The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, Kwame Holman and Gwen Ifill, with Senators Biden, Warner, Kyl and Moynihan, look at the test ban treaty debate; Ray Suarez sorts through the military coup in Pakistan; and Margaret Warner explores the history of organized labor in politics with Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Haynes Johnson, and Tom Geoghegan. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Senate Minority Leader Daschle requested today that a vote on the nuclear test ban treaty be delayed. He said in letter to Majority Leader Lott he would not seek to reschedule the vote unless there were "unforeseen changes in the international situation." Lott did not respond immediately. The vote had been scheduled for tonight or early tomorrow. President Clinton asked for a postponement yesterday. Supporters acknowledged the 67 votes needed to ratify were not there. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. There was a military coup in Pakistan today; the army said it had dismissed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his democratically-elected government. The overthrow occurred after Sharif fired the army's chief of staff, who was out of the country. Troops seized airports and government buildings throughout the country and took over state-run television and radio stations. CNN reported soldiers had surrounded the prime minister's residence in the capital, Islamabad. In Washington, State Department Spokesman James Rubin said this:

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: With respect to control of the nuclear capability Pakistan may have, I don't think there is a fear right this moment that that is jeopardized by recent developments. That doesn't mean that couldn't change. And I wouldn't want to make any, you know, elaborate statement for all time on that. But right now, this is a political crisis. Not anything more than that.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. The Nobel Prizes for Chemistry and Physics were announced today. An Egyptian-American scientist, Ahmed Zewail, of the California Institute of Technology, won the chemistry award. He was cited for capturing ultra-fast snapshots of atomic reactions. The Physics Prize went to two Dutch researchers, who were honored for their work on the theory of small particle behavior. President Clinton said today it was inexcusable more poor children were not enrolled in government health insurance programs. He spoke to the American Academy of Pediatrics in Washington. He said Congress has approved money to insure five million children, but only one million are currently enrolled. Mr. Clinton said he was instructing federal health and education officials to come up with ways to get schools involved in the process. He also appealed for help from doctors, churches, and public health clinics. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 231 points, or 2 percent, to close at 10,417. The NASDAQ Index was also down, dropping 43 points to end at 2872. The U.S. Supreme Court acted on several matters today. The Justices let stand the conviction and life sentence of Terry Nichols. He's in prison for his part in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And they declined to hear a case challenging Maine's school voucher program. It subsidizes children attending private, non-religious schools, but not those attending religious schools. Basketball Great Wilt Chamberlain has died. That word came late today from the Los Angeles Lakers. There was no word on the cause of death. Chamberlain was a college star at the University of Kansas. He played professionally for Philadelphia and Los Angeles in the National Basketball Association, among others. He's the second highest scorer in the League's history and was its most valuable player four times. His record of scoring 100 points in a single game still stands. Chamberlain was 63 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the test ban treaty, the coup in Pakistan, and labor and politics.

UPDATE NUCLEAR POLITICS

JIM LEHRER: Kwame Holman opens our test ban treaty coverage.

KWAME HOLMAN: There were indications early on today that a Senate vote on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, a vote certain to kill the treaty, might be delayed.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I mean, we're looking at a crossroads in history, which affects this nation for decades to come. What possible rush to judgment compels a vote tonight or tomorrow?

KWAME HOLMAN: Virginia Republican John Warner is a key player in the debate over the test ban treaty. He's chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee and last week held three days of hearings to consider the merits and pitfalls of signing onto a treaty that would ban tests of nuclear weapons. Warner took testimony from current and former defense and energy secretaries, national weapons laboratory directors and other career professionals in the field of nuclear weapons. And although he is personally opposed to the treaty, Warner this morning said the evidence gathered left room for doubt, enough doubt to warrant postponing the vote.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Indeed, this treaty has not -- in my judgment -- in its present form -- but in the minds of others -- a potential to be another milestone of progress towards arms control and the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons. In fairness to all sides, would it not be wiser to delay the vote?

KWAME HOLMAN: Warner announced that he and New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a treaty supporter, would send a letter to Senate colleagues urging them to agree to a delay. Yesterday, President Clinton sent a letter of his own to Majority Leader Trent Lott, claiming a vote now would severely harm the national security.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: It seems to me this is closely divided enough and that there are legitimate enough concerns of national interest and national security that when the President of the United States makes a request in the interest of our nation - - to the Senate -- to delay the vote, it is only politics that would drive us to have that vote, notwithstanding that request. And my plea would be to my colleagues in the United States Senate that we find the capacity here to cool down a little bit, to have a vote that delays the consideration of this treaty, so that we may proceed to answer properly each of the questions raised by those who oppose it, and if needs be, make changes that would not send the message that the United States of America is rejecting outright this opportunity to embrace a policy that from Eisenhower on we have fought to try to adopt.

KWAME HOLMAN: Treaty supporters in the Senators, overwhelmingly Democrats, today were far from attracting the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty, but they needed only 51 votes to postpone the matter on a procedural motion. However, as the day wore on, Democrats lost hope that any Republican would support a procedural motion to delay.

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON: Mr. President, I believe it is flawed; I believe it's defective; I believe it is not in our national security interest, and I believe it is our constitutional responsibility not to put it off but to vote our conscience, and I urge the defeat of what I believe is a flawed treaty.

