The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Good evening, I'm Robert McNeal in New York. And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Thursday, an American and three Europeans analyzed the unexpected stumble toward a unified Europe. Jeffrey Kay reports on a riot smash-loss Angeles shopping center's effort to live again, Charlene Hunter-Gault interviews the duly elected president of Haiti, and we close with a report on the world's environmental problems, as seen from India. Learning for the McNeal-era news hour has been provided by PepsiCo. PepsiCo. Part of helping the world live and communicate better is keeping it well informed. That's why funding for the news hour is also provided by AT&T.

And by the corporation for public broadcasting, and viewers like you. President Bush held a news conference tonight. It was Mr. Bush's second evening news conference since he became president of 1989. Judy Wooder has the details. Judy? The president opened his session with reporters in the East Room of the White House with a pitch for the constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. But many of the questions that followed had to do with political opposition the president faces this year, especially from Ross Perot. Mr. Bush said he won't take Perot or Bill Clinton on until after the Republican Convention in August. If I get into characterizing one opponent or another, I diminish my effectiveness in doing that. We've got a good chance now, and some of it's brought about by the primaries, I think, to pass this balanced budget amendment, for example. I'm a little disappointed that our education reform bill is languishing up there. I'd like to see us get a good energy bill soon.

But if I start concentrating on the politics, I'm afraid I will waste an opportunity. I think we're in a real opportunity situation now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So far, not. We'll wait and see, Charles. Mr. President, you've often said that you've not done so terrific a job of getting your message across tonight to change the venue, but I wanted to ask you, if indeed what you've seen in the polls in the constant one-third or more of the electorate that's going other ways, it isn't a rejection of that message in and of itself. I don't think so, because you ask in these deadly polls that I read all the time about issue relating to issues, and it's vague out there. We've got a good program, and tonight maybe this is a more effective way to say we want a balanced budget amendment. We've got a good program on the Hill to achieve a balanced budget amendment, or after the balanced budget amendment is passed to achieve a balanced budget.

And so I think we just got to keep hammering away on the issues, because I believe the American people are with me. Some of your advisors are pretty alarmed at the fact that they're not alarmed. While the economic figures are improving, your own poll numbers are on the decline. They are not associating you, sir, with any improvement in the economy. But 70% of the people as I told you, Jim, according to one I thought it was one of your surveys, seem to think the economy is getting worse. I think it's getting better. It takes a while. There's a lag there. Unemployment's a lagging indicator, for example. So it takes a while to see the change. I haven't been in the playing field on the primaries. I've been trying to get something done for the country. But when we go to the country and say, do you want a strong crime bill, or do you want this watered down variety that's up in the Justice Department, controlled by the Democrats that have been there forever? Do you want which they want? I think the American people will support me. I'll say to them, do you want a balanced budget amendment that will make the executive

branch and the legislative branch do something about the deficits? Or do you want a lot of reasons from some entrenched politicians on Capitol Hill to tell you why it can't be done? And see, I think when that is in focus, I think that the American people will support me. I've tried to keep the faith with the people. And I think one heartening point is people see that President is a strong leader. They may not like the direction things are going in, but that is something that I find rather comforting. On another subject, the president denied that his administration broke any laws in sending aid to Saddam Hussein before his invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Bush said his policies were intended to moderate Iraq's behavior. And when they failed, the U.S. moved to stop Iraqi aggression. In other political news today, Ross Perot spoke to a rally of volunteers in Las Vegas. He told them his undeclared campaign had already been successful in getting other politicians to focus on issues like the budget deficit.

Bill Clinton told a convention of retirees in San Antonio. They should volunteer to help the nation's troubled young people. August. Robin? European Community Nations agreed today to go ahead with their plan for a political and economic union, despite Denmark's rejection of the idea. It came at a meeting of foreign ministers in Oslo, Norway. At that same meeting, the U.S. and its NATO allies agreed for the first time today to use troops of the alliance outside its territory. The ministers agreed that NATO troops could be used as peacekeepers in European conflicts. They gave no indication that any troops would go to the main hotspot today in Europe, the former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia-Hertzegovina. The U.S. reportedly failed to convince the alliance to back up UN sanctions against Serbia with a threat of military force. Reports from Bosnia today said served tanks and artillery stepped up attacks on a besieged district in the capital Sarajevo. Forty thousand civilians are said to have been trapped there for weeks, with food and

medicine running low. Serbed gunmen attacked a UN relief convoy on its way to the district yesterday, killing a driver. The district is populated by Muslims. Local journalists said the Serbed attacks appeared to be part of an effort to partition the capital along ethnic lines. The United States today offered conditions for signing the important bio-diversity treaty at the Brazil Earth Summit. Environmental Protection Administrator William Riley heads the U.S. delegation to the Rio meeting. He said the U.S. had proposed language changes to the treaty, which is aimed at protecting plants and animals from extinction. He did not say what the changes were, but he said he was not optimistic they would be accepted. The U.S. has been criticized for its opposition to that agreement. The Bush administration also unveiled a plan today to sharply reduce clear-cutting of timber and national forests. Clear-cutting is leveling all trees from an area. Ahead of the Forest Service and under the new policy, clear-cutting will be reduced 70 percent over the next three years.

