The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: A summary of the news; then four stories on the possibilities of war with Iraq; the latest on a new British proposal to the U.N. Security Council; an Elizabeth Farnsworth report from Turkey; an interview with the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan; and a report on the protests within the American artistic community.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Britain called today for Iraq to meet six conditions, if it wants to avoid war. In sum, the new tests called for Saddam Hussein to admit he's been hiding banned weapons, and then surrender those weapons. British Foreign Sec. Jack Straw said the Iraqi leader must make a statement in Arabic.

JACK STRAW: Unless he were willing to spell this out to his own people in Arabic, then we would have to think that it was another game or trick. I think it's very obvious. Just as if we were asked to make a statement and choose to make it in a foreign language rather than our own native tongue.

JIM LEHRER: The British proposal was the latest effort to gain support for a new resolution in the U.N. Security Council. It calls for Iraq to disarm by March 17, or face war. The U.S. and Britain have said again they'd be willing to extend that deadline, but not by much. They're pressing for a vote this week. We'll have more on the new British offer in a moment. Pres. Bush continued his telephone campaign today, to win support at the U.N. The Associated Press and CNN reported the resolution now has seven or eight votes in the Security Council. It needs nine, barring a veto. A State Department spokesman confirmed there's been progress, but he said: "We stay fixated on the rule; "You don't count your chickens till the cows come home.'" France has said it would veto the resolution, and Russia is also opposed. But the American Ambassador to Moscow warned today a Russian veto could damage relations with the United States. The U.S. and Britain dismissed a flap today over the British role in a possible war. Defense Sec. Rumsfeld said yesterday that role was unclear, in view of public opposition in Britain. Later, both governments said there was no change in policy. In London, Prime Minister Blair addressed the House of Commons.

TONY BLAIR: Of course it is true that the United States could go alone and of course this country should not take military action unless it is in our interest to do so. It is the British national interest that must be upheld at all times. What is at stake here is not whether the United States goes alone or not. It is whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction that it gave to Saddam Hussein with the next action.

JIM LEHRER: In the run-up to a possible war, the Pentagon confirmed today it had activated another 12,000 reserve troops. The total now is nearly 190,000. On the Kuwaiti/Iraqi border, the U.N. pulled observers back from areas expected to be crossed by U.S. troops, if they invade Iraq. And the European Union warned it might withhold funds for rebuilding Iraq, if the United States goes to war without U.N. Approval. Iraq today showed reporters an unmanned aircraft that's raised new questions. It was made mostly of balsawood, and held together with screws and duct tape. The Iraqis dismissed U.S. claims that it could be used to spray chemical or biological weapons. They said it's for reconnaissance. Also today, Iraqi technicians began destroying three more banned missiles. The total destroyed so far is at least 58. In Turkey today, protesters tried to force their way into a port today, where U.S. troops are unloading equipment. Turkish soldiers fired shots into the air, but there were no reports of injuries. The U.S. still hopes Turkey's parliament will reconsider its vote against accepting U.S. combat troops. The incoming prime minister has indicated he might call for a new vote. We'll have more on this story later in the program. The prime minister of Serbia was assassinated today. Gunmen ambushed him in Belgrade, outside the government headquarters. We have a report from Lindsay Taylor of Independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: Police sources say the Serbian prime minister was hit by two large caliber sniper bullets fired from a distance. Critically wounded, he was rushed to hospital where doctors fought and lost the battle to save his life. Zoran Djindjic was a reforming prime minister, who was playing a pivotal role in the rebuilding of post-Milosevic Serbia. But he had many enemies. Only last month, his convoy had a near miss with a lorry, which he linked to his government's crackdown on organized crime. Tonight, the deputy prime minister described the killing as a criminal act designed to try to stop Serbia's democratic progress.

NEBOJSA COVIC, Deputy Prime Minister, Serbia (translated): This criminal act is a clear attempt by those who in the past have tried to stop Serbia's progress in democratization by assassinations to change the political atmosphere.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: Organized crime blossomed under Milosevic, seen here today at The Hague, where he's on trial for war crimes. Djindjic played a key role in the popular revolt that toppled the former president. American aid depended on his arrest, and despite a bungled first attempt, Milosevic was subsequently detained and eventually extradited. Now, as a second aid deadline approaches, Djindjic was under huge pressure to hand over more suspects. Some believe that may have cost him his life. His assassination is a severe setback to Serbs. They fear the huge vacuum left by Djindjic's death will be filled by instability.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington, a spokesman for Pres. Bush said the prime minister would be remembered for helping to bring democracy to Serbia. An Indonesian army general was sentenced today to five years in prison, for mass killings in East Timor. A court in Jakarta found he failed to stop police and militias from attacking civilians in September 1999. In all, some 1,000 people died during East Timor's drive for independence. Human rights groups have charged the Indonesian trials are a sham, designed to forestall creation of a U.N. War Crimes Tribunal.

