The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Friday; then, a look at the changing conditions in Iraq`s Anbar province; a Science Unit report on the safety of the American food supply; a Paul Solman-led discussion on globalization winners and losers; and the weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: There were new, upbeat reports today on the U.S. economy. It had been sluggish early this year, but the Labor Department said employers added 157,000 workers in May, the most in two months. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.5 percent, as more people looked for work. And manufacturing expanded for the fourth consecutive month. That`s according to the Private Institute for Supply Management.

In Iraq today, U.S. officials announced the deaths of five more American soldiers, and U.S. and Iraqi troops imposed a curfew in a Sunni district of Baghdad. Residents there revolted against al-Qaida fighters this week. In the west, Sunnis in Anbar province have also battled al- Qaida forces in recent weeks. We`ll have more on that story right after the news summary.

New fighting broke out today at a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon. Government tanks and artillery blasted positions held by Fatah Islam, a group linked to al-Qaida. At least 19 people were reported killed. There had been a lull in the fighting in recent days, but the telecommunications minister insisted today the militants must go.

MARWAN HAMADEH, Telecommunications Minister, Lebanon: What we have decided is to deal with Fatah al-Islam as a terrorist group that`s taken hostage what is left in the camp. And I think the army is determined this time to go ahead and probably to reduce several pockets of Fatah Islam terrorist groups.

JIM LEHRER: Nearly 100 people have died in the fighting that began nearly two weeks ago.

President Bush`s plan to deal with global warming came under fire today. On Thursday, he called for setting long-term goals by the end of his term to cut greenhouse gases. But today, the European Union`s environmental commissioner dismissed the plan. He said, "It basically restates the U.S. classic line: no mandatory reductions, no carbon trading, and vaguely expressed objectives."

And in Washington, House Speaker Pelosi called the proposal "a profound disappointment."

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), Speaker of the House: It rehashed stale ideas. While other countries in the E.U. are acting globally, the president continues to want to go it alone. The weakness of his proposal leads us to question whether he fully understands the urgency of global warming.

JIM LEHRER: Later, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley defended the plan. He said the president wanted to contribute to the dialogue on dealing with climate change. The president will detail his plan next week in Germany at a summit of the wealthiest nations.

Tensions between the United States and Russia will be another focus at that meeting in Germany. Russian President Putin has strongly condemned U.S. plans for a missile shield in Europe. But today, President Bush said, "He thinks it`s aimed at him. It`s not." The president went on to say, "The Cold War is over."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett announced today he`s resigning. He said he will officially step down in early July to spend more time with his wife and three young children. Bartlett was the president`s longest- serving adviser. He began in that role nearly 14 years ago, when Mr. Bush first ran for governor of Texas.

Jack Kevorkian was released from prison today in Michigan, after eight years. The retired pathologist once claimed he took part in at least 130 assisted suicides. He was convicted of (inaudible) into a man with Lou Gehrig`s disease. After his release today, Kevorkian spoke briefly to reporters and said he was still smiling.

JACK KEVORKIAN, American Pathologist: Sure, yes.

JOURNALIST: After eight years?

JACK KEVORKIAN: Yes, feels wonderful.

JOURNALIST: Looking good.

JACK KEVORKIAN: One of the high points in life.

JIM LEHRER: Kevorkian is now 79 years old. He said recently he`ll work to have assisted suicide legalized, but he promised not to break any laws doing so.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially began today, and a storm formed in the Gulf of Mexico. Tropical Storm Barry was expected to head toward western Florida. It had winds of 45 miles an hour but was not expected to grow much. The first storm of the year actually formed three weeks ago but never made land.

The Wall Street Journal and its publisher, Dow Jones and Company, may be for sale after all. The family that owns controlling interest said last night it`s ready to consider offers. It also said it`s willing to talk to Rupert Murdoch. His holdings include FOX News and the New York Post, among others. Murdoch has already bid $5 billion for Dow Jones.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 40 points to close at 13,668. The Nasdaq rose nine points to close at nearly 2,614. For the week, the Dow gained more than 1 percent; the Nasdaq more than 2 percent.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: an update on Iraq`s Anbar province; a report on food safety; a globalization conversation; and Shields and Brooks.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The changing story of Anbar. Ray Suarez has our update.

RAY SUAREZ: Just months after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Anbar province became a hotbed of Sunni insurgent activity. The mostly Sunni province in western Iraq, Anbar accounts for 30 percent of Iraq`s land mass. It borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The hotspot towns of Ramadi, Haditha and Fallujah are all in Anbar, as is much of the area known as the Sunni triangle. It`s not densely populated, home to just 1.25 million Iraqis. But outside of Baghdad, the area has posed the greatest challenges to U.S. forces in Iraq, especially after al-Qaida in Iraq began using the province as a staging area.

Since the war began, nearly 1,300 Americans have died in Anbar, more than in any other province. In Fallujah in March 2004, four American contractors were ambushed, killed and burned. Local Iraqis cheered as their bodies were hung from a bridge.

U.S. forces laid siege to the city twice to root out both Sunni insurgents and al-Qaida operatives who had effectively taken over the town. Efforts to stabilize and rebuild the city continue.

U.S. forces have fought numerous and intense battles in Ramadi, but in past weeks, President Bush and top military commanders in Iraq have said the tide is turning in Anbar and have touted it as a success.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: Our new strategy is designed to take advantage of new opportunities to partner with local tribes to go after al-Qaida in places like Anbar, which has been the home base of al-Qaida in Iraq.

