PBS NewsHour - 1999-06-04 - 2 of 2
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:00] and we've put our uh national interest
[0:02] subject to some degree to Russian
[0:04] diplomacy. The taxpayer also has been
[0:07] quite a loser both for the war,
[0:09] potentially for the peace and
[0:10] potentially for uh funding Russia which
[0:14] we now owe a great deal to.
[0:16] >> And uh Congressman Cusinich, where do
[0:18] you come down on this? Do you think uh
[0:20] like Congressman Lee leaps that it's not
[0:22] clear we've won a lot? Well, first of
[0:24] all, I think uh everyone in this country
[0:27] has to be uh grateful if we're moving
[0:29] towards peace. Uh there are some like
[0:31] myself who believe that we should never
[0:33] have been bombing civilian populations
[0:35] in the first place and that in fact the
[0:38] uh real losers in all of this are the
[0:40] civilians on both sides. Of course, our
[0:41] Albanians whose uh exodus out of the
[0:44] province was accelerated by the bombing
[0:46] and the Serbian civilians who lost
[0:49] thousands of innocent civilians in
[0:51] bombings. Uh it's good now that the war
[0:53] is moving towards an end, but I think
[0:55] it's very important that in our post
[0:57] hawk analysis, which we're moving
[0:59] towards, that we start to decide whether
[1:01] or not in the future we can reach a a
[1:05] condition in this country where
[1:07] nonviolent resolution of conflict is
[1:10] preferable to taking up the club. So, so
[1:14] Congressman Kusinich, you don't agree
[1:15] with Senator Lieberman that and also
[1:17] with the president who we just heard
[1:20] that what has happened here will show
[1:23] the world that what Malloich tried to do
[1:26] just won't be allowed to stand.
[1:28] >> Well, I I certainly have a great deal of
[1:30] respect for the president and for
[1:32] Senator Lieberman and all your other
[1:33] guests. I I want to say that it's quite
[1:36] possible that we could have reached the
[1:38] same kind of an agreement uh perhaps not
[1:40] with NATO uh uh monitoring in Kosovo uh
[1:46] without the extensive bombing. Uh it's
[1:48] very clear that Rambo was a
[1:50] non-negotiable demand submitted to the
[1:52] Federal Republic of Yugoslavia uh and it
[1:55] precipitated the war rather than seeking
[1:57] to end a war. I think there's a
[1:59] possibility now that we're going to
[2:01] learn a lot from this conflict and
[2:03] hopefully we'll learn that involving the
[2:04] United Nations at the beginning is an
[2:06] important thing and it should not be uh
[2:09] missed here that the UN is part of the
[2:11] solution. They're part of the solution
[2:12] with respect to administration of Kosovo
[2:14] and they're part of the solution with uh
[2:17] civilians and other security forces who
[2:19] will be part of uh the presence in the
[2:21] province.
[2:22] >> Elizabeth uh
[2:23] >> yes, go ahead. We learned
[2:25] [clears throat] a very bitter lesson in
[2:26] Subnita in Bosnia when we allowed the
[2:29] United Nations to carry out a role for
[2:32] which it is entirely unsuited. And if
[2:34] the United Nations had been in charge of
[2:36] this operation, uh I do not believe that
[2:39] we could have the optimism that we have
[2:41] today. The United Nations is not the
[2:43] suitable vehicle. NATO is and I agree
[2:46] with Joe Lieberman in that uh we have
[2:49] made United Nations and the United
[2:51] States relevant in the postcold war era.
[2:53] and the blow to our credibility and our
[2:56] ability to bring about an ending to such
[2:59] atrocities and destabilize
[3:02] destabilization
[3:03] that Mr. Mallosovich posed uh I think is
[3:06] an important lesson for the future and
[3:08] that's why I would uh argue forcefully
[3:12] that the United Nations should not be in
[3:14] charge of this peacekeeping operation
[3:16] because of their failures in Bosnia not
[3:18] very far away. Okay, Senator McCain, I
[3:21] want to go through also some of the
[3:22] specific points you raised and and I
[3:24] want each of you to to comment on some
[3:27] of these and talk about what you'll be
[3:28] looking for to be able to judge whether
[3:31] this is going the way it should be. You
[3:32] raised the Russian role and and also the
[3:35] your concerns about NATO. What's your
[3:37] concern about the Russian role?
[3:39] >> Well, first of all, I don't want it to
[3:40] be a de facto partition uh of Kasova. In
[3:44] other words, it depends on how they're
[3:46] stationed where they are and they should
[3:47] also be under a NATO command. Uh not
[3:51] different very much different from the
[3:52] lines of the arrangement in Bosnia.
[3:55] >> And you also raised but on the partition
[3:57] what are you you're really talking about
[3:59] a partition in the sense that Russian
[4:00] troops would be over one part and
[4:03] exactly the other troops elsewhere.
[4:05] Okay. Senator Lieberman, what will you
[4:07] be looking for specifically um that will
[4:10] tell you whether this is going the way
[4:12] it should?
[4:13] >> Okay, I I do want to take a moment to
[4:15] respond to something my friend Dennis
[4:16] Cusinich said, which is that u
[4:19] nonviolence would not have worked here.
[4:21] Melosvich in the last 10 years has
[4:23] invaded Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and
[4:26] now Kosovo and is responsible for the
[4:29] deaths of hundreds of thousands of
[4:31] people. The lesson we learned here was
[4:32] that to stop someone like that, uh,
[4:35] you've got to use force. And thank God
[4:37] he finally bend bent to it and
[4:39] capitulated and accepted our terms. Uh,
[4:42] what I'll be looking for, of course,
[4:44] first is for the Serbian troops to move
[4:46] out and then when this small number
[4:49] provided for in the agreement come back
[4:51] that their role be extremely limited to
[4:53] the uh sites in Kosovo that are
[4:56] important to the Serbs. And then then to
[4:58] me uh the next most important part is
[5:02] not just to allow the Kosvars to come
[5:04] home and return to their homes and live
[5:07] in peace, but to make sure
[5:10] that they regain the right to govern
[5:13] themselves as an autonomous province of
[5:17] Yugoslavia, which is the status they had
[5:21] before Melovich began his reign of
[5:24] terror against them a decade ago. So
[5:26] there's there's a lot to watch, but the
[5:28] good news is that there will be 50,000
[5:32] soldiers there. And I I couldn't agree
[5:34] with John McCain more. They have to be
[5:36] under uh NATO control.