But a spokesman for the Wilderness Society said the new policy had so many loopholes in it, it would result in no reduction at all. China's human rights record came under attack today, the third anniversary of the Atyanaman Square massacre. Amnesty International said thousands of political dissidents have been detained without charge since Tiananmen, the group said torture, summary executions, and unfair trials are also continuing. In Beijing, Chinese authorities arrested at least two people around Tiananmen Square, hundreds of police officers patrolled the area to prevent demonstrations on today's anniversary. A bill to overturn the fetal tissue research ban went to the White House today, the Senate passed it by a large enough margin to overturn a promised presidential veto. The House passed it last week, but not by a veto approved margin. The ban prohibits the use of federal funds for fetal tissue research because it might encourage abortions. And that's it for the new summary tonight. Now it's on to the new uncertainty over unifying Europe, emerging from the ashes in Los Angeles,

the duly elected president of Haiti, and an environmental report from India. A huge bump rose suddenly the other day along the road to a new unified Europe. It was caused by the people of Denmark, a majority of whom said no thanks, we like things the way they are. The day's vote sent stunned leaders and would-be leaders back to drawing boards all over Europe. Last year, after bitter debate in Maestrich Holland, the 12 members of the European community agreed to create a common currency to set up a central European bank to handle fiscal policy for all of Europe. They also agreed to establish common European foreign and defense policies and give additional power to the central European government and parliament. To be effective, the treaty had to be ratified by all 12 individual governments, which is why the decision by the Danish voters to reject the treaty has thrown Europe's plans

off course. How far, of course, is among the questions we ask now of three Europeans and an American. Jacqueline Rappan is president of the European Institute of Washington. Stephen Richter heads the Transatlantic Futures, a private consulting group. Michael Elliott is Washington Bureau Chief of the British Magazine, the economist. Michael A. Ho is director of economic studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. He's at work on a book on the U.S. European Economic Relationship. Michael Elliott, how far off course do you think this has thrown things? Quite a lot, actually, partly for its symbolic reason, because what the Danish folk did was to remind people that the ordinary people of Europe can't be taken for granted in this process. Frederick is a fundamental radical, almost revolutionary change in the nature of what the European nation states are. And it was put together in essence by brilliant men. And it was put together, in my view, with not sufficient attention being paid beforehand

to what ordinary people thought about it. Most people in Europe, my guess, is, will sign up for it. But this was an extraordinarily important reminder that blueprints, plans, dreams of a New Europe have got to carry people along with them. It was a wake-up call, if you like. The democracy is important. Now, at the SARS-Co meeting today, Mr. Crapan, they agreed to go ahead anyhow. What does a green to go ahead anyhow mean? What must they now do if they do want to proceed, taking Michael Elliott's point in mind that they have to bring the people along as well? Well, it means that if Denmark says no, not everybody says no. And also Denmark says no, only to the master's treaty. It does not say no to the European community. One has to make a difference between the European economic community and the single market, what you call the 1992 process. Denmark is still in this process.

But Denmark said no to the extension of this process to political cooperation, creating a different system within Europe and also to the monetary union. So what they will do now, I think, is try to do exactly the same but to a different legal means. And my assumption is that ultimately, it will not change very much because a small country cannot change the will of a large number of people. The European community is 340 million people and they still want to live together and create the community and also a union. So they could go ahead, as is, with just 11 countries and forget Denmark, at least on the extension. Is that theoretically they could do that? They have a legal problem. The legal problem being that the master's treaty has been conceived as an abandonment to the home treaty, which was the foundation of the European community. This is the 1990 original 1992. The original treaty. But it's just a legal question.

