The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Tuesday, we look at what happened and what next in the confrontation with Iraq. Then Yugoslavia as seen by the head of the U.N. peacekeeping force and by the man who wants to be its king, and finally Elizabeth Brackett updates the RU-486 abortion pill story. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WOODRUFF: United Nations weapons experts began their inspection today of Iraq's agriculture ministry in Baghdad. They searched the building for six hours and said they would continue tomorrow. The search was delayed for nearly three weeks after Iraq objected to it, saying it was a violation of its sovereignty. As the U.N. inspection went on thousands of Iraqis showed their defiance of the U.N. and the U.S. with a huge protest in the streets of Baghdad. Robert Moore of Independent Television News reports from the Iraqi capital.

MR. MOORE: What began as a compromising New York has become propaganda in Baghdad. But while the United Nations inspectors were searching for clues to Iraq's weapons program, an orchestrated demonstration had taken to the streets. It was, of course, anything but spontaneous. The marchers denounced President Bush and the economic blockade that the United Nations is enforcing on Iraq. The regime here has rapidly realized it can project the agreement with the U.N. as a reassertion of Iraqi sovereignty. The new team of U.N. exports arrived this morning under severe pressure, caught in the war of words between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. Their brief is to locate any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might be hiding, no easy task without cooperation.

ROLF EKEUS, U.N. Special Commission for Disarmament: If you don't brace yourself, you -- Iraq has to take the key, open the door and let us in. But Iraq has an absolute obligation to do it. The pressure is on them and their legal obligation is absolute.

MR. MOORE: It can scarcely be a satisfactory outcome for the United Nations. Few here believe the search will reveal anything and the regime is already portraying the whole incident as a psychological victory for Iraq.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush met with congressional leaders this morning about the Iraq situation. Senator Majority Leader George Mitchell said afterward the President had the support of both Democrats and Republicans. House Speaker Tom Foley said he did not get the impression Mr. Bush was considering the immediate use of force. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the Iraq situation had been defused for now, but he said tensions remained. He said the administration wants all U.N. resolutions complied with. "We would like to force that issue at every opportunity." Defense Sec. Dick Cheney was asked about the possible use of force at a Senate hearing.

DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense: I think it would be fair to say that this is a continuing concern. I would not want to convey a sense of crisis publicly. I think that would be too strong a word to describe it. We have, as instructed by the President, taken a few precautionary moves with respect to the deployment of U.S. forces, but there has not been any major redeployment of U.S. military capability in connection with the situation in the Gulf. We continue to be hopeful that we can resolve these issues and gain the compliance of the Iraqi government by diplomatic means working through the United Nations.

MR. LEHRER: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn said he remained concerned about Saddam Hussein's behavior.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: Based on Saddam Hussein's past performance, he hasn't learned very much and the chance of a repetition of obstruction to the United Nations inspection team is probably most likely. What happens then and whether he backs off again, as he has time after time, and what the U.N.'s position will be and what our unilateral position will be is very difficult to predict. I also believe though it's not simply a matter of inspection. I think we ought to serve notice on him that he should not use his military aircraft to slaughter his own people in the South or anywhere else in Iraq.

MR. LEHRER: The Associated Press and Reuters News Agencies today reported the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy was no longer heading toward the Gulf region. The Kennedy cut short a port call in the Virgin Islands Sunday and the wire services reported it would join two other carriers in a show of force against Iraq. We'll have more on this Iraq story right after the News Summary.

MS. WOODRUFF: The President's handling of Iraq and other foreign policy matters came under attack today by his Democratic rivals. Vice Presidential Candidate Al Gore said the Bush administration had made a botch of foreign policy. He made his remarks after meeting with former President Jimmy Carter in Atlanta.

SEN. AL GORE, Vice Presidential Candidate: If President Bush and Vice President Quayle are such whizzes in foreign policy, why is it that Saddam Hussein is thumbing his nose at the entire world this morning and proclaiming victory and is still in power?

MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Clinton, meanwhile, accused the Bush administration of using foreign policy to try to get re-elected. Yesterday, White House officials ridiculed Clinton for suggesting air strikes against forces impeding relief efforts in Bosnia. Clinton said he was amazed by their reaction but says he was simply trying to take a strong stand that would bolster action the White House will likely have to take anyway in the next few weeks. There was another report today that Sec. of State Baker may soon leave his post to direct the President's re-election campaign. The Reuters News Agency today quoted unnamed campaign sources as saying that Baker would resign following next month's visit to the U.S. by Israel's new prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin. Former President Carter commented about that possibility after his meeting with Sen. Gore. He accused the Bush administration of politicizing foreign policy.

