The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a Tom Bearden summary of the day's events in the war over Kosovo; a NewsMaker interview with Premier Zhu of China about Kosovo and other matters; political analysis by Paul Gigot and Tom Oliphant, substituting for Mark Shields; and then, after the other news of this Friday, a Paul Solman report on the power of the music of Johannes Sebastian Bach.

FOCUS - CAMPAIGN FOR KOSOVO

JIM LEHRER: The death and damage toll mounted today in the battle for Kosovo. NATO showed evidence it was destroying strategic targets, while admitting there had also been civilian damage. On the diplomatic front, Russia voiced, then retracted, threats of military action. And the effort to free three captured US soldiers failed. Tom Bearden again narrates our summary report on the day's events.

TOM BEARDEN: Yugoslav State Television said more than 120 civilians were injured when NATO aircraft attacked an industrial complex about 50 miles south of Belgrade last night. No deaths were reported, but rescue workers spent much of the night hunting for bodies in the ruins of Yugoslavia's only car manufacturing plant. Yesterday, the Yugoslav government said NATO had virtually destroyed the center of the city of Pristina, the capital of the Kosovo province. NATO said they had not massively targeted Central Pristina, and accused the Serbs of causing the damage themselves. But today, Air Commodore David Wilby conceded that one attack last Tuesday night on the main telephone exchange in Pristina had caused collateral damage.

AIR COMMODORE DAVID WILBY: This was a key target that was being used to provide communications between the fielded Serbian forces within Kosovo and Belgrade. Although three of our bombs hit the target, despite our very best efforts, it appears that on this attack, one bomb may have caused some collateral damage. This image shows the telephone exchange before the attack, and this image shows the post-attack damage. You will see in the rectangle to the north of the target an area which we have marked which is possible collateral damage, some 200 to 300 meters from the target. Obviously, we regret any unintended damage or loss of civilian life. I would like to stress that this was considered a critical target, and collateral damage risks were taken into close consideration during our attack planning. It is also worth bearing in mind that most of the Kosovar Albanians, if not all, had already been driven out of the city by Serb action. You may also recall that recent media coverage of the city's damage described Pristina as being practically deserted.

TOM BEARDEN: The acting president of Cyprus toured some of the damaged areas in Belgrade today and had a 90-minute meeting with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Spyros Kyprianou had sought the release of three captured American servicemen, but this afternoon told reporters he had failed. The Pentagon called the whole mattera propaganda ploy and a cruel disappointment to the soldiers' families. Earlier today, there was a flap over what Russian President Boris Yeltsin said, or didn't say, about retargeting Russian nuclear missiles at NATO countries because of their air campaign against Yugoslavia. The speaker of the Russian parliament told western reporters that Yeltsin had given the order to retarget the missiles, a statement the Russian foreign minister later denied.

IGOR IVANOV, Russian Foreign Minister: [speaking through interpreter] I can give you a straight answer: No orders regarding rockets, as far as the foreign ministry is aware, have been issued.

TOM BEARDEN: US State Department Spokesman James Rubin:

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: The Russians have assured us that no such decision has been made, that this -- we even understand that the chairman, who allegedly made the statement, says he didn't make such a statement. So we have been assured at a variety of levels that Russia -- and this is the main point -- will not get involved militarily in Yugoslavia, and that President Yeltsin has given no instructions to the Russian military regarding retargeting of Russia's strategic nuclear force.

TOM BEARDEN: President Yeltsin later reiterated the Russian intention not to get involved, but also warned NATO not to drag Russia into Kosovo, because it could spark a European, or even a world, war.

PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN, Russia: [speaking through interpreter] I repeat once more, Russia is not going to get involved in the conflict unless the Americans push us to that. NATO wants to launch ground operations. It wants to simply seize Yugoslavia and make it their protectorate. We can by no means give Yugoslavia away.

TOM BEARDEN: Sharp fighting broke out on the southern border of Kosovo today between the Yugoslav army and KLA rebel forces. Four rebels were reported killed by artillery fire. The fighting took place not far from the refugee camps in Albania. Today the United Nations High Commission for Refugees said it had located some 10,000 refugees that had been missing since Wednesday. They were among the mass of people who were moved out of the infamous camp at Blace, Macedonia, earlier this week. Most were bused to camps in Albania. But NATO Spokesman Jamie Shea said the whereabouts of the refugees who were moved back into Kosovo after the Yugoslav Army closed the border remain uncertain.