[5:39] >> And Congressman Cusinich, if you see
[5:41] some of these things um that the
[5:43] senators just laid out, will you be more
[5:46] optimistic about what's been achieved?
[5:49] [clears throat]
[5:49] >> Well, I think again any chance that we
[5:52] have for peace is important here. My
[5:54] concern at the beginning was that we
[5:56] were getting ourselves into a much wider
[5:58] war uh possibly involving Russia. And
[6:01] it's really important to note that all
[6:03] of the efforts that have been made so
[6:05] far have not been directed necessarily
[6:07] towards peace. The fact that Mallosvich
[6:10] has finally yielded, I think is really
[6:12] due to the um possibility of a ground
[6:17] invasion which would have no doubt had
[6:20] enormous implications for the entire
[6:23] free world, especially in this country.
[6:25] So, I'm I'm optimistic, yes, that
[6:28] perhaps we can reach peace, but I'm not
[6:30] optimistic that we're learning the right
[6:32] lessons from this uh encounter. And I'm
[6:36] hopeful that as we go into an analysis
[6:38] after the fact that we consider that
[6:41] perhaps this could have been handled in
[6:42] a different way that the extensive
[6:44] bombings were not necessary and that in
[6:46] fact uh we have been able to gain an
[6:48] agreement now that uh the sum and
[6:51] substance of it could have been uh
[6:53] gained uh even before Ramboier.
[6:55] >> Okay. I'm going to go around with all of
[6:57] you on what what lessons we take from
[6:59] this but Congressman Leech first. What
[7:00] are you going to be looking for um as a
[7:03] sign that this is going the way it
[7:05] should?
[7:06] >> Well, the first major sign of course is
[7:08] whether uh the troops of Serbia return.
[7:11] Uh the second uh issue is going to be
[7:13] whether you can have a stable situation
[7:15] on the ground that will allow uh the the
[7:18] refugees to return. And then the third
[7:20] dilemma becomes
[7:22] what is the issue of autonomy? Will the
[7:25] the Kosvars insist on independence? uh
[7:28] will the uh Serbs insist on maintenance
[7:31] of of sovereignty? And based upon the
[7:34] war that's gone on, that looks like it's
[7:37] a fairly irreconcilable situation. And
[7:41] that is going to be something that we're
[7:43] going to be in the middle of because we
[7:44] will have 7,000 American troops there
[7:47] with 43,000 other NATO forces. This is
[7:50] not going to be a very Pacific
[7:53] situation. Uh hopefully all of this will
[7:57] come to be resolved over time, but it's
[7:59] hard to be immensely optimistic that uh
[8:03] things will go terribly smoothly.
[8:04] >> And Congressman Leech, what do you think
[8:06] has been learned from this? What lessons
[8:08] do you take?
[8:09] >> Well, there are many lessons. I would
[8:11] only stress one and that is diplomacy
[8:14] matters and it appears that uh Remlay
[8:18] laid down the gauntlet in some ways to
[8:20] Mallovich. Uh and then it appears that
[8:23] Mallovich miscalculated and that we
[8:25] miscalculated. So we stumbled into a war
[8:28] and frankly we've also appeared to have
[8:30] stumbled into a negotiating process
[8:33] becoming disproportionately in fact
[8:36] startlingly reliant on Russia. Uh and so
[8:39] we can be pleased that that Russia in
[8:42] the end after much moving back and forth
[8:45] philosophically and Moscow uh came to be
[8:48] play a constructive role. But to put the
[8:51] American national interest in that sort
[8:53] of of circumstance is not a very happy
[8:56] situation.
[8:56] >> Senator McCain, what lessons do you take
[8:58] from this? You were critical of the way
[9:00] the administration waged this campaign.
[9:03] >> If you determine that American values
[9:05] and interests are at stake, then prepare
[9:08] the American people, prepare your
[9:10] adversary. And by the way, I do agree
[9:12] with Dennis that the threat of a ground
[9:15] invasion was a factor here. And I also
[9:17] agree with Jim Leech that uh the Rambule
[9:20] agreement was fatally flawed. But if our
[9:23] interests and values are at risk, then
[9:25] prepare the American people. Make sure
[9:28] that you lead your allies and not be led
[9:30] by them. And then be prepared to do
[9:32] whatever is necessary to win the war.
[9:35] Not pin prick strikes, not the kind of
[9:38] disavowel of of options, but be prepared
[9:41] to do whatever is necessary or do not
[9:43] embark on the endeavor. Senator
[9:45] Lieberman, what lessons do you take away
[9:47] from this?
[9:48] >> Well, the major lesson I think is that
[9:50] diplomacy when matched with force can
[9:53] uphold our values and our interest. And
[9:56] in that sense, we did learn the lesson
[9:58] of the two world wars and the cold war
[9:59] of this century. The other thing that
[10:02] happened here is that NATO for after
[10:04] five decades of being a defensive
[10:06] alliance went on the offense. It it was
[10:08] frustrating at times because it's hard
[10:10] to get 19 nations democracies to agree
[10:14] quickly to carry out particular military
[10:16] strategies. But one of the lessons is
[10:18] that we did it. Now I think maybe the
[10:20] next time if god forbid there is a next
[10:22] time we'll do it more effectively. And
[10:24] then the final lesson which is really
[10:27] more of a question is the extent to
[10:30] which uh these extraordinary high-tech
[10:34] standoff precisiong guided weapon system
[10:37] systems of ours have worked and and uh
[10:40] whether whether in fact we're capable of
[10:44] achieving our objectives as we did in
[10:47] this case on the ground from the air.