There are several possibilities, one possibility is for Denmark to drop out of the European community if they want it. Most people doubt that they want. They said no to master, but they didn't say no to the European community. Another possibility is to have the 11 members, the other 11 members, go ahead with their plan and have a separate treaty, separate from their home treaty. And another solution which I think is likely to happen is to find a way to ask a second time a question to the Danish people and give them a chance to realize exactly what it is that they want because it's very clear that in their world they didn't know exactly whether they were voting against the European community, against Germany, the German power, against the master's treaty. And they did not at all realize that other people were going to take them seriously. So now that they are being taken seriously, they may be given a chance to say no, oh yes, it's a second time. Mr. Richard, you agree with Michael Elliott, it's an analysis though that the real problem

here was that the leaders, the brilliant leaders who conceived this, forgot one thing and Denmark. Did they forget? Have they forgotten it in some of the other countries too? Do they have some politicking to do with their own people, but if this thing is going to proceed, no matter what happens in Denmark? Very much so. The key point is that we in Western Europe, because of the outspoken and so pictorial revolution in Eastern Europe, have forgotten that we have had the equivalent of a silent revolution. Our political leaders who have put this together have just done this with the ministerial bureaucracies that we've had over centuries in place. They've pulled it off at a historic moment, that's why I believe that the likely outcome for Denmark is going to be that the same question will be put again according to the Danish embassy, the same referendum can be asked again, let's say, next year, while the other 11 try to put this deal together so that Denmark can maybe get an opt-out clause like the Brits have to opt back in at the time when they have spoken again in the Danish

forms. The irony is Denmark right now is the stellar performer. If you look at the convergence criteria which underlie all this European monetary union, they have the lowest inflation rate, they're going to have one of the biggest growth rates and what's really happened is that the Prime Minister, Paul Schlutte and Mr. Elemanyenz, the foreign minister, have worked a lot to restructure the Danish economy with the changes in mind. Very much so. And Denmark is coming right out of the hole. It's at the really take-off point economically speaking, they're the biggest gainer at this point. They're the only country that can claim an export surplus because they have very strong industrial exports with Germany and with Japan. There's no other country like that in Europe, so I'm wondering why they are so concerned. I think it's very much a problem of political communications and I think what the leaders all over Europe who have shuttered to Brussels far too often are realizing now is that it is very complicated to tell people about the political communications relating to very

complex economic issues. And they have to show, along good old American lines, what's in it for us? How does our pocketbook become fatter for each and every nation? I'm not sure about that. The Danish electorate was extremely knowledgeable by the time of the referendum about the terms of mastery. They were showered with copies of the treaty. There was, as far as one can gather an extremely well-informed debate. And they still said no. I mean, I think it's very difficult to argue that they were somehow ignorant. And I think Jacqueline's point though points though well taken on the technical nature of this, they do cause me some troubling questions. This is the start of an extraordinarily important process. To say that a referendum is just a technical matter and we can now kind of move the goal pose, Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome, states absolutely clearly that a treaty amendment has to be ratified by all members of the community before it can take effect.

To say as soon as there's a problem, oh, that's just a technicality, we'll do something else. It seems to me a terrible way, a terrible way to start the process of European Union. And as a practical matter, the French president of the French president of meatarone says now because of this, they will now take it to the French people. There's also going to be a vote in Ireland. There could be others. Could they're not? Absolutely. And I think it's a very interesting process which is starting because for many years the European community had been a technical process, something that officials were dealing with in buses and nobody really understood what they were doing. Now everybody understand that it has implications for everybody in every country. And I think what happened in Denmark is very, very good because it teaches everybody what the impact is and they're all going to have to vote but not only that in France also. We will have, we did not anticipate to have our fandom. Now we are going to have one with all sorts of domestic implications, local politics implications.

But there will be a true debate. And one of the realities of the European community now is that it's very likely that despite the political difficulties, the French are going to vote, the vast majority is going to vote favourably to the European integration, the Germans as well. And therefore it's going to go ahead. This very helpful from an American perspective, in America this would be called an American politics, a wake-up call to the political leadership of Europe. What's your perspective on how serious a crisis this is or even is that even the right term to label this with? I wouldn't say it's too serious to a crisis, but it is, as you said earlier, a bump in the road. And I think there are probably more bumps in the road down there. If you look at public opinion polls, two-thirds of the German electorate doesn't want to give up the Deutsche Mark, which is implied in this European economic and monetary

union, which was agreed at Maastricht. And there may be other questions, but it is important, as Michael Elliott was saying earlier, you've got to engage the people in this process. You have to sell them on the benefits of what lies ahead, but that's a very difficult process when you consider giving up your own ability to print money and, in effect, giving up your fiscal policy and giving up an awful lot of things that are close to home. Those individual nation states are going to have to decide really what they want to buy into in this process. Let's move it to the O2 and the American. The average American care about this, is this something we have a stake in other than an intellectual exercise? Oh, yes, we clearly have a stake. We would all benefit if Europe were a more dynamic and richer place and growing more quickly. We'd be able to sell more to them. They'd be able to pay more for the common defense. We wouldn't want a weaker Europe.

