The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

[beeping] [beeping] [beeping] [music] Good evening. In the headlines tonight, facing probable defeat in Congress, President Reagan ordered sanctions on South Africa.

Both in South Africa and the U.S. the move drew mixed reactions. The government of Thailand crushed an attempted army coup. Details of these stories coming up in our news summary. Jim Lehrer is away tonight, and Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy? - South Africa leads our focus sections on the NewsHour tonight. First we hear why President Reagan changed course, why congressional critics say he hasn't gone far enough, and how the South Africans are reacting. Then a Newsmaker interview with Senate Republican leader Robert Dole, the point man in many upcoming battles between Congress and the White House. Finally, a close-up look at New York City's political marathon, the race for Mayor. - Funding for the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour is provided by AT&T, whether it's telephones, information systems, long distance services, or computers, AT&T. Funding is also provided by this station and other public television stations, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

- After months of saying he was opposed to any form of economic sanctions against South Africa, President Reagan today did an about face. He announced he was imposing a package of sanctions designed to punish the regime's policy of racial discrimination known as apartheid. - I am signing today an executive order that will put in place a set of measures designed and aimed against the machinery of apartheid without indiscriminately punishing the people who are victims of that system. Measures that will disassociate the United States from apartheid, but associate us positively with peaceful change. The steps ordered by the President include a ban on loans from U.S. banks to the South African government unless the money is used to help Blacks, a ban on computer exports to South African military and law enforcement agencies, blocking the sale of nuclear technology, except under certain circumstances, and a proposed ban on the importation into the U.S. of the gold coin known as the Krugerrand. Secretary of State Schultz explained what the sanctions are supposed to achieve.

- These are actions that are designed to register our view against apartheid as distinct from actions designed to have an effect by depriving people in South Africa of economic livelihood, particularly Blacks, of course. Today's announcement was a last-minute move by the administration in the face of almost certain action by the Congress to impose sanctions under even stiffer terms, but it was enough to satisfy a number of Senate Republicans, including Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, who earlier had preferred a Congressional sanctions bill. - The second-best situation is one in which, by his own option, he adopts most of the things that we want to do, but for the moment, the South African government and the world must know that Americans speak with one voice. - Most Democrats, however, were not placated, including one of last year's candidates for President and House Speaker Tip O'Neill. - Faced with bipartisan repudiation of his construction engagement policy towards South Africa,

the President now says that he will take action by executive order. Unfortunately, the proposals announced this morning are chock full of loopholes. This package may play in Pretoria. It will be seen for what it's worth by the people suffering under the yoke of the government of South Africa. - There has been no definitive move by this President today to use the levers of our country to get the appropriate leaders at the table there to negotiate the right to vote, or to free a Mandela and Boesak, or to end the influx laws in that country. In a real sense, the President had a press conference today to end protests, not to end apartheid, to divert Congress, not to divest from South Africa. Late this afternoon, the Senate voted to sidetrack legislation imposing sanctions on South Africa, conservative senators who had been filibustering or blocking the sanctions bill since before the summer recess, today in an attempt to end that filibuster, failed by a vote of 53 to 34.

- In South Africa, President Reagan's sanctions were attacked from both ends of the political spectrum. President P.W. Botha said they were regrettable, and Bishop Desmond Tutu said "he doesn't care two beans about Black people in South Africa." James Robinson of the BBC reports on the effect of the sanctions and some of the reaction in Johannesburg. - The enforcement of apartheid and the control of Blacks by police and the government relies increasingly on computers. Blacks regularly have their passbooks processed by computer to check on their movements and to grant them permission to live in a particular township and seek work. A ban on computer sales will have an effect, but won't prevent South Africa getting computers from other countries, particularly in the Far East. Krugerrands, gold coins minted in South Africa, will still be legally available for sale in the United States, at least for the time being.

If a ban is eventually imposed, it will hurt the gold industry, but America is only a small part of the market. The most painful of American sanctions may be the restriction on bank loans to the South African government, except for those loans designed to help Blacks. But in general, businessmen are relieved, they'd expected more. - Because these are very selective sanctions, which have been decided upon by President Reagan, and are hedged around with civil conditions, the impact on the private sector in South Africa will be minimal. - And that's a judgment shared by Bishop Desmond Tutu, who wanted much tougher action. His anger against apartheid is tonight directed towards President Reagan. - He doesn't care two beans about Black people in South Africa. I don't think he cares at all. And that is why I call him a cryptoracist. I think I should call him a racist, pure and simple. I mean, he thinks that Black people are expendable.

- South African police today raided offices of the United Democratic Front, a leading multi-racial party opposing apartheid, and detained four members of the campaign against white conscription. The Zulu chief, Gatsha Buthelezi, warned the government that his million followers could not hold back Black anger if the government continued to refuse to take real steps towards power sharing. - The government of Thailand has successfully beaten back an attempted coup by a group of former top military officers. In the fighting that involved some four to five hundred soldiers who attacked key army installations, four people were killed, including Neil Davis. The Bangkok bureau chief for NBC News, and an NBC sound man. Davis, who was Australian, was the last correspondent of an American network to leave South Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975. The rebels rolled into Bangkok with 18 American-made tanks, M-41s and M-48s, and began to attack strong points, manned by loyalist soldiers. There was scattered fighting in the center of the city for about five hours, and in several areas, civilians were forced to run from bursts of gunfire.