JIMMY CARTER: It is I think a very sad mistake and an unacceptable precedent if the Secretary of State does step down from his role and assume the role of a political campaign manager. This has never been done in the history of our country and I think this is indicative of the superficiality with which the foreign policy issues in this campaign are likely to be addressed. I don't know if Jim Baker will step down. If he does, I think it'll be a travesty of a bipartisan foreign policy commitment.

MS. WOODRUFF: Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole today seemed to cast doubt on reports that Baker will leave the State Department. After meeting with the President this morning, Dole said that a week ago, he thought Baker was leaving, but "I am not so certain today." Senior administration officials, however, have told the NewsHour that the Baker move is a done deal.

MR. LEHRER: Twenty people were wounded in gun battles and artillery shelling in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo today. U.N. officials said Ukrainian peacekeepers were on their way to replace Canadian U.N. troops guarding the airport. We'll have an interview with the head of the U.N. force later in the program. Nearly 300 refugees on a ship from the African nation of Somalia have been allowed ashore in Kenya. They were stranded off the Kenyan coast for almost a week. United Nations officials appealed to Kenya to let them in. More than a hundred thousand Somalis fleeing drought and civil war have flooded Kenya, which is suffering a drought and refugee crisis of its own.

MS. WOODRUFF: In this country consumer confidence in the economy fell sharply in July, according to a widely followed index. The Conference Board, a private research group, said the decline was one of the biggest ever. Its survey of 5,000 U.S. households found many consumers were putting off major purchases because of negative expectations for the economy. The news was better from the Chrysler Corporation today, which announced higher than expected second quarter earnings. The automaker said it earned $178 million compared to a loss of more than 200 million during the same period last year. The company attributed the results to strong sales of minivans, jeeps and trucks. The news from Chrysler helped spark a rally on Wall Street today. At the closing bell, the Dow Jones Average gained nearly 52 points.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the latest in the crisis with Iraq, two unique views of the conflict in Yugoslavia, and a RU-486 update. FOCUS - WHO BLINKED?

MR. LEHRER: The confrontation with Iraq is our lead story tonight. Six United Nations inspectors entered the agriculture ministry building in Baghdad today in search of weapons records. It was a peaceful ending to a three-week standoff and thus to the immediate crisis short of military action, but sabers continued to rattle in Baghdad and in Washington, where there was also a debate over how to deal with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, that man who will not go away. We join that now from Capitol Hill with Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole of Kansas and Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and with Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist with the Washington Post, and Michael Shuman, an author and analyst on diplomatic and security issues and a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. Sen. Dole, to you first. You attended this congressional leadership meeting at the White House today. Is the immediate confrontation over from your perspective?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I think it is, but you never know about Saddam Hussein. I think today he sort of received a political equivalent of a stay of execution. But if he continues to play these games, he's going to end up being gone. He can't continue, as he's doing now, to violate U.N. Resolution 688 and other agreements between the United States and the coalition. And if he continues to do that in my view, the President has broad bipartisan support, as indicated by the Speaker this morning, Speaker Foley, by the Majority Leader of the Senate, Senator Mitchell, by Senator Nunn, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Aspin, and I think everybody who was there. We don't want to give a blank check, but I think there was general feeling that if something happens that we'd like to have the coalition do it together, but if that's not possible, if there's -- can't get 'em altogether, then I think we would have support for the U.S. to maybe not go it alone, but go it with as many members of the coalition as we could.

MR. LEHRER: What did you mean when you said if he tries us again, meaning Saddam Hussein, that he will be gone? What do you mean by that, sir?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I mean, if he continues to play these games, it seems to me that he's going to have trouble with his own country and he's going to be, in effect, inviting some military action by the coalition, by the coalition, probably air strikes or whatever. I would hope that he might be gone. Maybe that's not the case, but he may lose power within the country, or he may meet some other fate. But let's face it. I don't think his hearing is very good. He doesn't understand. And it's a very clear message that came from the White House meeting this morning with Republicans and Democrats and the President. I don't know where Al Gore got his line, but it's a cheap shot the very day we're having a bipartisan meeting for Sen. Gore to indicate that, well, if they're such geniuses, why is Saddam Hussein still there. I would ask Sen. Gore what would he do? He doesn't have the responsibility, but he shouldn't be giving cheap political advice.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Gore isn't here, but Congressman Hamilton is, sitting right there by you. Congressman Hamilton, first of all, is Sen. Dole right that what the President is doing has full bipartisan support, with the exception of Sen. Gore?