KWAME HOLMAN: Majority Leader Lott emerged from an afternoon meeting with his Republican colleagues, saying he was ready and willing to vote, but Lott left open the possibility a vote could be prevented.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: I am ready to vote, I will vote against the treaty, and I expect it to be defeated. The other alternative is to set aside the vote and not have it voted on in this Congress. That means the balance of this year or next year, so that it will not be used to further rhetoric and politics. This is far too serious an issue to be treated in a cavalier way next year in the middle of a presidential election. But I've always said if we could be guaranteed that it would be set aside and not come up in this Congress, that we could accept that.

KWAME HOLMAN: Lott outlined what assurance Republicans would need.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: As long as we have an absolute commitment that cannot be violated with any kind of an escape hatch -- like barring unforeseen circumstances -- then I think we can work something out.

KWAME HOLMAN: And late this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle assured Lott in a letter that Senate Democrats would not seek to bring up the test ban treaty again this year or next.

JIM LEHRER: And to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: We are joined now by Republican Senators John Warner of Virginia and Jon Kyl of Arizona who oppose the treaty, and Democratic Senators Joseph Biden of Delaware and Patrick Moynihan of New York, who support it. Senator Warner, Senator Daschle said unforeseen circumstances, something you just heard Senator Lott warn against. You in a letter and some of our colleagues have suggested that there is room for this to be delayed and not to come up again. Do you have a deal?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: The Senate had an excellent day of debate, and I commend the number of Senators who are joining in this. We've had good, strong leadership from Senator Lott, Senator Daschle. They are continuing to explore options. And I'm pleased to say that my two colleagues to my right here, the two Democrats, have joined me and Senator Lugar in writing a letter to both leaders saying that we would support an initiative if they join to delay this treaty into the 107th Congress, meaning that the current Congress will not deal with it in terms of the final vote and that we will let a new Congress take a fresh look at it and a new president. To me, the national security interests absolutely dictate that result.

GWEN IFILL: But Senator Warner, have you heard from your Republican leader, Mr. Lott, that he would accept the compromise that you suggest?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I think it's important that the letter, which the three of us and Senator Lugar have just put out...we use different phraseology in there. We simply said we do not, at this time, foresee any circumstances, but we conclude by saying you know, the Senate historically has to number one, put the nation's business always first, irrespective of whatever is happening in the world or here at home; and number two, that if it's the Senate judgment, at some point in time, that because of circumstances of a compelling nature, of foreign incident, that's the classification that we basically use as justification for the Senate bringing it up before the 107th Congress. So I think we've gone and tightened this situation up. The letter has now been distributed to colleagues. The phones are ringing. And many colleagues on both sides are anxious to join in this bipartisan effort.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Kyl, you did not sign this letter. It's clear that you would like to kill this treaty outright. Do you find it at all a middle ground that you could accept?

SEN. JON KYL: I think it's important to appreciate why the treaty will go down to defeat if there is a vote. It's fatally flawed in a variety of ways. It's not enforceable, it's not verifiable, and it risks our nuclear stockpile. I believe that voting on the treaty and defeating it would send the best message possible, and that is that the United States will insist on minimal provisions in sensible arms control treaties and that we will... that the Senate will insist on its co-equal responsibility of being a check on an administration that negotiates a treaty that doesn't meet these minimal standards.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Kyl, I'm just trying for a little clarity here. Do you think that Senator Lott will support your position?

SEN. JON KYL: I think, as Senator Warner said, Senator Lott is trying his very best to accommodate all of the possible positions here. But at the end of the day, there is a unanimous consent agreement entered into by all 100 Senators to have a vote on this treaty. I believe that would be the best thing for us to do because it would strengthen the hand of our negotiators when they go back to the table and seek to get the provisions in the treaty that they agreed could be taken out. This administration, incidentally, was strongly in favor of a treaty that allowed us to get out of it after ten years and did not require a zero threshold -- but unfortunately, caved in to people around the world who demanded a zero threshold and a treaty in perpetuity. We would have the opportunity to go back and renegotiate some of those things, as well as the verification and enforceability issues.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Let me interrupt. There's been no unanimous consent today. It's the unanimous consent that set up the structure by which these important hearings and debates have taken place.

SEN. JON KYL: That's correct.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Biden, you spent a good deal of your day today on the Senate floor praising Senator Kyl, for instance, for his incredible intelligence and legal mind. But you couldn't disagree with him more on this.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: That's because I have greater intelligence...