LT. GEN. RAY ODIERNO, U.S. Army: In May, the attacks in Anbar in 2006 totaled 811. In 2007, they were just barely over 400. In Ramadi in 2006, there were 254 attacks in the city of Ramadi; in 2007, there have been 30.

RAY SUAREZ: And as part of the administration`s surge strategy in Iraq, some 5,000 additional U.S. troops are being sent to Anbar province.

For an on-the-ground assessment of the situation in Iraq`s largest province, we`re joined by two men who visited there last month. David Wood is the national security correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, and former Marine Captain Bing West, he`s now a correspondent for the Atlantic magazine and has written two books about the war.

David Wood, let`s start with you. Contrast the conditions day-to-day in Anbar now with what you saw in your last reporting trip late last year.

DAVID WOOD, National Security Correspondent, Baltimore Sun: Ray, the difference was, this time I could walk around, albeit with body armor and a helmet. But when I was there in December, I was always in a very heavily armored vehicle, which drove quite fast and didn`t stop.

This time, I walked around. I spent an entire day with one of the tribal sheikhs, had lunch at his mother`s house, felt totally at home.

RAY SUAREZ: Bing West, did you see the same change?

BING WEST, Correspondent, The Atlantic Magazine: Yes, picking up on what David said, the big difference now is that you have much more a political outreach on the part of the tribes than I`ve seen in the last four years. In fact, last night, when you were interviewing Ambassador Neumann about Afghanistan, I thought he could have used the words "Anbar," because the politics are now coming to the fore in a way that no one expected a year ago.

RAY SUAREZ: So, David Wood, when he says politics, what`s going on, on the ground in Anbar, that explains this change that the two of you have seen?

DAVID WOOD: Ray, what happened -- about six months ago, the tribal sheikhs, the traditional political leaders of Anbar province, got together and they decided, "OK, we don`t like the Americans, but what we really don`t like are these foreign insurgents who are fighting here under the rubric of al-Qaida in Iraq."

And so basically they said to the Marines in Iraq, "Look, we don`t like you guys, but we hate them even worse. So we`re going to join you to fight against them, and then we`ll come after you guys." And the Marines were like, "We`re fine with that, because as soon as we get rid of the insurgents, we`re out of here."

RAY SUAREZ: So they`re really throwing in their lot with U.S. forces? It`s not just that they have the same enemy, but they have made the conscious decision to fight alongside or in cooperation with U.S. forces?

DAVID WOOD: In the part of Anbar where I spent some time a couple of weeks ago, they have recruited hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of their own kids to serve in the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police in that region. And the United States pays for them to go down to Jordan to get trained, and they come back, and they`re serving on the streets. So that`s sort of putting their money where their mouth is.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, General Odierno said yesterday 12,000 Anbar residents have joined the Iraqi security forces in the first five months of this year compared with 1,000 in all of 2006. Bing West, what caused this change? Why this shift to cooperating with the Americans instead of trying to kick them out?

BING WEST: Al-Qaida basically is a religious-based cult, and they had killed too many members of the Sunni tribes. And finally, the Sunni tribes listened to the Marines, because the Marines for several years have been saying, "Smarten up. One day, we`re gone, and al-Qaida is going to be in charge if you don`t stand up for yourselves." And finally the message kicked in.

But we have to be careful here. Al-Qaida is still absolutely ruthless. And I think, in a straight up fight, they take the tribes. The steel rods in this concrete are still those Marine rifle companies, and so the challenge is, how do you bring in these tribal members, and cause them to work with the Iraqi army, and then extract the Americans? And that`s a delicate process.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you talked earlier about politics. Is there also a political dimension to this for U.S. commanders who have sometimes, over the last four years, had a tough time figuring out who`s really their friend and who`s not?

BING WEST: I`ll say. Ray, you really touched on something when you said American commanders. I think it`s time we had somebody like Ambassador Neumann, who was on your show last night in Afghanistan, out in Anbar. When you`re dealing with the local tribal politics, you`re dealing with the sheikhs, you`re dealing with the Iraqi army, you`re dealing with the Baghdad politicians, that`s a role for trained diplomats. And I think it`s time that the State Department got into this and sent out a very seasoned ambassador to try to make sense out of all the politics.

RAY SUAREZ: David Wood, is this the battle the U.S. military eventually wanted to see, Iraqis fighting al-Qaida?

DAVID WOOD: No, I don`t think it`s the battle they want to see at all. I think what they want to see is what they`ve created there now, which is a space, a moment of stability. And it`s critical, as Bing was saying, that we take advantage of this moment and help the Iraqis find a stake in their own future.

And what I found there was raised questions about whether the United States is really putting its full resources into building that peace in this fragile moment.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, develop that idea a little bit more, because you`ve written that you perceive that Anbar was at a tipping point. What do you see needed to push it the rest of the way?

DAVID WOOD: I don`t think it needs a lot. I think they need some encouragement. There are a lot of Iraqis who are working to, you know, fix those sewer and water systems. They want to do things like starting women centers, fishing cooperatives, and they`ve got a whole lot of plans.

I don`t think they need big buildings or massive construction projects. I think what they need from the United States is encouragement, and a little bit of advice and help, and a little bit of money.

RAY SUAREZ: Bing West, what about that element of the Anbar project, getting reconstruction teams in, improving daily life? One of the early hallmarks of the Anbar struggle was the insurgents` skill at proving to local people that having Americans around just wasn`t going to do them any good.