[10:51] and what lessons that teaches us about
[10:53] uh our future uh military strength. And
[10:56] I think one of the lessons it will teach
[10:57] us is that we ought to keep investing in
[11:00] uh high technology weapon systems but
[11:02] not uh stop investing in the capability
[11:06] to wage war on the ground when that's
[11:08] necessary.
[11:09] >> Congressman Cusinich, very briefly your
[11:11] response to that. I
[11:12] >> I'm hopeful that in the months and years
[11:14] ahead we'll be able to review a number
[11:16] of doctrines and that is the doctrine of
[11:18] humanitarian intervention. the doctrine
[11:21] of collective guilt, the doctrine of
[11:23] retributive justice, an eye for an eye,
[11:26] the doctrine of collateral damage. There
[11:28] are many things that need to be looked
[11:30] at here and all have to do with whether
[11:32] we in the next millennium have the
[11:34] ability to evolve so that humanity will
[11:38] be able to solve its problems in the
[11:39] future without having to say that we
[11:42] show people killing is wrong by killing
[11:44] other people.
[11:45] >> Well, gentlemen, thank you very much for
[11:46] being with us.
[11:51] >> [music]
[11:54] >> And to Jiggo and elephant, Wall Street
[11:56] Journal columnist Paul Jiggo and Boston
[11:58] Globe columnist Tom Olifant substituting
[12:01] tonight for Mark Shields who is away.
[12:04] Paul NATO Mallosvich aside, moving more
[12:08] closer to home here. If this peace plan
[12:11] in fact works, sort through the winners
[12:13] and losers. Well, American power uh the
[12:16] ability to use power is certainly a big
[12:18] winner. Uh the internationalists in both
[12:21] political parties who are willing to use
[12:23] that uh that power are winners. Uh no
[12:26] question Tony Blair among the world
[12:28] leaders who really I think led NATO in
[12:30] this as a winner. I would give uh I
[12:33] would give uh I think some of the
[12:34] winners are uh uh those Republicans on
[12:37] the hill on Capitol Hill. There aren't a
[12:38] lot of them. But those Republicans like
[12:40] John McCain and Chuck Hegel and uh Dick
[12:44] Luger of Indiana who said from the
[12:46] start, we have a per an American purpose
[12:48] here, but we have to do it right. And
[12:50] said, Mr. President, use ground troops.
[12:52] And then there's Bill Clinton who uh uh
[12:55] is a victor here. No question about it,
[12:57] but I think a qualified one and in many
[13:00] respects almost despite himself uh
[13:02] because he he led from the caboose here.
[13:05] uh he was never willing to use his
[13:07] political capital, risk his political
[13:09] capital on behalf of ground troops in a
[13:12] way that I think in the end when he
[13:13] finally brought those troops up and they
[13:16] supported the KLA as well which started
[13:17] a ground offensive that's when Malloich
[13:20] broke and I think that maybe some coast
[13:22] of our lives and a lot of tragedy would
[13:24] have been spared if he'd been able to do
[13:25] been willing to do that from the
[13:26] beginning. So he's a victor but a
[13:28] qualified one.
[13:29] >> Let's start there and work back Tom.
[13:31] Well, uh, one of the interesting things
[13:33] I thought about President Clinton is you
[13:35] could actually see him today feeling his
[13:38] oats, which is rare, uh, coming so
[13:40] quickly on on on the heels of the news.
[13:42] What does he do today? He makes a recess
[13:46] appointment of Jim Horell, a man from
[13:49] San Francisco happens to be gay, to be
[13:52] ambassador of Luxembourg. That's in the
[13:54] Senate's face. They haven't scheduled a
[13:56] vote. It's been blocked. The day after
[13:59] it becomes apparent that this is
[14:01] breaking his way, he makes the recess
[14:04] appointment. Stop. You can't stop it.
[14:06] It's like an in-your-face gesture.
[14:08] Something else happens today that's
[14:09] interesting that I think underlines
[14:11] what's happened. Jesse Helms, often a
[14:14] foe of the president, chairman of the
[14:15] Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
[14:17] finally gives in sort of and schedules
[14:21] hearings on the nomination of Dick
[14:23] Hullbrook to be the next ambassador to
[14:25] the United Nations. Now I don't think
[14:27] this is co coincidence. This is Congress
[14:30] deferring to a president who has won one
[14:32] and a president using his power that
[14:35] gets enhanced at a time like this. And I
[14:38] think Paul is exactly right. As long as
[14:39] you don't over interpret victory, uh you
[14:42] can define it. Could I throw one other
[14:44] country on the pile though? Germany, I
[14:46] think, managed its first military
[14:48] involvement abroad since you know what
[14:52] and did so with great skill in a way
[14:54] that will benefit Germany in the future.
[14:55] In what way? Why?
[14:57] >> Well, it was the first time I think they
[14:59] provided tremendous uh they were they
[15:02] were the key one of the very most
[15:04] important keys to the to the at least
[15:07] surprising to the commentariat here in
[15:09] Washington. Resilience
[15:11] >> commentariat
[15:12] >> and pundittocracy which I think is one
[15:14] of the losers in this in this affair.
[15:17] >> Say [clears throat] those words. I
[15:18] [laughter] don't know what they mean.
[15:19] >> This was not a good three months for
[15:20] kibbitzing around here. Let's face it.
[15:23] Um but I think that uh Germany made a
[15:27] was was the key to the extraordinary
[15:29] resilience and determination of the NATO
[15:32] alliance which I think surprised a lot
[15:34] of people who hadn't looked for it that
[15:36] hard. Now as to politics um I think
[15:40] President Bush in retirement from Kenny
[15:42] Bunkport this summer would be happy to
[15:44] offer uh free counseling to anybody who
[15:47] thinks that this is going to determine
[15:49] the identity of our next president. But
[15:51] I think it will affect the primaries at
[15:52] the margins.