GWEN IFILL: Is that what it is? Do you regret at all bringing this measure to the floor accepting Senator Lott's challenge to bring this to the floor -- when it's clear you never had the votes?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: Well, I didn't bring this measure to the floor. The request in my resolution was that we have hearings. It was never a request for a vote. That was a misstatement of what -- the resolution that prompted this whole process. You know, we can go back and determine whether or not the leadership should have accepted this configuration of how we get to here or not. But I think that's basically useless. You are about to have a piece on Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. We have been trying to get them to sign this comprehensive test ban treaty. Whether or not they do that will depend a lot on what we do. I'm not suggesting that failing to sign this caused the coup, but I am suggesting the world is very fluid out there. At this moment, to reject this treaty... by the way, it is verifiable. It's as verifiable as Ronald Reagan's INF Treaty -- which we all signed I didn't hear this stuff when that treaty was up. It is enforceable. But that's not the purpose of the debate here. The question we...at least three of us agree that it would be in the national interest to not vote on it. You know, Gwen, I find it fascinating. I doubt whether if I had said to you or anyone else who follows this the foreign policy debates of this country, if any President of the United States came along in the midst of a consideration of something that affected the national security and strategic interest of the United States and said "I ask you to delay a vote on the thing that I negotiated," it's beyond my comprehension that any Senate wouldn't say "all right, Mr. President, we'll go along with that." He's not asking them to vote for it. He thinks it's a good treaty. I do. Pat does. All he's saying is let's delay the vote on this. I don't know what possible rationale could be applied to not respond to a President asking that. And we've asked that as well.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: And we have responded.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Moynihan, it is clear that you spent a great deal of time attempting to find the middle ground here. Assuming for a moment that Senator Daschle's letter and Senator Warner's letter that you signed is accepted as the middle ground that can be found on this, don't you think there's a danger in the White House basically saying with a wink and a nod okay, that's fine, just delay it and it won't come up again and trying not to send a signal that they're abandoning this altogether?

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN: Well, the Senate's job is to continue hearings. You heard Senator Warner said he wants to hold hearings. We haven't had enough consideration of this treaty. There are changes that could be made. We can find a way to bring Senator Kyl around. He is, as Senator Biden said, exceptionally intelligent. It's an exceptionally dangerous world. We don't want to lose this option.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: When we did this, by the way, in the chemical weapons treaty

GWEN IFILL: Senator Biden, yes.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: -- and we brought it back up, we did this in the chemical weapons treaty. We ended up with 27 or 29 conditions attached to it and got overwhelming support in the United States Senate for it after it had been declared dead and pulled down.

GWEN IFILL: But, the key here, Senator Warner, and tell me if I'm wrong, is that you do not want this to come up again. You do not want to see this again before the 2000 election, is that right?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: In this Congress. That's correct. Very explicit has been my statement -- do not bring it up again in this Congress.

GWEN IFILL: Why not?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Before my committee, testimony from the intelligence community to the effect that we need, and in ourown intelligence committee, more time to make the analysis of whether we could verify certain provisions of this treaty as it relates to nations it might want to violate the treaty. That's key. That work won't be finished until next year. We're facing our constitutional elections. Is that a year to submit a treaty of this importance to the risks and the unknown dynamics of a presidential election year? And then, to cap it off, none of us... and I've been 20-some years in the Senate-- could have foreseen in the course of last week's hearings the extraordinary courage of so many former public servants -- six or eight former secretaries of defense divided on the issue, former secretaries of state divided on the issue -- honest, conscientious, well-experienced persons who had the same responsibilities as the current secretary of state and the current secretary of defense. And the capstone came from the testimony of the lab directors -- men who have spent their career developing nuclear weapons, preserving the stockpile, testing the stockpile, and any reasonable individual looking at their testimony would have to say there is some doubt in their mind that the substitute for actual testing; namely, a program of scientific computer testing will be ready and in place in perhaps... for a period of time of five, ten, maybe fifteen years out, leaving a possibility that some nation could question the credibility of our stockpile and devise its foreign policy and worst yet, its aggression against us because of those doubts. Let us conclude the stockpile today, tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future is credible and safe. We're talking about ten or fifteen years out under a treaty that's to be in perpetuity and that's what troubles us.

GWEN IFILL: My apologies, Senator Warner for interrupting. Senator Kyl, you have felt this is something which shouldn't go through. What if all these efforts to find middle ground collapse between now and tomorrow? What if, indeed, this came to a vote and it was voted down - - isn't there a possibility this could come back to haunt you as a campaign issue for the other side next year?

SEN. JON KYL: Gwen, I don't think any of us here look at this politically or as a campaign issue. We are seriously doing our best. I appreciate the compliments from my colleague, and I'll throw the compliments right back. We've debated the merits of this and whatever differences we have, I believe that they are heartfelt differences of opinion about what is in the best interest of the future of the country. My view is that... the reason the treaty is opposed by so many people and will fail if it's voted on is that there are serious flaws in it. We have an opportunity to say let's go back. And if you really believe this is the way to proceed with arms control, try to fix those things that are so flawed in this particular treaty. And I might add that defeating the treaty today does not prevent any member of the Senate from bringing it up in the future again. So, I really do disagree with those who say that this would send a horrible message, and it would be the end of the world. No, it's just the United States Senate doing its job as a coequal partner with the President of the United States.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: Gwen, one of the important things is every other major treaty we've had, we've had weeks of hearings. We have had in-depth debate. We've gone on for eight, nine, ten days debating it. One of the reasons I think that there is such doubt on the Republican side is I quite frankly, and on the Democratic side, to the extent it exists...is that we have not had thorough debate about this. John Kyl and I could debate the verification issue I think in an illuminating way for several hours. He and I both know. We have studied it thoroughly, as have my colleagues, because it's our job, we're on the committees that do that. But I would lay you eight to five that 50 percent of our colleagues have not had the chance to spend more than an hour on this treaty.