We certainly wouldn't want a weaker Europe that blamed its problems on us. So I would like Europe to succeed in this effort. In fact, it's sooner the better, but I think that what happened this past week is going to delay the day of ultimate European unification. But what about those who say, Mr. Aho, that's from a selfish American point of view. A strong United Europe is not only, you say, it's a great customer, but it's also a very big competitor. Is it not at a time when the United States is already reeling from economic problems, real or imagined? It is a great competitor, but some of the biggest corporations in Europe are American corporations. Our corporations have done very well in Europe over time. And competition is what process to do better. So I'm not so concerned about a European challenge in that sense. What I am concerned about, though, is if the Europeans are so preoccupied and parochial with these domestic spats, they may not be very forthcoming with us at the negotiating table on trade or exchange rates or whatever.

Mr. Ritker, what would you advise the American perspective to be over this problem? I think what the current Danish mishap tells the American debate is to look again at Maastricht. When the debate rolled around the last time, really all of America, many of the commentators were betting on, this must be a failure. This summit cannot succeed. When the other outcome came out, that in fact, it was a success. And with speechless, when we was caught off guard, I think we are at danger now to think the same thing. We told you so. It's not going to happen. Who's we? Who? I can't think of a single American commentator who said that. The Wall Street Journal editorializes like that up to this day, but let me just point out that the key thing in Europe is that we are so much embedded in each other's economies. There is no way out. We have integrated exchange rates. If you think that through, if you think about the force that the private sector will exert, the big companies, the small companies, who want to have a level playing field amongst

each other, same tax rates in those countries, same exchange rates, similar interest rates. This is what is underpinning it. It's not some abstract European monetary union, some construct that some financed theoreticians have built up. The key thing is that we're well down that road. The European economy has integrated in a tremendous sense over the past three decades, and now to shy back from it, I don't think it will happen precisely for one reason. The Danes, if you look at it very clearly, shy away from it because they were afraid that EMU European Monetary Union means too much influence for Germany. I think every political and business leader in Europe sees it the different way. So does the entire German leadership, they will say this is to democratize European economics. If you don't want to live by the fiat interest rates being dictated by the German Bundesbank, then you want to have very much European monetary union. A lot of the opposition in Britain, too, there's also, is a fear of Germany, is it not?

Well, in Britain, we cleverly put the horse before the car, which is kind of usually the sensible way to do it. And we had our debate last year before Maestrecht, an intense and rather emotional debate so that now that Maestrecht was done, the treaty is sailing through the House of Commons with virtually no vote against it, usually a sensible way to do things to have a debate before rather than after. I don't actually think that the Danish vote is going to have much of a debate on Britain. I think most people in Britain are happy with the deal that came out on Maestrecht. I differ from Stefan to this extent, I think. I think it's a mistake to look at this purely in terms of economics. In terms of economics, there is no question. Stefan rightly says the European economy is becoming ever more closely integrated to the benefit of all, but it isn't just about economics. It's about identities, it's about habits, it's about languages, it's about the coin in your pocket, it's about what you feel comfortable with, comfort levels terribly important. A master is asking people to ask themselves quite fundamental questions about who they think

they are. British or am I European? It's too far-style. It's too far-style to say, glibly, oh you can be both. It needs to be explained exactly how you can be both, to what extent you have to give up some things to gain others. None of that process of explanation has yet gone nearly for it. Mr. A, I see you're not in an agreement with Michael Elliott. Yes, I think that's right. I think Germany, as I was saying a minute ago, they really have to sit down and figure out, do they want to go with a single central bank and a currency that they're not familiar with? Do the French want to have local elections being decided in part by European nationals? And then there are the questions that lie down the road about enlargement, the widening of the community, to let in other countries like Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, beyond that, the Eastern European countries.

Will all that be put on hold now? Will we have to wait for a little bit longer on that? Some, in particular in Britain, would like to go for enlargement before we do this strengthening of the community? Yes. I think one should always remember what is the basis for the European community. And the basis goes back to the war. The basis goes back to the memory of the war, mainly in France and in Germany. And one who does not remember that, does not understand anything in the basis for the European community. And talking about our interests, our command interests, I think that the US interests are exactly the same as the European and more precisely as those of the Germans and the French, because we are more partners than we are competitors in that. Europe is absorbing a third of the exports from the US. And we have a deficit, vis-a-vis the US, whereas when you have a surplus in Europe, you have a deficit in Japan.

