The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Ross Perot's second run for President, Jeffrey Kaye reports from Valley Forge, David Broder, Ron Brownstein, Elizabeth Arnold, and Andrew Kohut analyze. Is there slavery in the African nation of Sudan? A "Baltimore Sun" team shares their findings with the Sudan ambassador. And our Monday night essay--Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts on gas stations. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Ross Perot said today he will finance his presidential campaign with federal matching funds and contributions from supporters. He was nominated yesterday at a convention of the Reform Party, the third party movement he created. By accepting federal funds, Perot by law can now spend only $50,000 of his own money. He spent nearly $60 million of it when he ran four years ago. We'll have more of it on Perot right after this News Summary. President Clinton spent his 50th birthday in Fruitland, Tennessee, today. He and the First Lady, along with Vice President Gore and his wife performed construction chores at the Salem Baptist Church there. He was--it was one of more than 70 predominantly black Southern churches destroyed by fire. Mr. Clinton praised the congregation's rebuilding effort.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to say to you is that you're not just rebuilding your church here; you're showing America what's special about America. And by doing that, you're leading us into a brighter and better future instead of back into the kind of dark past that has divided and torn asunder so many other nations, and that in times past has made America less than it ought to be.

MR. LEHRER: The President began his birthday celebration yesterday with three fund-raisers in New York City. They raised more than $10 million for the Democratic National Committee. On the Republican side, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp took a break from campaigning today. They spent part of the day at their campaign offices in Washington. Dole and Kemp campaigned together in four cities after leaving the Republican convention in San Diego Friday. The last stop was in Pittsburgh last night. In Little Rock today, former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker was sentenced to four years probation for his involvement in Whitewater-related crimes. The first 18 months will be spent under house arrest. In addition, he's been ordered to pay nearly $175,000 of restitution in fines. He was convicted on four counts of fraud and conspiracy in May. James McDougal, another defendant in that case, was also scheduled to be sentenced today, but the judge postponed the sentencing. No reason was given for the delay. The U.S. Census Bureau issued a poverty study today. It said 5 percent of the American population, some 12 million people, lived consistently below the poverty line in 1992 and 93. The average poverty threshold for a family of four in 93 was $14,763. In Wyoming today, investigators recovered the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from a military cargo plane that crashed Saturday night. The C-130 was carrying a communications van and other equipment from President Clinton's vacation spot at Jackson Hole. Eight Air Force crew men and a secret service official were killed. Federal officials would not speculate on the cause of the accident. On the TWA crash story, investigators said today they were pretty well satisfied that engine failure was not a factor in last month's disaster. The fourth and final engine was recovered last week and examined over the weekend. Officials said they were still hopeful a reason for the explosion would be found. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to what now for Ross Perot, charges of slavery in Sudan, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - THE PEROT FACTOR

MR. LEHRER: The Ross Perot nomination and campaign for President is first tonight. Our coverage begins with this report by Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles.

ROSS PEROT: I am honored, and I am humble that you have chosen me as your candidate to be President. [applause] I will only belong to you, the people. [applause] And I am absolutely committed, irrevocably committed, to passing on a better world to our children and grandchildren.

JEFFREY KAYE: In acceptance speech last night in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Henry Ross Perot touched on familiar themes that called for less spending, campaign finance reform, and a lowering of the national debt. He was short on specific solutions but insisted the problems were brought on by the two major political parties. In particular, Perot ridiculed Bob Dole's economic plan to cut taxes in order to increase growth.

ROSS PEROT: They have proposed solving these financial problems with a big tax cut. Now we have tried this supply side economics in the 80's. It gave us the biggest increase in the deficit we ever had in our country's history. Even the people in the party that created it called it voodoo economics. I said in 1992 if we ever do this again, we'll be in deep voodoo. [laughter among audience] And there we are.

MR. KAYE: Perot said the Democrats and Republicans are now following his lead.

ROSS PEROT: Have you listened to the messages from the other parties during the last few weeks? [audience shouting] Do their promises for 1996 sound familiar?

AUDIENCE: [shouting] Yes!

ROSS PEROT: Who first brought these issues to the American people? You did! Isn't it terrific and in just four years, they've repented, been reborn, and you are setting the agenda for 96. God bless you.