BING WEST: And, instead, al-Qaida turned around and began to decapitate them. David`s dead on when he says, it`s time that the Baghdad government put some resources into Anbar to show the people of Anbar that they`re serious about reconciliation.

And it doesn`t have to be a lot of money; $100 million, $200 million, $300 million would go a long way in Anbar, because they are so impoverished. But at the same time, Ray, I caution about this. Anbar is the size of Utah. And the Iraqi forces, whether they be these tribes or the police, they don`t have the mobility to move and to keep al-Qaida on the run.

So while things look much better than anyone had a right to expect out of Anbar last year, I still think that there`s a role for those American companies that have high mobility to keep al-Qaida on the defense.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, David Wood, you`ve got some aspects in Anbar that - - I guess I need to hear from you whether they exist in other places in the country, traditional leaders who can actually deliver people and deliver local sentiments on the ground, light population, clustered in the small cities. Is this a model -- what you saw going on during your last reporting trip -- that can be exported to other provinces, where it`s been tough to get traction?

DAVID WOOD: Sure, yes, Ray, I don`t know, is the short answer. I think the Iraqis think there is. The organization of Iraqi sheikhs in al- Anbar province that you referred to, these roughly 200 sheikhs who decided to throw their lot in with the United States, they`ve changed the name of their organization. It used to be called the Awakening in Anbar. Now it`s called the Awakening in Iraq, and they`re exporting this idea to other provinces, and beginning to build political organizations that can help local people and Sunnis, in this case, sort of take hold of their own communities. I think it`s an encouraging sign.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you sounded pretty cautious, Bing West. Even if this kind of thing works, and it does get exported to the rest of Iraq, it sounds like you`re anticipating United States forces being there for a long time?

BING WEST: Against al-Qaida, yes. I`m also a little bit careful about seeing how far we really go with this model, because this really is a way whereby the Sunnis, who out in Anbar are really tough guys, basically said, "We`re going to throw in," but they didn`t say they were throwing in with the Baghdad government. This is the dilemma. They said, "We see that the Marines are the strongest tribe out here, so we align with the Marines."

Now, the question is how you move from the alignment between American Marines and Sunnis to an alignment between the Shiite government in Baghdad and the Sunnis. So there`s another step, Ray, that still has to be taken here.

RAY SUAREZ: Bing West, David Wood, gentlemen, thank you both.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Next, food safety. The recent pet food scare raised questions about the American food supply. NewsHour correspondent Betty Ann Bowser reports for our Science Unit.

BETTY ANN BOWSER, NewsHour Correspondent: Never have Mexican farm workers had to be more concerned about food safety than they are today. Horror stories of dead pets and sick Americans have meant revved-up safety programs, with workers constantly washing and disinfecting their hands and tools.

ANDREW POIRIEZ, Circle Produce Co.: This is us staying in business here. I mean, we do what we have to do, because we have to produce for that market. And if we don`t do it, it`ll cause problems.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Andre Poiriez is a second-generation owner of an American company that grows fruits and vegetables about an hour south of the U.S.-Mexican border. He says, without rigid safety procedures, he could lose business.

ANDREW POIRIEZ: There`s a better possibility of the product being contaminated and then coming across and making somebody sick, and then the whole thing happens after that, up to even the company going out of business.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Mexican food represents only part of the skyrocketing food imports coming through ports like Seattle. Many of the imports come from Asia, developing countries like China, which supply very high amounts of frozen seafood, apple juice and garlic.

Nationwide, there are 25,000 shipments of imported food a day, 20 million a year, with the market is growing. The statistics tell the story: 92 percent of all fresh and frozen seafood consumed is imported; 52 percent of the grapes; 75 percent of the apple juice; 72 percent of the mushrooms. The list goes on, and almost none of it gets inspected.

Listen to Bill Hubbard, who was associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, for 14 years.

WILLIAM HUBBARD, Former Associate Commissioner, FDA: Virtually everything we`re eating is coming from foreign countries. As it comes off the ship, the FDA inspector is allowed to go look, but there`s so many of these containers they can only look at only 1 percent.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Hubbard says the problem isn`t just whole food products, like fish and vegetables, but a growing list of imported ingredients that go into processed food.

You send your kid down to the store. "We`re out of bread. We need a loaf of bread." And he brings home 100 percent whole wheat bread. Not so?

WILLIAM HUBBARD: Well, the wheat is probably coming from the United States, but there is wheat gluten in this, almost certainly will come from China or another Asian country. They`re also retardants for bacteria and mold, like propionic acid that`s in here. It`s likely coming from overseas, as well, countries that have less-developed regulatory systems, which is why you need a strong regulatory system in the United States.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: U.S. Customs and Border Protection examine a small amount of incoming cargo, but questions are now being raised about another agency, the FDA, responsible for regulating 80 percent of the U.S. food supply.

Ten straight years of budget cuts have meant there are only about 300 food inspectors to monitor 418 ports of entry. Meanwhile, the number of food shipments has increased 2,000 percent in 14 years. That`s because American food retailers and processors are turning to markets in developing countries, where production costs are low and there is almost no government regulation.

Hubbard says that makes seafood from China, Vietnam and the rest of Asia a particular problem.

WILLIAM HUBBARD: They will often raise the fish in heavily polluted water, and the fish are subject to fungal infections and bacterial infections. So the farmers will add illegal antibiotics, and then that fish will arrive here in the United States with these illegal chemicals in them.

