. Among other things, he laid
[9:12] out the political stakes involved in his
[9:15] decision. And here are extended
[9:16] excerpts.
[9:18] have decided to resign as Secretary of
[9:21] State effective August the 23rd to work
[9:24] with the president to help develop a
[9:26] secondterm agenda that builds on what
[9:29] has been achieved and that fully
[9:32] integrates our domestic, economic, and
[9:34] foreign policies.
[9:36] The president will be asking for the
[9:38] support of the American people to give
[9:40] him a mandate for this agenda.
[9:43] I'm fully committed to this decision
[9:45] because I believe this year the people
[9:48] of the United States will be making
[9:49] fundamental choices and they'll be
[9:52] making fundamental choices at a pivot
[9:54] pivotal time in America's journey.
[9:57] When you peel away the rhetoric, there
[10:00] are very very different ideas in
[10:02] conflict out there. We should build on
[10:06] the fundamentals of lower tax rates,
[10:08] limits on government spending, greater
[10:10] competition, less economic regulation,
[10:14] and more open trade that can unleash
[10:16] tremendous private initiative and
[10:18] growth. But I think that in the '90s,
[10:21] government can add to this growth
[10:22] program by building opportunity and hope
[10:25] for individuals, families, and
[10:27] communities.
[10:29] I think that there is a conservative
[10:31] agenda for helping people and for
[10:34] responding to their needs. We want to
[10:37] empower them to make their own choices
[10:39] to break away from dependency. We want
[10:42] to give them economic security, a stake
[10:45] in society. Initiative should be
[10:48] unleashed. Success should be rewarded.
[10:51] Excellence obviously should be our goal.
[10:54] Contrasting
[10:56] philosophies matter when it comes down
[10:58] to what each party really wants to do.
[11:02] We might discuss similar topics, but
[11:05] there are sharp differences and
[11:07] approaches.
[11:08] The president wants to offer the voters
[11:10] an integrated program to strengthen
[11:12] America and to give our people economic
[11:15] security, building from the ground up
[11:18] and not from the top down. I know there
[11:22] will be skeptics.
[11:24] Some will ask why President Bush spent
[11:26] so much time on foreign policy during
[11:28] his first term. And here's my reply.
[11:32] Over the past four years, more of our
[11:36] fellow human beings have gained their
[11:38] freedom than in than any other time in
[11:41] human history.
[11:43] And we have permanently turned back the
[11:46] hands of the nuclear doomsday clock.
[11:50] So the president saw a chance to take on
[11:52] the two central problems of our age. The
[11:54] struggle for freedom and the threat of
[11:57] nuclear war and he seized it. No
[12:01] apologies for that. It's time now to
[12:04] turn to new challenges to the future at
[12:07] home and abroad. And that's exactly what
[12:10] President Bush intends to do.
[12:13] >> Now the political causes and effects of
[12:15] the Baker announcement. We are joined by
[12:17] our own analysis team of Gergen and
[12:19] Shields plus one. That is David Gurgen,
[12:22] editor at large at US News and World
[12:24] Report and syndicated columnist Mark
[12:26] Shields. Joining them is John New House,
[12:28] a staff writer with the New Yorker and a
[12:31] guest scholar at the Brookings
[12:32] Institution here in Washington. He's a
[12:34] former assistant director of the US Arms
[12:37] Control and Disarmament Agency during
[12:39] the Carter administration.
[12:41] Well, David Gurgen, is this the move
[12:42] that's going to bail out the Bush
[12:44] campaign from 25 points behind?
[12:47] >> Well, Judy, I think it's the the first
[12:49] move on the step back into the race. I
[12:51] mean, it's it is a step that will, I
[12:53] think, help to rejuvenate the White
[12:55] House staff in the campaign. There are
[12:57] many at the White House who feel the
[12:58] place has been mismanaged badly for the
[13:00] past eight months. So mismanaged that
[13:02] they've lost confidence in themselves.
[13:04] With Baker coming back, there were
[13:05] people actually today in the staff
[13:07] crying. They were so happy that that
[13:09] that that there's been a feeling they
[13:11] can't get anything right. They've been
[13:12] off track. Every time they try
[13:13] something, they mismanage, they
[13:14] mishandle it. And Baker is going to give
[13:16] them confidence in themselves again.
[13:18] They maybe they can step out. Now,
[13:19] that's only the first step. I don't
[13:21] think Jim Baker wins the election, but I
[13:23] think he may put I think he may
[13:24] rejuvenate the campaign. I think it will
[13:26] give George Bush more self-confidence,
[13:27] and that's very important, too.
[13:29] >> So, it's giving confidence. Is that how
[13:31] you
[13:32] >> Well, I think that I think that he he
[13:34] you have to first understand that just
[13:36] let's go to the the Baker Bush
[13:38] relationship.
[13:40] I think it's probably unique in this
[13:42] century to have someone who's this close
[13:45] uh to a president and their relationship
[13:47] of dependency on both sides. You know,
[13:49] we've had Harry Hopkins with with with
[13:50] FDR. We had Colonel House with uh
[13:53] President Wilson. Uh but I think that
[13:55] that that Baker's actually closer to
[13:57] Bush and in some ways has plays a larger
[13:59] role in Bush's life. And I think that
[14:01] the president uh the president's son
[14:02] told me last week said, "You know, Jim
[14:03] Baker's been around my dad's campaign
[14:05] every time for the last 20 years. He's
[14:07] just going to feel more comfortable with
[14:08] him." I think that will help. I do do
[14:10] think that that Baker put a lot more
[14:11] snap into the campaign, too. There are a
[14:13] lot of big decisions to make starting
[14:14] with the acceptance address next week,
[14:15] and they need Baker around for those
[14:17] decisions.
[14:17] >> Mark, how do you read this politically?