MR. KAYE: The Valley Forge event was the second half of a two- part convention and nominating process conceived of, planned, executed, and financed by Perot. The party mailed out about 1 million nominating petitions to registered voters from across the country who signed petitions to place Perot or the Reform Party on the ballot. Last week, voters cast ballots in person by mail, by phone, and by computer. Ballots went out to 1.1 million people but less than 4 percent voted. Perot received twice as many votes as Richard Lamm, the former Colorado governor who unsuccessfully challenged Perot for the nomination. Lamm congratulated Perot and spoke of his own brief foray into third party politics.

GOV. RICHARD LAMM: I went to Los Angeles 78 days ago to make a speech. It's been like riding a tiger ever since. It's been like drinking out of a fire hydrant. But I don't regret a moment of it.

MR. KAYE: Lamm and his running mate, former California Congressman Ed Zschau have withheld their endorsement of Perot.

MR. KAYE: Should Ross Perot be President?

RICHARD LAMM: I don't want to answer that.

MR. KAYE: Why not?

RICHARD LAMM: I just--I'm not--I'm not in a position to really be able to evaluate at this point what Ross Perot or Bill Clinton or Bob Dole--I mean, I just don't want to be put in that position.

MR. KAYE: Mr. Zschau, let me come to you and ask you that same question. Should Ross Perot be President?

ED ZSCHAU, Former California Congressman: Both Dick and I are very supportive of the reform movement, and I had hoped to endorse the nominee of the Reform Party. I planned to. In fact, I announced that I would, but my conscience doesn't permit me to, to do so.

MR. KAYE: What do you mean?

ED ZSCHAU: I feel that the major criterion for voting for President of the United States is one's evaluation that that person that you're supporting or voting for is "the" most qualified to lead this country at this time into the 21st century, and I can't, in good conscience, say that about Ross Perot.

MR. KAYE: Zschau and Lamm's comments were among the few voices of dissonance in an other wise harmonious pageantry of Americana. The day-long event was attended by about 2,000 mostly Perot loyalists who came in from around the country. But while the spotlight has been on the Reform Party's presidential candidate, activists have said repeatedly that their real intent is to create the new viable political party across the country.

ROSS PEROT: Last September, when we announced that we were going to create a new party, we announced we would create a Reform Party that belonged only to the American people.

MR. KAYE: It was an expensive undertaking. In the last five months, Perot has spent more than $6 million. He paid for the conventions and the balloting process. Perot controls and funds the national organization known as the Perot Reform Committee, which has some 80 employees in 30 states on the payroll. At the committee's Dallas, Texas, headquarters, the Perot imprint is unmistakable. Sharon Holman is Perot's communications director.

MR. KAYE: I see signs up here that say the Reform Party.

SHARON HOLMAN, Perot Reform Committee: Mm-hmm.

MR. KAYE: But then I see papers on these desks that say the Perot Reform Committee.

SHARON HOLMAN: Committee.

MR. KAYE: This picture of Perot's. I mean, it's both the Reform Party and the Perot Reform Committee.

SHARON HOLMAN: Creating the Reform Party. The Reform Party does not exist yet. There are Reform Parties in different states where we've been declared on the ballot. So the FEC requires that their- -that we call ourselves the Perot Reform Committee and we are building the Reform Party.

MR. KAYE: Russell Verney, the Perot Reform Committee's national coordinator, says he hopes to see a political party that can be independent of Perot.

RUSSELL VERNEY, Perot Reform Committee: In the United States, to create a new political party, the logistical burdens which impose financial burdens that are extraordinary state from state, which is why there isn't a competitive third political party and hasn't been for 150 years since the Republicans were created. This is a huge undertaking. Mr. Perot's generosity has come to the forefront. He's offered this gift to America.

MR. KAYE: That's pretty much the view of state activists who came to Valley Forge this weekend.

VINCE LOCASCIO, Reform Party: I'm here to see the creation of the third party. I think it's sorely needed in this country. Both of the other parties are controlled by special interests. For the last thirty to thirty-five years, the middle class is being--is moving downward, and the--neither of the political parties are paying all that much attention.

MR. KAYE: This third party that you see--is it something that can exist independently of Ross Perot , or is it a Perot vehicle?

BEVERLY KIDDER, Reform Party: No. This is coming from the center. What we have is a two-party written--put together fringe elements. We have the Republicans. They want to climb in your bedroom window and in your doctor's office, but they want no controls on money. Then you have the Democrats, who have no controls on anybody's life, but they want to take your money. So what we are is in the middle.