It was the second unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the government of Thailand in the last four years. While Neil Davis, the NBC bureau chief, was taking pictures of these scenes, he was shot. His camera fell on its side, but it kept on recording. That is how NBC received pictures of other journalists, dragging Davis and the NBC sound man, whose name was Bill Latch, out of the fighting zone. Davis was killed on the spot. Latch was wounded and died later in a hospital. - 25-year-old Michael Drummond continued making medical history today at the University of Arizona Medical Center in Tucson. He is the first patient to have an artificial heart, which kept him alive for nine days, replaced by a human heart. Today, just two days after the latest surgery, doctors report Drummond is progressing normally. Peggy Giddings of Public Station KUAT in Tucson has a report. - Doctors give Drummond a 75-80% chance of living one year and a 50% chance of living five years.

He has reportedly walked a few steps, has been sitting in a chair talking with his family, and has a relatively healthy appetite. A frantic search for a human heart for Drummond was launched after he suffered a series of minor strokes on Thursday. Saturday, the Jarvik-7 heart was removed from Drummond's chest and replaced by the heart of a 19-year-old motorcycle accident victim from Texas. Drummond is now listed in critical but stable condition, which is considered normal. - Nobody else has ever been through what he's been through. When we talk about him being considered a normal transplant patient at this point, it's just that from this point on, the medications he'll be dealing with, the regimens he'll be faced with, are all those that any other heart transplant patient would be. - The next hurdle for Drummond will be Thursday or Friday when the possibility of rejection begins. - The body will all of a sudden recognize that this organ is not its own, that it is foreign object, and then they will make an attempt to reject it. But he's already on anti-rejection medications in an attempt to stop that before it happens or at least to minimize the effect.

It's something that happens with virtually all patients. - Drummond's physicians say that despite the minor strokes he suffered and some blood clotting problems, the case has shown that the Jarvik-7 heart can be used successfully as a bridge for life. Drummond could leave the hospital in three to four weeks. - The scientists who found the Titanic returned to port today to a triumphant welcome from friends and family members. The research ship docked at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and our correspondent, June Cross, was in the crowd to watch the arrival and hear more of the incredible story of the discovery. - In the old days, people in towns like Woods Hole turned out to welcome crews carrying fortunes in whale oil. Today, they turned out to welcome a crew carrying a different type of cargo, pictures of a wreck at the bottom of the sea, and not just any wreck, but one of the most famous of all, the SS Titanic. The ship that found the Titanic is the research vessel, Knorr. Families, friends, and a gaggle of media turned out to greet it and its triumphant crew, a team of American and French researchers. The Americans had gone out about a month ago to test state-of-the-art photographic equipment for the Navy.

These photos were taken 115 feet away from the remains of the Titanic. The camera was mounted on an unmanned vessel and towed from the back of the Knorr. The US team leader is Bob Ballard, head of the Deep Submergence Lab at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. He gave this description of the wreck. - The Titanic lies now in 13,000 feet of water on a gently sloping, alpine-like countryside, overlooking a small canyon below. Its bow faces north, and the ship sits upright on its bottom, with its mighty stacks pointed upward. There is no light at this great depth, and little light can be found. It is a quiet and peaceful place, and a fitting place for the remains of this greatest of sea tragedies to rest. Forever, may it remain that way, and may God bless these now-found souls.

- Next summer, some members of this team will journey to the Titanic again. They want to take a closer look at the sunken ship from a submarine. But this story probably won't end there. Already assorted treasure seekers and a London-based insurance company are laying claims to the wreck. So whether Dr. Ballard and his team find the Titanic in the same pristine condition they left it is an open question. - Just ahead on the NewsHour, the Reagan administration's policies switch on South Africa. We hear from a defender, a critic, and the official reaction of the South Africans. Then a Newsmaker interview with the Senate's top Republican, Robert Dole, and finally a close-up look at the colorful mayor's race in New York City. - Tonight, we focus on President Reagan's decision to abandon his long-standing opposition to sanctions against South Africa. Faced with apparently overwhelming sentiment in the Congress for a sanctions bill, and the prospect of an embarrassing defeat there, the president signed an executive order for limited sanctions.

This is how he answered press questions about why he changed his position. - Helen, I haven't. I thought here I'd try to explain. We, I'm opposed and could not sign the bill if it came to me containing the economic sanctions, which, as we have repeatedly said, would have harmed the very people we're trying to help. No, there were many things in that bill that we could agree with, and many of those are incorporated in this executive order. - These are sanctions aren't they? - Not in the sense of the economic kind of sanctions that the bill called for, and that, as I say, would have hurt the economy there. - ...won't hurt the economy? - No, I don't believe so. - What changes would have to take place in South Africa for you to look at these measures? - I think the negotiations that lead toward the steps necessary to bring about political participation by all the citizens of South Africa, and when they start those constructive steps... as I've said, there isn't anything that's going to be achieved overnight.