So we have a completely different attitude. And I think there is no reason to stop this process. I hear you. And I thank all four of you very much. Jill ahead on the news hour, rebuilding in Los Angeles and the President of Haiti. We turn to Los Angeles and a story about rebuilding. In the month since the Los Angeles riots, there's been much talk about urban policy, jobs creation, and aid for the inner cities. But those who suffered losses during the unrest are hoping for more than rhetoric. Our report is from correspondent Jeffrey Kay of station KCET Los Angeles. First time I've seen is a shock, you know, everything gone, you know, everything gone. Shark and SaaS. For 20 years, key Lee and her husband Young sold wigs and hats in South Central Los Angeles.

The six of those years, until April 29, the Lee's store, Phonus merchandise, was here at the Crenshaw Town Center. We see him in ten o'clock news, on the TV screen showing this side, right, burning. Very little is going to be left of this place and it's going to be the community of any suffers in the end. The suffering is felt most acutely by small businesses, mom and pop operations, like the Lee's, for whom rebuilding will be an uphill battle. Today, few recognizable items remain. I see the cash register over there. The Lee's would like to reestablish their business, but they don't know when the insurance money will come or how much it'll be. Well, we don't know yet when we're going to get the, uh, what instance that, uh, well, as you see, it would probably to take at least a year to get him back in. In some ways, the Crenshaw Town Center was Main Street, USA.

Besides the Lee's store, it contained a laundromat, restaurants, a drug store, a supermarket, a dry cleaning establishment, 36 businesses in total. It was this center that President Bush chose to visit when he came to Los Angeles one week after the riot to see the damage close up. Bush offered his sympathies, but he also got an earful from, among others, dentist William Faulkner, whose office at the shopping center was looted during the rioting. My stress at education is one of the things that we need to have here. You can build buildings, but unless the people that are in those buildings, uh, having fortified with a good education, uh, and good training, it's not going to mean much. And I'm so happy that this office is still here, didn't get burned in a fire, braids it already. Faulkner's immediate concern is to get his business re-established. During the rioting, looters stole $200,000 worth of computers and dental equipment from his office.

He had no insurance. He couldn't afford it. His patient's support, Faulkner, is applying for a small business administration loan, but if he gets one, repaying it will be a major hardship. It's ironic that we'd have to go into a loan situation, uh, because that means that we'll have another monthly payment to make. And if we couldn't afford insurance, it couldn't make payment. Now we can have to support this loan payment, which is not a small amount. Faulkner has resumed his practice with a little equipment he has left. And last week, there were other signs of rebirth in this neighborhood. Across the street from the Crenshaw Town Center, peddlers Hawke T-shirts with the slogan, I Survive the LA Riots. Inside the shopping center, a demolition crew hauled away rubble at the National Discount Store. The rental business unloaded a temporary office so it could set up shop. VI-2 to home base over.

Inspectors checked for hazards, structures in danger of collapsing. Is there any restraint on the wall on the first thing level here? And they looked through the wreckage for potential toxins that would require special handling. Some businesses were quickly up and running. The top-line beauty salon moved three blocks down the road. Boys supermarket, one of a chain, called out the mayor for a grand reopening. This is a great celebration. The reopening of this to our craft. Big boys, most of the other businesses that are also parts of chains, say they want to reopen either here or in the neighborhood. They include thrifty drugs, national store, radio shack and track auto parts. But so far, there is no grand opening planned for small business owners like the Leeds. They worked seven days a week at their store and were totally dependent on its income. Now with little savings, the leaves must rely on food handouts from a local church.

Youngly like many other Korean American merchants, blames the government for his misfortune. He says it is now the government's responsibility to bail him out. I think they are best way to help to those of a victimized Korean merchants or whoever. I think a big guy by grants. Yeah, grants or whatever grants. Yes. You'd like to see the government just write you out a chair and that money would be yours and you wouldn't have to pay it back. Right. Mm-hmm. Wouldn't have to pay that. Would not have to pay it back. No. Not at all. Why do you think the government should do that? Government, government is responsible for this. Yes. But because you think the government should have stopped this from happening. That's right.

Yes. Uh-huh. Are preventing these rights? Yes. The government should have prevented the rights. Right. Uh-huh. And because they didn't, they didn't, therefore you think the government should pay. Right. Mm-hmm. I think the leaves, Lee Edwards, also feels he is entitled to government assistance. But instead of a grant, he went to a disaster relief center, hoping for a loan from the U.S. Small Business Administration. He lost his life savings and had little insurance. Do you want to have a seat? Yeah. Take a look at that. Edwards is co-owner of a dress shop at the Crenshaw Town Center that was looted during the rioting. Right now, a lot of things may or may not happen, but none of them under my control You know, we just kind of everybody's mercy. It's always worth never asked for favors, I don't like this. Because it adjoins in office that burned, Edwards' store may have to be demolished.