JIM LEHRER: On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 28 points to close at 7552. The NASDAQ rose more than seven points to close at 1279. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a British way out, pre-war Turkey, a Kurdish view, and artists protests.

FOCUS - NEW OFFER

JIM LEHRER: That new British proposal to break the deadlock at the U.N., and to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing pressure at home to pass a new Iraq resolution at the U.N., told parliament today, he's working flat out to do just that.

TONY BLAIR: I hope that even now, those countries that are saying they will use their veto, whatever the circumstances, will reconsider and realize that by doing so, they put at risk not just the disarmament of Saddam, but actually the unity of the United Nations.

GWEN IFILL: Blair reaffirmed Great Britain's alliance with the U.S., even as lawmakers recoiled at comments Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld made yesterday, suggesting the U.S. may not need Britain to go to war.

DONALD RUMSFELD: And to the extent that they are able to participate in the event that the president decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds, and they would not be involved.

GWEN IFILL: So far, there are 45,000 British troops in the Persian Gulf, standing by in case of war. Rumsfeld's comments reportedly shocked the Blair government, and today Rumsfeld's office issued a "clarification." It said: "We have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom." At the U.N., British diplomats floated a new compromise designed to win over-wavering Security Council members. In order to avert war, Saddam Hussein would have to meet six benchmarks, or tests. He must say on Iraqi TV that he's hidden weapons of mass destruction, and pledge to get rid of them. He must account for and destroy biological and chemical weapons, like anthrax and the mobile facilities that make them. He would also have to destroy missiles deemed illegal by the U.N., send 30 key scientists to Cyprus to be interviewed by weapons inspectors, and account for any unmanned drone planes, which may be able to launch deadly weapons. In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that if Iraq meets the conditions, U.N. inspectors would have time to verify it.

JACK STRAW: What we want, in a matter of days, is clear proof that Saddam has now made a strategic decision to cooperate actively, fully, and immediately, with the weapons inspectors. Dr. Blix, in his most current report, the one he issued last Friday, said that the inspection process, within a benign, cooperative environment, would probably take a matter of months. And we accept that.

GWEN IFILL: The U.N. ambassador from Russia, who opposes the resolution, said any compromise must preserve the role of the inspectors.

SERGEY LAVROV: It's obvious resolutions require inspectors to submit to Council's approval. And if the UK is ready to go in the same direction, I welcome this.

GWEN IFILL: And at the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said the conditions, whether benchmarks or tests, must still meet the U.S. Bottom line.

RICHARD BOUCHER: There is a distinction, not much of one, but there is one. And the distinction is that we have always said again, and again, and again: Iraq needs to demonstrate it's made the strategic decision to disarm, to disarm peacefully, to fess-up and get right with the world.

GWEN IFILL: Boucher said the British proposal might serve a purpose, but is still a work in progress.

For more now on Britain's compromise plan we get two views. Gerard Baker is an associate editor of the British newspaper The Financial Times. He is based here in Washington. And Pippa Norris is a lecturer in comparative politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. She has written extensively on British elections, politics, and public opinion. Welcome, both of you.

Pippa Norris, these benchmarks that were outlined take by the British at U.N. -- They are being floated as we spoke now with the membership -- what do you make of them?

PIPPA NORRIS: Well, they are clearly critical for Blair, he is working flat out to try to get some sort of support because if he can get those who are wavering and the countries who are feel they need further support, if he can get them on board, then he can go ahead. Once the U.N. passes a resolution, then clearly he is still facing a debate in parliament but, nevertheless, his back bench will go along with him; his cabinet will go along with him, and interestingly the public will as well. When the U.N. passes as resolution, then something like three quarters of the British public say okay in that case British troops should be deployed. If he doesn't get the resolution through he has got problems in cabinet, he has got problems in parliament and tremendous problems with the public. Only 20 percent under those conditions would support sending British troops into action.

GWEN IFILL: What is it about these benchmarks, these tests that make it more likely that people would support the resolution when it says things like Saddam Hussein should go on television and in Arabic say all the things he has been unwilling to say so far?

PIPPA NORRIS: In a sense I think many countries were feeling that if we simply passed a blank check, if the U.N. put forward a resolution which didn't have anything specific in it, then Pres. Bush could interpret it in any way that he want and he could declare war under any conditions. When you specify benchmarks, what you are giving is a reassurance and some of the matters which are put down in these six different proposals I think are uncontentious, the idea for example that there has to be a destruction of all the different weapons of mass destruction, that we can all agree upon. But I do think as well that by saying that Hussein has to go on television and actually admit to this, that's is a very high hurdle indeed.

GWEN IFILL: Gerry Baker, what do you make of these benchmarks, are they a face saving effort by the British?