Shrimp has been a particular problem. Imagine the shrimp coming up on a hot Indian Ocean deck, put out on a boat hours before it gets into port. And then it decomposes, and it smells so bad, you dump sodium saccharin all over it to hide the odor, and then ship it to the Americans.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The federal watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, in February said, "Food safety is a high-risk area with inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination and inefficient use of resources."

In the same report, the GAO said 76 million Americans contract food poisoning each year, resulting in about 5,000 deaths. The FDA`s new food czar would like to have more resources to control the problem.

DAVID ACHESON, Food and Drug Administration: I feel right now that we`re playing catch-up. And I want to get to the point where we`ve caught up, and we`re moving ahead, and we`re being proactive. And we`re finding stuff that we haven`t yet thought about. It`s not going to be cheap. The will is there.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And the money?

DAVID ACHESON: Money, will be, I hope, forthcoming.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Millions?

DAVID ACHESON: Who knows?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Billions?

DAVID ACHESON: Who knows?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Acheson says, until Congress gives FDA more money and more regulatory authority, most of the responsibility for food safety will continue to fall on the shoulders of food processors. In the past, that has led to disaster.

In March, thousands of pet deaths were blamed on imported wheat gluten and rice protein, both contaminated with melamine. They were imported from China, by hundreds of American companies that manufacture dog and cat food.

Then, weeks after its initial finding, the FDA said testing showed wheat flour containing melamine was the problem. Steve Pickman is vice president of the country`s largest wheat gluten producer.

STEVE PICKMAN, MGP Ingredients, Inc.: It`s almost unbelievable to think that we were fooled once by finding out that these producers in China had intentionally adulterated their ingredient with melamine, a known toxic which is not allowed in those types of applications in the U.S. That was the first stunning development. And then, now to find out that it wasn`t even wheat gluten but actually wheat flour disguised as wheat gluten is just -- it`s unfathomable.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: When there is a food scare, the country`s largest grocery trade organization goes to work in its lab in Washington, D.C., to test for purity. And Pat Verduin, its chief scientist, says members are putting pressure on foreign suppliers to improve.

PAT VERDUIN, Grocery Manufacturers Association: They have all gone back, looked at their supply base, looked at who they`re buying from, looked at the source of those supplies, of those ingredients, made sure their testing programs were robust enough that they were confident that they were not getting adulterated ingredients.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Dr. Acheson would like to see companies become even more aggressive about checking out their foreign suppliers.

DAVID ACHESON: I don`t think they know as much about them as I would like them to know about them. And I think that that`s something that needs to change. It needs to change in the context of both food safety, as well as food defense.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Economists say it would help if developing countries made food safety more of a priority, because, in the end, the food trade depends on consumer confidence. Agricultural economist Neil Harl.

NEIL HARL, Iowa State University: We can cajole them, we can urge them, and we should be. We should be using our diplomatic efforts to try to increase the standard. But it would be the market, I think, that ultimately will cause them to make the change.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Not only does the FDA have to be vigilant about foreign food imports; since 9/11, Congress has made it a first line of defense again bioterrorism. But Dr. Acheson says it`s not in the public interest to be specific about what the agency is doing.

DAVID ACHESON: Is the system still vulnerable to somebody doing something? I`d have to say, yes, of course it is. We couldn`t make it 100 percent tight, and an example of that is, for example, at retail. You have to have a retail environment where people can come and go freely to buy the products that they want. If somebody decided to do something at retail that was bad -- and we do see that from time to time, with tampering, little low-level problems -- it`s going to be very difficult to prevent.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Sentiment is growing on Capitol Hill to create one super-agency, with twice the money and twice the personnel, to police the U.S. food supply, but so far passage of definitive legislation is not imminent.

JIM LEHRER: On the domestic supply front, this week, an Ohio company recalled its animal feed products because they contained melamine. The FDA said the levels were too low to pose a health hazard to humans, but it`s investigating why the company was adding that banned substance in the first place.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, the last of our conversations on the impact of globalization. NewsHour economics correspondent Paul Solman talked recently with students from four countries.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK, Parliament Member, Thailand: Tell me a country which closed down their border for trade and they are prosperous.

PAUL SOLMAN, NewsHour Economics Correspondent: Kriengsak Chareonwongsak, a parliament member in Thailand, one of globalization`s apparent winners.

FREDERICK SUMAYE, Former Prime Minister, Tanzania: Nobody said we will close the borders.

PAUL SOLMAN: By contrast, Frederick Sumaye, former prime minister of Tanzania, one of globalization`s losers.

FREDERICK SUMAYE: ... and we didn`t even say globalization is totally, you know, a devil. No. We just said it must be controlled.

PAUL SOLMAN: Add Argentina`s Yanina Budkin and China`s Mingyou Bao, and we had four mid-career students at Harvard`s Kennedy School of Government. They`ve spent the past year trying to understand the phenomenon and figure out what to tell their people back home.

Watching the students, two of their professors: the staunchly pro- trade economist Robert Lawrence on the right; and his more ambivalent colleague, Danny Roderick. We assembled them all to hear how globalization is playing around the world, for the winners and losers alike.

So first question: How would their fellow citizens vote if asked to give globalization a simple thumbs-up, thumbs-down?

Thailand?

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: Fifteen percent on the pro, maybe 5 percent on the against, and the rest is a silent majority.

PAUL SOLMAN: Argentina?