MR. KAYE: The Reform Party is so far on the ballot in some 40 states. In at least eight states, candidates are running for office under the Reform Party banner. Tom McLaughlin is a Pennsylvania Reform Party candidate for Congress.

TOM McLAUGHLIN, Reform Party Congressional Candidate: We elected two local officials in Pennsylvania in 1995, a township supervisor and a school board director. The vote is out there to back independent candidates, and it's just a matter of getting the right candidates out there and getting the information out.

MR. KAYE: Perot announced plans to accept federal financing for his campaign. His success as an independent candidate in the 1992 election--he got 19 percent of the vote--makes him eligible for 29.2 million dollars in federal funds. Once he accepts the money, federal election law limits him to spending only $50,000 more of his own funds. He can also accept $32.6 million in public donations as long as individual contributions are limited to $1,000 each. Federal funds could also be a boon to the Reform Party. If Perot gets more than 5 percent of the vote as the Reform Party candidate this year, the party's presidential campaign will be eligible for federal money in the year 2,000, regardless of Perot's involvement. As for Perot's immediate plans, he has set up a Dallas post office box to collect public campaign contributions, and his spokeswoman said an announcement of a running mate is imminent.

MR. LEHRER: Now the Perot candidacy and what it may mean to the 1996 campaign as seen by political reporters David Broder of the "Wall Street Journal"--what did I say--Wall Street Journal?

DAVID BRODER, Washington Post: Try "Washington Post."

MR. LEHRER: "Washington Post"--it's written right here. Thank you, David--"Washington Post;" Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times," and Elizabeth Arnold of National Public Radio, and pollster Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. David Broder of the "Washington Post," to begin with, in a general way, is this a legitimate reform party, third party, or is it strictly a Perot party?

MR. BRODER: It's in the process of becoming a legitimate party. I was in Valley Forge yesterday, and I was struck by the number of people who said that they are looking beyond this election now and see this as a vehicle. One person said we need Ross Perot to get us on the ballot and to get us the attention from you in the press. But we are not just Ross Perot's people, we are Reform Party people.

MR. LEHRER: Elizabeth, was there ever any doubt that it was going to end the way it did last night, that once this thing got started it was, the nominee was going to be Ross Perot?

ELIZABETH ARNOLD, National Public Radio: I don't think there was much doubt at all. In fact, I think Mr. Broder made a big wager on it, and he usually doesn't do that. And that's part of the problem, I think, and one reason that it's good that these people are looking beyond Ross Perot because in 92, it really was about Ross Perot, and the fact that he just jumped right in the day after Mr. Lamm got involved, it sort of hurts his credibility as this person who's not in it for himself, who was dragged, kicking and screaming, by all the voters who wanted to be at the top of the ticket.

MR. LEHRER: You would agree that, Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times," that, that Dick Lamm never really stood a chance or nobody else would have stood a chance?

RON BROWNSTEIN, Los Angeles Times: Well, Dick Lamm should have stood a chance, though, and I think the problem is, is I think, as Elizabeth suggests, I think Perot has actually set this thing back. I mean, it's a very complicated relationship. No one else could have logistically put this on the ballot and perhaps could have gotten the 5 percent to ensure the ballot status in the year 2000, but what he has done, I think, is indelibly stamped this as an extension of his own ego. I mean, the way this process ran in 96 has to give anybody pause, any serious politician pause, about participating again in 2000. You had Ross Perot say for a year that he didn't want to be the nominee. Then one day after Dick Lamm says that he does, Perot comes in, runs an election process, it's very odd, and seems to be tilted in his favor, and I think that's got to have some long-term impact on the willingness of other serious politicians to be associated with this in the future.

MR. LEHRER: David, what about the issue of only 5 percent of the people who signed up, in other words 1.1 million said they were members, only 50,000 participated, does that mean anything?

MR. BRODER: I think they were clearly disappointed. They'd hoped for much more. There were some mechanical or sort of electronic problems on the phone voting, but it was a very small response, and not a sign of great vigor at all.

MR. LEHRER: So--and that touches on this question of whether or not there's a permanent movement here too, does it not?

MR. BRODER: Very much so, although I--much will depend first on how Perot does actually this time--secondly whether or not the two parties coopt their issues. Nobody else is really talking about political and campaign finance reform in the same way that they are. And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are really talking about thedebt and the deficit the way they are.