[15:53] >> Want to get to that in a minute. But
[15:54] let's go to the kibbit scene. One of the
[15:56] one of the uh the kibbitzing points uh
[16:00] in the last uh when the things began to
[16:02] look a little less terrific on this
[16:05] bombing war
[16:06] >> like on the first day,
[16:07] >> right? Well, it be suddenly became
[16:09] Maline Albbright's war.
[16:10] >> Oh, right.
[16:11] >> And it was all because of her. Everybody
[16:13] said it was her personality and her
[16:16] because she was from Eastern Europe
[16:18] originally and and they were ringing it
[16:20] around her. They were tying it around
[16:22] her neck. Does victory get tied around
[16:24] her neck if this thing works?
[16:25] >> Well, I think Albbright has always
[16:27] gotten something of a bum wrap because I
[16:29] think the the and National Security
[16:31] Council and Sandy Burger was as much
[16:33] into this as as she ever was. Um but I
[16:37] think that she deserves some credit
[16:38] because in a way it's her vision of what
[16:42] Europe can be that was behind this. I
[16:45] mean she has always thought as a child
[16:47] of the Holocaust and and and that memory
[16:50] u that somehow she that that somehow the
[16:54] Balkans could be brought into a
[16:55] civilized Europe and and and that
[16:57] motivated this as far as the execution
[16:59] goes. I think some of the more of the
[17:01] fault
[17:02] less of the fault lies with her. Maybe
[17:04] she thought it could be done more
[17:05] quickly than it could be. But I think
[17:07] it's the president as commander-in-chief
[17:09] who has to take the political risk to
[17:11] say this cause which he exalted,
[17:14] remember in in in great rhetoric, great
[17:17] moral rhetoric, comparing Malloich to
[17:19] Hitler. if if he's if he if if if it's
[17:21] that important, he's the one who has to
[17:24] step up and say, "Then all of American
[17:26] might should be applied to it and get it
[17:27] over fast because it's the moral thing
[17:29] to do to get wars over very quickly, not
[17:32] to hope they do after 2 and a half
[17:34] months of bombing." But there is history
[17:36] here though and I think the significance
[17:38] of Maline Albbright I mean you go all
[17:40] the way back to the period 93 to95 when
[17:43] her voice was almost the only voice in
[17:45] this administration arguing that we
[17:47] could with allies make a difference in
[17:50] this horrible situation in the Balkans
[17:53] and
[17:54] >> beginning with Bosnia.
[17:55] >> Exactly. And um a celebrated
[17:58] confrontation or two in meetings with
[18:00] Coen Powell when he was still chairman
[18:02] of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And so I
[18:04] think that record is extremely
[18:05] impressive and at least will give her
[18:07] more of a hearing as she articulates a
[18:09] broader vision of foreign policy.
[18:11] Another name, however, and that is the
[18:14] former Republican Senator Bill Cohen,
[18:16] who is Secretary of Defense and who I
[18:19] think has shown at least that some of
[18:21] the generalizations that you hear from
[18:24] this commentariat in Washington, for
[18:26] example, about air power are not
[18:29] necessarily true as they are stated, and
[18:32] that there are possibilities here that
[18:35] we should have paid more attention to
[18:38] and given more respect to. M
[18:40] >> I I think we have to remember though
[18:41] that this is not over in the sense that
[18:43] Mallosvich still survives. And just like
[18:46] Dayton in 1995 was an imperfect
[18:49] agreement that laid that allowed Kosovo
[18:51] to happen later. I think the next
[18:53] American president is going to have to
[18:55] deal with Malloich somehow unless the
[18:57] Serb people decide that they no longer
[18:59] wanted want him to run them.
[19:01] >> Speaking of the next American president,
[19:03] that's called a segue. Uh a word we all
[19:07] know. Uh uh Tom, what does this do to
[19:13] now here again I won't come back and
[19:14] check you on this but what do you think
[19:16] it might do to the year 2000
[19:18] presidential election?
[19:19] >> If I I I think the proper thing to do is
[19:21] to concentrate on the primaries. The
[19:23] general election is an entirely
[19:24] different different thing. First of all,
[19:26] there is such a thing as reflected glory
[19:28] and Al Gore will benefit from that. I
[19:31] thought it was so interesting
[19:32] campaigning with him in various times in
[19:35] the last 3 months. I've known he didn't
[19:37] bring up Kosovo very much. He would
[19:38] answer a question at an appearance if
[19:40] someone asked, but it wasn't something
[19:42] he wanted to talk about. Yesterday in
[19:45] New Hampshire, he couldn't stop talking
[19:48] about it. And again, I think in a
[19:50] vignette form, you can see a politician
[19:52] reflecting the fact that his position
[19:54] has been enhanced by what has happened.
[19:56] Less noticeable perhaps, but just as
[19:58] significant potentially, you could hear
[20:01] the sigh of relief from Austin, Texas.
[20:03] Uh this was not a particularly good uh
[20:06] performance by Governor Bush uh in
[20:09] handling this issue. It took him time to
[20:11] to talk it through, figure it through,
[20:13] think it through. Um to have this go off
[20:16] the table means that he can go off on
[20:18] his magical mystery tour next week and
[20:22] talk about what he wants to talk about
[20:24] and not be stuck with an issue that made
[20:26] him look like a rookie.
[20:28] >> I I I disagree with that about uh about
[20:30] George Bush. Not that he didn't like the
[20:32] victory, but I don't think that he would
[20:34] have minded being able to make the
[20:36] argument on foreign policy against the
[20:38] sitting vice president that Kosovo would
[20:41] have allowed Republicans. I think the
[20:42] sigh of relief, the greatest sigh of
[20:44] relief came from the White House staff.