JAMIE SHEA: One of the things that we're trying to track with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is the fate of car people, if I can put it that way -- of people who were in a line of cars stretching about 20 kilometers up to the Albanian border, whose cars have now been abandoned, but we do not know where the people are. Perhaps they have crossed over into Albania on foot, or by various means. Perhaps they've been turned back inside Kosovo. But this is something we need to, or we are, watching carefully.

TOM BEARDEN: In Washington this afternoon, Pentagon Spokesman Kenneth Bacon said there is increasing evidence of brutality inside Kosovo.

KENNETH BACON, Pentagon Spokesman: We're getting some very disturbing reports out of Kosovo recently that young Kosovar women are being herded into a Serb Army training camp near the town of Dakovica, which is in southwest Kosovo, where they are being raped by troops, and we have reports that as many as 20 may have been killed in the course of this. This is a very eerie and disturbing echo of documented instances of rape and killing of women in Bosnia during the Bosnia war, and it is obviously outrageous that this is occurring. We are getting these reports, as I say, and we will be attempting to try to confirm these reports over the next few days, as we interview refugees and look for other ways to obtain information.

TOM BEARDEN: Today, Macedonian authorities began burning the refuse at the now-abandoned Blace Camp for health reasons. The UN now estimates that more than half a million people have left Kosovo since fighting began there in March of last year. Meanwhile, NATO is beefing up its combat forces. The Albanian government reported that the first of 24 American Apache attack helicopters is expected to begin arriving in that country tonight, much sooner than had been anticipated. The low-flying helicopters are designed to kill tanks. The helicopter battalion will be joined by a rocket-launching unit and some 2,000 American soldiers. The Pentagon announced that six additional F-15 fighters would join Operation Allied Force, and France sent four more Mirage jets to NATO's air base in Aviano, Italy. In Washington, President Clinton again called on President Milosevic to accede to NATO's demands.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: As our strikes have intensified, Mr. Milosevic has tried to rearrange the facts on the ground by declaring a cease-fire while closing his borders to fleeing refugees. But the fundamental reality is unchanged: Attacks on innocent people continue. Refugees who were pushed from their homes by force now see their escape routes blocked by force. Mr. Milosevic still thinks he can manipulate the situation by cynically using innocent people. He hopes that we will accept as permanent the results of his ethnic cleansing. We will not, not when a quarter of Kosovo's people are living in refugee camps beyond Kosovo's borders; not when hundreds of thousands more are trapped inside, afraid to go home but unable to leave. If we settle for half measures from Mr. Milosevic, we will get nothing more. And what we have from Mr. Milosevic today is not even partial compliance, but the illusion of partial compliance. We and our allies have properly rejected it.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Now, our interview with the Premier of China, Zhu Rongji. I spoke with him through an interpreter earlier this evening at Blair House in Washington. Premier Zhu, welcome.

ZHU RONGJI, Premier, People's Republic of China: [speaking through interpreter] Thank you. It's a pleasure to meet you. And in 1990, when I was visiting the United States as the Mayor of Shanghai, I had the honor of being interviewed by Mr. MacNeil for this program. So now, nine years later, it's a pleasure for me to be back again, once again to be interviewed by you on your program. I think this is a very meaningful thing, and I know that your NewsHour has a very high viewership, and I hope, through your program, to be able to convey my regards to the people of the United States. And in the few days since I've been in your country, I have seen everywhere that the American people have given me their understanding and their support, especially my new and old friends here, who have shown a great deal of support to me. And so through this, I feel that I can see a bright future for US-China relations, and it's for that reason that I accept this opportunity, with pleasure, to be on your program.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. China has been very critical of the NATO bombing over Kosovo. Why do you object?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] On this subject, our president, Mr. Jiang Zemin, has repeatedly stated the Chinese position; namely, that we object to taking military action in the Former Yugoslavia because this is an interference in their internal affairs. We strongly feel that the only correct way is to go back to a political negotiation, because a political discussion will be the only method which will bring about a resolution to this problem. And we're not eager to see more people dying or suffering very grievous losses, regardless of which side these people may be on.

JIM LEHRER: Does China support the action of President Milosevic and the Yugoslavia government?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Our statement does not touch on that issue at all. We are only commenting on the action.