[14:19] >> Well, I'm glad, Judy, the spirits of the
[14:21] White House have better than if any time
[14:22] in the last eight months. I mean, we're
[14:24] yearning getting nostalgic about the old
[14:26] Cenounu days, which was eight months
[14:28] ago. Uh, and he was boy John was driven
[14:31] out of town in a railroad car and Sam
[14:33] Skinner was brought in. Sam Skinner was
[14:35] brought in. Jim Baker is back. I I I
[14:37] think that uh Jim Baker is unique. I I
[14:39] would include Robert Kennedy as as far
[14:41] as closeness to a president and and that
[14:44] kind of a relationship. But uh Jim Baker
[14:46] is a unique political figure in in this
[14:48] country's political history. Uh five
[14:51] presidential campaigns he's had a
[14:53] leadership role. Uh starting with Jerry
[14:55] Fords, which I think perhaps may have
[14:56] been the best of all the campaigns. He
[14:57] came from 32 points back, came with an
[14:59] eyelash, a switch of 23,000 votes, he
[15:01] would have had the greatest comeback in
[15:03] history against Jimmy Carter in 76. Made
[15:05] the switch to Ronald Reagan uh in 80
[15:08] after after George Bush
[15:10] in the vice presidency. Uh presided more
[15:13] or less over the Reagan 84 even though
[15:15] Ed Rollins was the manager pulled George
[15:17] Bush out in 88. Here he is three
[15:19] decades, five campaigns in 1992. He's
[15:21] back. It is truly remarkable. I mean
[15:24] because it really is exceptional for
[15:25] anybody to the leadership of a a
[15:28] national campaign, a presidential
[15:30] campaign requires winning the confidence
[15:32] and trust of an individual. Usually
[15:34] somebody only runs one of those. They're
[15:36] very very lucky they can run one, but
[15:38] this this guy has done that in in three
[15:40] three different presidents and it's it's
[15:42] a remarkable achievement.
[15:44] >> John New House, help help us uh put a
[15:46] finger on what it is. I mean, we we've
[15:48] heard what David and and Mark have had
[15:50] to say. What what is it about Jim Baker
[15:53] that would would cause him to be pulled
[15:54] out of the State Department at a moment
[15:56] of some crisis uh around the world and
[15:59] pulled into a campaign?
[16:01] >> Well, as David just pointed out, this
[16:02] campaign's in in very tough shape. And I
[16:05] think there are a lot of pluses here for
[16:07] for Bush in this move for which there's
[16:10] no precedent. And maybe just a little
[16:12] downside. First of all, Baker will bring
[16:14] strength and coherence. Um he will bring
[16:17] what Bush calls the vision thing. He
[16:19] doesn't have it himself. He's no more of
[16:20] a conceptualizer than George Bush is,
[16:22] but Baker knows you need it and he will
[16:25] find someone to supply it. And he's
[16:26] bringing with him two people from the
[16:27] State Department, two of the four who
[16:29] who he's been using to supply the vision
[16:31] thing. Uh he also really knows how to
[16:34] manage the press. I mean, we haven't
[16:35] seen any anyone uh uh this good at
[16:38] managing the press in in modern times.
[16:41] He's been
[16:42] >> What do you mean managing the press? He
[16:43] generally gets good press.
[16:45] >> Well, yeah, but it's no accident that he
[16:46] gets a good press. I mean he he he
[16:49] controls a lot of very vital and
[16:51] sensitive information and he controls
[16:53] the access to that and he controls the
[16:55] other people who have who have who have
[16:58] contact with the press. It's a very
[16:59] small circle he operates in. So there
[17:01] are no leaks at least leaks of which he
[17:02] doesn't approve. So he he he gets the
[17:05] kind of he generates the kind of press
[17:07] that he wants to see and and and you
[17:09] can't really minimize the importance of
[17:10] that.
[17:12] >> David,
[17:12] >> but I think there's a real downside for
[17:14] him in this. I I see. I mean, the
[17:15] downside for Bush, if there is any, is
[17:17] is that as David pointed out, this is a
[17:19] very close relationship. They're like
[17:20] brothers, but like brothers, they're
[17:21] also very competitive and they've been
[17:23] rivals at various stages. And I think
[17:25] there's got to be maybe a whiff of
[17:27] humiliation here for George Bush in
[17:29] having to bring back Jimmy Baker again
[17:32] to to pull his chestnuts out of the
[17:34] fire.
[17:35] >> You think that's the case?
[17:36] >> Neither man wanted to do this.
[17:38] >> Well, Baker was choking up today when he
[17:40] made his remarks. He was I mean you Jim
[17:43] Baker has worked for some years to get
[17:45] out of the White House and he was
[17:46] anxious to leave back when he left
[17:48] Reagan in 1984. They went over to
[17:50] Treasury and he got pulled back in from
[17:52] Treasury run the 88 campaign and at that
[17:54] time of course he was once again called
[17:56] a handler and a Paul. Now Jim Becker
[17:59] then had the opportunity to go to the
[18:00] state department and he became a
[18:01] statesman and there's been a great
[18:03] reluctance on his part to go to go back
[18:06] again to being a Paul. I mean this is
[18:08] he's he's made a sacrifice here. He's
[18:09] done it for a friend. and he's done it
[18:10] for a good cause. I mean, he's he's I
[18:12] think he accepted the inevitability of
[18:14] it, but I don't think either George Bush
[18:16] and for the very reasons that John just
[18:17] said, I I think George Bush was not
[18:18] anxious to do this, but both of them
[18:20] felt it was imperative under the
[18:21] circumstances.
[18:22] >> But his own political future, of course,
[18:24] to some great degree hinges on George
[18:27] Bush's political sure it does, Judy. He
[18:29] uh for George Bush, it had to be an act
[18:32] of humiliation. I mean really at a
[18:34] personal level because George in 1988
[18:37] the campaign is is regarded almost
[18:39] uniformly as a lousy campaign. Uh the
[18:42] many many people trace the failure of
[18:45] the Bush presidency in its first term to
[18:47] that campaign which laid out no agenda
[18:49] laid out no sense of the future and was
[18:51] totally devoid of the vision thing. But
[18:53] who who took the blame? The late water
[18:56] was castigated. Uh Roger Als the the TV
[18:59] maven was censured. Uh George Bush was
[19:02] regarded as as some sort of an ethical
[19:05] but Jim Baker
[19:08] Johnson went right over the State
[19:09] Department. My goodness, isn't that
[19:11] wonderful? Jim Baker presided over that
[19:12] campaign. So at this level, Bush had to
[19:14] turn to him. Here he is having had his
[19:16] first term. He's 68 years old. He's 25
[19:20] points down in the polls or 20 or
[19:21] wherever he is and has to say, "Jimmy,
[19:23] will you do it again?" That's that's got
[19:24] to be
[19:25] >> But wait a minute. Do I hear a
[19:26] contradiction in what you because on the
[19:27] one hand you're giving B you and others
[19:29] are giving Baker credit for these great
[19:31] campaigns but on the other hand you're
[19:32] saying he had a major hand in the fact
[19:34] that there wasn't a mandate.
[19:35] >> I I use the phrase describe Jim Baker as
[19:38] the teflon manager uh in in 1988 and I
[19:41] think I think it sticks.