GERARD BAKER: Their ostensible aim is to bring about the disarmament of Saddam Hussein and as Pippa says to produce a specific series of tests, which the U.S. and Britain have been asked by some of the other countries on the Security Council to do; That is the ostensible aim and the British government restated that today. They want him to meet the tests as an absolute proof that he has made the strategic decision to disarm. The political aim, the near-term political aim is to garner enough votes on the Security Council to at least to present the resolution, the British - U.S. -Spanish resolution as it is now as having a majority support on the Security Council and to challenge in particular the French to veto it. That is terribly important, again as Pippa said for the British in particular, but it's also important for the United States. The United States would like to be able to go to war if it has to go to war with, being able to demonstrate that it has at least a plausible degree of support from the international community, that it has authority from the international community, a majority of members on the Security Council supporting it. It wants to be able to do that.

GWEN IFILL: Ifill: Part of the point of this, this declaration, this side statement I guess what they are calling what these benchmarks would be, is to declare the British on the side of a kind of a moral victory and put the French, isolate the French as unreasonable in their rejection of the second resolution?

GERARD BAKER: Exactly. If you can get a majority at the -- the supermajority of the Security Council requires, nine votes out of the fifteen. If you can get those nine votes the resolution would then pass and in effect force would be authorized by the U.N. unless one of the permanent members vetoes the resolution, and obviously everybody is focused on France. The problem for France in those circumstances would be, if it was the only country that was going to use the veto, it could then be very easily presented by the British and the Americans as the unilateralist country. Britain and the United States would be able to say to the world, look, we got the majority of support from the Security Council which represents the world after all and the one country that stood up against all this, that defied the will of the international community was France. So don't accuse us of being unilateralists; don't accuse us of not listening to international opinion. It's the French; the French have stood in the way of doing this.

GWEN IFILL: What if Saddam Hussein does what he is doing for instance now in destroying the al Samoud missiles which is to say step up and meet say half of these -- these admissions, these, make half of the concessions, 2/3 but not all of them. Does that run the danger of murking things up even more?

PIPPA NORRIS: Yes, it does indeed. And as we've seen there is always problems about any sorts of benchmarks where different people can interpret them in different ways. Even the statements of Blix some people have seen as critical. Some have seen as showing there is progress. So any benchmarks can make life more complicated. On the other hand I think the point that was just made is really important, which is that it's the legitimacy of the United Nations and the Security Council which is partly the issue here. It's not simply the political pressures which are on Blair. But also that if we can have some sort of resolution, some sort of consensus, then the unity of the Security Council is preserved. That is something which is more important even than the current problems with Iraq.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. Speaking of complications, let's talk about Donald Rumsfeld's comment yesterday, Gerry Baker; that was all over the head lbs, that was all the talk today in London, was this something which created a real beginning of a breach between the United States and Britain?

GERARD BAKER: Well, I think Rumsfeld likes to describe himself as forward leaning in his postures, as yet another example of the fact that perhaps he is leaned so far forward he tripped over himself. There is a clear -- he clearly misspoke. The joke going around London today was we've been waiting he has insulted every single other member of the international alliance -- we were wondering when our turn was going to come. There was a clear attempt by the White House and the Defense Department last night and again today to clear that up and to make it absolutely clear that the United States is very thankful for British support -- continues to expect British support, that the British will fully expect to be involved in the military action as well and that those remarks were - well, I think to be fair to the secretary of defense were an honest attempt to answer a question put to him and reflected some of the concerns that are going on inside the administration with the British, that they gave the wrong impression and gave the impression somehow that the United States didn't really want Britain and certainly didn't really need Britain. The latter may be true but it's not good politics at this stage to alienate the one country that has been resolute in its support for you.

GWEN IFILL: Watching Tony Blair over these weeks we notice he is looking worse and worse, tired. He apparently has the flu he can't shake. He gets up there on the floor of parliament and people holler at him as is the way of doing things on the floor of parliament. How much danger is he in politically right new as we move closer and closer to a vote in the U.N.?

PIPPA NORRIS: Well, Tony Blair has had flu. That is part of the reason why he does look rather bad. And people have been saying the other problem is that he is taking on too much. Not only is he jetting about trying to get the coalition together on this issue, he is also not delegating many other things, just a couple of days ago for example he was working on Northern Ireland and trying to resuscitate the peace process; a day or two ago he was also working on the health system and trying to have a public meeting about that. So he's always been the sort of hands-on prime minister who wants to intervene on the issues at the top of the agenda for the Labor Party. There is something of overload going on. This is basically pulling him apart in a lot of different directions. He is not delegating nearly as much. If you look for example at Pres. Bush right now he looks as if he still gets his night's sleep and comfortable. But Blair himself is really looking probably the worst which he has ever since he came to power.