[20:46] I mean, they saw the president's numbers
[20:47] falling. They saw a terrible decision
[20:49] about ground troops, really the window
[20:51] closing on that issue. This this
[20:53] concession came at just the nick of time
[20:55] for Al Gore, who did not want to run in
[20:57] the primaries against Bill Bradley. when
[21:00] you could see opposition on the left in
[21:02] the Democratic party to this war to some
[21:04] of the bombing casualties in Serbia
[21:06] beginning to build and this removes that
[21:09] issue it really helps Al Gore
[21:11] >> but to broaden the broaden the issue for
[21:13] a moment some people have expressed the
[21:15] hope that however Kosovo ended that it
[21:19] would have ended before the presidential
[21:22] election the primaries the whole nine
[21:24] yard so the issues raised by Kosovo in a
[21:27] broader way could be at the core of the
[21:29] election. In other words, the candidates
[21:31] would have to come to grips with when we
[21:33] use American power, when we don't use
[21:35] American power. Do we do it from 15,000
[21:38] ft? Do we
[21:39] >> Are you an optimist about
[21:40] >> No, I know. I know. But is that is that
[21:42] really No, I think from from observation
[21:45] of the campaign thus far, I think it
[21:47] comes from a different direction and
[21:48] it's more in economics than in than in
[21:50] military policy. I mean, there remains a
[21:53] very vigorous disagreement on the
[21:54] Republican side between, say, a Gary
[21:57] Bower, a Pat Buchanan, and a Bob Smith
[22:00] uh and the more internationalistminded
[22:03] candidates.
[22:04] >> They were more attuned actually to the
[22:05] very left of the Democratic party.
[22:07] >> And I think that what's happened in
[22:08] Kosovo means that that discussion is
[22:10] more likely to be on economic terms now
[22:14] than foreign policy, security terms.
[22:16] >> This is a decisive win for the
[22:18] internationalists and the Republican
[22:20] party. the this would have been a
[22:22] divide. I
[22:22] >> define an international republic.
[22:24] >> I I would put it it it depends on the
[22:27] issue obviously, but I would define it
[22:28] in this case as somebody who is willing
[22:30] to use American force abroad and perhaps
[22:33] in behalf of strategic interest, but
[22:35] also on occasion of humanitarian
[22:36] interests and it's in the tradition of
[22:38] Reagan. It's in the tradition of Nixon.
[22:40] It's in the tradition really the
[22:42] Republican party changed on this with
[22:44] Eisenhower in the 50s. Remember, it had
[22:46] a it was an internet it was an
[22:48] isolationist party for a long time.
[22:50] coming up to the 20s, the 30s and into
[22:53] the 40s. And it cost them at the
[22:54] presidential level. Ike changed that in
[22:57] the 50s and then Goldwater, the
[22:59] conservative from the west, became the
[23:00] anti-communist candidate, and the right
[23:03] moved to an internationalist position.
[23:05] Now, with the end of the Cold War, the
[23:07] right has split again. There's a faction
[23:09] on the right that has moved back to the
[23:11] old isolationist wing. These are the
[23:12] Buchanan Republicans, the McGovern
[23:15] Republicans, if you will. And they
[23:16] wouldn't appreciate that reference, but
[23:18] I think it's apt. Uh you still have the
[23:20] internationalist wing. It's represented
[23:22] right now by uh George Bush in the
[23:24] presidential side, by Dick Luger in the
[23:27] Senate, by John McCain on the
[23:28] presidential side. This had this been a
[23:31] debacle that some on the right had
[23:33] predicted that would have really hurt
[23:34] their cause within the Republican uh
[23:37] party. You know, true on the left as
[23:39] well, I can't tell you how many times in
[23:41] the last 3 months you would hear little
[23:42] inklings that Bill Bradley is about to
[23:46] break with Clinton on this uh from a
[23:48] make a major statement. He will say and
[23:51] then then you'd just watch him pull back
[23:52] and nothing would happen. The problem
[23:54] here is that there's nothing for the
[23:56] left to come at the centrist Democrats
[24:00] who have won this argument for now on.
[24:03] And on top of that, uh, Bill Bradley now
[24:06] is in the position of having to talk
[24:08] about something. I mean, he benefited
[24:10] from Kosovo to an extent because you
[24:12] could feel the concern on the Democratic
[24:14] side and the back of Gore's crowd. You
[24:16] people were worried. Okay. But now
[24:18] without that um Bradley needs something
[24:22] to fill this vacuum between now and
[24:24] November when he's promised to start
[24:26] saying something specific about in terms
[24:28] of what he's for.
[24:29] >> Yeah. And we have to leave it there.
[24:31] Paul Tom, thank you both very much.
[24:38] >> [music]
[24:41] >> Still to come on the NewsHour tonight,
[24:43] the return of a missile defense and the
[24:45] TNAan anniversary. Congress has voted to
[24:48] deploy a national missile defense system
[24:51] as soon as it's technically feasible.
[24:53] The president is expected to sign the
[24:55] bill within the next two weeks. Jeffrey
[24:58] K of KCT Los Angeles reports on the
[25:01] challenge that follows.
[25:06] Deep inside Colorado's Cheyenne
[25:08] Mountain, military staff at NORAD, the
[25:11] North American Aerospace Defense
[25:13] Command, scan the globe for missile
[25:15] launches. Using radar, satellites, and
[25:18] other sensors, NORAD personnel track
[25:21] missiles launched from just about
[25:22] anywhere in the world. Visitors to NORAD
[25:25] see video of a disturbing exercise.
[25:28] >> Intel indicates a possible launch of
[25:30] five ICBMs from China. Computers track
[25:33] fictional ICBMs, intercontinental
[25:35] ballistic missiles, as they arc through
[25:37] space until assesses to be combat
[25:40] against North America and slam unimpeded
[25:43] into North America. Navy Captain Ron
[25:46] Nasman is Cheyenne Mountain's director
[25:48] of current operations. I asked him a
[25:50] question he says he often gets after
[25:52] visitors watch the simulation.