- Would a dialogue be enough? - I think out of that dialogue then would come further steps leading toward, as soon as possible, the end of apartheid. - How would you describe the kind of message you think this action is sending to South Africa? - I think the same kind that we've been using before. It is persuasion, but also indicating that the American people can get impatient with this. We all feel very strongly about the changes that are needed in that society. - Can you still call your policy towards South Africa constructive engagement? Yes, you might add the word active to constructive, but yes, I do think it is. - With us now is the author of the constructive engagement policy, Chester Crocker, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Mr. Crocker, has constructive engagement failed? - Well, we don't think it has. We think there's been a good bit that's been achieved over the past four or five years, both in terms of regional diplomacy where we've been very active in trying to reduce violence, and bring about a framework for bringing independence to Namibia, and in terms of a series of reforms, which, however inadequate they may be, represent more change in the past few years than we've seen in the previous 40 years. However, having said that, we also feel very clearly that there's been a recent deterioration, and I think a major factor in the President's action today is his desire to send a signal that, in fact, all Americans feel in looking at the recent pattern of violence, of destruction, of repression, and brutality. - Let me quote to you two hard things that were said against the President's action today. One was, Senator Pressler said, this isn't a policy, it's just a maneuver to avoid a defeat in Congress. - The President's hope and his motivation in taking this important step is to be able to make it abundantly clear to all audiences in South Africa, in Africa, and Europe, and here, that Americans stand united on the issue of apartheid, the policies, the institutions, and the philosophy.

At the same time, to draw a clear line between those kinds of signals, and measures which would destroy or destabilize the economy of that country, which is the hope for its future. - The hard thing was said, we just heard it now in our program by Jesse Jackson, who said, this is just to end protests, not to end apartheid. - Well, we don't see it that way, what we're seeking to do is to do everything we can to reach out across this land. There are many voices, there are many in Congress, who feel strongly as does the administration, we're trying to send a unified message as I have indicated. It's not a question of stopping protest. In fact, the fact that Americans are speaking out is a healthy thing. That's what our country is all about. We're not opposed to that. What we do hope to do is to avoid a situation in which various audiences abroad, particularly, might misread or misinterpret the healthy debate that goes on in this country. - President Botha said today that the sanctions would reduce Washington's ability to influence events in South Africa. Hasn't that been the administration's argument all along? That if you impose sanctions, you wouldn't have the same voice and influence there?

So where do you stand now? - Robin, I think the key point is that there are sanctions and there are sanctions, as we have said all along, we've pointed out consistently in this debate in recent months, that we have some existing sanctions in current policy, for example, on the arms embargo, which we have been with from the very beginning as had previous administrations. But sanctions which would aim at reducing job opportunities, reducing growth and undermining the economy of that country are a very different matter. And the President's view on those kinds of issues is very clear and firm. - Do you think that the Botha government is going to listen to you with a more sympathetic or sensitive or eager ear now than it has been in the last few weeks? - I don't think we should delude ourselves that we are the key factor. We are a factor. We have some influence. We're trying to use it in a way that we think is constructive. It is our hope that President Botha will listen to his own fellow countrymen, which he has been awfully slow in doing in recent months, which is one of the reasons for the impatience that President Reagan referred to. - But the decision now to impose sanctions after opposing them for so long or impose some sanctions really does mean a change of heart,

does it, in the councils of the administration that the other policy just wasn't getting the results you wanted, therefore you had to try something new? - I think any policy has to be based on events on the ground. We feel that some additional signals were important and were timely in these circumstances, and so we have moved in that direction. I think that's the way I would describe the decision. - Thank you. Judy? Someone who was not pleased with President Reagan's announcement today is Congressman William Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania. Congressman Gray is chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of the House anti-apartheid sanctions legislation. First of all, Congressman Gray, were you surprised with the president that decided to do today? - No, I'm not. I think he's been sending a signal that he has been trying to find a way to politically head off a showdown on the question of economic restrictions. And what he's come up with is an ill-advised and ill-disguised political attempt to circumvent a bipartisan coalition. And I think the proof of that...

- You think that's the purpose. - Oh, without a doubt. And I think the proof of it is what he said right here tonight in your clips. He said he hasn't changed position and he is sending the same message. Now, if he hasn't changed position and he is sending the same message, then what he is giving us is the rhetoric of economic sanctions. However, the reality is quite different. There's a waiver on the bank loans, which provides an out. And whoever heard you conducted... - Wait a minute. What does that mean? - A waiver on the bank loan provision is where they say we will prohibit bank loans subject to if they affect positively the well-being of Blacks. Which, therefore, allows a quasi-public agency of government or agency of government to certify that we are going to increase better housing in Soweto, the concentration camp, and thus there's a justification. - So you're saying that doesn't have much meaning? - It has no meaning whatsoever. Take, for instance, the Krugerrand provision. He is saying he is going to provide a prohibition against the sale of Krugerrand, subject to ninety nations approving that policy... - This is the gold coin.