YANINA BUDKIN, Former Communications Officer, World Bank: Sixty-five percent no, 35 percent yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: Tanzania?

FREDERICK SUMAYE: Eighty-five percent no, 15 percent yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: China?

MINGYOU BAO, People`s Bank of China: The majority of the Chinese people will say yes to this question. Globalization is a win-win for China and the rest of the world.

PAUL SOLMAN: Mingyou Bao, from the People`s Bank of China, then gave the basic economic rationale.

MINGYOU BAO: I think every country could benefit from the process of globalization, because the developed countries can have better, greater access to cheap labor and markets, while the developing countries can benefit from the inflow of capital and technology.

PAUL SOLMAN: Tanzania`s Frederick Sumaye has learned the theory...

FREDERICK SUMAYE: ... but I think, in the long run, there will be more pains than gains. There will be industries in these developing countries that will be just taking off. If you curtail them at that stage, these countries, in the long run, will suffer, because they will just be markets.

PAUL SOLMAN: Argentina?

YANINA BUDKIN: Argentina is an interesting middle point, I would say. We had a very interesting case in the `90s. We opened our economy. Huge amounts of foreign direct investments came in. We privatized. And we were very much integrated into the world economy. That was very positive, increase of income for almost everybody.

Very nice until 2001, we have a massive crisis. There has to be regulation of some of these investments coming and going out. There has to be regulation of the capitals that are allowed to fly in and out, because you really get destabilized in your economy.

PAUL SOLMAN: This is one of today`s main beefs about free-market globalization: that, if foreign investors can pour money into a country and help build it, they can also pull it out quickly and make any bad situation much worse. It happened in Argentina in 2002, in Thailand in the late `90s.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: I understand fully that the global market sometime can move its capital in a way that could be very disruptive at times. But in Thailand, we have grown 30 times in 30 years. That means we have been richer, on average. GDP per capita have grown. And we can`t deny that it`s due to our openness with trade, openness with investment.

PAUL SOLMAN: Of course, a freer market means winners and losers, acknowledges the Thai politician.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: ... there are some industry that are sunset and who have to close down.

PAUL SOLMAN: Sunset industry, meaning it`s at the end of its lifecycle?

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: There were the textile industry, the shoes industry.

PAUL SOLMAN: So in Thailand, that`s not what you`re selling any more?

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: It`s going down quickly, and almost gone.

PAUL SOLMAN: Who did you lose the business to?

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: We lose to China. We lose to some other cheap labor countries.

MINGYOU BAO: Cambodia.

PAUL SOLMAN: Vietnam and Cambodia?

MINGYOU BAO: Yes, they are catching up very fast. Even we are starting losing business to these two.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: But that`s normal.

PAUL SOLMAN: So Thailand`s losing the textile business to China, and China`s losing it...

MINGYOU BAO: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: ... to Vietnam and Cambodia?

MINGYOU BAO: Yes.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: And, eventually, they`ll lose to Africa.

PAUL SOLMAN: The guy from Tanzania`s laughing. He doesn`t know where he fits, if that`s the case.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: Eventually, Latin America and Africa will get all the cheap labor industry eventually.

PAUL SOLMAN: So the good news is, for you guys, that you`ll get the cheap labor jobs soon enough.

FREDERICK SUMAYE: No, I don`t agree to that. They will probably come up with a technology that will be cheaper to run, and cost per piece of cloth will probably be lower.

PAUL SOLMAN: So there will be no textile jobs?

FREDERICK SUMAYE: It can happen. Cheap labor, yes, might not be that important when we get to that point.

PAUL SOLMAN: So Sumaye wants to protect what industries Tanzania now has.

FREDERICK SUMAYE: When China opened its doors to the outside world, they still had a lot of control, OK?

PAUL SOLMAN: He just said that China managed its globalization. You didn`t just open yourself up to the world. You had mainly state-owned enterprises. You had very clear policies as to who could invest, and who couldn`t, and how you had to have a Chinese partner, and so forth. This was not textbook "let`s just open everything up to the world."

MINGYOU BAO: Yes, Paul, I agree. If you open the door to the outside world without, you know, preparing the necessary, fundamental capacities for protecting the weak industries, the people, the vulnerable groups in the society, then you are likely to suffer more in the process.

PAUL SOLMAN: So you agree with him completely?

MINGYOU BAO: When you open the window, you know, you have fresh air. And also, you have, you know, coming of the flies and mosquitoes. So what do you do? What the government needs to do is to install, build a filtering, right?

PAUL SOLMAN: A filter?

MINGYOU BAO: A filter, filter.

PAUL SOLMAN: Oh, to keep the flies out?

MINGYOU BAO: Yes. So you have the fresh air, but it keeps the flies out.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now even China is agreeing with this. So you`re on your own here.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: Basically, you have to feel the hurt of the people. Maybe some gradualism may help in easing the pain.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, what would gradualism mean?

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: That means you do not abruptly change a lifestyle. There have been generations of growing leek and cumber, garlic, whatever. They don`t know anything else. Therefore, how could you expect them to shift suddenly?

PAUL SOLMAN: This is the debate going on in the United States right now, where the argument is, "Let`s compensate the losers." But how do you do it?

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: There must be mechanism. For example -- well, retrain is one way.

PAUL SOLMAN: Retrain, but you know, when I`m a journalist, and I go out and say to people who are losing their jobs, "Oh, we have retraining programs. You should retrain." They say, "Retrain for what?"