MR. LEHRER: Ron, what about this--what about the Perot decision to go for federal matching funds and use--and get individual contributions, rather than just to fund it himself?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: That could potentially mute his impact somewhat in 96 because I mean I don't know what the maximum is that he could raise. He's going to get $30 million approximately in public financing, and he might, at the best, raise eight, ten, twelve million. It's nowhere near--

MR. LEHRER: He could raise--

MR. BROWNSTEIN: He could raise--

MR. LEHRER: I mean, people could give it to him--he could raise $32 million.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: He may end up raising $2 million. He may end up raising $3 million.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: But, you know, I want to go to what David said. I think one thing to think about the Perot, the Reform Party movement, is that it really exists at two levels. You have the activists who may be motivated by issues like the deficit and campaign finance reform, but you look at who says they're going to vote for Ross Perot now; it's a very different group than the activists. The mass movement right now has moved very much toward down scale, blue collar, disaffected workers, and who may be reacting much more to the economic nationalism or even more than that, there's just disaffection from the two parties. And so the ability of Perot, I think, to sort of craft the movement that speaks to both sort of a larger version of the people in the hall and also these other voters is very much up in the air.

MR. LEHRER: Elizabeth, how do you see the issues that Perot and his folks push in this campaign coming?

MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think that both President Clinton and Bob Dole are a little worried about their tax cut ideas being challenged by Ross Perot. If you've got Ross Perot up on the stage--maybe he does, maybe he doesn't--but if he's up on the stage during a debate saying, hey, folks, the truth here is we can't have a tax cut, that hurts them, and then they're worried about that.

MR. LEHRER: So he goes into the voodoo and the voodoo again and again and again.

MS. ARNOLD: And he goes out with the charts as red and black lines and says can't be done, that's got to be a problem for Bob Dole.

MR. LEHRER: Andy Kohut, let's bring you into this now. What--the newest poll that has come out on Perot is the "NewsWeek" poll that came out over the weekend, said he had only 3 percent support. Give us a reading on that, or tell us how we should read that.

ANDREW KOHUT, Pew Research Center: Well, that wasn't a fair test of Perot's support. He--they only tested the Reform Party, without mentioning Ross Perot as the candidate. But prior to this, in July, Perot was getting about 13 to 16 percent of support in the polls, and more recently, in the August polls about 8 to 11 percent. I'm sorry I'm getting a lot of feedback in this.

MR. LEHRER: I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?

MR. KOHUT: I can.

MR. LEHRER: Is that bad? Can you--

MR. KOHUT: No. I can hear you. That's fine.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. How does that compare with the way he--the way he finished in 92--just in terms of public support, how the public viewed him?

MR. KOHUT: Well, he had 19 percent of the vote in 1992 but he was seen at that time as a breath of fresh air. Since then, he's transformed himself from a breath of fresh air to eccentric at best and egotistical on the part of many people. When we ask people to use one word to describe him, the words are just awful. It's "rich," "crazy," "idiot," "egotistical." 60 percent of the American public has an unfavorable opinion of Ross Perot. 60 percent had a favorable opinion of him four years ago. So he really is discredited publicly, and he hurts the Reform Party.

MR. LEHRER: But where does he--when you look at where his strengths are--you've told us what his negatives are--when you look at what his strengths are based on the polls, what is your reading of who he hurts the most, Dole or Clinton?

MR. KOHUT: Well, I think if you look at the fact that when Dole came--when the gap narrowed, Perot's level of support was down to 6 to 8 percent, and when it was a wide margin, Perot was polling 16 to 18 percent. So I think just by, by observation, if Dole is going to catch Clinton, the Perot support, a strong Perot candidacy would make it very difficult, if not doom him, particularly if it goes above the 16 percent level.

MR. LEHRER: Do you read it the same way, David?

MR. BRODER: Well, more importantly, the Dole people, the campaign people, clearly would rather have a one on one race with President Clinton. The White House isn't saying that they're happy to have Perot in the race, but you don't hear them grumbling about it the way you hear it from the Dole people, so I think the professional's reading is clearly that Perot is more of a problem for Dole than he is for Clinton.

MR. LEHRER: Do you hear it the same way, Elizabeth?