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN: But can we put in mind that if we do this, it would be the first such rejection of a treaty since the Treaty of Versailles was rejected in 1919, United States went into isolation, stayed out of Europe until we ended up, 20 years later, invading Europe.

GWEN IFILL: Well, Senator Moynihan, that was my next question to you. Senator Kyl obviously just said this is not the end of the world if this treaty is rejected. You obviously feel this could be a dangerous turn.

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN: What Senator Warner said and Senator Kyl indicated is true to the very great surprise of many. The officials who have had these responsibilities over the last 20 years, secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, heads of the CIA are divided. Well, we got to sort it out. We're not incapable of that. We've done it many times before. But don't stop it now.

GWEN IFILL: Based on your political experience about the way these things work on Capitol Hill, I'd like each of you gentlemen briefly to just tell me, do you think we will end up having a vote on this tomorrow or will there be a compromise announced?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I think the leaders are working very diligently this evening. We've all been with them within the hour, so... and I'm confident that they will come up with an option hopefully for a delay such that this will not be taken up in the next Congress but will be looked at by a new Congress and new President. There is no rush, no rush whatsoever in my judgment, to go to this treaty and vote it down. And you know, gentlemen, the votes are not there to pass it. And that's why you have joined me in a conscientious way, because it's in our national interest not to vote it down. We may have a difference, my good friend and I, but let me come back to Senator Biden...

GWEN IFILL: Just a moment. I'd just like to ask Senator Biden the same question.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: But let me just finish.

GWEN IFILL: Will there be a vote or a deal tomorrow?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Let me just finish. I think we've lad very good hearings. We've spent a lot of time on this treaty. And this period of time was agreed upon by our two leaders three weeks ago.

GWEN IFILL: Thank you. Senator Biden?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN: I've been here longer than any of these guys. And it seems to me that we are in a path of unintended consequences. I wouldn't dare guess what the outcome will be.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Kyl?

SEN. JON KYL: I don't believe the Democratic side is willing to give the kind of assurances that would be necessary to Republicans that it would not come up in the election year next year in order for us to avoid the vote. And Senator Warner is right. There have been extensive hearings on this and, as a matter of fact, more time on the floor, allotted for debate and amendments on this treaty than any other treaty in recent memory in the Senate. Also, to correct one thing, I believe there have been five treaties defeated since the Treaty of Versailles by the U.S. Senate. It is true, however, that none of them were of the consequence of that treaty.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Moynihan, you get the final word.

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN: Pray.

GWEN IFILL: That's a good word. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I know you have some work to do this evening. Thank you for taking time with us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the rebellion in Pakistan, and labor and politics.

FOCUS COUP IN PAKISTAN

JIM LEHRER: That military coup in Pakistan: We start with a report from Robert Moore of Independent Television News filed earlier today.

ROBERT MOORE: No pictures have emerged from Pakistan since news of the military coup first broke, but the latest reports suggest that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is under house arrest. There have been no official announcements from the civilian or from the military leadership tonight, and the television stations have been taken off the air.

SPOKESPERSON: The meeting dispelled the impression...

ROBERT MOORE: In mid-broadcast, a program was interrupted. And tonight, the confusion remains. But the key development was Prime Minister Sharif's attempt to sack this man, General Perveez Musharraf, the head of the army. He was away in Sri Lanka, but appears to have organized the coup, in what appears to have been a highly effective counterattack following his sacking. The crisis was triggered when the military was ordered to pull back Pakistani guerrillas who had crossed into Indian-controlled territory in Kashmir. For many in the army, this was a humiliating setback in the confrontation with India. Developments in Pakistan will be causing alarm throughout South Asia. The army has mobilized not just in the capital, Islamabad, but also in the second city of Karachi, and also in Lahore, Prime Minister Sharif's hometown and power base. Ever since the country followed India and conducted underground nuclear explosions, the stakes have increased enormously. The West now faces a military coup and possible chaos in the world's newest and most volatile nuclear state. In the last few minutes, news has flashed on Pakistani television saying that the Nawaz Sharif government is being dismissed, a sign the coup is now being consolidated.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes the story from there.

RAY SUAREZ: Tonight, Pakistan's army chief went on national television confirming the army was in control and that the prime minister was in custody. The army chief said the situation was calm, and that no outside forces should try to take advantage of the situation. For more on the military coup, we turn to Robert Oakley who served as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan from 1988 to 1991 -- he is now the acting director at the Institute for National Strategic Studies -- and Paula Newberg. She is an independent consultant who has written extensively about Pakistani and South Asian affairs. Well, Robert Oakley, the prime minister took it in mind to fire the general and the general ended up firing the prime minister. Were you shocked by the news?

ROBERT OAKLEY: I wasn't shocked except for the fact that the prime minister took it in mind to try to fire the army chief, which is very unwise. When one deals with the army recklessly in Pakistan, one usually pays the price.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, this is a democratically-elected government, but this is also a country that half its history as a nation... it's been living under military rule.

ROBERT OAKLEY: That's right. The politicians tend to rely upon the army even though they proclaim that they're a democracy; they rely very heavily upon the army, and they accord the army a great deal of political weight. At the moment, there's a great deal of political opposition to the prime minister. But, above all, the country is in bad shape. And Paula can perhaps tell you more about that, but the economic situation is terrible. There's a great deal of social unrest; there's a great deal of sectarian violence. And I think the army reacted not merely to the challenge but also to the general feeling that the situation is out of control in the country.