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: Retrain for something better for you.

PAUL SOLMAN: Ah.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: That you`ll be even richer, even. After you get retrained, you move to a better industry, a better kind of thing you can do. You can compete. You`ll be better off.

FREDERICK SUMAYE: What is this "something else" which will not be affected by globalization? Because globalization is just like a flooding river. It`s going to fill every room.

KRIENGSAK CHAREONWONGSAK: When we`re in our country or hot, we don`t wear thick clothes. We come to Boston, we wear thick clothes. We adjust. I would say, as a good government, you would empower them with skills, prepare them ahead of time, and ease their pain by compensate for some of the things that`s not their fault.

PAUL SOLMAN: But suppose that most of the people of the world are competing against each other for the same jobs that increasingly machines are able to do more cheaply anyway. It`s at least conceivable, isn`t it, that people will not have anything to sell?

FREDERICK SUMAYE: That`s why we are saying, initially, you don`t want to kill everything in these developing countries. You must allow some things to grow.

PAUL SOLMAN: So you mean, right now in Tanzania, 30 million people, how many of those people don`t have something to sell in the world economy?

FREDERICK SUMAYE: Oh, many of them. There are those who produce coffee. There are those who produce cotton. The prices are so bad. And, of course, these farmers are not making -- in fact, most of the times they make losses.

PAUL SOLMAN: The kind of industries that you want to nurture in Tanzania, what are those industries?

FREDERICK SUMAYE: Industries that process the agricultural commodities. I would want to process my cotton, I`d want to process my coffee, I would want to process my tea so that I can get the advantage of value addition.

YANINA BUDKIN: It`s true that countries can benefit, but also countries can have a strategic decision to integrate to the world economy with products that will allow them to go further than the cacao, the coffee, or the soybean. And it happens. It`s more than a dream. It happened in Chile with the salmon industry.

PAUL SOLMAN: The salmon industry, yes.

YANINA BUDKIN: Salmon and wine, also. But I think the key here for my country, at least, is agriculture. And the key debate with the developing world is, what is happening with agricultural subsidies, and what is the story with being asked to have our open economies, but then having to face very closed economies, when we want to export our products?

PAUL SOLMAN: Because we`re still supporting our farmers, for example, so that your farmers can`t compete?

YANINA BUDKIN: Exactly. If some countries are going to be better, maybe others need to be a little bit less well-off.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, but you can see why that would be an unappealing argument to an American.

YANINA BUDKIN: Yes, but the problem is, are we talking about being global, having one world for everybody, or are we talking for the U.S. defining how globalization works?

PAUL SOLMAN: For the last word, we turned to the professors. At the end of the day, what did free-trader Robert Lawrence hear? A common theme.

ROBERT LAWRENCE, Harvard University: It was the need to somehow manage the process in some way. Nobody believes that it should just be unleashed and left without a very strong role for government in some way.

PAUL SOLMAN: What did the more skeptical Danny Roderick hear?

DANNY RODERICK, Harvard University: Markets will not work on their own. You need all the institutions that regulate markets, that stabilize markets, that compensate to losers and provide the safety nets, without which markets can neither be legitimate or, for that matter, efficient, if you don`t have the appropriate regulatory frameworks.

PAUL SOLMAN: You`re from Turkey. What would the vote be in Turkey, pro-, anti-globalization?

DANNY RODERICK: Globalization`s a dirty word, without any doubt, so I think we would get 60 percent of the people say that it`s a bad thing.

PAUL SOLMAN: And you`re from South Africa originally.

ROBERT LAWRENCE: And I think probably 70 percent against.

PAUL SOLMAN: And what do you think in America, if you just asked that question?

DANNY RODERICK: We know the answer. We take those polls all the time, and it`s, again, between 55 percent and 60 percent.

PAUL SOLMAN: Against?

DANNY RODERICK: Against.

PAUL SOLMAN: Against globalization, the dirty word on so many people`s tongues these days.

JIM LEHRER: And you can find all of our stories about globalization on our Web site at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

David, the president`s global warming announcement yesterday, does it deserve praise or derision?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Praise. I think there`s been an evolution in the White House, not lavish, over-the-top praise, but I thought it was a step forward.

There`s been an evolution in the White House. And you`ve seen it over the past couple of years. You`d see one official, one government official, somebody in the Department of Energy. There`s been a lot of internal movements as new studies on global warming.

They`ve begun to take the issue more seriously, and so there`s been this evolution of taking the issue more seriously, being more proactive about it with CAFE standards. Have they gotten to the point where they are imposing pain in order to address the global warming problem? No.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see evolution, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: I do. And I found more significant and more revealing than the president`s own change of position, which was genuine...

JIM LEHRER: You thought it was a change of position?

MARK SHIELDS: Oh, I sure did, yes.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, I think it`s possible. I mean, not from his campaign of 2000, where, if anything, he was -- you know, then he reneged, once in office, much to the consternation of Christine Todd Whitman, his first EPA director, on the question of carbon.

But what I found fascinating -- and it`s sort of a Rorschach test of our own political attitude and psyche at this point -- was the reaction to it. Historically, when somebody changes a position -- for example, the civil rights movement, and they became pro-civil rights, there was a welcoming, open arms. "That`s terrific." It changed on the anti-Vietnam War. When somebody changed, they said, "Well, what took you so long?" And there was almost a dismissiveness and exclusionary.