[25:54] >> But once you know that a missile is on
[25:56] its way to the United States, what can
[25:58] you do about it? Uh right now we uh all
[26:01] we can do is provide warning. We have no
[26:03] capability uh to shoot down any uh
[26:06] strategic missiles coming into North
[26:08] America. That same message reportedly
[26:11] resonated with Ronald Reagan in 1979
[26:14] when as a presidential candidate he
[26:16] visited NORAD. Four years later from the
[26:20] White House, President Reagan announced
[26:22] an ambitious project. What if free
[26:25] people could live secure in the
[26:27] knowledge that we could intercept and
[26:29] destroy strategic ballistic missiles
[26:31] before they reached our own soil or that
[26:33] of our allies? President Reagan's
[26:36] strategic defense initiative, often
[26:38] referred to as Star Wars, envisioned
[26:40] space-based lasers that would shoot down
[26:43] incoming missiles. Succeeding president
[26:46] scaled back the research and development
[26:48] program 16 years and more than $50
[26:52] billion after President Reagan's
[26:54] announcement. The Clinton administration
[26:56] is developing a more modest groundbased
[26:59] national missile defense system.
[27:01] >> We are committing additional billions of
[27:03] dollars and taking other steps to
[27:05] protect our troops and the American
[27:06] people from the growing threat posed by
[27:09] weapons of mass destruction delivered by
[27:11] ballistic missiles.
[27:13] The administration says increased
[27:15] missile threats from nations such as
[27:17] North Korea and Iran make deployment
[27:20] necessary by the year 2005.
[27:23] We have no defense today against any
[27:25] missile system.
[27:27] >> In March, the House and Senate voted to
[27:29] make a national missile defense program
[27:31] a national priority,
[27:33] >> but critics question whether it will
[27:35] ever work. This has about as much of a
[27:38] chance of repelling raindrops as the
[27:41] real thing would have in stopping
[27:43] nuclear missiles if scientific evidence
[27:47] is to be believed.
[27:49] Air Force General Lester Lyles directed
[27:51] the Pentagon's ballistic missile defense
[27:53] organization for 2 and 1/2 years until
[27:56] his promotion last month.
[27:58] >> I have great confidence that we can do
[28:00] this and that our national security uh
[28:02] can be supported by these kinds of
[28:04] technologies. Current plans encompass an
[28:07] 11 billion system to counter a smallcale
[28:10] attack on the US.
[28:12] >> Our national missile defense program is
[28:14] designed to develop a system to protect
[28:17] us against limited potential attacks
[28:19] from a rogue nation or have some
[28:22] residual capabilities to counter an
[28:24] accidental or unauthorized launch from
[28:26] one of the current nuclear powers. lift
[28:30] out of the way.
[28:30] >> Boeing is the major contractor
[28:32] responsible for testing and developing
[28:34] the National Missile Defense System. The
[28:37] system would be designed to knock down
[28:39] enemy missiles above the atmosphere.
[28:42] Satellites and radar would detect and
[28:44] track incoming missiles. Commanders at
[28:47] Cheyenne Mountain would be alerted to an
[28:49] attack. They could launch interceptor
[28:52] missiles from sites in either North
[28:54] Dakota or Alaska.
[28:56] Onboard sensors would guide the
[28:58] interceptors to smash into enemy
[29:00] warheads, destroying them in so-called
[29:03] hit tokill collisions in space. We're
[29:06] not talking about a blast fragmentation
[29:08] warhead to blow up a particular threat.
[29:11] We're talking about bodyto- body impact,
[29:13] hitting a bullet with a bullet, kinetic
[29:15] energy impact in order to completely
[29:17] destroy whatever that warhead might be.
[29:20] But Philip Coyle, the Defense
[29:21] Department's in-house testing watchdog,
[29:24] says the often used hitting a bullet
[29:26] with a bullet analogy actually
[29:28] understates the difficulty of the
[29:30] problem. Bullets go about 1,700 mph.
[29:34] Uh the closing velocities in National
[29:36] Missile Defense can be 10 or 20 times uh
[29:40] higher than that, say 17,000 miles an
[29:44] hour. Um, so the hit the kale part is
[29:48] going to be uh very difficult and
[29:50] showing that that works I think is going
[29:52] to be one of the greatest challenges.
[29:55] >> At the National Air and Space Museum in
[29:57] Washington, scientist Theodore Postal of
[30:00] MIT elaborated on the challenge of
[30:03] actually hitting an enemy warhead in
[30:05] space.
[30:06] >> Oh, you you you'd have to hit within um
[30:09] 20 or 30 or 40 cm of a chosen aim point.
[30:14] That means hitting the right object
[30:16] instead of decoys that might accompany
[30:18] enemy missiles to try to fool US
[30:21] interceptors.
[30:22] This rendering which he provided shows a
[30:25] warhead surrounded by decoys in space
[30:28] says Postal. The interceptor sees only
[30:31] blurs and may be unable to distinguish
[30:34] the circled warhead from the decoys.
[30:37] >> You would not be able to pick out the
[30:38] target because the interceptors have
[30:41] very poor resolution.
[30:43] uh an object is seen as just a smear to
[30:45] the to the uh interceptor.
[30:48] >> Postal says simple techniques using
[30:50] metallicized balloons can be used to
[30:53] disguise the actual warhead.
[30:55] >> You put the warhead in that in these
[30:57] aluminized balloons, for example, you
[30:59] would not know where to hit the warhead.
[31:02] The warhead might only be half a meter
[31:04] or a meter across. The balloon might be
[31:06] tens of meters in size. you wouldn't
[31:09] know how to choose the the point in
[31:11] which to uh to hit the warhead.
[31:12] >> The systems proponents say it will be
[31:14] able to discriminate between warheads
[31:16] and decoys or countermeasures as they
[31:19] are sometimes called. We actually have
[31:21] conducted two flight tests already for
[31:24] national missile defense. We call them
[31:25] sensor flyby tests that were primarily
[31:28] designed to demonstrate that the seeker
[31:30] uh with the kill vehicle that we have on
[31:32] our system that the seeker can be able
[31:35] to pick out the actual threat re-entry
[31:38] vehicle from amongst decoys, debris and
[31:41] other things that you normally would
[31:43] consider to be either intended or
[31:45] unintended countermeasures. And those
[31:47] two tests were very very successful.