RAY SUAREZ: Paula Newberg, we saw a bit of it in the taped report. People are out on the street, even celebrating in the streets of Prime Minister Sharif's hometown. What are we to make of this as far as the rank and file of Pakistan?

PAULA NEWBERG: I think it too early yet to judge. Sadly, in my experience at least, Pakistanis have come out to celebrate the demise of virtually every government that has fallen through unnatural means in the last ten to twenty years. I think we have a problem calibrating it on the basis of whether or not there are people out on the streets. But I think that Ambassador Oakley has hit upon a very important point here, and that is that the governance of Pakistan generally has been in tremendous disarray, not just through this last term, but through the last ten years, and, some would argue, the last ten to twenty to thirty years. And many of the policies that have been taken by this last government, which are quite similar to those taken by his predecessors, have tended to be highly personalistic, so that even an action such as firing one person, something that would not even make it into the newspapers in my countries, becomes an activity in which the prime minister not only feels it necessary to come on to national television to explain it, but it becomes a personalistic activity in which, in the face of losing his job, the chief of the army staff sees it necessary to take over the entire country. And this kind of almost uncontrollable urge to take large moves and make large gestures in order to solve administrative difficulties is one that has plagued the country now for many decades.

RAY SUAREZ: But by all accounts, and you seem to share this belief, the Sharif government was increasingly unpopular. One of the reasons appears to be the austerity regime in place, recent trench of IMF, International Monetary Fund lending authority was held up. Going to a military ruler will make those sorts of relationships even more difficult.

PAULA NEWBERG: There's no question but that military rule does not solve any of these problems. And those in Pakistan who often seek to have the military come back in order to erase the difficulties that civilian rule brings with it are generally disappointed as well. The problems that Pakistan faces now faced yesterday under Prime Minister Sharif -- are those that have been brought upon it by a series, a long series of mistaken policies and a long series of mistaken diplomatic moves as well. As a result, the country has come to be extremely isolated. And it's very difficult in a global economy of this sort now, to try to fix your economy at a point of tremendous isolation. And that's what's happened. And it's going to be very hard for a military government, however long- lived it might be to reinforce a sense of engagement with the world in ways that the world is willing to participate in.

RAY SUAREZ: Ambassador Oakley, do you agree?

ROBERT OAKLEY: I agree with that, but I would guess when the chief of the army staff makes his policy statement you said he would make soon, and refrained from doing today, it will talk about a return to civilian rule of some kind, perhaps some sort of transition, technocratic government, something they've tried in the past, which has worked not too badly, except it was too brief a period to deal with the fundamental problems while they put them on the right track -- rather than direct military rule for my period of time in the hopes that this will bring in people who are more qualified to run the country than the military is dealing with social and economic problems, but also in the hopes that it will get them back into the graces of the world, as Paula suggested. They know the military can't do this. They had a bad experience when they ruled the country themselves. It was bad for the military, as well as the country. And they recognize that this will cause them further anguish with the world as a whole. And it won't improve the isolationism or the economic mismanagement it won't get them the economic support they need in order to put their house in order. So my guess is they will move soon for some sort of civilian rule. Exactly how they will do that I don't know, because constitutionally, there's no provision for it. We haven't had a military coup since 1977.

RAY SUAREZ: Where does this leave the most important and I guess the most troubled bilateral relationship that Pakistan has with its neighbor India? President Vajpei and Prime Minister Sharif have met from time to time; there is continual fighting over the disputed province of Kashmir. What happens there?

ROBERT OAKLEY: Well, the actions of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in approving this seizing of the heights at Cargill, after having received the prime minister of India, as a great peace gesture in Lahore, have shattered the faith which they entered in with the Indian government had in dealing with this government already. So, this will make it more difficult. On the other hand, the Indians will want to wait and see. I don't think that they'll be tempted to take any urgent action or any precipitant or any unwise action because the last thing they want is even more trouble with Pakistan. They would like to hope against hope that the situation will settle down. Then they can begin to do business with whatever government is there. But they certainly will be troubled by this, but not any more troubled than they were after what happened after a remarkably brave political gesture on their part by going to Lahore.

RAY SUAREZ: So, Paula Newberg, sort of the same question. If you're in the Indian government tonight, are you somewhat relieved because someone who has been a less than reliable partner is out, or made even more concerned by the fact that there's so much instability over there?

PAULA NEWBERG: I think it's an unfortunate truism of Pakistani-Indian relations that both sides have always treated the other as if it is unreliable, regardless of who is in power -- when it's military, when it's civilian, when it's an elected government with a large majority and when it's a weak coalition government. The fact that the timing of this comes just after the Indian elections is more ironic than not because it reinforces a feeling that I think has come to be fairly widespread in Pakistan, and that is that for all its difficulties and for however weak the government in India often is, it is generally a democratic one. It's democratically-elected, and it acts democratically. You don't see military rulers taking over for elected government. In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is almost an expectation. Not only is it an expectation, but quite often, you hear otherwise strong professively strong Democrats suggesting that, in fact, the military is a better bet than civilian leadership. It's an internal problem of fairly wide dimension. And the foreign policy tends to come from that, rather than be affected by it.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what has to happen, Robert Oakley, before we see something like stable, long-term civilian rule, rather than this back and forth?