- Yes, the gold coin, subject to the GATT nations approving that. Now, that's doing foreign policy by a Gallup poll. We never did it with Poland. We never did it with the other 15 or more nations that we have economic restrictions on. So it's obviously an attempt to delay and avoid. I think, essentially, we've seen a political maneuver with rhetoric that sounds as if something is being done. But essentially, as the President said tonight and today, it's the same position, the same message. - But you just heard Secretary Crocker here say that this is intended to send an anti-apartheid signal, that it's a step the administration had not taken before. - Oh, I think that that is appropriate for the Secretary to say that. But the reality is that it is rhetoric that you're sending, and that's why the white businessman from South Africa was surprised with the modesty of what happened. I think what this message is is going to be good news for Pretoria. It's going to be bad news for the victims in Soweto. And I think it's going to be confusion for those in Peoria in Main Street America. - But how is this really different congressman from the legislation that was coming out of the Congress?

There aren't that many differences. - Oh, yes, there are. There are substantial differences, Judy. One, the prohibition against Krugerrands was immediate with no conversation with other nations. It is unilateral decision. And that's the way we make foreign policy. We didn't have a joint conference as to whether we were going to impose sanctions on Poland. - But the language regarding computers, the language regarding bank loans, wasn't that too? - No, the only thing that has taken out, the only thing that has taken directly out of the conference report is the language with regard to computers. The prohibition against bank loans is not what was in the conference report. It has a waiver, a possibility that it can be waived if Blacks are going to benefit. Who's going to make that determination whether the Black majority benefits from that bank loan? That is not in the conference bipartisanly supported anti-apartheid act that was passed. - But still the administration would come back and say, but we have taken a step. - Oh, I would say that that is absolutely not true.

What they've done is held a press conference to provide political cover and to disguise, as the president said, when he was asked. The same policy, the same message, and I think it's going to play fairly well with Pretoria. And as Desmond Tutu and other moderate nonviolent Black leadership is going to come out and say in South Africa, it's going to play badly with the victims. And to continue to justify our position on the message that we're concerned about the victims is absolutely an absurdity. - Congressman Gray, stay with us. Robin? - For the South African government position, we have with us Herman Buekes, ambassador-designate to the United States for South Africa. Mr. Ambassador, is this good news for Pretoria? - We continue to oppose sanctions of whatever form they may be. We regard them as harmful and we feel that they do not serve a purpose. What we do believe also is that hopefully now a more productive climate and less public one will allow us to restore relations in some way and enable us inside South Africa to continue with our process of political reform.

- What does that mean that now that the President has signed limited sanctions that your government can have a different kind of dialogue with him? - No, it's just an expression of hope that we have to continue as we have been doing to continue with our process of political dialogue. - President Botha has said today that what he called "outside interference" of this kind would retard rather than speed up reforms. Why would that be? - Well, I would think that it's something coming from outside South Africa and there are different voices inside South Africa. There are those people who take different points of view on the issue. - Does it mean that it would stiffen the resistance of those in South Africa who are opposed to ending apartheid?

- It's obviously clear that there are those forces inside South Africa who are against the political reforms of the government, yes? - Secretary Schultz and others said today that America now speaks with one voice. Are you reporting to your government in Pretoria that there is a new consensus here that the United States is now sending a different message? - Oh, it's clear that concrete action was taken today and we've reported that, yes. - Are you saying things have moved to a different plane? The Republicans and the Democrats and the administration are now at least to some degree on the same course. Therefore, it's a different degree of attention. Do you think it's gone to a different degree now? - From the decision at the stake and yes, the implementation thereof we would have to assume that it's a unified one. - Your government has been warning that sanctions of any kind would hurt Blacks and neighboring African countries. Will these sanctions that the president has imposed today do that?

- Well, to the extent that sanctions will restrict employment prospects and abilities, yes, they will be harmful. - Will these do that? - We'll have to see how they will work out in practice. - I see. Would your government have been less happy as that businessman in Johannesburg who was quoted in the clip indicated if not these sanctions but the ones proposed by Congress had been voted? - Well, Mr. MacNeil, I would rather not want to characterize the differences between two versions. We have to deal with what is being presented to us and that is the president's decision today. - Bishop Tutu said that these should make your government quite happy. - Well, there are other people inside South Africa also leaders who would feel different from Bishop Tutu. - But to come back to the point I was making a moment ago or we were making a moment ago, do you believe as South Africa's representative in Washington that today marks a significant turning point in relations and that your government needs to listen with a different ear now? - Well, there are certain realities when you are confronted with these that you have to deal with them and this is one reality now.

It's a decision that has come forth from the administration and we have to adjust to that and we have to continue without policy in our relations of the country. - Well, thank you. Judy? - Mr. Secretary, let me pose what the ambassador just said. He sounds like he's saying I hope to continue a dialogue but they really aren't anticipating any real change to do business very differently as a result of these sanctions announced today. Is that what the administration wants? - What the administration wants is to be able to bring its influence fully and constructively to bear to push the things that all Americans share, the goals of all Americans share including, of course, the dismantling of apartheid, the launching of an effective negotiating process between the government and opposition leaders. Whether that in fact means that we have strained relations, private relations, public relations, only the future can in fact tell. We feel very strongly about the need to get these objectives moving. We're going to use all of the influence that we have at our disposal to do that.