MS. ARNOLD: Well, but the Dole people have one optimistic point that they make, and that is that half the people who voted for Perot in 92 say they won't vote for him this time around. And the people who are peeling off are the opposite of what you are describing. People who are peeling off are wealthy, educated, older Republicans. And so the Dole people think they're coming home. The only fly in the ointment there is if Ross Perot goes out with his charts and says, hey, tax cuts aren't such a good thing, and it's going to be bad for the deficit, then they might leave home again.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: There's a separate fly in the ointment. I think Perot hurts--Perot hurts Dole I think clearly in two different ways. One is that Perot voters are people generally dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and in the end, most of those tend to vote against incumbents at any level, especially the President. And second, and more importantly, Dole--Perot's vote is overwhelmingly white. And as such, it tends to put a lot of southern states and to some extent mountain states in play for Bill Clinton that would not otherwise be in play. It's very hard for Bill Clinton to get to 51 percent in Georgia under any circumstances, the best circumstances, but can he get to 46 percent or 45 percent if Ross Perot is pealing away 10 or 11 percent of what is essentially a white vote? Yes, he can. And I think it really enlarges the map for Clinton and puts a lot of states in play that would not otherwise be so.

MR. BRODER: And one other thing.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. BRODER: That Republican pollster Bill McInturff has pointed out--implicit in the Dole campaign strategy is bringing Bill Clinton down, a negative attack on Clinton. If it's a one on one, the votes that peel off of Clinton, you know that they have no place to go but to your candidate. If it's a three-way race, you have no assurance that you're going to get those votes, and the experience is often that people punish the candidate who is doing the attack ads and support the other candidate--the third candidate in the race.

MR. LEHRER: David, what about Andy's point about the negatives about Perot? People tend to use those negatives and kind of dismiss him. That would be a mistake, would it not?

MR. BRODER: The negatives are certainly present. You even hear it among some of the Perot people. That's why--

MR. LEHRER: Did you hear that in that report?

MR. BRODER: And that's why Dick Lamm, who was unknown to them, got a third of the vote against Perot, himself. They realized that he is a very flawed vessel for this. But he's also a very clever skillful deliverer of a message, and I think he's going to drive these other two guys crazy in the debates.

MR. LEHRER: Elizabeth.

MS. ARNOLD: I went to a focus group a couple of weeks ago and heard those same adjectives being used to describe him, but then when this group of people were asked a question about who-- if you got in a van and the van had to go some place, who would you pick as the navigator, and they had all the candidates and their wives. Second to Hillary Clinton was Ross Perot. He will get you where you want to go.

MR. LEHRER: Wow. Ron, what about the issue of debates, is it automatic now that, that Ross Perot will be in a three-way debate on these--if there are presidential debates with President Clinton and Bob Dole?

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Nothing is going to matter because the campaigns really can ultimately decide for themselves. They hold the negotiations, but I think it is in Bill Clinton's interest to have Ross Perot on the stage, rather than not on the stage, and, as such, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that he'll be there.

MR. LEHRER: And what do the--what do the polls show historically about the importance of those debates, Andy? I mean, those things could--could really change things around and--and Perot could play an interesting role, could he not?

MR. KOHUT: Absolutely, particularly if he attacked Dole on the credibility of his economic plan and it's not focusing on balancing the budget. Ross Perot singlehandedly took balancing the budget from a 1 percent issue in the polls for years to something that many Americans feel very important, particularly Republicans. And there are a great number of Republicans who don't feel it's credible to both--to give--provide a tax cut and balance the budget, let alone independents who feel that way, so I think that, that Dole can really play a very effective role in this debate. I mean, Perot can play an effective role in this debate on that issue.

MR. LEHRER: On that issue alone?

MR. KOHUT: On that issue alone.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Andy, Ron, Elizabeth and David Broder of the "Washington Post," thank you all four very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, allegations of slavery in Sudan and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - SLAVERY IN SUDAN?