ROBERT OAKLEY: It will take some sort of Pakistani miracle to change the mentality of their political leadership. So those -- including those who are civilian politicians who have, indeed, been arguing for the army to take action to remove the present prime minister -- some of them want to do this so they themselves can come back into power. Others are interested in doing it in order to settle the country down a little bit and put it on a stable course, and they would argue for a long-term transition apolitical government, because the last time they tried this, the politicians came in and undid all the proper things which is the technocrat government had done. So, they themselves recognize that there are basic political weaknesses in the structure and the mentality of Pakistani civilian leadership. But, at the same time, they also recognize that to limit it to the military leadership is not the answer. So, I'm not quite sure what's going to solve it, but I think a period of stability, quite frankly, is very important for Pakistan at this time.

RAY SUAREZ: Robert Oakley, Paula Newberg, thanks for being with us.

FOCUS LABOR'S MUSCLE

JIM LEHRER: Organized labor and presidential politics. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles, begins.

CROWD: Working people! Fighting back!

JEFFREY KAYE: U.S. labor leaders meeting at the national AFL-CIO Convention in Los Angeles are likely to endorse a presidential candidate tomorrow.

JOHN SWEENEY: We will endorse a candidate who shares our outrage, who shares our vision and our values, and who will, above all, champion the concerns of working families.

JEFFREY KAYE: AFL-CIO President John Sweeney did not mention a specific candidate in his keynote speech to representatives of 68 unions representing 13 million workers. But in interviews and behind the scenes, Sweeney is pushing for the labor federation to endorse Vice President Al Gore.

JOHN SWEENEY: We believe the Vice President has a strong voting record. He knows the concerns of workers, and he identifies strongly with the issues of advocating an increase in the minimum wage, protecting Social Security, addressing the health care needs of workers and their families.

JEFFREY KAYE: Both contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Vice President Gore and Former Senator Bill Bradley, have close ties to labor. Bradley urged the AFL-CIO to delay its endorsement; Gore pushed hard for labor leaders to endorse him now. Union officials supporting the Vice President say he has been more visible on labor issues than Bradley. Douglas Dority is president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which over the weekend endorsed Gore.

DOUGLAS DORITY: Al Gore has gone around this country as the Vice President and spoke out for workers' rights to organize, and that's a key ingredient.

JEFFREY KAYE: So Gore is electable?

DOUGLAS DORITY: Yeah, he's absolutely electable.

JEFFREY KAYE: More electable than Bradley?

DOUGLAS DORITY: I think so, yes. Yes, I believe that.

JEFFREY KAYE: On Saturday, at a pre-convention event, Gore's wife, Tipper, campaigned on his behalf.

TIPPER GORE: My husband has been proud to stand with you and provide the leadership that has created a new era of hope and prosperity in America.

JEFFREY KAYE: But not all labor leaders here support an early endorsement of Al Gore. Leaders of the Service Employees and Machinists unions say they want to hear from their members first. And Teamsters President James Hoffa believes it's too early in the presidential race to commit organized labor to a candidate. The Teamsters' spokesman is Chip Roth.

CHIP ROTH: We feel that it is unwise to endorse at this early stage. We feel like our members' best interests are served by allowing the primary process to unfold to the extent that we can adequately assess the candidates' positions on issues that are important to working families-- issues like trade, employment, job safety, for instance.

JEFFREY KAYE: Free trade has been a major concern of labor leaders opposed to an early presidential endorsement.

SPOKESPERSON: All it's done is drag the workers down. Look at where they live.

JEFFREY KAYE: Yesterday convention delegates viewed a videotape of industrial union leaders touring the Mexican border town of Tijuana last week. Labor expert Harley Shaiken of the University of California at Berkeley spoke to them outside one factory, or Maquiladora, owned by Sanyo.

HARLEY SHAIKEN: And the average wages in the Maquiladoras right now probably hover around 80 to 85 cents an hour. So you've got this very unusual situation. You've got first world productivity and third world wages.

JEFFREY KAYE: The trip to factories and to the slums where the workers live underscored a harsh reality: The loss of industrial union jobs in the United States. Edward Fire heads the Electronics Workers Union.

EDWARD FIRE: The essential fact is, we have lost a degree of political power in the United States of America; the labor movement has. I don't think there's any question about that. And this is one of the direct results. If we had the political ability to elect people to office at the highest levels, including the President of the United States, in the first instance, I don't think that the number of jobs that have come down here would have, in fact, come down.

JEFFREY KAYE: Both Gore and Bradley have similar positions on trade. Both supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which organized labor opposed.

SPOKESMAN: I think the teamsters, the UAW, the Machinists, that appear to be reluctant to make an early endorsement-- which is not the same as saying they're opposed to an endorsement-- have all been impacted rather directly and immediately by issues related to NAFTA and other trade agreements. So my sense is that their position on trade is probably one of the things that influences the reluctance to give the early endorsement.

JEFFREY KAYE: Some labor leaders say delaying an endorsement will enable unions to influence candidates on issues as the race shapes up. But Jay Mazur, president of UNITE, the Garment Workers union, says an early presidential endorsement should make a candidate even more willing to support labor's issues.