And I just -- I`m surprised nobody in the environmental movement that I could find reached out and said, "Thank you. Good to have you aboard, Mr. President." I mean, Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, said, "We now have common ground."

And it strikes me, once you establish that there is a problem, and we agree there`s a problem, that something has to be done about it, all we`re arguing about is means. And I think that`s important.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with Mark on this?

MARK SHIELDS: I completely agree with that. It seems to me -- as Mark says, if somebody moves in your direction, pull him in. Instead, they were slapped around. They were slapped around by all the environmental groups, and they were slapped around by the Democrats. And I think that was done because we`re just in a much more partisan environment.

And then the second fact is, is that nobody`s willing to pay any economic cost for global warming. I mean, the best thing that we could have to head off global warming is higher gas prices so there will be more of an incentive to investigate new technologies. So we`ve got higher gas prices right now.

What do the Democrats do? They have plans to lower gas prices, because as soon as you get an economic bite, they walk away from global warming. They say, "We`re going to save you money on gas." Economics trumps environmentalism with Democrats and with Republicans, and that remains true, which is why it still pays to be pessimism about tackling this issue.

MARK SHIELDS: I would say this. I think the argument is more than a Democrat-versus-Republican point. I think what it is regulation versus non-regulation.

And I do think that there is a resistance. The president has a natural impulse against any regulation. And we`re going to do this in a voluntary way or whatever. I think he`s opening himself up now, that he really is inviting standards, you know, and probably tough standards, and gasoline mileage, CAFE standards.

The thing that bothers me is the skeptic sense that he`s doing this for political purposes. Now, just say he`s insincere, OK? Just say he`s doing it because the G-8 meeting is next week, and he watched to take some pressure off on the environmental thing.

Where`s the political -- there`s a great political downside that, if it`s exposed as a fraud, and they say, "Jeez, whatever you said about Bush, at least you believed him. Now you don`t believe him." So that`s why I think it is authentic.

DAVID BROOKS: There`s also one fact about the Bush administration which underlies a lot of things that have happened. He is, as one staffer told me, liberated by unpopularity, that he is so low, "What the heck? Do whatever." And so, in a weird way, he`s sort of taking the gloves off, "Ah, what the heck."

JIM LEHRER: And staying right on that subject, Mark...

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, sir.

JIM LEHRER: ... the immigration thing. I mean, he came out really strong knocking his own people, I mean, the conservative Republicans. And now he`s caught, you know, much heat because of what he said about them. I mean, it`s -- same thing?

MARK SHIELDS: It was not a politically shrewd move; it never is.

JIM LEHRER: You mean when the president jumped on the conservatives?

MARK SHIELDS: When you attack the motives of your most loyal constituents, I mean, you know, talking about pandering to fears and stuff like that.

JIM LEHRER: Which is what he said about the opponents, yes.

MARK SHIELDS: You say you can disagree with it, and I think you`re uninformed, or let me give you my position. But at the same time, Jim, I do think that this is something that George Bush is sincere on. I mean, I guess I`m on a sincerity kick for George Bush, but...

JIM LEHRER: That`s two in a row, by the way.

MARK SHIELDS: I know. This could really -- would you handle my e- mails for me, please? No, but, I mean, this is an issue that he`s been long and strong on. And it`s the difference between Texas and California; it`s the difference between George Bush and Pete Wilson.

Pete Wilson used the anti-immigration thing to get re-elected in California in `94. George Bush actually got a majority of Latino voters running for re-election in Texas. I mean, for a Republican, that`s a pretty significant accomplishment.

And he understands that the anti-immigration position that the Republicans took in 2006 saw their share of the vote go from 44 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2006. So there`s a practical aspect to his position, as well.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read what`s going on here?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there`s -- you can`t believe the rage among conservatives right now at President Bush. It`s just extraordinary.

JIM LEHRER: What are they accusing him of?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, what they`re saying -- and this is in Laura Ingraham, the radio talk show host, Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal -- what they`re saying is, "We`ve been battered. You`ve been battering us for six years with big spending, with Medicare, with incompetence, with this and that. We`ve been hanging with you, even though you`ve been battering us, and now we`re sick of it. This is the last straw. We`re walking."

And so you`re getting a lot of people saying, like Noonan and Laura Ingraham, saying, "That`s it. Mr. President, you`re on your own. You`ve got two more years. You`re on your own." Now, whether they stick to that, I don`t know, but that is now a common sentiment of people basically just cutting off the White House from the ranks.

JIM LEHRER: Is it a powerful enough movement to make a difference, when it comes to finally having to vote on this compromise and enacting it?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I continue to believe -- I think Mark said this a couple of weeks ago -- that a vocal minority beats a silent majority. And I think that`s the way this will work out. The anger on the right, tearing apart this bill, sometimes very intelligently -- it`s kind of a mess -- that will eventually triumph.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it`s going to be tougher, Jim, if they talked about getting 60 or 70 Republican votes in the House. I don`t see how you find them today. But...

JIM LEHRER: You mean a vote for the compromise?

MARK SHIELDS: A vote for the compromise, if it does survive the Senate. But I have to say, it gives me a great perverse delight to hear conservatives talking about, "We`re victims. We`re victims. We`ve been treated badly by our leaders."

I mean, I`m sorry, Peggy. I`m sorry Laura, you poor, conservative folks who`ve been so mistreated by George W. Bush. Those Western men, they`re just mean, that`s all.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, actually liberals have -- it`s all about status. People want respect. If you don`t respect them, they will bite you.