I can't predict whether this will lead to smooth relations or not. - But I mean, is the sort of thing that you just heard from the ambassador, the sort of response the administration wants? The response the administration wants is to see South Africa get its act together, seize the initiative, its government and its people, and move toward a more constructive path than all the violence and destruction we've seen in the past 12 months. That's what we're really looking for in South Africa. - But you're saying, Congressman Gray, that's not what the administration is going to get as a result of this? - No, I don't think so. I think it's already been stated by the ambassador when he said he's going to continue the policies that they've been following. In other words, business is usual. And the reason why it's business is usual is because when you read the fine print after you get past the rhetoric of economic restrictions, you come out to the same place as the President said under questions. He hasn't changed his position. The message is the same. And I think what that means tragically is that the moderate leadership that seeking political reform in South Africa non-violently will be pushed aside by events. Secondly, we were beginning to see... - Let me stop you there? Is that something the administration fears that the moderate leadership will be pushed aside?

- I think all Americans have to fear that. But what I find most distressing in the way this discussion has gone so far is the implication that what we have done is to engage in some sort of a political maneuver. In fact, we have taken everything, every jot and tittle out of the conference bill. We have moved a few implementing regs in a different direction. We have taken some steps as far as implementation is concerned to improve them as we see it. But there's not a single heading in the immediate measures in the conference bill that we are not adopting and we're going one better. We're adding a ban on import of South African weapons exports. So that is the fact. - Congressman Gray, he says they're they've adopted what the Congress was going to do. - That is absolutely false. And I'm disappointed to hear the Secretary say that because in the conference report, there is no prior approval needed by the 90 nations of GATT before we impose Krugerrands. And for the Secretary to sit here and to suggest to this audience that that was in the conference report shows almost the same amount of ignorance that the President showed on what was happening in South Africa two weeks ago when he said segregation was eliminated. And if the Secretary can show me that in the conference report, I will support constructive engagement.

- That's pretty strong language, Mr. Secretary. - It is strong language is the intention of the administration to move toward a ban on Krugerrand imports into this country. And that is the fact. We do have certain international legal obligations. We're determined to pursue what means are available to us to ban Krugerrand imports within the context of the GATT agreement without running into an immediate court suit. But we're going to go ahead and move toward that direction. That is our decision. That's what the President has said today. - In the conference report, there is no requirement to talk with GATT. We didn't talk with GATT and get their approval when we imposed sanctions on Poland or any other of the 15-plus nations that we have restricted. - You're saying that's enough of a delay... - It is a delay and cover-up tactic. And which will take months and which for all practical purposes is saying to the apartheid regime, look, you've got some more time. If you combine that with Senator Dole, saying maybe I'll bring the conference up next spring, that is saying, look, do something, bail us out. You didn't do it, Mr. Botha, with your speech a few weeks ago. We're giving you another shot.

- Let me bring you back into this Ambassador Buekes. Is that the way you read it? - Well, those people who were intent on doing damage to the South African economy, obviously they may feel different about the decision being announced today. But we would look beyond that. We need that economy in the country for the benefit for all the people in the country. - And you don't feel these measures do any great damage to the South African economy? - What I'm saying is that we are opposed to any of these measures. No form of restriction, no form of sanction can benefit anybody there. What I'm saying is that the policy that we're continuing is a policy that the South African government has initiated. And that is one of reform. That is to dismantle and do away with apartheid. And that is what we intend to do. - But what I'm asking is, the measures that the President announced today are more palatable to you in Pretoria than what would have come from the Congress. - It is a decision that has been made here. It is not for us to pronounce on that. - So Mr. Crocker, what kind of change, immediate change do you expect to see in South Africa? Or is it possible to say?

- Well, there are certain kinds of things we would hope the government would be looking at very closely indeed in terms of building a climate more conducive to dialogue and negotiation. I think in the circumstances we're seeing, we feel it is incumbent on the government to take some initial steps. We've often talked about the issue of citizenship, for example. An issue of great importance, albeit symbolic largely at this stage, to the Black majority. The issue of influx control, which is perhaps the most hated aspect of apartheid in the daily lives of blacks. These are things that would be major signals that could make a big difference. - Are these measures the South African administration is looking at? - These are measures definitely on the table. - What do you mean on the table? - Well, to be discussed to be negotiated and for reforms to be instituted. - That's exactly what the South African government said in January. That's exactly what they said in 1984. They've been saying that for many, many years that we are looking at the measures. And what the facts clearly show is that the only time that they have been in reforms of apartheid, it has been primarily petty apartheid. And that is under duress either of economic pressure or outside pressure like the International Olympics Committee's ban in the 1970s.

I think unfortunately what we have seen is the fact that a president saw a bipartisan coalition coming together saying this is what we wanted. And he is provided an opportunity for some of those in that bipartisan coalition to find shelter and do nothing. However, I would like to make a prediction. And that prediction is that I think that by the end of this week, that vote that was went down today only lost by seven votes. I would not be surprised by the middle of the week as people read the fine print of those who were not there, 13 returned to the Senate that they will overturn that decision and demand a vote on the conference report. - Do you think that's possible, Secretary? - Well, I try to be an expert as best I can on things in Africa. I'm not a congressional expert. I think I'd leave that to the congressman. But we'll see how that plays out. What I really do believe, though, is from talking to many in Congress, is that there really isn't a majority up there for the kind of measures which the congressman is hinting at. I get the impression hearing him that what he really wants to do is to see how much damage...