[19:42] >> I think that's a that that's a good
[19:44] phrase but I also disagree I think with
[19:47] with I understood you correctly that um
[19:49] that Baker's political fortunes are tied
[19:52] to Bush's. I really think there's a
[19:53] divergence and I think there may have
[19:54] been even four years ago. He didn't want
[19:56] to become the campaign manager four
[19:58] years ago. Jim Baker wants to be
[19:59] president. He wants to go back to the
[20:01] White House on his own and he wants to
[20:03] go he wants to run on his record as a
[20:05] statesman. Uh he doesn't he doesn't want
[20:07] to be regarded as a as a sometime uh
[20:10] cabinet member and a sometime campaign
[20:12] manager, particularly if this campaign
[20:14] turns ugly as the last one did because
[20:16] the you know the mud bulls were sure to
[20:18] spatter him this time. He won't he he he
[20:21] won't get off free this time.
[20:22] >> But are you suggesting that he would
[20:23] have been better off himself politically
[20:25] if he hadn't gotten involved in
[20:27] >> much better he would have been better
[20:28] off politically if he would have been
[20:30] better off politically if he hadn't gone
[20:31] and the president won. But unless he
[20:33] went, it wasn't clear the president
[20:35] could win, you know. So I think that I
[20:36] think that was the inevitability of it.
[20:38] Now, let me say I I think that Mark
[20:40] pointed out something which was very
[20:41] interesting and John about this. The the
[20:42] the the uh Jim Baker, if I have any
[20:45] quarrel with his campaign management of
[20:47] the past, he did not go for a mandate in
[20:48] 1988 with George Bush. And I think that
[20:50] hurt George Bush in the first term.
[20:52] >> He did not go for a mandate in the 1984
[20:54] campaign with Ronald Reagan. What was
[20:55] striking today about the Baker speech is
[20:57] he said, "Let's go for a mandate." It
[20:59] was very clear he's he's now changing.
[21:01] And I think Judy to go to another point
[21:03] John made what Baker said in that speech
[21:05] today is the best single speech given by
[21:07] anybody in this administration.
[21:08] >> Ask you about because he laid out the
[21:10] vision thing that John spoke about.
[21:12] Where did that who wrote that? Did Jim
[21:13] Baker write that? He said he's not the
[21:15] one with the vision. So
[21:16] >> well there's a there's one of the people
[21:18] who's coming with Jim Baker is a fellow
[21:20] named Bob Zelik. He's one of the really
[21:21] bright rising stars of in the Republican
[21:23] establishment and very very thoughtful.
[21:25] He he and Dick Darm are very close. In
[21:27] fact, he was Dick Darm's research
[21:28] assistant some years ago at Harvard and
[21:30] uh he had a major hand in this. I think
[21:32] Baker did as well. But it was the
[21:33] conceptualization that I would argue
[21:35] probably ought to be the framework for
[21:36] the acceptance address this next
[21:37] Thursday night.
[21:38] >> Why haven't we been hearing that from
[21:39] George Bush before now?
[21:41] >> Because Bob Zel's been working for Jim
[21:42] Baker. He's now coming to the White
[21:44] House with Jim Baker.
[21:45] >> What is the Mark? Were you going to
[21:46] answer that?
[21:46] >> I just going to add one thing. It it
[21:48] gives it gives immediately. I mean Jim
[21:50] Baker the jockey which is what Jim Baker
[21:53] is. It comes down to the mount. I mean,
[21:54] inspire those of us who've been managers
[21:56] like to think that gee, we made the
[21:58] difference. It really does come down.
[21:59] Jim Baker can make a length or two's
[22:01] difference in a in a four mile furong or
[22:04] four mile race. I mean, he's not going
[22:05] to win this for George Bush. He does
[22:07] give George Bush a couple of advantages
[22:09] though that George Bush didn't have
[22:10] going in and maybe have him over at Bill
[22:12] Clinton today. The first is he's a peer.
[22:14] He is somebody who can go into George
[22:16] Bush and say, "You've screwed up. That's
[22:18] you haven't given a good speech. You've
[22:20] got to do these three things." There's
[22:21] nobody in the Clinton campaign who has
[22:22] that kind of a relationship with Clinton
[22:24] over a sustained period of time and over
[22:26] a shared foxhole of a national campaign.
[22:28] Secondly, he there's no doubt as of this
[22:31] moment who's in charge. There's no
[22:33] appeals court in the in the Bush
[22:35] campaign. There's no factions. There's
[22:38] no second guessing. It is it is
[22:40] >> you saying Baker rather than Bush.
[22:41] >> Baker Baker is running the show. Baker
[22:43] is the campaign manager. There there
[22:45] will be no International Court of the
[22:46] Hague appeals beyond Baker's decisions.
[22:49] That is not the case in the Clinton
[22:50] campaign and they haven't been through a
[22:51] campaign together the same way and it it
[22:54] does provide a small tactical advantage.
[22:56] >> I can I make a stretch here because I
[22:57] think I think Baker is more than that. I
[22:59] think Baker in effect is becoming deputy
[23:01] president for the next three months.
[23:02] >> That's what I wanted to looking at a
[23:04] co-presidency practically.
[23:06] >> I'm not sure it's a co-presidentidency
[23:07] but it's the greatest sharing of power
[23:08] that I can remember because I in effect
[23:11] Jim Baker in this campaign is going to
[23:13] be to to George Bush what Al Gore has
[23:15] already become to Bill Clinton. In
[23:17] effect, we're going to have Clinton and
[23:18] Gore versus Bush and Baker in this
[23:20] campaign. I mean, Baker is almost is
[23:22] almost on the line because because you
[23:24] elect Bush and you get Baker to boot for
[23:27] a second term.
[23:27] >> Wait a minute. We There's a vice
[23:29] president named Dan Quail still, but I
[23:32] would argue that and Jim Baker didn't
[23:34] want Dan Quail to be selected as as the
[23:37] running mate four years ago.
[23:38] >> I think we're going to have a very
[23:39] interesting rivalry over the next few
[23:41] months.
[23:41] >> Isn't that the case, John? You've
[23:43] written about that, John. Well, I I I
[23:45] think that Dan Quail is going to have a
[23:47] thin time if if uh if Bush is reelected
[23:51] because Baker has spent a fair amount of
[23:52] time over the past four years trying to
[23:55] not deep six Dan Quail, but to keep him
[23:57] to keep him as far out of sight and as
[23:59] quiet as possible and he'll take on
[24:01] that. Whether he takes on that
[24:02] assignment now or whether he thinks that
[24:04] Quail can be can be useful doing what
[24:06] he's been doing, I just don't know. We
[24:08] we'll have we'll have to wait and see.