JIM LEHRER: The "Wall Street Journal" in an editorial the other day said that the Communist Government of China has more in common with the dictatorship of Milosevic than it does with the democracy of the United States and the other NATO countries, is that true?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] First of all, it would be wrong, or at least inaccurate, to refer to the Government of China as the communist government, because we are not looking at this issue from an ideological viewpoint. We are looking at this from the basis of what is right and what are international standards.

JIM LEHRER: The issue for NATO, as you know, Mr. Premier, is ethnic cleansing and murder of innocent civilians. That's why they have, in fact -- that's the grounds on which the bombing began. Do you believe those reports that are coming from Kosovo?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] I haven't read those reports, but our -- the basis for our stand is that, considering our own experience, we know that when there are ethnic conflicts between people, these can often be very cruel and very savage. And based on our experience in handling these relations between different ethnic groups, we feel that the best approach is to have a sense of a broader unity, where different groups can deal with each other on a basis of friendship and equality, and that way both sides will be able to enter into friendly negotiations to resolve these issues. For either side to use armed action will not be able to solve the problem.

JIM LEHRER: In this case specifically then, you do not believe that the use of military means by NATO and the United States was justified at all?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, I don't know what your basis is, but our feeling is that to interfere in the internal affairs of another country -- and ethnic conflicts belong in the category of internal affairs -- to use military action in that circumstance is not correct.

JIM LEHRER: So it's none of the world's business when something like this happens?

ZHU RONGJI: Well, I don't know exactly what happened there.

JIM LEHRER: When there are allegations and proof -- offered proof, at least -- that innocent civilians have been forced from their homes, murdered, that even if it's an ethnic conflict involved within a country, the rest of the world, through any means -- United Nations, NATO, or whatever -- should not interfere militarily under any circumstances, ever?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] You know, I've seen two types of reports. One type of report says that there's armed conflict between both sides of this ethnic conflict. The other says that it's the Yugoslav military forces which are taking action against the Albanian minority. But I am in no position to judge which types of these reports is the more credible. Secretary Albright said that she would give me some materials about this, but I haven't received them yet, and so I have no basis to make a judgment.

JIM LEHRER: But the American people are now trying to come to grips with all of this, as well as the rest of the world, about what is the proper role of countries like the United States in matters like this. What advice would you have to the American people and to the leaders of the American government about how force should be used in this new world?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, based on historical experience, I would still argue that military force does not lead to a resolution of these problems, particularly in the Balkans, which has always been known as the tinderbox of Europe. And we feel that only through political negotiations will an acceptable resolution be achieved, and we feel that this is the best thing for the people of Yugoslavia, for the people of the United States, and for the people of the whole world. And we would be against either ethnic cleansing or ethnic conflict, armed conflict, between two ethnic groups. We feel that either of those would be very unfortunate things. Only negotiations will provide a way out. And if you look at the experience of this past century, no war there has led to a good outcome.

JIM LEHRER: So it would be a mistake, then, to read China's position as being in support of Milosevic in Yugoslavia against NATO, is that correct?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] We are only just discussing the issue as it is.

JIM LEHRER: You said yesterday that the failure of the United States and China to reach an agreement on trade was the result of a kind of anti-China political atmosphere in this country. What, in your opinion, has caused this atmosphere to come about?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] You should know more clearly than I. [Laughter] I think you are in a better position than I am to see what's causing the anti-China sentiment in the US because actually, the discussions for China's entry into the WTO and our bilateral trade negotiations have been proceeding along to the point where we are very, very close to reaching an agreement, on the verge of signing an agreement, but because of the current political atmosphere, my understanding is that President Clinton feels that this would not be an opportune time to finalize such an agreement. But we are still trying our best, and we hope that, at some point, we will be able to at least come to some form of agreement.

JIM LEHRER: Some of the political atmosphere issues -- for instance, human rights -- are you aware that among American political leaders and others, that the criticism of Chinese human rights policies covers the entire political waterfront here? Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals -- they all speak in one voice on this issue. Were you aware of that? Do you understand that to be the case?

ZHU RONGJI: I'm fully aware of that, but I think that I should acknowledge that China still has shortcomings in its handling of human rights, but at the same time, I think that you should also be acknowledging that we have made improvements in human rights; that there have been very significant improvements in human rights, and that the human rights enjoyed by the people of China right now are unprecedented. I think the problem is that you fail to see the fact that human rights in China are improving from day to day, and that oftentimes you are misled because there may be some people who don't have a very good understanding of China, who paint a picture where the situation seems to be getting worse from day to day.