GWEN IFILL: Not only that, but he also has members of his own party, the Labor Party that you just eluded to, who started saying we'll resign if we go to war without a U.N. resolution, putting him pretty much on the spot?

PIPPA NORRIS: Yes, in particular, it was Clair Short, who's very well known as an outspoken politician in his cabinet and who indeed resigned over the previous Gulf War and who in public said he was reckless. And I think that's right; that stuck in so much else of his other work - he has been seen as fairly cautious, fairly middle of the road, going along with the public and focus groups but on this he is putting his leadership on the line. And take the scenario that for example there is no U.N. resolution. What is going to happen? Well, clearly there's going to be a debate in parliament because Blair has promised that. There was time there was a rebellion of 120 Labor MP's. In the next round could there be much more, maybe 150. He will probably still get it through because he has the support of the conservatives and the opposition party is doing badly now in the polls. They are not providing real problems for Blair but if he goes ahead without the U.N. resolution, which seems fairly clear, he is going to have resignations in cabinet. Clair Short has said that plus some junior aides. He is going to have a back bench rebellion which is going to be the most sizeable this century and in addition, he is going to be totally isolated. If the war goes well, he will be the hero. If the casualties are low, if it's a short sharp war, then he will be the leader that stood out. If on the other hand everything goes badly, then there could well be a leadership challenge perhaps in the fall when we know the resolution of the war and that is the time when people are going to really question how far he should be the leader of the Labor Party.

GWEN IFILL: Gerry Baker, what would you way is the worst and the best case scenario for Tony Blair right now?

GERARD BAKER: The best case scenario continues to be that 2nd resolution or the 18th resolution on this subject is passed; that it passes with a majority - that it even, the challenge of the majority on the Security Council to the French results in the French backing off and deciding not to veto it so is there a second resolution which authorizes force which has all the full force of international law and we go ahead. The U.S. and Britain, go ahead with a military coalition, defeat Saddam Hussein quickly, get some kind of stable government in place. I mean as Pippa says although Tony Blair in a lot of political trouble at home there is a general calculation in Downing Street and elsewhere in London that provided this war goes well, provided it goes ahead Britain will be taking part in this whatever Rumsfeld said -- if the war goes ahead and if it's a success then all Tony Blair's problems will be over. That may be wishful thinking but that is certainly the calculation.

GWEN IFILL: If this side statement -- if these benchmarks are embraced and they get the votes they want and still get a French veto, do you think that anything that Tony Blair and Jack Straw and Jeremy Greenstock proposed today is going to change the outcome bf this? Will there still be war no matter what?

GERARD BAKER: I think there will be war. There is one wrinkle we should be aware of in this process, which is that there is still a chance I think that the British and the U.S. will decide not to present their resolution. One thing that concerns the British government particularly is that if we go to go through with another resolution and it fails - either because it doesn't get the majority or perhaps the French and perhaps the Russians veto it and then we still go to war as a result, that will be in according to some legal analysis a clear breach of international law - the British legal authorities are very concerned about this -- they are said to be giving advice to the prime minister this would be against international law and this war would be unlawful in a British conception of international law. So if they don't do that, if they don't go ahead with the second resolution, if they think the second resolution is going to fail, they will still claim that they have authority, and it will be a much clearer case they have legal authority under the existing resolutions to go to war. They are still making the calculations here at this very late stage: Do we take the risk of going ahead with the second resolution and failing and running the risk that this could be seen as unlawful, or do we go just ahead with the authority that we've got.

GWEN IFILL: Still more hurdles ahead. Gerard Baker and Pippa Norris, thank you very much for joining us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the view from Turkey and from Kurdistan and the American artists' protests.

FOCUS - THE WAR NEXT DOOR

JIM LEHRER: And now, some neighborhood perspectives on a possible war in Iraq, beginning with Turkey. On March 1, Turkey's parliament did not approve an American request to bring in U.S. troops to invade northern Iraq from Turkey. Since then, there have been some political changes. Elizabeth Farnsworth updates the situation from Ankara, the capital of Turkey.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Turkey's people oppose their country participating in a U.S. invasion of Iraq. But in this upscale neighborhood of Ankara, a banker said he would favor a reconsideration in parliament now.

KAZIM OZTURK (Translated): War is not something that anyone could approve of. Nobody would want war. The resolution was voted down in parliament, so there would be no war. This made everybody happy. But if our country is threatened from the outside, we have to take the necessary precautions to defend our country. If need be, a new resolution will be passed. ( Car horn honking )

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Across town, in a neighborhood where many people are unemployed, a group of men explained the economic risks of war. "If we join with America," one man said, "it won't be cheap. The earlier Gulf War finished our trade with Iraq and Iran, and now the trade embargo against Iraq hurts us badly." Savas Kurtbas said he feared U.S. power would prevail, but he was willing to accept whatever parliament decides.