[24:09] But I think in in a sense for for George
[24:11] Bush at this moment, uh the thing he
[24:14] really understands more than anything
[24:16] else, I think is that he wouldn't be
[24:18] president but for Jim Baker because he
[24:20] wouldn't have been vice president but
[24:21] for Jim Baker. Uh Jim Baker got him the
[24:24] vice presidency. But it's also true and
[24:26] and and and this campaign is going to be
[24:29] interesting for a number of reasons. One
[24:30] of which is that Jim Baker has a has a
[24:33] god-given uh gift for avoiding trouble,
[24:37] for distancing distancing himself from
[24:39] bad news. And that and that that teflon
[24:42] >> that was true that was true when he was
[24:43] in when he was chief of staff when he
[24:45] was secretary of the treasury and and
[24:47] it's been true in the State Department.
[24:49] Uh he's not going to be able to hide.
[24:51] He's not going to go be out on the ranch
[24:52] in Wyoming during during during this
[24:54] campaign. So I think that's going to be
[24:56] interesting to see too is is how he
[24:57] handles bad news. I don't want to be the
[24:59] skunk at the party, but what what about
[25:01] the are there any ethical considerations
[25:03] here? I mean, this man is going from
[25:04] running the State Department, running
[25:06] foreign policy to the White House to run
[25:08] the campaign now and we saw today there
[25:11] was a memo put out by Bordon Gray, the
[25:12] White House legal council some months
[25:14] ago saying the White House ought to stay
[25:16] completely away from campaign
[25:18] involvement. How do you is that going to
[25:19] become a sticky area, David, or can they
[25:21] finesse that?
[25:23] >> J, I think that the the the campaign
[25:25] ethics laws will not be a problem. I do
[25:27] think a a legitimate question is going
[25:29] to be raised on the other side and we're
[25:30] already starting to hear it today. Of
[25:31] course, we'll hear it more and I think
[25:32] in your next discussion uh about the
[25:35] propriety of moving someone, it's such a
[25:37] sensitive time in world relations when
[25:38] so many trouble spots are boiling around
[25:40] the world and requires such delicate
[25:42] handling by the State Department to take
[25:44] the the the cockpit of the State
[25:46] Department, not just Jim Baker, but the
[25:47] team around him, which has been the very
[25:49] close-knit team that has run affairs for
[25:50] the last three and a half years, and to
[25:51] move them over. I think that's a tough
[25:53] go. But I'm talking about just blatantly
[25:55] putting someone in charge of running the
[25:56] White House and saying at the same time
[25:58] this person is also running the
[26:00] campaign. I mean, that was in essence
[26:01] what we were told.
[26:03] >> Yes. No, it was
[26:04] >> I'm asking.
[26:04] >> No. And I I think I think there is a
[26:06] there's a legitimate ethical question
[26:07] there. I think that the reality is that
[26:09] the every campaign for re-election is
[26:12] run out of the White House. Uh and it
[26:14] has been the case. Uh and the only time
[26:16] it's that's the way it has been. I think
[26:19] there is a legitimate ethical question.
[26:20] I think I I take slight issue with David
[26:22] on on the point of the Democratic
[26:24] criticism. I think those Democrats who
[26:26] were uniformly almost uniformly
[26:28] uncritical of the settlements policy of
[26:31] the of the Shamir uh administration in
[26:35] in Israel. Uh now second-guessing Jim
[26:38] Baker who uh if anybody has I think been
[26:42] responsible for bringing the hopes and
[26:44] reality of Arab Israeli peace to
[26:48] fruition. I mean it is Jim Baker. I
[26:50] mean, he is really and for them to be
[26:51] secondg guessing him at this point as
[26:53] Senator Gore appeared to be doing in the
[26:54] cliff, I thought looked like a rather
[26:56] cheap carping and it doesn't stand up to
[26:58] scrutiny.
[26:58] >> All right. Well, gentlemen, we'll leave
[27:00] it at that, Robin.
[27:13] >> Yes. We now look at the other side of
[27:15] the Baker switch, his and the
[27:16] president's stewardship of foreign
[27:18] policy. Baker gave a validtory
[27:21] assessment today. Ironically, his
[27:23] audience were State Department career
[27:25] employees, many of whom have complained
[27:27] that Baker in his immediate circle shut
[27:29] them out of policym more than any
[27:31] secretary in history. Here's an excerpt.
[27:34] >> Now, this group better than anybody else
[27:37] knows well that United States diplomacy
[27:40] has required coordinated professional
[27:43] execution in many corners of the globe.
[27:46] Perhaps the most important feature of
[27:48] this worldwide strategy was our
[27:51] engagement of the Soviet Union, what we
[27:53] referred to at the time as a search for
[27:56] points of mutual advantage.
[27:58] Working across a range of issues, we
[28:01] probe the Soviet's new thinking. Then we
[28:04] tried to infuse that thinking with a
[28:06] fundamentally new content on regional
[28:09] conflicts, human rights and democracy,
[28:12] the standoff in Europe, conventional
[28:14] arms cuts, nuclear cuts, proliferation,
[28:17] economics, and of course transnational
[28:20] topics as well.
[28:22] That's how the Cold War was brought to a
[28:25] quiet and a peaceful and a democratic
[28:28] end. People said the Soviets would never
[28:31] permit free elections behind the Iron
[28:33] Curtain in Poland, Czechoslovakia,
[28:35] Hungary, and elsewhere. People said the
[28:38] Red Army wouldn't go peacefully. But it
[28:41] did. When the Berlin Wall came down, the
[28:44] doubters told us we couldn't unify
[28:47] Germany peacefully and democratically
[28:49] while retaining the 40-year ties to the
[28:52] West and to NATO. But together, we did.
[28:56] Four years ago, the children of America
[28:58] still had to go to bed at night with
[29:00] worries about a nuclear Armageddon.
[29:03] Movies about the day after and articles
[29:06] about ground zero etched into our minds
[29:09] the precariousness of our security.
[29:13] Our experts discussed how to build new
[29:15] and ever more dangerous missiles.
[29:18] Missiles that would maintain a deeply
[29:20] disturbing balance of terror. But with a
[29:23] lot of help from some of the finest
[29:25] people that I've ever had the privilege
[29:27] of working with, we ended that
[29:29] nightmare. In the aftermath of the Gulf
[29:32] War, skeptics said the United States
[29:34] might be able to win the war, but that
[29:36] that success would mean nothing if we
[29:39] lost the peace. So, we set out to see
[29:42] how we could build on that victory. And
[29:45] I'm very proud to say that I don't think
[29:47] we've done badly. For the first time
[29:50] ever, all of Israel's neighbors are
[29:52] sitting down to discuss peace with her.