REP. HAMILTON: I think President Bush's moves do have bipartisan support. There isn't any doubt that Saddam Hussein has been thumbing his nose at the U.N. resolutions. We can't permit that. Those resolutions have to be enforced. It's not just a matter of Iraq. That's very important obviously. But what you're really dealing here with is the stature, the credibility of the United Nations. And you're dealing with a problem that is probably going to be the major security problem of the 1990s. And that's the question of proliferation of weapons. So a lot is at stake here. We are united I think in insisting that those United Nations resolutions be carried out. And we are prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to assure that that's done.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, yesterday the President said that Saddam Hussein had caved, had caved in in allowing these inspectors to go in there today. Is that your reading of what the final result was?

REP. HAMILTON: I don't think I would have used the words "caved in." It's important to note, I think, that we got what we wanted. We got unimpeded access to the agricultural ministry by people who are qualified to make judgments as to the nuclear weapon developments in Iraq. Now, the make-up of the team was altered, so there was some change there. There was a gap of about a week when we don't know whether they took information out of that building or not. They probably did. So it was by no means a complete victory for one side or the other. But we did get the access by qualified people and that's important.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Senator, that this was, in fact, a victory for the good guys over the bad guys?

SEN. DOLE: I think with the exception that Congressman Hamilton noted there was at least a week, maybe even three-week period there where they could have removed documents, but again, realistically we're dealing not just with the United States, but with the coalition that is pretty hard to hold together. And it wasn't what we wanted to do. It's what the coalition wanted to do that finally prevailed, but the bottom line is, as Congressman Hamilton states, we do have access now. But I just think Saddam Hussein should not get carried away. He doesn't hear very well. He didn't hear in the Gulf crisis. He's -- if he thinks he can continue to get away with this, I think he's sadly mistaken.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, do your sources have any information on -- have you heard anything late today on what these inspectors found in there? They were in there for six hours today and they're going back tomorrow they said. Have you heard anything about what -- the wires don't have anything. I was wondering if you'd heard anything.

REP. HAMILTON: The only information I have is that in the initial hours, they had not found anything that led them to believe that - - that would be helpful with regard to our assessment of their nuclear capabilities but that is a very preliminary judgment and I don't consider it final at all.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dole, can you add or subtract anything from that?

SEN. DOLE: No, I can't. I think Congressman Hamilton has later information than I have. I know they've been there. We don't know what they've found. It may have all been removed. Who knows?

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Jim Hoagland, have you heard anything about what these people may have come across?

MR. HOAGLAND: I haven't, Jim. And I doubt that they found very much. One of the things that's happened in this confrontation has been that the principle of surprise inspection, the right of U.N. inspectors to show up one day and to be admitted, has been very much weakened. I think after three weeks you probably have a situation where there was nothing to be found and by knocking the Americans off the team that went into the ministry they --

MR. LEHRER: We should explain that. One of the things that Iraq insisted on and won was that they didn't want any Americans or any representatives of any countries that were involved in the Gulf War coalition against them and that they got that.

MR. HOAGLAND: So there was nothing to be found and no Americans to find it, which I think Saddam will rightly portray as something of a political victory. Saddam is playing chess. He's playing for incremental gains that he can use to bolster his political survivability. He is an incompetent on the battlefield. We saw that in Operation Desert Storm. But he's very good at political survival, at the secret arts, secret police of survival in Iraq, and I think he comes out of this slightly ahead.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Shuman, how would you score it?

MR. SHUMAN: I think what we have seen is that non-proliferation needs a lot of work before it becomes a universal principle that we adhere to. I agree that this -- that the principle of surprise is very important for non-proliferation. Unfortunately, prior to our arrangement with Iraq after the war we never adhered to that principle at all. And I think it's important that we point out that right now on a universal level surprise inspection does not exist. And that needs to be put on the top of the U.S. agenda if we are going to deal with the proliferation problem seriously, not just - -

MR. LEHRER: Not just with Iraq -- not just -- everybody -- I see.

MR. SHUMAN: With North and South Korea, with Taiwan, with a dozen nations that have some nuclear bomb building potential.

MR. LEHRER: Well, do you agree with Congressman Hamilton that despite all the problems and all the negatives that Jim Hoagland outlined that it was, in fact, a plus for the United States and the U.N. coalition?