Well, the story, in some respects, was my life, you know, it almost has to be, it almost has to become an obsession. And, you know, six years gone. As you know, George Bush came through here not long ago. Mm-hmm. It's very hopeful, signed. It's better than, if he hadn't have come, you know, but I have a saying, I always expect the words and you never be disappointed. You know, they say they're gonna, all this money's available, I don't have any of it, you know, and so it's gonna take, like I said, he's promised a lot, but everybody's promised a lot, you know, and talk about, I'm talking about, I know, have a better idea what I'm gonna do in four to five months, that's a long time. One of the people Bush met with during his visit to the shopping center was John Mack, president of the LA Urban League. Mack reiterated to ask what he told the president, jobs should be created, and there should be an effort to stimulate local investment.

I think when we talk about rebuilding Los Angeles, that's a part of my definition. It must include not just simply the Brits and Martyrs, it's not just simply having the same old business as usual kind of arrangement, but this time around to make sure that there's full and significant participation at every level involving people of this community. The owner of Crenshaw Town Center, What Industries, is planning on using minority-owned companies for demolition and reconstruction. According to company official Robert Shields, his firm will also provide special assistance to smaller shopkeepers like young Lee and Lee Edwards. What incentive would you provide? Both financial lease abatements and reductions, working with them on their tenant improvements, helping them with the city programs in terms of gaining funds for their rebuilding. We have other projects that we have offered to put them in on a temporary basis, so that when this is available, they can come back into the shopping center.

Coming back to the shopping center might also involve confronting some of the simmering resentments among tenants, issues which have been seldom discussed openly. Although most of the customers of the Crenshaw Town Center are black, few of the small shop owners are. The tenants are mostly Korean Americans. Dr. Faulkner is one of the few exceptions, and he doesn't like the way some of his neighbors do business. You have a lot of proprietors who are in this area, who do not employ people from the community. People in the community spend money, and that money is taken out of the community, but those proprietors are not living in the community. The Asians basically do not come into black proprietors' ships and patronize them. But we are always going into this, though, as patronizing them. This gets tired after a while. What do you say about people who say that if you are doing business here, you should try to spend money here?

See, there is no regulation. There is no any conditions. We have to spend money in neighborhood. Is that right? That's no conditions. Right. No requirement. Right. Right. But we used to sometimes, most, at least once a week, we borrowed groceries in the boys' market. Okay, yes. Even we're wearing these clothes, maybe once in a five years like, not very often at all. You're saying you're not making a lot of money? Right. Right. Yeah. See, we are making money means not to luxury as money. While there is much friction between Korean Americans and blacks, the LA riots have led to increased dialogue between the two communities. Both groups feel they are victims and are insisting on greater involvement in the effort

to rebuild Los Angeles. First and I, Jean Bertrand, I received the man duly elected and then ousted as president of Haiti eight months ago. Charlene Hunter-Gault spoke with him at the Haitian Embassy in Washington earlier today. She asked about the sanctions the United States imposed on Haiti and to his appointment of a new prime minister by Haiti's military government. According to our Constitution, the president of the Republic is the one who chose a prime minister in consultation with president of the Congress. So you reject his elevation to prime minister? Of course. It's not legal. Even though the plan that was worked out would leave the post of president available to you and even though Mr. Bazzain is seen as someone who is not political and who might

to be able to bring the opposing forces together to allow you to come back, this is still a formulation you reject. It's legal. When I met the Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, a couple of time ago, and yesterday when I was reading the possibilities of the Secretary of OS, General Secretary Mr. Bazzain as well as all together, we are on the same way, the legal way according to our Constitution and according to what we saw here in Washington. Is there anything that a bizarre lead government could accomplish in your view? We should do better talking about the process, not about something aside. Let's move to democracy for a legal way to do that. But you don't believe judging from the statements that you've made that the oil that the

embargo is working and you want more, what is it that you want to happen that isn't happening now? Let's see those ships bring in oil, stay far from Haiti. Once we see that, we will have another kind of reality because those who led the group after killing so many people, you know only for the last month, they are talking about 300 people killed, it's too many, after killing 1000 and 1000, let's remember how many political refugees left the country over 30,000, so many, and the only one way we can have democracy back in Haiti to stop our political refugees is to have democracy back in Haiti. Once we make sure those ships bringing oil will stay far from Haiti, that will be the

way to get democracy in Haiti. How do you think the ships are getting through? All kinds of reports that the embargo isn't working, that countries all over the world are delivering goods, needed necessary goods to Haiti, including goods coming from the United States. Why is this happening? Is there a lack of will to enforce this embargo or what? I think if we do what we have to do passing from beautiful statements to action, the ships will not reach Haiti. But they're reaching? Let's remember people, they are smaller than those ships. But the ships are reaching Haiti and yet you have the United States, the organization of American states, why is it that these ships are able to get through with all of these countries committed to the embargo?