JIM LEHRER: But there are, of course, recent specific incidents where Chinese citizens have been jailed for attempting to organize political parties, for using the Internet to express opposition to the government or trying to practice their religions, that sort of thing. And those incidents have been reported in very specific terms here in the United States. And you're aware of that, are you not, sir?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Of course I'm aware of those. But I think that they've been greatly exaggerated. Yesterday I met with four American religious leaders, and we talked about the issue of freedom of religion, and they pointed out to me that the Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations had developed in China over the course of one or two centuries. And yet at the beginning of the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, there were only about 800,000 members of these churches, whereas now the number of believers has gone up to 10 million. And what's more, the number of bibles printed in China each year now has reached 20 million, so how could this be possible if there were no freedom of religion?

JIM LEHRER: Does it annoy you to be asked questions about this and to be criticized by Americans?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, my job is to come here to the United States and explain China to the people of the United States in order to let them get whatever they have against China off their chest, and so I don't feel annoyed by any kind of questions that people might put to me. What really worries me is that because time is so short that it's not possible for me to put into words the true and total picture. And so I often fear that I might be misleading the American people, but at the same time, I do believe that they have shown great understanding.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of understanding, do you understand why these kinds of issues are so important to so many Americans?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] I think that kind of concern is very good. I said yesterday that the American people are a people who passionately love freedom and that they are a people who are open and forward-looking and full of vitality, and I think it's a very good thing for people like that to be concerned about China. The unfortunate thing is that very few people are able to actually hear our voices. And I'm grateful to you for giving me an opportunity to speak directly to the American people. But I don't know if I'm doing a good job or not.

JIM LEHRER: We'll leave that to the audience, obviously. On another issue related to the political atmosphere now between the United States and China, the issues of allegations having to do with nuclear technology, espionage, illegal contributions to Democratic political campaigns, et cetera, you told President Clinton yesterday that China would cooperate in these investigations. Does that mean that you will allow US investigators to interview members of the Chinese government?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, I need to ask this question, then. There are many issues in the United States right now, which relate to China. Would the United States also be willing to let Chinese investigators come and question people in the United States?

JIM LEHRER: Someone else obviously would have to answer that question.

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] If they said yes to us, I would say yes to them; if they said no to us, I would say no to them.

JIM LEHRER: So you're open to a real investigation of people who work for you, in fact, because you said yesterday you didn't know anything about it, but that you would help the US determine whether or not there were people in the Chinese government who actually did these things?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Of course, because our goal is to figure out once and for all exactly what happened. But in order to decide how we're going to check this out, we need to engage in political discussions on a basis of equality to decide how we would go about doing this.

JIM LEHRER: Are these issues serious to you? Are they as serious to you as they are to many Americans, particularly in the political world here?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] If you were to ask my honest opinion, I would say that this is no big deal.

JIM LEHRER: Do you understand why it's a big deal here?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, as I was saying, Americans are upset with China on many things. But, you know, when people are upset, oftentimes they don't think in a very careful way about many issues.

JIM LEHRER: You said America -- some Americans are upset with China. Are the Chinese people upset with the Americans? Have you got some bones to pick with us that you would like to talk about?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Maybe we have even more things to be upset with the US About. You know, particularly because of the issue of Kosovo, many Chinese were against my coming to the United States.

JIM LEHRER: They thought it would be seen as what, as an endorsement of the US policy if you came?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Yes.

JIM LEHRER: And what did you say? Why did you decide to come anyhow?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] I told them I should go as scheduled.

JIM LEHRER: Did you talk to President Clinton about Kosovo?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Before I met with President Clinton, Secretary Albright came here to this very building and talked to me for over an hour about that very subject.

JIM LEHRER: Did she want to know what you thought, or did she want you to know what she thought?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] She wanted to have me say that I agreed that what she was doing was right.

JIM LEHRER: Did you?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Yes -- no. I said to her, "Show me the materials," and she hasn't given me the materials yet.

JIM LEHRER: But did you make your case, as you did with me a moment ago, to her as to why China had this position on Kosovo, why you objected to what NATO was doing?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] President Jiang Zemin has already made four statements on the subject, and the content of his statements was the same as what I said earlier.