SAVAS KURTBAS ( Translated ): Of course America is a world superpower, and we will try to do things their way. We have a parliament. We are a free nation. We make our own decisions. And to make those decisions, we send the necessary majority to the parliament. And I believe that majority will come up with the best decision for us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There was some disagreement about that, and then another man said he worried that the U.S. was ignoring the parliamentary vote against deployment. "America is already moving in," he said, referring to scenes like this, which have played repeatedly on Turkish television. This convoy of American military vehicles left the port of Iskenderun yesterday, and headed east toward the border with Iraq. Similar convoys have been on the move for days. Two months ago, Turkey's parliament did grant permission for about 3,500 U.S. soldiers to enter Turkey. They would upgrade ports and air bases for the potential arrival of combat troops later. Ilnur Cevik is editor of the Turkish Daily News, an English language paper based in Ankara.

ILNUR CEVIK: There is a massive American buildup. In a point of no return, really, all these ships are being offloaded. And Turkey has found a kind of way to facilitate the American administration, saying, "Look, we haven't allowed you to bring troops here, but all the hardware can come in and be stationed somewhere around the border areas, and then we can bring troops in later on." There are all kinds of containers, which we don't know what is in them. But we are told that there are ammunition in them, logistical support, health materials, medical materials, there are tanks, there are jeeps, there are those Hubble things you're talking about which go on the desert sand, all these things are coming.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: An American official denied ammunition and tanks are arriving, and said the U.S. has been scrupulous in keeping to the terms of the agreement with Turkey for upgrading ports and bases. Ilnur Cevik said there's also a large buildup of Turkish troops near the border.

ILNUR CEVIK: The Turkish troops are massed on the border. Tanks are there, planes are all ready for action, everything is, you know, in war gear in Turkey.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Tayyip Erdogan, who was sworn in as a member of the Turkish parliament yesterday, and will become prime minister in a day or so, stands at the center of the controversy over this country's role in any American invasion of Iraq. Erdogan led his Justice and Development, or AK Party, to an overwhelming victory in parliamentary elections last fall. But though he campaigned throughout the country and was enormously popular, he was not allowed by law to run for parliament himself. His political party has Islamist roots, and he was convicted in the 1990s of inciting religious hatred. He had read a poem in public that was considered offensive by security authorities here, who uphold Turkey's historic commitment to secular rule. But his AK Party won the elections last fall, and once in power, changed the constitution. Erdogan was allowed to run for parliament in a special election, and is now indisputably in charge. He had regretted the March 1 vote against deployment of American troops in Turkey, and promised to call another vote soon. Ilnur Cevik, who is a member of the AK Party very close to Erdogan, said Erdogan is insisting on some guarantees from the United States before holding another vote. Most important, the party believes Turkey must have a role in the shaping of a future Iraq. The Turkish military in particular is concerned about the curds who live in southeast Turkey as well as northern Iraq because some curds would like their own Kurdish state.

ILNUR CEVIK: We want to have a say because Iraq is next to it. We couldn't care less if this happened in Mexico because we wouldn't come to this aide. But this is next door. Any fire there spills over to us. Will we be there? How far will we be there? What will be our role? That is what Erdogan wants to learn from the Americans.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why should Turkey have a role in what happens in Iraq next? Should Iran have a role, should Syria have a role? They are also neighbors.

ILNUR CEVIK: Neither Syria, nor Iraq, has suffered the five to 15 years of Kurdish separate terrorism. We have. We have lost 35,000 people in the process, and we have also lost about 50 to 60 billion dollars trying to fight the people. Now, we suffered. And this suffering has created a kind of psychological trauma in the Turkish people. They are saying, "If there is an independent Kurdish entity there, will this have a mouthwatering effect on the secessionists in Turkey?"

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cevik said Erdogan is also insisting on economic guarantees.

ILNUR CEVIK: He wants same guarantees that when the United States says, "we will compensate you on your economic loses in a probable war." He wants them to give them... give him guarantees that this will not remain in words like last time. In the first Gulf War, Turkey was given a lot of promises. But they were all left in the end.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In addition, Cevik said, Erdogan wants guarantees for the Turkmen in Iraq, Turkish peoples who have, like the Kurds, been repressed by Saddam Hussein. These are Turkmen refugees from Iraq, living in Istanbul. Erdogan wants Turkmen included in the Iraqi opposition coalition that has been forming in recent months as a kind of shadow government. The Bush administration's envoy to the Iraqi opposition, Zalmay Khalilzad, may come to Ankara this week, for meetings aimed at assuring Erdogan the Turkmen will be taken into account. If Erdogan gets these guarantees, Cevik said, he will most probably call for another vote.