MR. LEHRER: Now the allegations of slavery in the African nation of Sudan. We have a report and a discussion prepared earlier by Charlayne Hunter-Gault.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sudan, one of the poorest countries in the world, has been torn apart by civil war for more than a decade. A military coup that toppled the government in 1989 led to even more bloodshed. An estimated 1 + million people have been killed since. In March of this year, elections were held for the parliament and the presidency, but the killing continues. There are two warring sides in this all but obscure conflict. On one side the government made up of mainly Islamic Arabs rules from the Northern capital of Khartoum and wants to impose Islamic rule on the entire country: On the other side, the non-Arab Christian and Animus tribes in the South, fighting against that. The U.S. Government includes Sudan on its list of nations that report and harbor terrorists. Also for years, the United Nations, the U.S. State Department, and various international humanitarian organizations have reported human rights violations by both sides in the conflict. They have also charged the Sudanese army and others connected to it with ignoring slave trafficking. Dr. Kevin Vigilante, a human rights activist, traveled to Sudan last year with a delegation looking into human rights violations. Using a hidden video camera, he conducted interviews with children who said they had been abducted and sold into slavery. The children told him of being tortured by their slave owners. This young girl said she has a disfiguring scar after being branded on her thigh. This boy showed where his owner would cut the Achilles tendons of other children so they couldn't run away. Dr. Vigilante also discovered a military camp where he said 228 abducted Christian children had been taken. He said they were being forced to convert to Islam and prepare for battle as child slave soldiers. Independent Television News acquired this footage of a similar camp. More allegations of slavery were reported in a three part series published in the "Baltimore Sun" this past June. It was the work of two journalists, Gregory Kane and Gilbert Lewthwaite, who spent a total of seven days investigating allegations of slavery in Sudan. As a part of their investigation, they purchased two half brothers who they said had been held as slaves for six years. The young boys were then reunited with their family. For its part, the Sudanese government has issued vigorous denials about allegations of slavery.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For more on the story now, we have with us the Sudanese ambassador, Mahdi Ibrahim. We'll hear from him in a moment. But first, the two "Baltimore Sun" reporters just mentioned in our background piece, Gilbert Lewthwaite and Gregory Kane. Thank you all for joining us. And first, to you. You set out to prove that slavery existed in Sudan. What did you find?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE, Baltimore Sun: We found that it was possible in Sudan to buy the freedom of boys who had been enslaved for a period of years by paying the equivalent of $500 or the equivalent of five cows.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You actually purchased two boys.

GREGORY KANE, Baltimore Sun: Yes. What happened was that an Arab traitor who would not give us a name for fear of reprisal from the government went to Northern Sudan and brought back 12 boys. He said what he does is he goes North and he buys slaves back from the people that own them. He brings them back to the South, and he sells them back to the Dinka for the money that he paid for them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Dinka is the--

GREGORY KANE: The tribe man--Barh Al-Ghazal--in the Southern Sudan.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In the Southern part of Sudan.

GREGORY KANE: Yeah. But, yeah, we, in essence, paid the money for their freedom.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What did you pay?

GREGORY KANE: We paid the Arab trader.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What did you pay?

GREGORY KANE: A hundred thousand Sudanese pounds came to one thousand U.S. dollars for both.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How hard was it to do this?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: It was--once we had met the trader, it was a transaction of simplicity because the price was set. The boys were, in fact, engaged on what might be termed a freedom trail. This was a system that operated, if not regularly, intermittently, that this trader would go to the North and bring the boys back and sell their freedom. And once we had met him and talked to him and agreed to buy the boy, the deal was struck in 10 seconds.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And where were they coming from? Where were they being brought from?

GREGORY KANE: Various villages north of Barh Al-Ghazal. They said--the two boys we bought said they were taken in a raid, and their father said they disappeared back in 1990.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Taken by whom?

GREGORY KANE: PDF forces, Popular Defense Forces. That's the Arab militia.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Arab militia is connected with the government, is it?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: The Arab militia is commanded by the army. It is armed by the government, but it is not paid by the government. We interviewed two militia officers four hundred miles apart who had no opportunity for contact, and both gave a very similar report. But, in fact, their understanding of government policy was whatever they seized in the raids in the villages was theirs to keep, and that included the men, women, and children that they took.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what had these children's lives been like?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: The two boys we bought had spent six years running a cattle camp, cleaning the camp, and one as a herder of livestock for an Arab farmer, and both complained basically of a very hard life, where they got nothing except the crumbs from what they termed their master's tables, and were kept in a very subservient position.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So after this experience, was there any doubt in your mind that the Sudanese government was aiding, abetting, or actively involved in the trafficking and slavery?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: Well, I think the degree of involvement that we discovered was through lack of control of the militia, turning the militia from a defensive force, which it really originally was, into an offensive, marauding force, with the apparent understanding of the members of the militia that they were free to take what they wanted.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you're not saying that the government, itself, is trafficking in slaves?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Or aiding those who do traffic?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: No. It is, in fact, against government policy, the complicity inasmuch as it exists in the failure to do anything to stop it, anything apparent to stop it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what do you say? I mean--

GREGORY KANE: Well, the Arab trader did tell us the reason he didn't want us to have his name or his picture. Is that--what he was doing was against government policy. He explicitly said that. He's going off buying slaves and bringing em back in the South and giving em back to their family. He said that was against government policy. That's why he didn't want his name used. That's why he didn't want his picture taken.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So your complaint against government is exactly what?