[29:55] On top of that, 13 Arab states are
[29:58] meeting with Israel to discuss arms
[29:59] control, water, the environment, and
[30:01] other issues that are essential for
[30:03] creating a totally new outlook in the
[30:05] Middle East.
[30:07] Later this month, a new round, indeed a
[30:09] new phase of negotiations will move us
[30:11] further along the road to peace among
[30:13] the biblical lands that have been in a
[30:16] state of war for far too long. Of
[30:19] course, I have some regrets.
[30:22] One is that I know we still have a lot
[30:24] of work to do together. It's still a
[30:26] dangerous world, as we see daily, of
[30:29] course, in Bosnia.
[30:31] It's also, though, a world of great
[30:33] opportunity.
[30:35] There are still great risks if we fail
[30:37] to make the right choices and great
[30:39] risks if we fail to engage.
[30:42] I firmly believe that the United States
[30:44] of America is without question the only
[30:47] country in the world that can exercise
[30:49] the necessary leadership in the decade
[30:52] ahead.
[30:54] We get two views of the Bushbaker
[30:56] foreign policy. Condisa Rice served on
[30:58] the National Security Council staff in
[31:00] the first three years of the Bush
[31:01] administration. She's now an associate
[31:03] professor of political science at
[31:05] Stanford University. She'll be a
[31:07] California delegate at next week's
[31:08] Republican convention. Michael
[31:10] Mandelbomb is a foreign policy adviser
[31:13] in the Clinton campaign. He's a
[31:15] professor of political science at the
[31:16] John's Hopkins School of Advanced
[31:18] International Studies and director of
[31:20] the project on East West relations at
[31:22] the Council on Foreign Relations. He
[31:24] joins us from Los Angeles. Mr.
[31:26] Mandelbomb, before we evaluate the
[31:28] overall record, what impact on current
[31:31] foreign policy does it have to move the
[31:33] Secretary of State, this Secretary of
[31:35] State, out of that job and into the
[31:37] White House? Well, as a strong supporter
[31:39] of Governor Clinton, I'm hoping we have
[31:41] both a new president and a new secretary
[31:43] of state after November. So, uh I'm not
[31:47] sure it's it's uh precisely a calamity
[31:49] for American foreign policy. But I think
[31:51] there is one important point to make.
[31:53] The Arab-Israeli peace talks, as your uh
[31:55] previous discussant said, are at a very
[31:58] delicate phase. They're at a very
[32:00] important phase because now, as
[32:02] Secretary Baker himself said, the burden
[32:05] is on the Arabs to make concessions, to
[32:07] come off their longheld positions, which
[32:10] if held to will make it impossible to
[32:12] move forward. This is the heavy lifting
[32:14] of the peace process. This is the most
[32:16] important and most difficult task.
[32:19] Secretary Baker has said so. He's been
[32:21] indispensable to the process so far and
[32:23] now he's leaving. That's bound to be a
[32:25] setback.
[32:26] >> Uh bound to be a setback. Condisa Rice,
[32:29] he's leaving just as the heavy lifting
[32:31] begins.
[32:32] >> Well, I know Secretary Baker and I do
[32:35] not believe that he would have left
[32:37] regardless uh if he believed that his
[32:39] absence was going to fundamentally harm
[32:42] the peace process. uh he has invested a
[32:45] great deal in it as has President Bush
[32:47] and I think uh he and the president have
[32:49] made the judgment that the secretary can
[32:52] come to the White House now to lead the
[32:54] campaign and that the peace process can
[32:57] survive and indeed prosper. I just don't
[32:59] believe that these are people who would
[33:00] have made the choice had they believed
[33:02] differently.
[33:03] >> Um does that suggest he can continue to
[33:06] have a hand in the Middle East
[33:07] negotiations from the White House? I
[33:09] think there are questions uh as to
[33:10] whether he could continue to have a
[33:12] hand. But let me say
[33:13] >> You mean that would really be
[33:15] >> I think there would probably be
[33:16] difficulties there. But let me say that
[33:18] for those of us who believe that the
[33:20] reelection of George Bush is the single
[33:23] best thing that we could do for American
[33:25] foreign policy in the future, uh this is
[33:28] a very welcome move. How much credit,
[33:30] Miss Rice, can Baker claim for uh his
[33:34] for getting all of Israel's Arab
[33:36] neighbors to sit down to discuss peace
[33:39] for the first time, which uh he
[33:40] mentioned himself in his speech today.
[33:43] >> Well, I believe that this administration
[33:46] um led by President Bush and Secretary
[33:48] Baker's excellent diplomacy can take a
[33:50] lot of credit for this. I think as he
[33:52] said in his statement that very few
[33:54] really believed that face-to-face talks
[33:57] between the Arabs and the Israelis were
[33:59] a possible outcome of the victory in the
[34:02] Gulf War, but they pressed the advantage
[34:04] very quickly after Operation uh Desert
[34:07] Storm was complete. Uh they held firm on
[34:10] the issue of settlements and loan
[34:12] guarantees. It turns out that the
[34:14] Israeli people were ready to turn to a
[34:17] government that was more committed to
[34:19] the peace process. And I think by that
[34:21] firmness and that initiative uh they
[34:23] take a great deal of credit for that.
[34:25] But ultimately the parties themselves uh
[34:28] I think are at the place that they want
[34:29] peace.
[34:31] >> Uh Michael Mandlebomb you heard Mark
[34:32] Shield say a moment ago it ill behooves
[34:35] Democrats who were complacent about the
[34:37] settlement policy of the Lood government
[34:41] to carp now about the effect of uh
[34:45] Bakers leaving. Do you think uh how much
[34:47] credit do you think Baker should can
[34:50] legitimately claim for getting the
[34:51] parties together?