ILNUR CEVIK: He will announce his cabinet. And that cabinet will start functioning. Now, it will take some time. And then the new motion can be introduced to the parliament. That would be by next week. Does the American administration have that patience, I wonder.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There are other key questions still pending, too. At a press conference yesterday, I asked outgoing Prime Minister Abdullah Gul what the AK Party would do in the absence of a U.N. Resolution backing a U.S. Invasion of Iraq.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Is it AK Party policy to not have another vote in parliament, if there is no U.N. resolution in favor of an invasion?

ABDULLAH GUL, Acting Prime Minister, Turkey ( Translated ): We are looking into these matters. We are in the midst of changing the government rapidly. When the new government is formed, the situation will be resolved. It's difficult to say anything right now.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Much remains undecided here, and people said they'll be watching parliament and the U.N. closely in the days ahead.

JIM LEHRER: Turkey's ambassador to the United States said today that the United States does not have permanents to use air base or air surprise on Iraq. The country's incoming prime minister told Pres. Bush in a phone call it could take a while to get that permission.

FOCUS - KURDISH VIEW

JIM LEHRER: Now, another the neighborhood view of the possibility of war in Iraq. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: Kurdish groups in northern Iraq have developed a large degree of political autonomy since the Gulf War, in part under the watch of U.S. And British planes patrolling the northern no-fly zone. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, is one of the two parties that controls the region that shares a border with Turkey, and is preparing for the possibility of an Iraq without Saddam. Barham Salih is the prime minister of the PUK regional government, and he joins us to talk about Kurdish hopes for-- and fears of-- a war in Iraq. Welcome to the program.

BARHAM SALIH, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan: Thank you.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there a sense of resignation in the part of the country that your government controls that war is coming?

BARHAM SALIH: All indications are that war is inevitable, unfortunately our hopes that Saddam Hussein will step aside and leave Iraq have not come to becomea reality. And unfortunately it seems that a war will be needed -- force will be needed in order to push him out.

RAY SUAREZ: Both your PUK government and the neighboring Kurdish government have armies in the field. Have they be in consultation with the United States; are they part after plan about taking over Iraq?

BARHAM SALIH: We are in close consultation with the U.S. Government, and these are matters of great importance for our people and our future. And we believe we have a vital stake in the developments in Baghdad and we want to be partners with the United States and with other Iraqi opposition groups in the mission to build a federal democracy in Iraq that will provide the people of Iraq with the government that will be at peace with them and at peace with the neighbors of Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: But in something as complex as invading Iraq in the political dimension, is the United States interested in having your troops stay right where they are, in the areas that your government controls?

BARHAM SALIH: Well, the United States led coalition will be no doubt crucial to any of the developments that will happen in the days and weeks, coming days and weeks. And we will have to consult very closely with the United States on these matters. We have a stake in a democratic Baghdad. We do not want to engage in any military action that will complicate the situation. We want to be focused on the mission ahead of us, namely, democracy in Baghdad. We have suffered for far too long. We need to think strategically. The salvation for our people will be in replacing this dictatorship with a federal democracy that will provide our people with peace, security and human rights at long last.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you heard Elizabeth Farnsworth's report a few moments ago. She talked about Turkish troops massing on the border with northern Iraq about the new prime minister's or coming prime minister's desire for guarantees from the United States that the Turks would have a role in the future of northern Iraq.

BARHAM SALIH: Well, Turkey has always insisted on Iraq's territorial integrity. And it will be ironic if Turkey were to violate Iraq's territorial integrity. The future of Iraq should be a matter for the people of Iraq to decide. We have said all along we are going to be part of Iraq. We're going to work with other compatriots of ours Iraqi, democrats, Arabs, Turkmen, Assyrians, to build a new political system that will be at peace with our people. Turkey stands to benefit from transformational politics in Iraq, but the rest is a matter for the Iraqi people to decide. We respect our neighbors; we will have to be mindful of their interests but military intervention in Iraq by any of our neighbors, by Turkey or Iran or any of the other neighbors, will only complicate the situation, will only help undermine the stated political objective that the United States has declared as far as military intervention is concerned, namely freedom for all Iraqis. We must insist on keeping Iraq for the Iraqi people and giving the people of Iraq the space within which they can decide the future freely.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying then if Turkish troops come into northern Iraq to secure it as has been suggested in some schemes they will be fired upon by the two armies that are there now from the PUK and the Kurdish Democratic Party?

BARHAM SALIH: We're talking to our neighbors in Turkey. We want to make sure that this situation is handled with reason and with care. We have had too much conflicts in this part of the world. We want to emphasize to our neighbors that they stand to benefit from a new government in Baghdad, a stable, peaceful government that will provide for the unity of the country as well as for the rights of its people. Turkey by the way I want to say also despite all this Turkey has helped protect Iraqi Kurdistan by facilitating the air patrols by the United States and the United Kingdom. And I think Turkey has a stake in the stability of our region, has a stake in the stability of the whole of Iraq. Turkey's interest and for that matter, the other neighbors' interest lies in getting in one country getting in would lead to others getting in would lead in to muddying the waters, would lead to all kind of complications, would lead to instability in the region. This region needs peace -- does not need further clashes, does not need further confrontation.