- Well, there was a majority, though, for the legislation that was about to be passed, and apparently the President's veto, most people were predicting would be overridden. - The legislation that was passed includes a hint or a threat down the road 12 months further what we would call punitive economic sanctions aimed at weakening the South African economy. That's above all the difference that we see between the executive order that the president has issued in the conference bill. But I get the impression hearing the congressman that he wants to see the South African economy destroyed. I'd put the question to him. Is that really what he wants? - As usual, this administration likes to change the subject. He's like his president. The answer is absolutely not. The real question that we're talking about is the comparison of what the president said with the conference report that was supported 380 to 40 in the House of Representatives. And its original version was 80 to 12 in the Senate, and for the Assistant Secretary to divert attention and ask that question is similar to what the president did today. So it's entirely consistent. And the answer is no, I don't want to destroy the South African economy. I'd like justice and freedom for the people there who are oppressed. So would we said Secretary Crocker, Congressman Gray, Secretary Crocker, Ambassador Buekes we thank you all for being with us. I know this is one we will continue to debate.

- Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a newsmaker interview with Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and the New York mayoral race, the political battle where style is substance. - While the president's action today on South Africa may have diffused one source of tension between him and congressional Republicans, there are plenty of others waiting. They include farm policy, trade, tax reform, and civil rights. Pivotal in resolving these issues between a Republican president who doesn't face another election, and Republican senators who do, is Majority Leader Robert Dole. On the Senate's first day of business after the summer recess, Senator Dole joins us from Capitol Hill. Good evening, Senator. - Thank you. - I don't know whether you heard it a moment ago, but Congressman Gray just said he wouldn't be surprised if when people in the Senate read the fine print in the president's limited sanctions today, they didn't reverse the vote and demand a vote on the Senate's bill. What do you say to that? - I doubt that will happen, but in any event, should it happen, I think there are adequate votes to sustain a presidential veto. I thought what we were all trying to do, and I'm one of those who supports the bipartisan effort, along with I think Congressman Gray, though I have a little doubt now.

I think there's an effort now to politicized this, make it a straight Democratic issue, punish your Ronald Reagan rather than South Africa. Now, if that's the game, the Democrats on the Hill want to play, then I would hope that the Republicans in the Senate would understand that and support the president. I think we're very lucky to have the president. I don't care when he changed his mind if it was at 10:30 this morning or 1 o'clock this afternoon, he's on board. We've won. I would think that Congressman Gray and others would be applauding President Reagan and those of us who have gotten it as far. - What does.... you say "we've won"? What does this resolution say about other issues coming up between you and the White House, like trade? - I don't think it says very much. I think the president, in this particular instance, was very forthcoming. I've just talked with Don Regan, Chief of the White House staff who indicates the president's very pleased with the Senate action this afternoon.

But this doesn't get us by the trade issue, the farm issue, and maybe even other civil rights issues. But it certainly was the right thing for the president to do. Some would wish he'd have done it a month ago or six months ago, but it's done. And we believe that it covers everything in the original Senate bill. And what I would like to do is postpone action on the conference report. And then for some reason, the administration doesn't live up to what it indicated it would do today. Then I'll be out front trying to pass the conference report. - I mean, in a tactical sense, the Senate, backed up by the House, showed a lot of congressional muscle to the White House on this sanctions issue. Have you got that kind of muscle on trade on the farm bill and that kind of thing? And is it likely... - Oh I see. - That's what I was asking? - Well, we have that. I doubt that we have the same kind of muscle. I mean, there's a lot of problems in the trade area. There's some bipartisan support for different kinds of legislation.

But I would guess that any trade bill that Congress passed, the president could have his veto sustained. So he's got that kind of muscle. We won't have an 80 to 12 vote on a trade bill and my... as we did on the anti apartheid bill, we won't have an 80 to 12 vote in the Senate on a farm bill, I don't believe. But the president probably will have the upper hand on those issues. - You met today with his trade representative Clayton Yeutter. Has the administration got the message that there's a lot of anger in the Congress about the trade issue and about imports and so on? - In my view, they have to the extent that Mr. Yeutter, Ambassador Yeutter stated just 45 minutes ago that they're in the process now of looking at some alternate plan, a legislative plan that they might want members of Congress to look at. Either they would send it up or those of us who have an interest in this area would try to determine whether there was any support for it in the Senate and in the House. So the answer is yes. - Protectionist measures or measures to bring pressure on foreign governments?

- Not protectionist. I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm not a protectionist, but I do believe we should have access to these markets. So it would be this kind of legislation: demanding access, more reciprocity, mutuality of trade, rather than sort of a one-sided "We have free trade. Everybody else has in some areas, closed markets." - Did you agree to postpone action in the Senate to give the administration time to prepare its alternative? - Well, I doubt that I could postpone it. My view is that as soon as some bill is pending in the Senate, where we're pretty free with amendments, someone will stand up, Senator Thurmond or Senator Hollings or someone and offer the textile bill. And then we're off to the races as far as trade bills are concerned. Senator Cohen of Maine would follow that up with an amendment to take action on shoes. He's very displeased with the President's action on shoes. So it'll come up. I would guess we'll have a trade, a little trade war on the Senate floor, probably in the next 30 days.