[34:52] >> Well, I think he does deserve some
[34:54] credit, but let me take issue with one
[34:55] of the things my friend Condandy Rice
[34:57] said or implied. There is absolutely no
[35:00] evidence from the exit polling of the
[35:02] Israeli election that the issue of loan
[35:05] guarantees and the way the Bush
[35:06] administration handled it was at all
[35:08] decisive in the Israeli election. The
[35:10] Israeli people voted for change on a
[35:13] whole host of issues and they expressed
[35:14] their confidence in Yeetsak Rabin and
[35:17] that was a personal triumph for Yeetsak
[35:19] Rabin. Now as for getting the peace
[35:21] process and the peace talk started and
[35:23] bringing the belligerent parties
[35:25] together face to face for the first
[35:27] time, I think the administration does
[35:29] deserve some credit. And by the way,
[35:30] Governor Clinton has given the
[35:32] administration credit and has said
[35:34] publicly and in his meeting with Prime
[35:36] Minister Rabin yesterday that he wants
[35:38] these talks to continue. He wants them
[35:40] to succeed. If it is possible to make
[35:42] progress between now and the election,
[35:44] he will be delighted and he will give
[35:46] the Bush administration credit if
[35:48] progress is made. Having said that, let
[35:50] me step back and try to step into my
[35:52] role as a professional student of
[35:54] foreign policy and say that there were a
[35:56] number of factors contributing to this
[35:58] turn in Arab-Israeli relations. The most
[36:01] important of which, I think, was the
[36:03] collapse of the Soviet Union. Without
[36:05] the Soviet Union, the radical Arab
[36:07] rejectionist front has no superpower
[36:09] patron to back up its policies of
[36:12] intrigence. For that reason, Syria
[36:14] decided that it was willing, at least to
[36:16] come to the table with Israel, and that
[36:19] made this negotiation possible. Where we
[36:21] go from here is hard to say because, as
[36:23] I've noted, the positions of the Arab
[36:26] states and of the Palestinian
[36:27] negotiators are incompatible with what
[36:30] the Israelis are willing to give up. So,
[36:32] we do we do need some intensive
[36:34] diplomacy. If Mr. Baker is unable to
[36:37] perform it, and I take it that in the
[36:39] White House, he will be completely tied
[36:41] up with the re-election campaign, then
[36:43] somebody else ought to step in his
[36:44] shoes. And it seems to me that Larry
[36:47] Eagleberger, a very abled diplomat,
[36:49] ought not simply to be a placeholder for
[36:52] James Baker. He ought not simply to keep
[36:54] his seat warm at state. If the president
[36:56] wants him to conduct American foreign
[36:58] policy, the president ought to send his
[37:00] name up to the Senate for confirmation
[37:01] as secretary of state.
[37:03] >> Uhhuh. Let's move on here. Miss Rice, um
[37:06] Mr. Manbomb just mentioned this collapse
[37:08] of the Soviet Union. That is going to be
[37:10] the big claim that uh the Republican
[37:12] president and secretary of state are
[37:14] making to the country and the party that
[37:16] they have to them goes a great deal of
[37:19] the credit we just heard for the
[37:20] peaceful ending of the cold war and
[37:23] ending the nuclear nightmare. How much
[37:26] credit can they actually claim given the
[37:29] hand they were dealt by Reagan and
[37:32] Gorbachev?
[37:34] >> Well, let me first return to something
[37:36] that Mike said. It is very true that uh
[37:40] circumstances have to be right among
[37:42] parties to get progress on any important
[37:45] uh foreign policy issue. But what you
[37:47] make of those circumstances is a matter
[37:49] of leadership and diplomacy. And this
[37:52] administration did a terrific job of
[37:55] playing uh this hand in a way that
[37:58] brought back uh brought about a peaceful
[38:00] end to the cold war. Secretary Baker
[38:02] mentioned for instance uh German
[38:04] unification on western terms uh the
[38:07] liberation of Eastern Europe. I don't
[38:09] understand how one can argue that uh any
[38:12] of this was inevitable. Leadership in
[38:15] the White House is what brought these
[38:17] events to fruition and I think that our
[38:19] allies realized that. I think our former
[38:21] foes in the Soviet Union realize that
[38:24] and I think that deep down inside uh
[38:25] Mike and the Democrats realize that too.
[38:28] But they have a very difficult job. They
[38:30] have to convince the American people
[38:32] that a president who was at the helm
[38:34] when all of these events took place and
[38:36] all of these changes uh took place is
[38:39] less qualified to take us into the
[38:41] future than the governor of Arkansas.
[38:42] And so I don't blame them for trying to
[38:44] downplay the administration's role.
[38:47] White House leadership uh the leadership
[38:49] of this president in the White House
[38:51] deserves a lot of credit for the way the
[38:53] Cold War ended.
[38:55] >> Absolutely.
[38:55] >> Mr. I'm I I was going to ask Mr.
[38:57] Mandelbomb that.
[38:58] >> Thank you, Robin. Uh let me quote
[39:00] Governor Clinton in his speech uh to the
[39:03] Los Angeles World Affairs Council today
[39:05] that I'm very glad you're going to be uh
[39:07] devoting some time to tomorrow because I
[39:09] think that in the greater scheme of
[39:10] things that will be seen as a much more
[39:12] important event in the history of
[39:13] American foreign policy than Mr. Baker's
[39:15] paragrinations within the Bush
[39:16] administration. Uh, Governor Clinton
[39:19] said that for George Bush to take credit
[39:21] for the fall of communism is like a
[39:23] rooster taking credit for the dawn. I'd
[39:25] be a little I' I'd uh I'd soften that a
[39:28] little bit. I think that there was some
[39:29] skillful diplomacy especially in the
[39:32] unification of Germany and uh my friend
[39:34] Kandi Rice played a very important role
[39:36] in that. Uh but communism was toppled
[39:40] not from the white house but by the
[39:42] bravery of the people who lived under
[39:44] communist subjugation for 40 and 75
[39:47] years. It's the lackences and vatlav
[39:49] havls and boris yeltsons who deserve
[39:51] credit with a supporting role in some
[39:54] cases by the United States. That I think
[39:56] is the achievement of the Bush Baker
[39:59] foreign policy. The great failure is the
[40:02] absolute inability to come to terms with
[40:04] the postcold war world. There are huge
[40:07] challenges and opportunities out there
[40:10] and as far as I can see uh this
[40:12] administration is simply helpless before
[40:14] them. It has no vision. Uh it has no
[40:16] plan. It's really not doing much except
[40:19] coasting on the achievements of the
[40:21] past.
[40:21] >> Let's go back to Miss Rice on that.