JIM LEHRER: So are you going to go back to the President now in Beijing and transmit any information about what's happening in Kosovo and in any way reexamine China's position as a result of this trip?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, if I were to be provided with this documentary evidence about ethnic killings, I would certainly bring this material back with me and share it with President Jiang. But regardless of whether or not there has been ethnic murder, I feel that to intervene in the internal affairs of a country from external military action is a wrong way to try and achieve a settlement.

JIM LEHRER: In a more general way, help the American people try to understand what kind of relationship China wants to have with the United States. Do you want to -- should we be friends? Should we be allies? Should we be competitors? Should we be enemies? Should we -- what is the relationship that China wants with the United States, and why?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, as to the type of relationship that China and the United States seek to build between them, I think that this was made very clear in the exchange of visits between President Jiang Zemin and President Clinton; namely, a relationship which is a constructive strategic partnership.

JIM LEHRER: But there are -- there are some Americans, as you know, who believe there is something that America has to fear from China. What do you say to them?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] I would say to them, what are you afraid of? President Clinton said the United States has about 6,000 nuclear warheads and that China has 20 or 30 of them. Actually, I honestly do not know exactly what number China has, but I would think that President Clinton may be clearer about me than I am about that number. So my question would be, what are you afraid of? China cannot possibly constitute a threat. And if you mean should you fear China as an economic competitor, then I should say your economy is ten times the size of our economy; your per capita income is ten times our per capita income. And it would take a very, very long time for China to yet become even a relatively major economic power. And besides, even if China were to become an economic power, why should the United States fear it, because the stronger that China becomes, the bigger the market for the Americans. And you should note the fact that at the welcoming ceremony at the White House, I observed that the American people love freedom and the Chinese people love peace. But the Chinese people have no history of aggression against other countries, although we have often been the victims of aggression. But, of course, under no circumstances should you take me to mean that the American people don't love peace or that the Chinese people don't love freedom. [Zhu laughing] I just wanted to emphasize certain things.

JIM LEHRER: So this problem that now exists between the United States and China is a temporary thing, and it's not serious, and it's not going to get any worse? How would you characterize this particular period that you yourself described as rather difficult when you came?

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Well, there definitely is an anti-China current existing in the United States right now, and therefore this constitutes a rather significant obstacle to developing that friendly, cooperative relationship that Presidents Jiang and Clinton spoke about. And not only is it an obstacle, but there is a danger of backtracking in this relationship, so of course it is a serious problem. But on the other hand, if you look at it in terms of the broad flow of history, then you would have to say that no matter what this obstacle is, it's only a small element in the course of events. And so when we arrived in Los Angeles, it was pouring rain, but there was sunshine everywhere when we got to Washington, and so I feel that, like the rain, this, too, will pass.

JIM LEHRER: Premier Zhu, thank you very much.

ZHU RONGJI: [speaking through interpreter] Thank you.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Meanwhile, some political analysis, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And for our regular Friday night political analysis, we turn to "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot and "Boston Globe" columnist Tom Oliphant. Our NewsHour regular Mark Shields is away tonight.

So, Paul, what did you make of what Zhu Rongji had to say in this interview?

PAUL GIGOT: A couple of reactions, Margaret. One, I thought of Tip O'Neill's axiom "all politics is local," because when Zhu was talking about Kosovo, he was really talking about Taiwan; he was trying to - he wants to oppose our action in Kosovo because he doesn't want a President of the United States or NATO being able to act in the internal affairs of another country, because that means we might defend Taiwan. The other reaction was that he was - that I had was he was more candid than the White House about the failure of this trade agreement this week because the White House attributed the fact that he didn't sign a deal to some technical trade issues that were still outstanding, and Zhu cut right to the heart of the matter and said no, we had a deal, it was the political climate in this country, and President Clinton just decided that he couldn't sell the deal right now.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, it was kind of revealing?

TOM OLIPHANT: Very much so and hard not to be impressed by his political sophistication, particularly in his very deft realization that Americans often feel better after they've vented their feelings about some of the terrible things that China does. It was noticed, I think, when President Jiang Zemin was here the last time that merely by unburdening yourself of your feelings, you start to feel better, and they very cleverly capitalized on our inability to come up with an alternative to the status quo. A final point on the World Trade Organization, he's not only right about the facts, I think he's also right about the inevitable submission of this because it's going to be approved and he is going to spend the next week traveling the country selling the advantages of China opening up to American businessmen.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think, though Paul that anything he said tonight, and we assume he is saying the same things wherever he goes to members of congress, will it change the anti-China political climate that does exist?