RAY SUAREZ: The stated reason that you heard the Turkish newspaper editor is insecurity they feel about Kurds living in Turkey. What kind of reassurances could you give them about the kind of Iraq that you want to see that would reassure Turkey?

BARHAM SALIH: Well, to start with, let me say we want a federal democracy in Iraq that will retain on the one hand the territorial integrity of Iraq but will provide the various groups of Iraqi society a significant degree of self-government. Who is asking for assurances? Who should demand assurances? Look at our history, look at our predicament as Kurds; we have been at the mercy of dictatorship after dictatorship. And this situation that the Kurdish people have found themselves in for the last eight decades of this Iraqi state has been a major cause of instability for Iraq and for the neighbors of Iraq. I believe our neighbors will

do themselves good, will do the international peace and security good by making sure that the Kurdish people of Iraq and for that matter the other communities of Iraq are treated well and their human rights are respected. This region again has seen too many wars, too many conflicts. And the Kurdish people have suffered for far too long. We are working for something tangible in Baghdad -- a federal democracy. We want to insure that the new system of government in Baghdad will be stable, peaceful, democratic. We do not want to see another tyrant rising to power and gas our people - that is good for the Iraqi people; that is good for the Kurdish people and say it's good for Turkey and the other neighbors of Iraq. A stable Iraq, a democratic Iraq will be a partner for prosperity, for democracy, for freedom, for stability across the region. There can be no peace in the Middle East; there can be no peace in this neighborhood unless the basic human and national rights of the Kurdish people are addressed. There can be no stability based on genocide of the Kurdish people.

RAY SUAREZ: The Kurds who have been talking to western reporters over the last several months have talked about how much progress they've made, what a good life they've been able to enjoy in the last several years of self-rule. Are they afraid that whatever happens in a war, that they may end up behind where they are today?

BARHAM SALIH: Well, things have never been as good in Iraqi Kurdistan. And we are very proud of the achievements that we've made over the past ten years in very, very difficult circumstances. We have a lousy geography - geopolitics -- we're surrounded by powerful neighbors who are, to say the least, sensitive to our aspirations but in that terrible environment, in the shadow of the tyranny of Baghdad we have really developed an inspiring process of self-government. We have moved on the path of democratization in my hometown of Sulaymaniyah, just to remind you, we have 138 media channels and news outlets mostly independent. We have dozens and dozens of political parties. I'm proud to say that in the region we administer we do not have a single political prisoner. And you cannot imagine the pressures that we have to deal with from the independent press, from the demonstrations we receive on this or that issue. This is inspiring but this is not good enough because this is very precarious and cannot be institutionalized, cannot be protected so long as tyranny rules over Baghdad. We want a federal democracy in Baghdad within which we can work and develop our system of self-government and hopefully produce a model that can be emulated in the rest of the Middle East..

RAY SUAREZ: Prime Minister Salih, thanks for joining us.

BARHAM SALIH: Thank you for having me.

FINALLY - THE ART OF PROTEST

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, and back in this country, protests against war among the poets and artists. Arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports.

JEFFREY BROWN: Around the nation last week, an ancient Greek play became the vehicle for protest against war with Iraq.

ACTRESS: It means just this: Greece saved by the women!

ACTRESS: By the women... ( laughs ) ...its salvation hangs by a poor thread then.

ACTRESS: Our country's fortunes depend on us.

JEFFREY BROWN: Later in the week, poets came to Washington for the latest in a series of protest readings.

CORNELIUS EADY: We bombed mosques, we bombed runways, we bombed tanks, we bombed trucks, we bombed the darkness, we bombed the sunlight. None of this fits into my notion of things going very well.

JEFFREY BROWN: Even as the Bush administration edges closer to war, many in the nation's artistic community continue their vocal dissent.

MARTIN SHEEN: Don't invade Iraq. Inspections work; war won't.

JEFFREY BROWN: On the airwaves, actor Martin Sheen. In newspapers, full-page ads. On the Internet, where numerous web sites spread the word. And in theaters like this, where the Black Market Theatre Group staged a reading of the play "Lysistrata," one of more than a thousand worldwide. Written by Aristophanes in 411 B.C., the play is an over-the- top, ribald sex comedy with a serious side: The women of Athens and Sparta join together to stop the war being fought by those two city-states. Their tactic, and thus much of the low humor: No intimate relations with their soldier husbands until the fighting ends. Actors Kathryn Blume and Sharron Bower came up with the idea of worldwide readings.