[31:50] >> But some question the test record. I
[31:53] think the technology
[31:55] um has been demonstrated from the
[31:58] physics point of view. What we haven't
[32:00] demonstrated yet is that we can reduce
[32:02] this to practice. What we haven't
[32:04] demonstrated yet is that it's
[32:05] practicable.
[32:06] >> Is it too early? Is it premature uh to
[32:09] talk at this point about the reliability
[32:12] of this planned system?
[32:14] >> We don't have any test results yet to
[32:16] know one way or the other,
[32:18] >> whether it'll work.
[32:19] >> That's correct.
[32:22] There have been 16 attempts to actually
[32:24] hit a warhead with a missile out in
[32:26] space. Only two succeeded. The most
[32:30] recent missile test was of the theater
[32:32] high alitude area air defense or THAAD
[32:35] interceptor. That occurred March 29th.
[32:38] It was the sixth time THAAD attempted to
[32:41] hit a target and for the sixth time it
[32:43] failed to do so. That day at a briefing,
[32:46] General Lyall said many aspects of the
[32:49] test worked. We know the ground systems
[32:51] work very very well. The radar systems
[32:54] work extremely well. Um everything
[32:56] seemed to work very very well with the
[32:58] exception obviously of what happened
[33:00] relative to the uh the closing endame
[33:02] for the missile.
[33:04] >> But with all due respect uh and and I
[33:06] understand you've had a number of of of
[33:08] successes that what you describe as that
[33:11] critical endgame in the end that's all
[33:13] that counts.
[33:14] >> It really is in all honesty it really
[33:16] is. We've had some some problems with
[33:18] the quality failures and things of that
[33:21] nature and I feel confident we can
[33:22] overcome those.
[33:24] >> Ly's confidence is shared by William
[33:26] Graham. Graham was science adviser to
[33:29] President Reagan and he remains
[33:31] enthusiastic about the eventual success
[33:34] of a national missile defense system.
[33:36] >> Failures in the early stages of a rocket
[33:39] program is the norm in rocket science.
[33:42] We've had it in every ballistic missile
[33:44] program we've developed and undoubtedly
[33:47] it will continue. Uh early failures
[33:50] shouldn't be either a surprise or a
[33:52] discouragement for doing these things.
[33:54] The US has enormous industrial
[33:56] capabilities, military and scientific
[33:59] capabilities, and betting against those
[34:02] is is a sucker bet. Graham would like to
[34:05] see the test schedule accelerated.
[34:08] Others say it's already very demanding
[34:10] or in Pentagon terms high risk.
[34:13] >> High risk means there's a good chance
[34:15] that it may not all happen the way it's
[34:17] planned. It may take longer than is
[34:19] planned.
[34:20] >> Joseph Serencion of the Carnegie
[34:22] Endowment for International Peace says
[34:25] the challenges may be insurmountable. He
[34:27] says they are certainly too costly.
[34:30] Since 1962, America has spent $120
[34:34] billion trying to create a missile
[34:37] defense system. That's uh 120 in current
[34:40] dollars. It's been adjusted to
[34:41] inflation. Since the Star Wars program
[34:43] began in 1983, we've spent almost $55
[34:47] billion just on this latest rush. It's
[34:50] not for lack of money. It's not for lack
[34:52] of effort that we don't have a missile
[34:54] defense system. Lyall says the money and
[34:57] the effort spent on the missile defense
[34:59] program have been worthwhile investments
[35:02] but acknowledges the hurdles that lie
[35:04] ahead. The technologies we're using are
[35:06] the technologies that came out of the
[35:08] old Star Wars program. We've evolved
[35:11] them since that particular time period
[35:13] and we're now integrating those
[35:14] technologies. So from a technology
[35:16] standpoint, we have the technologies,
[35:18] but there is a big challenge in
[35:20] integrating them all together and making
[35:22] them operate as a single system. The
[35:24] next major test is scheduled for this
[35:26] August when for the first time a
[35:28] prototype of the interceptor will try to
[35:31] hit a target in space. And in June of
[35:34] 2000, President Clinton is scheduled to
[35:37] decide whether to deploy rather than
[35:40] test a national missile defense system
[35:43] by 2005.
[35:48] [music]
[35:52] Finally tonight on this 10th anniversary
[35:55] of Tianaan Square, a report from Ian
[35:58] Williams of Independent Television News.
[36:10] For those who led the democracy
[36:12] movement, the memory of its violent
[36:14] suppression, the images of courage and
[36:17] defiance remain vivid and painful.
[36:21] Handong Fang led workers into the square
[36:24] in 1989. He now lives in Hong Kong after
[36:27] being jailed then exiled. And he
[36:30] believes China 10 years on is more
[36:32] volatile than ever.
[36:35] This is a very dangerous country, very
[36:37] dangerous society.
[36:40] The pressure is under the cover. It's
[36:43] really, really big.
[36:47] W Ki was one of the key student leaders.
[36:50] While on hunger strike, he was filmed in
[36:52] pajamas heranging Lee Pong. That was two
[36:56] weeks before the premier replied by
[36:58] sending in the tanks.
[37:00] Kchi escaped after the massacre and now
[37:03] lives in Taiwan where he's optimistic
[37:06] about change and can't imagine another
[37:09] Tianan. They are different. No, they are
[37:11] different. No, I don't really think uh
[37:13] they will be able to do exactly the same
[37:16] uh uh they did 10 years ago uh given the
[37:21] uh the situation in China have changed.
[37:23] If there is another mass movement took
[37:26] place in China, I seriously doubt about
[37:30] uh the possibility of another brutal
[37:34] suppression.
[37:44] Both men now have their own radio shows.
[37:47] Kchi hosts a lively chat and music
[37:50] program while Hangdong Fangs is part of
[37:53] a more sober campaign for workers rights
[37:56] in China.