- On the farm issue, you said you didn't think you had the votes there to have your way totally with the White House. What do you think is necessary to give the farmers what they deserve in this crisis situation now? - Well, in my view, first of all, we can't exempt agriculture from budget restraint. And I believe we can do that. I hope it can be bipartisan, but I'm reminded every time I say that word that 1986 is a very important year. And bipartisanship is sort of slipping away in many areas. We will pass a farm bill in the Senate, but I hope it's one that the President can sign. The President's indicated to me that he's totally sympathetic with the plight of the farmers. He wants a farm bill. And if we meet certain guidelines, he'll be prepared to sign it. - Well, does that mean that it can, that it has to be revenue neutral? I mean that it, it cannot cost the federal government any more money?

- Well, in the sense, it will still cost the federal government somewhere around $40 billion and more over a three-year period. What we would hope to achieve is income protection for farmers from the standpoint of what we call target prices and price supports. But lowering the loan rates so we can be more competitive, the more market oriented farm bill. Then we also have to take a look at the farm credit system, which is virtually on its knees. But I would hope we would do that say 60 days from now after we've had very adequate hearings. You and other Senate Republicans recently joined in a brief that takes on the Reagan Justice Department in a voting rights case. Is the administration out of step with the Republican Party on civil rights, do you think? - In any case, I'm not certain who called the shots. I doubt that it was a matter of the President was notified... yes, the answer is yes. We believe that you have to consider not just the fact that you may elect a Black Republican now and then in some county in North Carolina or any other state.

You have to look at what we call the totality of circumstances. And it's a matter of keen interest to many Republicans in the Senate. And we hope that our view is sustained by the court. - From things you've said recently, it made me wonder whether you believe the White House knows there's an election on next year. - Well, they do know. In fact, the President has been very willing to engage in fundraising activities for certain incumbents who are up in '86. But I've got to believe that we're probably a bit more sensitive. We've been in our states. We've talked to voters. And that's something that White House people don't do very often. The President takes a trip. He's very well protected and insulated. Not many people have a chance and opportunity to really say Mr. President, you're wrong on this or you're right on this. So I think we have a little better antenna. Now, the President's very popular. We need his help in '86. But we also need a little more freedom of exchange between Senate and House Republicans and the White House.

I believe that's improving every day. - The White House Chief of Staff, Don Regan, said after they had their strategy session a few weeks ago that there was going to be a fall offensive with the Congress, with vetoes of things that didn't please the White House and so on. You've had a few weeks to think that over now. How is that shaping up and how's it going to sit with the Senate? Well, the big fall offensive is on the tax reform bill. That's the president's big initiative. And we don't quarrel with that. If the counter doesn't run out, we're prepared to take it up. I know Senator Packwood, the Chairman of the Finance Committee is ready to go. But first the House has to pass the bill. The other offensive of vetoing bills. Again, I agree with the President. We're watching very carefully. Senator Hatfield, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Dominici, Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Garn, Chairman of the Banking Committee and others trying to hold down spending. And we want the President to veto any bill that exceeds the budget. So there isn't any real conflict or confrontation. But I think at the same time it's fair to say that we're a little bit independent minded in the Senate. We like being in the majority. We believe we've done a good job. And we have to protect ourselves where we can.

- In a word, do you think a tax reform bill is possible this year? - I would say possible, but unlikely. That's complete passage. Finishing the conference report, the conference itself. And getting on the President's desk, I would say no likelihood of that. Maybe passing the House and the Senate. It's less than 50-50. - Well, Senator Dole, thank you very much for joining us. - Thank you. [music] - Ask almost anybody in the country, and they'll probably have an opinion about New York City. It's not only the biggest, most think it's also the brashest and the noisiest city in the U.S. That goes for its politics as well, as correspondent June Macell found out when she tried to put together for us a slice of the mayor's race, one day before the Democratic primary there. [music] There is a New York City sort of a rhythm, I think. It's fast. It's quick.

Sometimes nasty. It's funny. It's blunt. It's direct. And he is all of those things. - [Koch speaking, crowd repeating] I solemnly pledge... that on September 10th... I shall rush to the polls... and vote for Ed Koch... so help me God... now I can sleep easily tonight! - I think he is quintessential New York. I mean, he can be so outrageous, to use one of his favorite phrases, and the people love it because that's the way New York is. - Hi everybody. How am I doing? How am I doing? It's become Ed Koch's slogan, his trademark. It's the phrase people think of when they think of the mayor of New York. In a recent television debate, his main opponent, New York City Council President Carol Bellamy, told him exactly how she thought he was doing.

- Ed Koch lost control of the management of the city after he lost his bid for governor in 1982. Ed, today you're all talk and no action. Since you lost to Mario Cuomo, you've become a fraud and a phony. - For seven years, she closed her mouth. For six months since ambition kissed her on the lips, we hear from her every day. My problem is, where was she? If she thought I was such a terrible mayor, why was it that she said that I'm a good manager? I'm a problem solver. I would make a good governor. She was supportive of me. Is this then a question of political hypocrisy that we see before us? Is this a question of a change of mind, of a flip flop?