MARK SHIELDS: No, but that was always the charge against liberals. It was, "Oh, it`s the politics of victimhood, that`s what it is." Now they`re the victims.

JIM LEHRER: All right, all right, now, let`s move onto another part of this. How bad is this hurting John McCain? Because McCain is sponsoring the compromise; he`s catching it, too.

MARK SHIELDS: You`ve got to love McCain. I mean, one thing, talk about the fire into the frying pan, back and forth. He just won`t leave. He`s either on Iraq or he`s on immigration. I mean, I don`t know. And then he`ll probably say, "I`m for campaign finance reform again, too."

You talk about someone who`s testing his base or alienating their constituency, McCain just pushes it. He`s going to make a major speech in Miami on the subject, just in case anybody has missed his position. But, no, he`s -- and so is Lindsey Graham, his principal lieutenant and staunchest supporter in the Senate.

DAVID BROOKS: But on his side, the really anti-immigration people were never for McCain.

MARK SHIELDS: No.

DAVID BROOKS: And there is a majority of Republican voters out there who -- they`re angry about illegal immigration. But they want to know basically, are these people helping the country or are they detracting from the country? And if can have a system that will help them help the country, they`ll be for that system. I mean, there is a majority, very silent, for this legislation.

JIM LEHRER: Meanwhile, here comes possibly, probably, Fred Thompson into this race, this Republican presidential nomination race. Does that hurt McCain, as well? Or what`s your reading on that?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it primarily hurts Mitt Romney, because Fred Thompson will be the orthodox conservative candidate, the post Romney is going to fill against the mavericks of McCain and Giuliani.

The thing to understand about Thompson is, some people go into politics because they want to fight wars or they want a strong America. Some go in because they want to fight poverty. Thompson goes in because he`s very suspicious of centralized power in Washington.

So he is running as the federalist, as the guy who`s going to decentralize power away from Washington to the states. That`s a back-to- basics movement for American conservativism, and that`s the core of who he is.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have any reading on Thompson?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, I do. Substantively, he`s totally out of the sync. I mean, the conservative movement is in trouble for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that the problems besetting the country, climate change, global warming, globalization, national health insurance, all require a robust, effective, energetic, inventive federal government`s presence, not a reduced federal government`s presence. That`s one.

But what Fred Thompson brings to it, which is remarkable, he is the smiling conservative. He`s the non-menacing government. Fred Thompson is as friendly to me, because he`s confident and comfortable with himself, as he is to any conservative reporter. I mean, he`s just -- there`s a quality about him which will make him a very natural candidate and a very appealing candidate. And that should not be overlooked.

JIM LEHRER: You mentioned health care. This also got some big play this week, primarily on the Democratic side, always on the Democratic side, but most particularly because Barack Obama. Is that going to be a big issue for Democrats?

MARK SHIELDS: It is a big issue, Jim. The profound change in this country in 14 years since Hillary Clinton is so dramatic. We now have the Business Roundtable joining hands with the Service Employees International Union, the fastest-growing union in the country, Andy Stern, and the American Association of Retired Persons, basically calling for mandatory, a universal health care.

Once again, Washington is behind the states, just as in Iraq, behind the people. Massachusetts Mitt Romney has kind of walked away from it, but Arnold Schwarzenegger in California moving to universal care. I don`t think there`s any question that that`s the direction.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

DAVID BROOKS: Of course, it will be tough to pass, because if we learned one thing from immigration, from Social Security, it`s tough for Washington to pass complicated legislation. So the country is clearly moving, and the Obama plan is interesting. I know some people on the left think it`s too moderate. And I think, in a way, it tells us something about who Obama is. But 2009 is going to be health care year.

JIM LEHRER: And 2009 is going to be health care year. But is it going to -- it`s not going to be -- neither of you is suggesting that a federal program for health care is going to come out of this?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, oh, I definitely do.

JIM LEHRER: You think so?

MARK SHIELDS: I really -- I think there has to be a federal solution. And, Jim, I tell you where it`s going to come from. It`s going to come from American corporations, Paul Solman`s piece on globalization. They`ve got to figure out a way that that cost of health care is amortized over the rest of the population.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, the Supreme Court`s decision this week, David, on pay discrimination, big deal?

DAVID BROOKS: I think a moderately big deal. It showed the two sides of the court. The majority thought that, if you discriminate, you should have only 18 months. And the question is, when does the discrimination start? And they said, "We`ve got to apply a precedent. The law says 18 months. We`re for 18 months." The minority said, "That`s bad policy," but the majority said, "We`re not in the policy business."

MARK SHIELDS: Just a factual point, the law said 180 days.

DAVID BROOKS: I`m sorry.

MARK SHIELDS: And so what it basically says to employers, unscrupulous employers who want to discriminate against women, is, if you can keep everybody in the dark about everybody`s pay and promotion practices for the first 180 days there, they can never sue you, no matter how little you`re paying them for the same work they`re doing. To me it just showed, you know, what the limits are of conservative ideology.

DAVID BROOKS: No, the Supreme Court is not in the policy business. They might agree with you on the policy, but that`s the Supreme Court of the USA.

MARK SHIELDS: Four of the justices and the original trial court believe that was the law.

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, both of you have demonstrated clearly your sincerity here tonight. Thank you both very much.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major developments of this day.

U.S. employers added 157,000 workers in May, the most in two months.

And the U.S. military reported five more soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Washington Week" can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations. We`ll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.