Is it a lack of attention? The reason is very clear, we just have to pass from statements to action. But why isn't that happening? What's your view as to why that's not happening? You should ask those who are involved in doing that. Do you believe that the United States is still committed as it was when we spoke eight months ago, approximately, to your return? I believe that and I'm sure that they can do their best to help us having democracy back in Haiti the way they said and they still continued to be close to us. By the way, we all together want democracy, by the way, we are moving to democracy passing from statements to action, definitely. Haitian Americans and economists in Haiti have argued that the present embargo is hurting your supporters, the poor people, particularly of Haiti, much more than the leaders of

the coup. What's your reaction to that and what do you think is going to happen to them if this embargo titans? Once they don't have any more oil, they can realize the embargo start to work and only that we may be, they will not continue becoming richer. Because of the oil, they became richer and the poor who lost their job, they are still waiting for democracy doing what they can, through our peaceful resistance, nonviolent resistance after eight months. We are proud to see how strong we are in front of those who still have the weapons in the hands. And that's why I think we have to be careful. When we remember what happened in Los Angeles, that can happen in Haiti and we don't want that to happen in Haiti.

So we have to move quickly to do our work and to make sure the ships bringing oil will not reach Haiti when we tit Jim Bago and that way the solution will come. But what about the thousands of people who are leaving Haiti every day in these rickety boats, risking their lives, now against the Bush administration policy? And do you think that tightening the embargo, what impact do you think tightening the embargo is going to have on this exodus? Why said to us, and the gang of folks who led the group are still strong, it's because they have money, money from geostrificing, it's because they don't see those ships bringing oil far from Haiti, so they think maybe they are supporters and they continue receiving weapons to kill people, they already kill thousands and thousands of people after eight

months, Haitian can say, let's move quicker to have democracy back, because when we're in Haiti from February 9th to September 9th, we saw Haitian staying in the country in spite of misery, because they voted for democracy, dignity, respect and we had that. Once the group happened on September 13th, 1991, they left the country because of those folks killing too many people, we still have political repression only for the last month. They are talking about 300 people killed, can you imagine that? We have priests in prison, sisters in prison, and they even went to the bishop's house to intimidate people, to arrest priests, so it's a kind of situation where we cannot accept those dogs using the weapons, killing too many people and continue to kill people.

Mr. President, you have supported President Bush's decision to turn the Haitian vote to people who say that back, you don't. That's what I read in the media, that's what I read that. I read two things, and it was a bit confusing. First I read that you supported it, then I read that you didn't support it. What is your position on it? President Bush wants to stop refugees, I want that. He wants democracy for our country, I want that, so we have the same goal. Now I say the only way to reach that goal, according from our experience, is to have democracy back in Haiti, and we can have that democracy today. I'm not talking about tomorrow, I'm talking about today. I understand that, Mr. President, but with all due respect, what I'm not clear on is where you stand on what should happen to the people who are fleeing because there is no democracy. Should they be allowed into this country?

Okay, we want you to go your way, and I want you to go my way, and my way is to have democracy back today. I'm not talking about tomorrow morning, if one call you, we can do that today. Once we have democracy back in Haiti today, we have the solution, not part of the solution, and I can assure you, we are ready to welcome all our friend, fellow countrymen in Haiti, but with democracy, and we can do that today, if we want to do that. Well, Mr. President, thank you for joining us. Thanks to you. Finally tonight, we look at what is known as the North-South issue, the great environmental divide between rich and poor that is the main conflict at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The developing world currently receives about $55 billion in aid every year. To meet the Earth Summit's environmental goals, the poor Southern nations would need another

$70 billion from the industrialized North. Without that money, many in the South argue they can't afford to protect the environment and improve their standard of living. Correspondent George Alagia of the BBC has this report from India. There's something peculiarly Indian about a fridge being delivered by Trishaw, the everyday juxtaposition of old and new technologies, rich world aspirations amidst poor world standards. The world's second most populous nation sits on the very brink of consumerism. This, after all, is a country that can produce everything from satellites to scooters. And before long, there may be many like the Goyal family who will be able to unpack their share of the good life. It's a big day they've never had a fridge before, Mrs. Kaashalya Goyal is a widow, and it's taken nearly four years to save up for the fridge. The family performs the press-out Thanksgiving ceremony, sharing sweets, a recognition

of the huge investment they've made. Their model costs about a quarter of the average salary, even so nearly one and a half million was sold last year, and the market is expanding. Every day more and more people are lured into the cities, drawn by the promise of a regular paycheck, the passport to consumerism. And if they behave anything like their counterparts in rich countries, each one is a potential polluter. Already, there are signs that India's development mirrors that in the north. Industries straining to satisfy the urban population and often helped along with foreign funds is throwing up its share of pollution. The makely world of Bombay's film industry is as fast and fancy as ever, but the reality on the streets is quite different. Poverty is the priority here, and India needs help in dealing with it.