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: The complaint against the government is there have been reports for eight years of slavery existing numerous reports. There has been no indication whatever of any government action to stop it. The United Nations, the State Department, the human rights organization have all pointed specifically to government complicity inasmuch as it's the government-controlled militia that does it, and the government has done nothing to stop it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Ambassador, what's your response to those? Those are pretty heavy charges?

MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED, Ambassador, Sudan: Well, first of all, I would like to say that there is a contradiction here which is extremely obvious, that the government is not part of this, and at the same time the responsibility of the government to do something about it. I would like, first of all, to respond to the first comment on his side, that the government is not part of this. That's good. This is a country which is 2.5 million square kilometers, with a war that has been going on intermittently for the third time now, the third cycle of which started in 1983. We as Africans, we have problems regarding the tribes. The tribes fight each other in Africa, in Sudan particularly. We had this very long history, the British tried to handle it. The tribes in their continuous search for water, grass, and land, when they come across each other, they clash. When they fight, they grab--each side grabs from the other side--its cattle, its camels, its people, as--which is a ransom--because they know very well that as soon as this fight comes to an end in two or three days then the chieftains of the neighboring tribes, they come, they bring their feuding parties, they give--give everything back to its tribe, and then they reach an amicable agreement which will allow these two tribes to live with each other amicably in the region. This is the problem. There is no sense of, of slavery in that, because these are the same tribes, the same tribes in the South, same tribes in the West, same tribes in the North, they do it. They have the same origin, so the sense of slavery is not there.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So that you are disputing not only the reporting of these two gentlemen who actually bought two young boys but the reports of the United Nations and the United States and other human rights groups, they've just drawn the wrong conclusions because they don't understand the cultural mores of Sudan?

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: Exactly. Exactly. You have these two gentlemen, very respected, but they know very little about Africa. They know very little about the Sudan, and they go to a rebel- controlled area, and they spend a few days, and they come back to report to people who know also very little about Sudan and about Africa and about the traditions of those tribes at a time when they give some flavor to this by saying this is the Muslims doing again as the Christians, these are the Arabs doing it again as the Africans, so you create an atmosphere which is extremely sensitive to a background which knows very little about it, and so you come out with this extremely negative picture, or the Africa is negatively displayed in the media, and we are also now victims of this unfortunate coverage of media, which is extremely lacking.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Lewthwaite, is that--

GILBERT LEWTHWAITE: I would just like to pout out the two boys that we bought had been in captivity for six years, in bondage, in servitude. There had been during those six years no mention of any ransom to anybody. If they had not been linked up with the Freedom Trail that we tapped into, they would still be in bondage. We talked to a blind woman who had lost her two young children last year, whose own mother had told her to forget the children because she'd never see them again. No question of ransom there. Every single major organization has termed this slavery. Nobody has said it's a hostage taking in a war situation. What has happened is the militia, the participation of a government-controlled militia has overlaid the traditional tribal pattern that the ambassador talks about and made this a major element of the war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about this militia, Mr. Ambassador? The government does control it.

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: First of all, there is no militia. This is no militia. The Sudanese government has engagedin a campaign of re-educating the people of the Sudan because for so many years we have been suffering from this tribal element, from the sectarian element you see, because the sense of nationhood is extremely undermined by the allegiance to the tribe or to the sect, or to the sect, or even to the party sometimes, or to the chieftain leader, and because of that we have engaged in a whole process of re-educating the people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, is that--is that--excuse me--is that how you explain those camps that we saw in the film?

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: Yeah.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The fact that children--now, are you saying that those children--those camps exist but that the children were not abducted and forcibly taken there?

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: No, no, no. There are two things. The re-education process goes all the way from educating people about nationalism, about civil service, about their rights.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But is this forcible?