- I remember when you were, let's see, you were first for Bernie Goetz, then you were against Bernie, no, you were first against Bernie Goetz, and then you were four Bernie Goetz, and then you were against Bernie Goetz again? If anybody's flip-flopping, if anybody's talking about ambitious, it's you Ed. - Well, they're at it again. Ed Koch and Carol Bellamy have been hurling insults at each other for more than seven years. Ever since he was elected to his first term as mayor. - I once described it as a ping pong match going back and forth at City Hall, because Carol Bellamy sits on one side of City Hall, and Ed Koch sits on the other side of City Hall, their offices, and they've been back and forth these charges. It generally starts with Carol Bellamy making an allegation, and then Ed Koch responds, and then she responds to the response, and then he responds to the response to the response, but he certainly gives us good as he gets. And then some. - New Yorkers are used to it. The Koch/Bellamy show is part of New York street theater. He's called her a disaster, and she's called him a liar.

The third candidate, State Assemblyman Denny Farrell, says he wishes they would stop bickering and focus on the issues. - Well, I don't think the public is being served well. I don't think they want to hear Ralph and Alice Kramden fighting and doing their Honeymooners bit. They want to hear, what are we going to do to change the future of the city? - But Farrell hasn't had it easy either. While he's escaped the insults, he almost didn't make it on the ballot at all. Bellamy, afraid Farrell would split the anti-Koch vote, challenged his nominating petitions. - What do you think the impact of Carol Bellamy is trying to keep Denny Farrell off the ticket has been? - Dumbest thing she ever did in her whole life. I mean, what did she do? According to Denny Farrell, she selected the only Black candidate running from Mayor to try to throw him off the ballot. - The latest polls show Koch with 67% of the vote, so he's generally considered a shoo-in, with Bellamy trailing behind in second place and Farrell a very distant third. Even in polls indicating dissatisfaction among voters with basic city services, Koch personally gets high ratings.

What do you think accounts for that? - I believe that people see me as an extension of themselves using common sense. And so if people like me, and I think that they do, it is because they say, well, you can rely on Koch. He's just like us. He's going to make mistakes. If he finds that a mistake has been made, he's going to admit it and change the program, but he's not afraid. He stands up for us, and I do. And I know that sounds, you know, without humility, but you ask me the question. Pete Hamill is a long-established New Yorker who frequently writes about New York City politics. - Well, I think it's the same thing as the Reagan phenomenon. You know, if Reagan is the Teflon president, Koch is the Teflon mayor of New York. He has separated himself from the problems so that it is not surprising to see Koch standing in a subway station saying, I hate the subways. Look how terrible they are, or to talk about government as if government were something other than him.

- Another reason for Koch's popularity is his visibility. While incumbents usually have an advantage, Koch has given new definition to the word exposure. He appears in movies and holds press conferences with the Muppets. He wrote a best-selling book called Mayor and then convinced some Broadway producers to turn it into a play. The star of the play is appearing nightly, but most Koch lookalikes complain they can't get work because the Mayor frequently volunteers to play the parts himself. Recently, Koch even made the rock video scene. - I'm just a country boy, country boy at heart. - Actually, that may be what he does best is his rock videos and writing his books. I'm not trying to run against Mr. Entertainment. I'm trying to run to be the mayor of New York City and New Yorkers, wherever they live and any of the five boroughs deserve more than just Mr. Entertainment. - Then there's the question of money. The mayor has raised six times as much money as Bellamy. Nonetheless, she's tried to send out the message that Koch should spend less time entertaining and more time governing.

- Don't let anyone tell you there's not a clean, well-lit and safe subway in New York. Here's one. It's in a museum. But if you're forced to ride a real subway every day, the experience can be degrading and terrifying. A mayor should be able to do something about that. - While Bellamy has appeared in her commercials, the Koch strategy has been to keep him out of his and focus instead on ordinary New Yorkers singing his praises. - Things have been great. I'm buying a house, doing good. I'll feed my family. That's what it was all about. And he's doing a lot for Queens and New York City. - Despite the attempt to de-emphasize Koch and his commercials, Koch's personality has dominated the campaign. Issues like transit, housing, education and the homeless have taken a back seat to what some say the mayor loves to do most. Get attention. - Why do you love me? - Because you're the best. - Can I have a kiss for luck?

- While many adore Koch and think he's done a lot for New York, others think he's an arrogant loudmouth. - Sort of a self-promoter, which I don't like too much. I voted for him the first time, but this time it's Carol. - There is no limit on the number of terms a mayor can serve in New York. So if Koch is re-elected to a third term, there's always the possibility he would run for a fourth term, or maybe run for something else. - We can do a little better tomorrow for mayor. - Writer Pete Hamill looks at it this way. If Cuomo runs for president and gets elected, the governorship would be up for grabs again. In that case, Koch might feel he should go up and run for an office now without having to run against Cuomo. But we don't know. I mean, he might get a television show. Once again, the main stories of the day, President Reagan ordered a number of economic sanctions against South Africa. Reactions were mixed both in the United States and South Africa.

The government of Thailand suppressed an attempted military coup. Good night, Judy. Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night. Funding for the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour is provided by AT&T, whether it's telephones, information systems, long distance services, or computers, AT&T. Funding is also provided by this station and other public television stations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For a transcript, send $2 to Box 345, New York, New York, 10101. [music]

[silence] [silence] [silence]

[silence]