A system of environmental penalties and rewards would be one way. The fact is, despite its massive population, this is still an ecologically frugal society. We cycling is a way of life, nothing is wasted, not even the summer bloom of the symbol tree. The family collects the cotton-like fibers to sell to a pillow maker. There will be a long time before they threaten the global environment. The 900 million southerners likely to be born during this decade will only contribute a tiny proportion of future pollution. Activists argue the South should be rewarded for staying within environmental limits. I think the southern leadership should get together very firmly and very boldly and say, we want a good management system for this earth. We want our fair share. As long as you're prepared to give us our fair share, we learn to live within it. We don't want anything more than that. That fair share alone will mean that the North will have to pay a lot, but that will be

automatic transfers of money. There's no begging bowls involved. And if then, Mr. Bush or Mr. Kohler, Mr. Major, turns around and says, but we're not prepared to do that, then you slap them in the face and say, then you are not interested in saving the world's environment. Don't tell us. Ever since the late 70s, developing countries have been clocking up a list of grievances against rich nations, the jobs of the 6,000 workers at this fridge factory lie at the heart of one such argument. Like Mrs. Guil's model, these fridges use a cooling agent, CFC, which scientists say is responsible for depleting the ozone layer. Environmentalists in the north have campaigned against the use of CFCs, but switching to safer technologies being developed to broad would cost us factory nearly $50 million. The product itself would be more expensive, and jobs in the industry would be at risk. Our production capacities are built up. We don't have to build new capacities, and we are asked to scrap all that for the ozone emissions in the developed world, will somebody must pay for that technology?

We must pay for that, but it's a request to us. The environmental consequences of industrial development reach far into the country, even to remote off-road areas in the western Gats mountains. In the middle of a government-backed eucalyptus plantation lies Hunasi-Kumri, home to the galley tribe, what Indians call the original people, they've survived for centuries in the tropical forests of southern India. It must once have been a thriving community. Today there are barely a couple of hundred folk left. Demoralised seemingly lost on their own land, the teak trees that gave them shelter, the forest that was a playground for their children has been chopped down, first by the British when the oak supplies back home ran out, then by the Indian government to feed the voracious appetite of paper mills and building merchants in the cities.

The government has replanted the land with eucalyptus, fast growing, so it can be cropped even more quickly, but the locals find their animals won't eat the eucalyptus leaves, and this variety doesn't hold ground water as well as the old forest did. The government's reef forestation programme has a long way to go, the journey through the forest tells its own story, only about 10% of the country is densely wooded. Now you see the trees, now you don't, but India and other timber exporting countries won't accept limits to their logging at Rio without compensation.

Forest are not global, forest, I mean we don't accept that position at all, forest in India and in forest, there's nothing global about it, and that has been our position, that we are not willing to accept any kind of forest convention, which dictates, you know, which to run cars in Los Angeles, you're going to tell us, we are going to be told how to manage our forest, certainly not. According to some estimates, about three quarters of the trees felled each year in India are used as fuel wood, this spells deforestation, but for the woman carrying the load it merely signifies poverty. She sells the wood in the cities for a few rupees, and cooks with it for there's no other source of power. As forests become denuded, women look further afield, only development will end the cycle. At Rio, developing countries will argue that unless they're given better access to northern markets and believe that some of their huge debts, they'll never earn enough to deal with

the prime cause of ecological degradation, poverty. Again, the main stories of this Thursday, NATO countries agreed for the first time to use their troops outside alliance territory. They can now be deployed as peacekeepers in European conflicts, but not apparently the present one in Bosnia. At the Earth Summit in Rio, the U.S. said it would sign a treaty protecting plants and animals, but only if some language changes were made. Good night, Jim. Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow now with Gurgen and Shields, among other things. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Part of helping the world live and communicate better is keeping it well informed. That's why funding for the McNeil-Lare NewsHour is provided by AT&T and by PepsiCo, PepsiCo, and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and viewers like you.

Video cassettes of the McNeil-Lare NewsHour are available from PBS Video, call 1-800-328-PBS-1. This is PBS.