[40:23] >> Yeah. May I uh respond to that? First of
[40:25] all, um I would say that the Bush
[40:27] administration continues to achieve as
[40:30] was demonstrated in the press conference
[40:32] with uh Prime Minister Rabin yesterday
[40:34] or day before yesterday with the North
[40:37] American Free Trade Agreement uh which
[40:39] speaks to the global economy and the
[40:41] need of the expansion of markets for the
[40:43] American economy. This is an
[40:45] administration that hit the ground
[40:46] running in 1989 and hasn't stopped
[40:48] running yet. I've never understood the
[40:51] argument uh that somehow uh this
[40:54] president was not prepared for the
[40:55] postcold war era when it was this
[40:58] president who when Boris Yelton was
[41:01] brave enough to stand on the tanks. It
[41:03] was this president that mobilized
[41:05] international opinion against the coup
[41:08] plotters at a time when I might add
[41:10] Governor Clinton said that he was unsure
[41:13] and perhaps it was disturbing and we'd
[41:15] have to watch. So let's be clear here.
[41:17] The postcold war era has been underway
[41:20] for better than a year now and this
[41:22] administration's been very active in it.
[41:23] >> You're right. Well, we're going to pick
[41:25] this up tomorrow when we analyze
[41:27] Governor Clinton's approach to foreign
[41:29] policy. Thank you both for joining us.
[41:41] And finally, we have a newsmaker
[41:43] interview with Israel's new prime
[41:44] minister Rabbin, who returns to Israel
[41:47] tonight after talks with President Bush
[41:49] and other Americans. I spoke with him in
[41:51] his New York hotel room earlier today
[41:53] and asked for his reaction to the Baker
[41:55] job switch.
[41:57] >> Well, I don't believe it's any issue
[41:59] that I should be involved uh in passing
[42:02] any judgment about it.
[42:05] uh understand that in every democracy
[42:08] our elections and for elections to be
[42:12] elected it's legitimate to do what it is
[42:16] considered to be helpful for the
[42:19] elections. I'm sure that in our country
[42:23] we have all our own considerations
[42:26] and we act in accordance to them.
[42:29] Therefore, I don't believe that this is
[42:32] the issue that I should be involved in
[42:35] it by saying anything about it.
[42:37] >> Does it signal in a way that the crucial
[42:41] US role in bringing these talks about
[42:45] has ended now that the US isn't needed
[42:48] now in this process?
[42:50] >> I wouldn't say so. After I spent uh over
[42:54] a day with the president, with secretary
[42:57] Baker, I found them uh really interested
[43:03] in the continuation of the negotiations.
[43:06] Let's not forget uh uh the Bush
[43:10] administration to Secretary Baker
[43:13] brought about the Madrid conference and
[43:16] what has followed the the Madrid
[43:18] conference, the bilateral talks that
[43:22] Israel meets face to face
[43:26] Palestinian delegation, a Syrian
[43:29] delegation and a Lebanese delegation. I
[43:32] don't believe that the United States or
[43:35] the present administration
[43:37] uh will give up to follow closely what
[43:40] will be developed in this bilateral
[43:43] talks as well as when in September the
[43:46] multilateral talks will be continued.
[43:50] Did the Bush administration stand on the
[43:54] settlements and the loan guarantees play
[43:57] an important role in the peace process?
[43:59] Do you think?
[44:02] I believe that uh the question of
[44:05] settlements in the territories,
[44:08] it's an old issue uh between the United
[44:11] States and Israel. I remember several
[44:15] presidents before President Bush that
[44:18] made it clear that it's against the US
[44:21] policy that Israel will set settlements
[44:24] in the territories.
[44:26] I believe the same position has been
[44:29] taken now in continuation to the
[44:33] longstanding American position. I
[44:36] believe that basically when it comes to
[44:38] the relationship between the United
[44:40] States and Israel, we know that there
[44:43] are certain differences
[44:45] of opinion positions,
[44:48] what should be done, what shouldn't be
[44:50] done, and we learned in many cases in
[44:54] the past and I believe that this time in
[44:57] my in the talks that I conducted with
[45:00] President Bush, Secretary Baker, we
[45:03] learn to agree to disagree on certain
[45:05] issues but at the same time to find ways
[45:09] what to do together or at least in
[45:12] agreed way to move ahead to achieve what
[45:17] we believe should try to be achieved.
[45:20] Therefore, the question is not if we
[45:23] have agreed about everything. All
[45:25] through the long history of the
[45:27] relationship between the United States
[45:29] and Israel, there were differences.
[45:32] There were there were ups and downs in
[45:34] the relationship. The problem was always
[45:37] first to try to be frank one with
[45:40] another to be to the extent that it's
[45:42] possible trust and confident and second
[45:46] to find operative ways how to move ahead
[45:50] in what we believe that should be moved
[45:53] knowing that we defer on certain issues
[45:56] in um
[45:58] agreeing to the offer you the 10 billion
[46:02] in loan guarantees assuming the Congress
[46:04] goes along with that um it's reported
[46:07] that you've accepted some conditions on
[46:10] that and one of them is that after one
[46:13] year the sum each year will be reduced
[46:16] by the amount your government spends on
[46:19] continued construction in the occupied
[46:21] territories. Can you confirm that? Uh
[46:24] it's true.
[46:26] It is to say that uh even before I came
[46:31] to office, this was the position of the
[46:33] Congress and administration
[46:37] that there will be funibility as they
[46:39] call it or the deduction.
[46:41] But it will be started once the bill
[46:45] will pass. Will it be the second half of
[46:48] September or the 1st of October? I hope
[46:52] that we have agreed that for the first
[46:54] year we'll get a $2 billion dollar but
[46:58] after that of course there will be uh a
[47:03] deduction of what Israel would pay from
[47:07] its own resources of the government
[47:10] resources
[47:12] uh in the continuation of the building
[47:14] of settlements that their construction
[47:18] will be continued after the 1st of
[47:21] October this year.
[47:23] >> What is the long range justification
[47:27] for continuing or initiating any
[47:30] settlements
[47:32] uh security areas or not in territory
[47:35] that will ultimately be subject to
[47:38] negotiation and what you've yourself
[47:40] called territorial compromise in a peace
[47:42] settlement?
[47:44] Well, uh there were two schools or there
[47:48] are two schools of thought in Israel.
[47:51] Legitimate deli could that aspires to
[47:55] the whole land of Israel and the Labor
[47:58] Party which is ready for certain
[48:02] territorial compromises but by no means
[48:06] to return to the pre60 war lines.
[48:10] For all practical purposes, the present
[48:13] negotiations with the Jordanian and the
[48:16] Palestinians
[48:17] are not related to the permanent
[48:20] solution. They are related
[48:24] for the idea which is called now is
[48:28] interim selfgovernment arrangement to
[48:30] the Palestinians. In the past, it was
[48:33] called autonomy to the Palestinians
[48:37] as an interim agreement for transition
[48:40] period of 5 years. Therefore, we are not
[48:43] going to to negotiate now the boundaries
[48:48] of Israel visav Jordan
[48:52] uh in this context.