[37:58] >> The corruption in China is getting
[38:01] hundreds times heavier. So why? Because
[38:05] of the crack crackdown gave more
[38:08] opportunities to the corrupted
[38:10] officials. So uh today when the workers
[38:15] go to the street protest there with the
[38:18] thousands of people they don't need any
[38:20] students lead them they don't need any
[38:22] intellectuals wake them up they just go
[38:25] there by themselves say we want food we
[38:27] want you know right to survive
[38:31] China have changed enormously
[38:35] uh in many way
[38:39] reflecting
[38:40] the dream, the call, the slogans that's
[38:44] that's been shout out 10 years ago by
[38:46] students. Uh we wanted market economy.
[38:50] Now we have it. We wanted a a freer
[38:55] society.
[38:57] We wanted a free society, but we have a
[39:00] freer society in the navy. 10 years ago,
[39:03] the goddess of democracy modeled on the
[39:06] Statue of Liberty became the symbol of
[39:08] the democracy movement. Last month,
[39:11] students targeted Western symbols in
[39:14] their biggest and ugliest protest since
[39:16] 1989.
[39:18] It followed NATO's accidental bombing of
[39:20] the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and was
[39:23] encouraged by the government.
[39:26] This is a very dangerous game.
[39:29] We say that when you play fire, you will
[39:32] burn yourself. Fire is dangerous to play
[39:35] and nationalism. of even more dangerous
[39:39] than fire
[39:40] and uh I mean especially today is China.
[39:45] I think those young people have just
[39:47] thought this is a wonderful opportunity
[39:49] to uh have a party sort of and uh I'm I
[39:54] was in the very uh beginning very
[39:57] seriously worried about the nationalism
[39:59] but then I realized if I were in Beijing
[40:02] I probably will be in that demonstration
[40:05] and then I know I'm no nationalism. Kchi
[40:09] along with several other former student
[40:11] leaders had planned to join Handong Fang
[40:14] here in Hong Kong to mark the
[40:15] anniversary. But Hong Kong's now part of
[40:18] China and has refused them entry. Just
[40:21] one sign of how sensitive an issue they
[40:24] antaman remain.
[40:29] [music]
[40:33] Again, the major stories of this Friday.
[40:35] NATO and Yugoslav military leaders meet
[40:37] tomorrow to schedule a withdrawal of
[40:40] Serb forces from Kosovo. NATO said it
[40:42] will continue to bomb military targets
[40:44] until the pull out begins. And the US
[40:47] unemployment rate was 4.2% in May, back
[40:50] down to a 29-year low. We'll see you
[40:53] online and again here Monday evening.
[40:55] Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lara. Thank
[40:57] you and good night.
[41:03] Brought to [music] you in part by ADM.
[41:06] Feeding the world is the biggest
[41:07] challenge of the new century. [music]
[41:09] Which is why ADM is conducting research
[41:11] into aquaculture and other new food
[41:13] sources. ADM supermarket to the world
[41:17] [music]
[41:18] and by Solomon Smith Barney.
[41:21] Could roses eventually cost a dime a
[41:24] dozen? [music]
[41:26] One thing's for sure, opportunities
[41:28] abound.
[41:30] Let's get to work. Solomon Smith Barney
[41:34] >> and by the Corporation for Public
[41:35] Broadcasting and by the annual financial
[41:38] support from viewers like you.
[41:42] >> On tomorrow's weekend [music] edition,
[41:44] it's breaking news, in-depth interviews,
[41:46] political analysis, and maybe even a few
[41:48] laughs. Join us for Weekend Edition from
[41:50] 5 to 10:00 a.m. on OPV Radio. [music]
[42:02] >> [music]
[42:07] [music]
[42:09] >> Heat. Heat.
[42:16] [music]
[42:21] >> [music]
[42:26] [music]
[42:34] >> Video cassettes of the NewsHour with Jim
[42:36] Ler are available from PBS video. Call 1
[42:39] 800 328 PBS1.
[42:46] This is PBS.
[42:48] [music]
[42:59] >> [music]
[43:07] >> Hello, I'm Louisis Rukiser inviting you
[43:09] to join me for the next edition of Wall
[43:11] Street Week when my guest will be the
[43:12] legendary Michael Price's handpicked
[43:15] successor to lead one of the biggest
[43:17] bargain hunting operations in the world
[43:19] of mutual funds. [music]
[43:20] He's Robert Freriedman, the new chief
[43:22] investment officer of the Franklin
[43:23] Mutual Series Funds. And we'll see how
[43:26] he's filling those shoes.
[43:29] >> On OPB tonight at 9.
[43:34] [music]
[43:37] >> Hi, I'm Chris Johnson, inviting you to
[43:39] the Antiques Road Show, where people
[43:41] like you meet America's top experts
[43:43] [music] in antiques.
[43:44] >> Do you have any ideas as to value on
[43:46] this sort?
[43:46] >> No, I was going to tag it for a garage
[43:49] sale. as a matter of fact of between $50
[43:51] and $200. Well, the tag for your garage
[43:54] sale [music] price probably would have
[43:55] bought you a new garage.
[43:57] >> You never know what you're going to see
[43:59] on the Antiques Road Show this week from
[44:01] Seattle, Washington
[44:03] >> on OPB Monday at 8. [music]
[44:08] >> And what were you never told?
[44:09] >> There is new evidence from he helped the
[44:13] right people. We were deceived and lied
[44:16] to.
[44:17] >> It was a made for TV. We did not know
[44:19] how to get inside.
[44:20] >> The White House team wondered if the
[44:21] right generals were in command. Delight
[44:25] on [music] frontline.
[44:26] >> Canon men square was occupied by
[44:28] thousands of students.
[44:30] >> What does democracy mean in China?
[44:32] >> But 5 months ago, in the basement of the
[44:35] Texas law firm, we discovered the Waco
[44:37] file. FBI knew that children were not
[44:40] being mean. Do you know what really
[44:41] happened at Waco? A fiery girl that
[44:43] killed 75.