SHARRON BOWER, Lysistrata Project: Yes, it's bawdy and it is funny, and that's one of the reasons we chose it, because nothing gets people into a theater like a funny, sexy comedy.

KATHRYN BLOOM, Lysistrata Project: We don't have money. We don't have high-level access. What we do have are loud voices and the willingness to use them and a huge network of people, because actors change jobs every six weeks. And so it was very easy for us to e-mail our initial idea to hundreds of people, who then turned around and e-mailed it to other hundreds of people.

ACTRESS: Act 1, scene 1: Athens High School.

JEFFREY BROWN: Young actors at one school also participated. At the professional Performing Arts School in Manhattan, a much toned-down version of the play was presented by eighth graders. Here, the girls vowed not to talk to the boys until the end of fighting between two high schools.

STUDENTS: No phone, no e-mail, no pager for me.

STUDENTS: No matter how he whines or pouts?

STUDENTS: No matter how he whines or pouts.

STUDENTS: I will not let him take me out.

STUDENTS: I will not let him take me out.

JEFFREY BROWN: After the performance, students debated its meaning, and the war with Iraq.

STUDENT: I really just think war should, after everything else has failed, that's when it should happen; not

first.

STUDENT: He said we should wait for an attack. Why wait to be attacked when we have already been attacked. We're talking about 9/11.

JEFFREY BROWN: Another group, poets against the war, brought its protest to Washington last week, led by its founder Sam Hamill. An ex-marine, poet, and founder of Copper Canyon Press in Port Townsend, Washington, Hamill organized a website collecting poems from citizen poets.

SAM HAMILL, Poets against the War: Little could I have predicted 11,000 poets in the United States speaking so clearly in opposition to this administration's policies.

JEFFREY BROWN: Hamill presented the poems to several sympathetic members of Congress.

SAM HAMILL: I believe that poetry changes people's lives. But I don't believe that it necessarily changes their lives instantly. I believe it's our duty as poets to look closely, to pay attention, to engage in the imagination and to speak from the heart. The politics is part of our responsibility, and speaking out puts our ideas out there in the marketplace to be discussed.

W.S. MERWIN: All night waking to the sound of light rain falling softly through the leaves...

JEFFREY BROWN: At a reading at George Washington University later that evening, prize- winning poet W.S. Merwin, read from his poem, "Ogre."

W.S. MERWIN: ...Of the dog snoring like small waves coming ashore. I am amazed at the fortune of this moment in the whole of the dark, this unspoken favor while it is with us, this breathing peace, and then I think of the frogs in office at this instant devising their massacres in my name. What part of me could they come from? Were they made of my loathing itself, and dredged from the bitter depths of my shame?

JEFFREY BROWN: But the protest movement has engendered its own protest. Poetic and critical response to the poets against the war has sometimes been humorous; sometimes blistering. Poet Frederick Turner wrote "Reply to the 5,000" when there were that number of poems on Sam Hamill's web site. It begins: "Never till now was I shamed by the name of poet. What could it even mean, if 5,000 poets sign the same misspelled and malicious manifesto? Is not a poet a truth-teller, a seer of inner visions? Why do they make this smell, like the back seat of a taxi?" Roger Kimball is a literary critic and managing editor of The New Criterion.

ROGER KIMBALL, New Criterion: There are plenty of poets who, I won't say they're poets for the war, but they realize that their competence is in the manipulation of words, that they don't have any greater insight into foreign policy than I do. The idea that we should turn to poets for a kind of script of how we should run our foreign policy I think is risible, and I think everyone understands that it's risible because, after all, we elect politicians to run the country, not poets.

JEFFREY BROWN: Poet Joseph Bottum, an editor at The Weekly Standard Magazine, fears the tone of the dissent will hurt poetry's public role, which had grown after Sept. 11, when many turned to it.

JOSEPH BOTTUM: What we're seeing now with the protest is the breakdown of a kind of consensus that had emerged in America right after Sept. 11, a breakdown between the poeticculture and the general culture. And I had thought that they would go on together. I personally am enormously disappointed by this use of poetry, in a kind of 1970s or 1980s way, to think that poets somehow have to be in dissent.

JEFFREY BROWN: Not surprisingly, Sam Hamill disagrees.

SAM HAMILL: Nothing could be better for poetry. Nothing could be better for our country that having this discussion. Some people will listen, some people will argue, some people will dismiss us. But the one voice speaking alone that finds one ear listening closely is the first step.

JEFFREY BROWN: As the nation moves ever closer to war, Hamill, the theater groups, and others, vow to continue their work.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Britain called for Iraq to meet six conditions if it wants to avoid war. Pres. Bush continued his telephone campaign to win U.N. support for a new resolution on Iraq. A State Department spokesman said the U.S. was making progress. And the prime minister of Serbia was assassinated in Belgrade by unknown gunmen. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.