[48:55] Uh therefore this issues will not come
[49:00] up. We retain to ourselves the way that
[49:05] we believe in it the possibility to
[49:08] negotiate peace without return all the
[49:13] territories. We're ready to make
[49:15] compromise
[49:17] first and foremost because we don't want
[49:20] Israel to be a bational state. We don't
[49:24] want to swallow into Israel as a
[49:29] sovereign state additional 1.7 or 1.9
[49:34] million Palestinians. It will make
[49:36] Israel a bational state. Therefore we
[49:40] are talking once we pass the interim
[49:44] agreement of the autonomy
[49:47] hopefully once it will be created
[49:51] new realities
[49:54] will be come and surface. We hope that
[49:59] this arrangements
[50:01] will start eroding suspicion, hatred,
[50:05] prejudices that no doubt exist on both
[50:09] sides when it comes to the Palestinian
[50:13] is Israeli problem might be new ideas
[50:17] will be brought up. For example, when
[50:20] the head of the Palestinian delegation
[50:22] came after the Madrid conference back to
[50:25] the territory, he was interviewed on
[50:28] television. He was asked
[50:31] what is your opinion
[50:34] about a federation or confederation with
[50:38] children?
[50:40] His answer was why not with Israel. I'm
[50:42] not saying that this is the opinion of
[50:45] the Palestinian army, but I believe the
[50:48] whole wisdom of the interim arrangement
[50:52] is to bring about changes, changes in
[50:56] attitude because what we offer the
[50:59] Palestinian
[51:01] even though they claim it's too too
[51:03] little and too late,
[51:06] none of the Arab countries offered them
[51:08] when Jordan was in occupation of the
[51:11] West Bank and Egypt in occupation of
[51:14] Gaza. We offer them autonomy to run
[51:17] their affairs by themselves with the
[51:20] exception of security, responsibility to
[51:22] the Israeli settlements and foreign
[51:26] affairs.
[51:26] >> Is your government so open to new ideas
[51:28] down the line that it would consider a
[51:30] federation with the Palestinians?
[51:33] >> I don't know what is federation.
[51:35] >> Well, didn't you just quote me?
[51:37] >> It might be. We have to define. Mhm. We
[51:40] have to define
[51:41] I wouldn't exclude new ideas once we
[51:46] stop not now once we stop and reach a
[51:50] point that the interim self government
[51:55] arrangements prove themselves working
[51:58] one that the attitude is changing
[52:02] might be that new ideas will come. What
[52:05] is the best thing from your point of
[52:07] view that can come out of this next
[52:09] round of talks? I offer to Secretary
[52:11] Baker. I offer publicly. I'm ready to
[52:16] say that in April May
[52:20] 1993
[52:22] general elections will be held in the
[52:25] territories in which the Palestinians
[52:28] who reside there will elect by themsel
[52:32] from themselves administrative council
[52:35] not what they demand a legislative body
[52:39] to run
[52:41] uh into himself.
[52:44] uh government arrangements
[52:48] then to set a date let's say 1st of
[52:51] December
[52:53] as the date by which we should reach an
[52:56] agreement about modalities of the
[52:58] election
[53:00] then another date first and of February
[53:04] that by that will finish what spheres of
[53:08] activities will be handed to the
[53:12] Palestinian opinions to be run by the
[53:15] administrative council.
[53:17] The problem is that they don't agree
[53:19] about yet. You ask me what I expect. I
[53:24] believe it will be in the spirit of the
[53:26] CM David code to which Egypt, Israel and
[53:30] the United States are committed
[53:32] internationally. It will be in the line
[53:35] which is imbued in the letter of the
[53:37] invitation by the United States and the
[53:40] Soviet Union to the participants of the
[53:43] Madrid conference. And I believe it's
[53:46] the only way to start moving towards a
[53:51] solution of the conflict between the
[53:53] Palestinians and Israel. Any attempt to
[53:57] move by one act from now uh from the
[54:01] present situation to a permanent one
[54:04] will lead nowhere. There is a view in
[54:07] Washington uh that having offered the
[54:10] loan guarantees, President Bush and the
[54:13] administration are now covered
[54:15] politically to agree to the sale of new
[54:18] F-15s to Saudi Arabia. Do you see it
[54:21] that way?
[54:22] >> No, I don't see it. There is a
[54:24] long-standing position about of Israel
[54:27] about this issue
[54:29] and we'll see what will happen.
[54:32] >> Is Saudi Arabia still a danger to
[54:34] Israel?
[54:36] Now I can't see them as an immediate
[54:39] danger but in the future who knows who
[54:43] knew 3 years ago or 2 and a half years
[54:46] ago that Saddam Hussein will invade and
[54:49] occupy
[54:51] uh Kuwait even though the regime in
[54:53] Saudi Arabia is entirely different. But
[54:57] who can promise me that this regime will
[54:59] be there for the next 20 years?
[55:02] >> You met Bill Clinton during your visit
[55:04] here. If he were elected in November,
[55:08] would you feel that uh US-Israeli
[55:10] relations were in secure hands?
[55:13] Well, I wouldn't pass judgment first who
[55:16] will be elected
[55:18] uh because I don't believe that uh it
[55:20] will be proper for me to intervene in
[55:23] this problem. Whoever the United States
[55:27] people will elect, we'll have to work
[55:30] with him. And I'm sure that we'll find
[55:33] ways to work for the benefit of our two
[55:37] countries who with whoever will be
[55:39] elected. Well, Prime Minister, thank you
[55:41] very much for joining us
[55:51] again. The main stories of this
[55:52] Thursday. President Bush announced that
[55:54] James Baker will resign his post as
[55:56] Secretary of State to become White House
[55:58] chief of staff and oversee the
[56:00] president's reelection bid. And the UN
[56:03] Security Council authorized military
[56:05] intervention in Bosnia, but only as a
[56:08] last resort to ensure the delivery of
[56:11] relief aid and to open detention camps
[56:13] for inspection. Good night, Robin.
[56:16] >> Good night, Judy. That's the NewsHour
[56:17] for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow
[56:19] night with a look at Bill Clinton's
[56:20] foreign policy position as outlined in
[56:23] today's address in Los Angeles. We'll
[56:25] have extensive excerpts and Michael
[56:26] Mandelbomb and Condisa Rice will be back
[56:29] among others to argue the fine points.
[56:31] I'm Robert McNeel. Good night.