JAY MAZUR: One doesn't say once you've got the endorsement, it's all over. The endorsement is just the beginning of the process. I think there's plenty of room between now and the year 2000 when the election takes place to continue to try to persuade those candidates, whether it's the President of the United States or other candidates, to see our position very clearly.

JEFFREY KAYE: Sweeney says delaying an endorsement would put labor at a disadvantage.

JOHN SWEENEY: We're left out of the process. And a Republican will be elected, conservative Republican who is not finding any solutions...will be elected to the White House.

JEFFREY KAYE: The union label on political candidacies means big bucks, although labor's contributions are dwarfed by business interests. During the 1996 election cycle, labor unions spent $120 million on federal political activity, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Unions also mobilize campaign workers to build support and get out the vote. Vice President Gore is expected to speak to the convention at tomorrow afternoon, following his likely endorsement.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: For some perspective on tomorrow's expected endorsement and on labor's involvement in American politics over the years, we turn to three NewsHour regulars: Presidential Historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, and journalist and author Haynes Johnson. Joining them tonight is Tom Geoghegan, a labor lawyer and author in Chicago.

MARGARET WARNER: Michael, both Gore and Bradley, as we just saw in Jeff's piece, spent considerable effort trying to influence tomorrow's endorsement vote. When did labor support first become a significant factor, a sort of coveted factor from the point of view of some politicians in American politics?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: In a big way, it was Franklin Roosevelt, not only in campaigns, but also getting his program, the New Deal, through Congress. There is a wonderful scene that gives you a bit of an idea, 1936, the great labor leader John L. Lewis came into the Oval Office to see Roosevelt. He had a check for $250,000 and a photographer. He wanted a photograph of this great moment. Roosevelt was terrified that he would be seen accepting this big check from a labor boss. He said, don't worry, John. No need to give me a check. I'll just call on you when any little need arises. The photographer was dismissed. Roosevelt that fall, drained his Lewis's Treasury of about $500,000. And it gives you a little bit of an idea because throughout the years since that time, especially Democrats who have run, have wanted labor's help and have gotten it in a very big way. But at the same time they worried a little bit about seeming too much in labor's embrace.

MARGARET WARNER: It's worth noting here, Haynes, that it has usually been just in the general election campaign.

HAYNES JOHNSON: That's right.

MARGARET WARNER: On behalf of Democrats, not getting into the primary.

HAYNES JOHNSON: That's right. That's a big change. If Mr. Gore gets this, it helps him in the primary process specifically because fewer voters are there. Labor has more people to organize, grass roots stuff. If they can turn them out, that's an if doesn't guarantee they can turn out their membership, which is another change in the labor political arena...but if they do get there and work in the primaries, it makes a big difference.

MARGARET WARNER: And Mondale... Walter Mondale

HAYNES JOHNSON: That's right.

MARGARET WARNER: The only other one.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Not since 1984.

MARGARET WARNER: In a primary.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Not since 1984 in the primary process has labor endorsed a candidate who is running against another candidate in the same party.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Doris, have these endorsements panned out, paid off for the figures who have won them?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Oh, I think there's no question that in the olden days when politics was more a participant sport, rather than a spectator sport, what you got from labor was not only get out the vote, you got them to organize people at the rallies to make them feel that there was a certain momentum. Bumper stickers were important in those older days. You'd have bumper stickers all over the street cars all over the buses. They had incredible canvassing devices; they could get their old retired members to man the phone banks and the money contributions. It's less so today because the whole presidential political arena has changed so that it's more of a spectator sport than a participant sport. But in the primary, it's more like that older participant thing, where getting out the votes, and getting people to canvas and making sure your guys get to the electoral booth is really important.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom Geoghegan, have there been elections in which you could say that labor support actually was decisive?

THOMAS GEOGHEGAN: In 1968, Humphrey almost won the presidential election with a very unpopular war in Vietnam, the cities burning, enormous instability and the left sitting out the election simply because labor showed up at the polls. Richard Nixon won by a whisker. There have been many, many, many elections, especially at the congressional level, in the days when labor was strong in the North and Midwest and union membership was concentrated there; where labor made the entire difference. Russ Feingold, in 1998, in his last election, 30 percent or about a third of the households in that election were union households. And they put him in.

MARGARET WARNER: Haynes, now, in presidential election, there's also a growing gap between union leadership and membership?

HAYNES JOHNSON: That's right. Absolutely.

MARGARET WARNER: When did that begin?

HAYNES JOHNSON: It really goes back to the time when Tom was just talking about when the divisions over the Vietnam War tore the country apart; you began to see then -- first you had labor union members going for George Wallace in the presidential prospect there, 1968, the segregationist candidate and so forth. Then you had going from there, with the Nixon era, you had people -- unions actually endorsing Richard Nixon, the Teamsters Union, and breaking from the foal and other unions defecting. And the leaders could not deliver their men, their manpower at that time.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Doris, would you say that was both over cultural issues and foreign policy issues? Was it not during the Cold War?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Oh, I think that's right. I mean, certainly on social issues, some of the rank and file blue-collar workers turned away from the more progressive parts of the Democratic Party. And loyalty is a lesser thing nowadays. In the old days, when union members were part of a union, it was like their religion, it was like their identity; they would sing those songs -- solidarity forever. So when the union leaders told them something, that was something they felt more inclined to do. It's part of just the general modern culture right now, where people don't follow leaders. They're much more individual characters in all of these elections.