PAUL GIGOT: No, I think the debate on China in this country is less between the parties right now than it is within each party. And there is a big chunk of each party, business-oriented but also strategic-oriented that says we have to be engaged with China in some shape or form. I think that is going to remain the policy. The big problem for President Clinton's China policy now is less, I think, what happens in China day to day. It's the credibility of this administration in dealing with China. It's the overlay of the campaign finance problems, it's the overlay of the nuclear secrets, the missile secrets questions, which makes a lot of Republicans doubt this administration will stand up to China. It makes -- it hurts the credibility of the policy because it makes it seem politically self-interested more than really based in strategy or US interest.

MARGARET WARNER: Speaking of political climate, what do you think the political climate will be on Kosovo next week when Congress returns?

TOM OLIPHANT: Very different than it was when Congress departed almost two weeks ago. The President's position is far stronger than it was at the beginning of this, even if the support is still tentative. My assumption about next week particularly, as this meeting of the NATO foreign ministers breaks up on Monday, which I presume to be a well scripted love fest -

MARGARET WARNER: This is the one they are having in Brussels?

TOM OLIPHANT: That's correct. What I think is going to happen is that there is going to be some effort to revisit the idea of a congressional resolution that most Republicans can vote for, instead of a situation where two-thirds of the Republicans in each branch -

MARGARET WARNER: Saying what?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, the basic framework would build around the four NATO aims, you know, return of refugees, troops and police out.

MARGARET WARNER: International force.

TOM OLIPHANT: International force and then some kind of self-government for Kosovo -- maybe adding some else, Jesse Helms, for example, has been very interested in language about going all the way to getting -- trying to get rid of Milosevic. The administration might have to consider something about ground troops. It doesn't want to, but I think it's very much in the Republican interest as well to not have the public record simply contain their no votes from last month.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think the Republican leadership is behind something like that?

PAUL GIGOT: I think they are moving towards that though they're going to wait and see and try to get a sense of the members when they come back. Most of the Republican leadership, they don't think this was - they opposed this -- they didn't think it's been handled very well. It was ill-conceived but an interesting transformation is taking place, which is that is that a lot of sentiment is swinging behind John McCain's criticism, which is a little different. It wasn't "you shouldn't have done it." It was make sure now that you're doing it make sure you do it well.

MARGARET WARNER: And you win.

PAUL GIGOT: And you win. This is not a bad critique because it means that the Republicans are supporting the troops, but in a way, it's the revenge - I call it the revenge of the Republican -- the Vietnam Hawks, because McCain was of course in Vietnam, Chuck Hagel, and some of the others. Veterans, their critique of the Vietnam War wasn't that we shouldn't have been there. It was that we didn't try to win. And they see Bill Clinton now acting a lot like Lyndon Baines Johnson with his gradualism, his incrementalism, his putting a stop to some of the military - things in the military -- slowing down what the military commanders want to do, not using ground forces, calling Apache helicopters -- an army weapon -- air power. And they say look, face up to the fact that we're going -- to win requires ground troops. It probably is going to mean casualties. So let's do it.

MARGARET WARNER: And McCain, in fact, sent this letter to the President today and a lot of the members who've gone with him on the trip to Brussels saying you ought to prepare the public for casualties, for a long engagement and you should call on NATO to start planning for a ground invasion.

TOM OLIPHANT: Indeed. You know, to broaden the political impact of all this, Margaret though, it's important to recognize that in addition to McCain's leadership on this letter, it is signed by the likes of Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, and Jack Reid of Rhode Island, Ellen Tauscher of California.

MARGARET WARNER: All Democrats.

TOM OLIPHANT: Not only Democrats but not known for their conservatism either with the exception of Lieberman. And I think it shows that this kind of sentiment, again it's not unlike what Paul was saying about China. The problem tends to be within each party rather than between the parties. There are deep splits in the Republican Party over this and the big question next week is whether or not the split can be resolved.

MARGARET WARNER: So whatever happened to the left, the anti-war left. I heard that Rush Limbaugh was singing a tune on the radio yesterday, "Where have all the peaceniks gone?" Where have they gone?