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: As individuals, about being good civil people, about producing more--a whole range of things--and in the same time also training them. This is a whole range of things. The other thing which you have seen in this camp, these are education schools, these are historic education schools. You--the fathers and the mothers, they send their children to these schools in the different rural areas in order to each them. This is a pre- school because we do not have a school for everyone at the age of school.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But excuse me, Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, the human rights organizations, these reporters, the United States Government, have alleged that the children who are in those camps were abducted and forcibly made to be Islamicized and--

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: That is categorically wrong because these are children who are taken by their own fathers and mothers for pre-schooling, because they cannot afford for any child to have a school, so this is a kind of schooling, and that is very traditional--this is one side. In the camps, no one is taken by force at all, and these are open camps, by the way. Everywhere-- why did you see the people in the TV--because it is opened--there is something that is--that is hidden from the people to see it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, in that case--

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: It's a national education for the people in--

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In that case, then, I guess this is the final question. Why is it that the Sudanese government does not allow human rights workers and monitors and others into the country so that they can freely see this as well?

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: First of all, these two gentlemen, I, uh, offer to them to go to the Sudan and to go to any place and to meet anyone. They promised to come; they never came; and they went on to publish what they wrote. Okay, this is one. No. 2, the human rights representative from the UN in Geneva is already in the Sudan three days ago. So this is the second thing. The third thing is many people from different NGO's are going to the Sudan, and I tell you frankly now I have sent 20 letters to 20 congressmen in order to go to the Sudan and to see by themselves.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

AMB. MAHDI IBRAHIM MOHAMED: The same offer that has been given to these gentlemen.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Ambassador, gentlemen, thank you. ESSAY - HIDING IN THE OPEN

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, our Monday night essay. Roger Rosenblatt considers gas station.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The subject is gas stations, how the American gas station has changed in the past 30 years from a multi-layered symbol of American life to merely another place to shop. The key difference is self-service. As soon as gas stations started to post the "self" signs as distinguished from the "full" signs, an idea disappeared. Self-service gets us in the act. We are forced to notice what a gas station is. Not so 30 years ago. The gas station was the place one hardly noticed as one moved on. It was, in fact, the place not to notice--a hiding place for those who deliberately sought to run away from society, or to establish themselves as outside society. It was the place where one went to go nowhere. The gas station was where one hid in the open. In the film noire movie "Out of the Past," Robert Mitchum tried to obliterate his former identity by hiding beside a pump.

ROBERT MITCHUM: [scene from movie] Hello, Joe. Wish it was nicer to see you.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Who would notice another grease monkey in a gas station? That was the basis of the symbol. America, relentlessly on the move, pulls up, fills up, and drives away. And left behind is the anonymous character in the anonymous place. In a gas station, a character could do the impossible, lose himself in America. Obscurity, inviability, anti-individualism too--just another jockey at the pump, a replaceable part. In Steve Martin's hilarious early movie "The Jerk," the jerk is deliriously happy to land his first job in a gas station because he sees it as the place to make his mark. He aims to please. He strives to be noticed in a gas station. That's the joke. Obscurity, invisibility, anti- individualism, and a sense of darkness and dread as well.

ACTOR: It was on a side road outside of Los Angeles. I was hitchhiking from San Francisco down to San Diego, I guess.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The gas station was often depicted as sinister, full of strange shadows. And it was explicitly sexual. It was a gas station that the old man ran in the "Postman Always Rings Twice." In James M. Cane's story and the movie made of it, the old man and his beautiful wife were going nowhere. The wife's young lover was going nowhere. The murder that was supposed to take the pair of illicit lovers somewhere got them nowhere. All that the two of them could do was to service each other in the service station, their filling station, among the hoses, the nozzles, and tanks. At the end of the story, after all that sweating, nobody moved. That was the multi-layered icon a gas station used to be. Artists could notMNEIL take their eyes off it because everyone else did. Ed Roushay made photographs of gas stations; so did Walker Evans again and again. Stewart Davis made paintings, so did Conrad Kramer. Edward Hopper was captivated. He had to stop and stare. Hopper's painting, "Gas," done in 1940, showed the round tops of three pumps lit like signal lamps against dark, ominous trees behind them. Three luminous spirits of America, like a trinity of human heads lit from the inside. The surreal red Mobile Oil horse- -the gas station as the pump of the Industrial Revolution--it resists the trees, resists the falling night--and the blond man in attendance, almost hidden in the hiding place that propels the country forward. Now we notice gas stations more because we have to work there ourselves. But it makes them less interesting. We have to serve the self. We have to concentrate on the task at hand which takes away the essential nature of the place as the hidden symbol behind the civilization that must never run out of gas.