MARGARET WARNER: Michael, how much also do you think the political clout of unions has waned as its membership has declined, in other words, 35 percent in its heyday to less than 15 percent today?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: That's right. It's not only Supreme Court Justices who read the election returns; Presidents are very much aware of this. There are fewer members. There's less money. There's less clout. The result is that even for a Democratic President, labor is much less in the entourage. Lyndon Johnson, when he became President, one of the first things he did was he began calling labor leader after labor leader not only to get their support in general for him as President and when he ran in 1964, but especially for things like the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, things he intended to do in power.

MARGARET WARNER: In other words, he thought they could help him deliver after he got elected?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely. He felt that they should be very much at his side. Bill Clinton has been very different. You've had, during the last six and a half years, a president differing with labor on trade policy.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom Geoghegan, do you see a reduced attentiveness to labor's concerns as a result of this declining membership relationship?

THOMAS GEOGHEGAN: Well, I'd like to register a dissent

MARGARET WARNER: Please do.

THOMAS GEOGHEGAN: -- because I think as the voting rate has declined in the country, labor has become actually perversely a little more powerful. Like Christian Coalition groups, black churches, the percentage of union membership in the '98 election and in Clinton's election was around 23 percent. That's way out of proportion to union representation of the workforce. And the -- voting Democratic has gone up too. In the last election, over 70 percent, 71 percent of the union households that voted, voted Democratic.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about '98, not the presidential of '96?

THOMAS GEOGHEGAN: Well, presidential of '96 was high, too. It wasn't as high as 71 percent, but labor was incredibly important in the election of Bill Clinton in '96.

HAYNES JOHNSON: But he's right about the one important point here where the number of people who are voting is declining year by year in American politics. So if you have a group that is motivated and actually turns out disproportionately to the population, you still have a political force to reckon with.

MARGARET WARNER: But so, Doris, then, how do you explain that in this primary contest among the Democrats for the first time, there's really not a classic labor candidate, that is, both the candidates stand in opposition to labor on this huge issue of trade and the global economy -- that whole basket of issues that we saw that labor leader talking about in Jeff's piece?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, I think what we've seen really in the last few decades is that Democratic politicians have felt they had a leeway to move apart from labor. I mean, we saw them starting to do that in the 1970's when they didn't even invite George Meeney to the Democratic National Convention an incredible slap at him. He was so angry that he did not endorse anyone during that campaign. There was a sense that maybe labor was too much a part of the old establishment that the reformers felt. My own sense is that in the future, I agree with Tom, I think the Democratic Party is going to come more around to realizing that in this day and age, the intensity of getting out the vote will make up a lot for the fact that labor may have been declining on the overall scene, and that there's a reason why Gore has wanted this support so much. In a primary campaign, it could be absolutely critical.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: That's absolutely right. But there's also a problem. Look at 198 4, Walter Mondale. Labor basically pushed him over the finish line. If it hadn't endorsed Mondale in the spring, he probably would not have prevailed over Gary Hart. That turned out to be to some extent an albatross in the fall because Mondale looked as if he was a candidate for the labor bosses; that may be a problem for Al Gore.

MARGARET WARNER: But, Tom Geoghegan, on this issue about new Democrats and the global economy, can do you think we're going to see the Democratic leadership moving closer to the labor issue? Or is labor going to have to move closer to the Democratic leadership's position?

THOMAS GEOGHEGAN: Well, that's an interesting quandary. I think that labor is very cut up on the trade issue because each job lost is irreplaceable in terms of organizing. Labor's fundamental problem is not trade because countries that are much more unionized in Europe are much more open to the global economy or compete much more in the global economy. Its problem is that every time you lose a job, it's impossible under existing labor law to effectively organize people because employers can pick out the pro-union people and fire them with no effective legal remedy in place now. Labor's biggest problem is it doesn't have labor law reform so it can go out and organize. If it had that power, then the global economy issues would moderate in their importance to labor.

MARGARET WARNER: But Haynes, John Sweeney says he's going to increase labor's clout, he's going to increase labor's membership. I notice they're going to make available computers and Internet access at a discount to union members.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Yeah. And this is something that's very interesting because labor has been behind. Big business, big labor -- the money, the ability to organize, to reach there electronically through the computer world and E-mail and so forth, labor was way behind in this kind of thing. Now they're getting into the game. And we'll see what happens in that. There's also something else. You have a new era of labor leadership from the old guard ...Doris was talking about George Meeney, these people who are in their 80's and 70's have been around forever. Now you have the different changes, so it's all -- it's a different game now.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, thank you. Tom Geoghegan and historians, all, thank you very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday: Senate Democrats said they would not seek to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty if Republicans agree to postpone a scheduled vote on it. And in Pakistan, the army's chief of staff ousted the government of Prime Minister Sharif. A correction before we go tonight: A number of you jazz lovers caught us in a bad error last night. The name of the song we ran by Milt Jackson was "Bags' Groove." Jackson's nickname was "Bags." We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.