TOM OLIPHANT: This is the problem with dealing with caricature. Vietnam, it's not antiwar Democrats, it's anti-Vietnam War Democrats to be historically precise. Liberals were very much involved in the in the beginnings of the Cold War as some of their leftist, truly leftist friends like to remind them of. But without the Cold War, I think I've been seeing this movement toward internationalism with the military arm for ten years. Democrats split over the Persian Gulf war. Several people quite progressive supported it and you've had this sentiment building for a decade. So I think it's less of a surprise.

PAUL GIGOT: But 47 Democrats voted against the Gulf War in the Senate.

MARGARET WARNER: And yet all but three then voted for this.

PAUL GIGOT: Yes. I think it's rooted in the fact that this is -- can be argued as a mainly humanitarian effort. Frankly for liberals, if US interests aren't involved, they feel better about it sometimes, because you end up with the fact that it's a moral cause. It's not something crass like commerce or oil or something like that. I feel good about it. You know, and I think that's part of the impulse here. I followed the Senate debate on this and Paul Wellstone said explicitly, the liberal from Minnesota, this is humanitarian. I can support it.

TOM OLIPHANT: On the other hand, anti-communism was also a moral cause as much as it was a political and ideological one which is why I think the point, while interesting is more with the result of caricature than of proper history.

MARGARET WARNER: And we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In the non-Kosovo news of this day, storms brought death and damage to parts of the Midwest. Tornadoes tore through Iowa, destroying homes and barns. Two people were killed in southern Illinois in high winds and thunderstorms. And in southwest Ohio, four people died, thirty-one were hurt when tornadoes smashed homes and uprooted trees; 200,000 customers lost power there, and telephone service was down for many areas. In West Africa, the president of Niger was assassinated in an apparent coup attempt. French radio reported Bare Mainassara was shot by his personal security guards at the airport as he tried to leave the capital city. There were other accounts of troops massing in the streets, and the parliament was dissolved. Telephone and other communications links to Niger have been cut.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And to recap our major story: The war over Kosovo, now in its 17th day. Russian President Yeltsin said his country would not stand for NATO ground troops in Kosovo. There were reports-- quickly dispelled-- he had ordered nuclear missiles turned on allied countries. NATO fighter jets and bombers executed widespread attacks on targets, including an oil depot and weapons complex. NATO also acknowledged a bomb went astray earlier this week and hit a residential area in Pristina. And a bid to negotiate the freedom of three captured US soldiers failed.

FINALLY - POWERFUL MUSIC

JIM LEHRER: And now the power of the music of Johannes Sebastian Bach. Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston reports.

PAUL SOLMAN: As much of the world focused on religious and ethnic hatred this holy season, they were tuning up peacefully at Emmanuel Church, the 19th-century Episcopal sanctum built for Boston's blue bloods. As usual, Sunday Mass would end with a Bach cantata. [music in background] This is music with a timely, timeless story, the bass line marking Jesus's step as he treks to Jerusalem for the Passover Seder that will be his Last Supper. The opening duet is an argument about that trek, as Pam Dellal explains.

PAM DELLAL: Jesus is saying, "We go to Jerusalem," and then the alto soloist says, "Don't go!" [music in background] "Ach, gehe nicht." "Don't go. They're already preparing the bonds and the whips and the cross for you."

PAUL SOLMAN: The 200 surviving cantatas of Johannes Sebastian Bach, of the 300 or so he wrote, have anchored Emmanuel for 28 years now. And the music may be why you're welcome here, wherever you are on your spiritual journey -- Protestants of all stripes and Catholics, says the Anglican priest, Bill Wallace -

BILL WALLACE: But I would say 30 percent of the people have done away with any particular religious orientation, and some of those people are our more spiritually alive and spiritually hungry people.

PAUL SOLMAN: To the priest of this parish, both religion and music are spiritual journeys undertaken in community with others. And why have these parishioners joined the journey? Peter Johnson, who first sat in the back for the music, wound up heading Emmanuel's vestry.

PETER JOHNSON: For me, hearing Bach for 20 years helps me a little bit understand a kind of universe that he created where God is. God exists in his music, and it's the sort of physical made spiritual.

PAUL SOLMAN: Bernard Greenberg also comes every week. He has a rather different take on Emmanuel.

BERNARD GREENBERG: I'm a very firm atheist. I don't believe in gods, devils, heavens, hells, saviors, chosen people, torahs, or horas. I do believe in humanity and thought and the power of reason and truth and beauty. And for me, Bach is truth and beauty.

PAUL SOLMAN: Emmanuel Church has been drawing against-the-grain types since abolitionist author Harriet Beecher Stowe came here in the 1860's. The most notable parishioner these days may be chaired Harvard Sociologist and McArthur Genius Grantee Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, whose family, which includes several priests, is steeped in the Episcopal service.

SARA LAWRENCE-LIGHTFOOT: I love the simplicity of that, the ritual of that, the ceremony of that, the beauty of that, the strictness of that, the purity of that in the way I love all of that in Bach, and it is that conversation between the liturgy and the music that I find so deeply compelling.

CRAIG SMITH: Okay. What's going to happen, we're going to start with -

PAUL SOLMAN: The man behind the music, Craig Smith, started here as a scruffy student in 1970. Emmanuel Music is now a world-class ensemble, almost all of whose members belong to the church and, of course, to Bach.

CRAIG SMITH: What an incredibly elaborate web of meaning Bach religious pieces have. I mean, they are not just the words that are sung, but they presume knowledge of certain biblical passages which are not necessarily actually spoken in the cantata. They also presume a certain musical knowledge. Certain hymn tunes appear that everyone would have known.

PAUL SOLMAN: Smith also performs larger works. This season's centerpiece: Bach's "St. John Passion," in which John the Evangelist recites the story of Christ's death. [music in background] Occasionally, Jesus, Himself, speaks. [music in background] The chorus plays several roles. It's a crowd of soldiers, citizens of Jerusalem, here of the high priests.

SINGERS: Kreuzige ihn!

PAUL SOLMAN: "Kreuzige ihn," they scream: "Crucify him." But often the chorus is the flock, singing very familiar hymns in very complex harmonies. [music in background] Finally, there are solo arias, which react with feeling to the story.

CRAIG SMITH: No, no, no. You can't put an echo in there, and it needs less vibrato, please, and really icy cold. Icy cold, please.

PAUL SOLMAN: No words yet, but Smith is already interpreting.

CRAIG SMITH: Really forthright. One, two. [Flute playing] [singer in background]

PAUL SOLMAN: Smith's interpretations aren't necessarily gospel, but the deeper you dig into Bach's spiritual music, the more deeply spiritual it can become, as when John says the disciple Peter cried after realizing he'd denied Christ. In German, "cried" is weinete. [singer in background]

CRAIG SMITH: That sort of sighing, crying, you know, shrieking kind of crying, "what in the world have I done?"

PAUL SOLMAN: If some of Bach's effects are unambiguous, so are the problems with some of his texts. In St. John, Jews are frighteningly, for those who have heard Nazi German, "die Juden."

CRAIG SMITH: The problem is with most of the biblical stuff, not specifics, but a tone of them versus us, that is -- that is really wrong. It's not only anti-Semitism; there are these dreadful things about the Turks in the cantatas, but, you know, we don't need to go after the Turks in Boston.

PAUL SOLMAN: But if religion can divide, it can also bring together. That's why Bach has been performed at Emanuel all these years, and why the story of Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity may strike so resonant a chord.

FEMALE SINGER: Es ist vollbracht -

PAUL SOLMAN: Christ has died to complete his mission, so es ist Vollbracht, meaning "It is fulfilled." [Pam Dellal singing] This may be the key moment in Christianity, sung achingly by longtime Emmanuelite Pam Dellal. But her deepest faith is not so much in the Bible as in Bach.

PAM DELLAL: If I'm singing, then what I'm doing is I'm delivering Bach's perspective of this, and his love or his emotion. [singing]

PAUL SOLMAN: To Reverend Wallace, the essence of religion is the community of all souls; the danger of religion, that devotion can lead to exclusivity despite Christ's message of universal love.

BILL WALLACE: To say the word "Christian" immediately sets you apart and defines you, and oftentimes in not some -- in some not good ways. And you can take that kind of religious rigidity, and it's a slippery slope, you know. It will slide right down into Kosovo. I mean, it's -- how are we more like our neighbor than unlike our neighbor?

PAUL SOLMAN: At Emmanuel Church in Boston, the journey toward mutual understanding is never over, just as the story is never over in Bach's cantatas.

SPOKESMAN: Nothing is ever closed. It's like a prayer wheel in, you know, in Asia. The wheel never stops. By definition, it must never end. We must always keep examining how we feel about these tales.

PAUL SOLMAN: The examining is eternal. In a holy season of religious and ethnic conflict worldwide, it's a thought devoutly to be wished.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.