MR. SHUMAN: Absolutely. It was a plus not only because we did undertake the inspection, but it was a plus because we did it without the use of force. And I think we ar going to find ourselves needing to try to use as many non-violent incentives as possible with Saddam Hussein in the weeks ahead. I think one bottom line for the United States is that force would be very counterproductive for U.S. national interest, so I was very delighted to see that we have resolved this particular impasse without force.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mr. Shuman, don't you think it's a fair statement to say that it's the threat of force that caused Saddam Hussein to make the move that he did make, or am I misreading that?

MR. SHUMAN: Well, I think that was one thing that did move him. However, there are other threats that we can bring on Saddam Hussein as well. I think, for example, we should be trying to put more pressure on Jordan, on King Hussein to try to tighten the embargo around Saddam Hussein. We can make certain concrete demands that we will not allow any sales of oil in the coming months unless there is open inspection of all weapons facilities in Iran.

MR. LEHRER: Jim Hoagland, what's your reading of how -- what part force the threat of military force, or down the line the actual use of military force is going to, is playing in this whole thing?

MR. HOAGLAND: Well, I think it's very important. We have to maintain the credibility of that threat and I think the President did right in augmenting our forces in the Persian Gulf area. Saddam is going to respond only to the threat of force. He's shown, in fact, that he can take a strike, punishing strike, and still survive. Sometimes I think he calculates that into his plans. He might be willing --

MR. LEHRER: How would he --

MR. HOAGLAND: He might be willing to see rather than back down in a crucial situation, he might be willing to see an air attack against targets that are going to be destroyed anyway if he goes ahead with the U.N. inspection and destruction regime. The drama of seeing him standing up to the world might be worth that.

MR. LEHRER: And he would want to do that again.

MR. HOAGLAND: It depends on the situation. It depends on his calculation. All I can say is you shouldn't rule it out.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Sen. Dole, do you see this thing going on like that, that all right, this immediate crisis is over, the inspectors are there, but there could be something else? In fact, the White House spokesman, Fitzwater, was talking yesterday and the day before about a pattern that we have to be concerned about, rather than the specific act. What do you see in your crystal ball?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I think there are other areas that we ought to look at. I think he still claims that Kuwait is part of Iraq. He's refused to cooperate with the border commission. He's failed to account for or release Kuwaiti detainees. There are a whole list of things that he's not doing that we've suggested, in fact, U.N. resolutions order him to do. My view is we're in a political season in the United States. He sees -- he can read poll numbers and he watches television in the United States. He sees President Bush as a weakened President. I think he's going to do all he can to prod and to push and to see how far he can go. And that's why I think it's so important today that Republicans and Democrats join hands with the President and said, we'll support you, we won't give you a blank check, but if something happens, give us a call and I think you'll have our support. So I think Saddam Hussein is looking down the barrel of a gun if he doesn't get the message.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Hamilton, what's your reading of this guy, Saddam Hussein? I mean, a year ago he was wiped out on the battlefield, as Jim Hoagland said. He's doing the same thing all over again. What can the world and the United States in particular do about him?

REP. HAMILTON: Well, I think it's very, very hard to read. You can say, on the one hand, that he's desperate, that these sanctions are biting, that he sees his country collapsing around him, and he sees all kinds of threats to his own power. I tend to think myself that there is an element of desperation in what he is doing. But you can also read it as just an arrogance on his part. I don't think we really know what's going on in the mind of Saddam Hussein at this point. I don't pretend to. I think, however, it doesn't impact our policy. Our policy is to see that those sanctions are applied and that the U.N. resolutions are complied with and we have to insist upon that no matter whether he's acting from motivations of arrogance or desperation.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Shuman, what do you say to Saddam Hussein -- wait a minute, we got to quit letting this guy do this to us -- I mean, if he's got a problem on inspectors or whatever, let's slowly go about the business, but not escalate it, to the brink of war every time Saddam Hussein does something and makes us mad. How do you view that?

MR. SHUMAN: Well, I think you try to use whatever means of pressure you have to get him to comply with current U.N. resolutions. Some of those means are existing economic sanctions. You try to tighten them. Other means are a lot of public persuasion, public embarrassment. I think the threat of force -- at least a minor threat of force -- can be somewhat effective. But the paradox here and the problem here for U.S. foreign policy is that a small use of force will not change very much in Saddam Hussein's weapon building plans. A large use of force actually could be extremely difficult and I think that the bipartisan coalition --

MR. LEHRER: Define what you would say would be a large use of force. I mean, major air strikes?

MR. SHUMAN: I think major air strikes. I think ground action. I think a sustained series of attacks. These are the things that Congress, I do not believe, has bipartisan support for. And one of the problems is that you also do not have allied support for this. In the Mideast right now we have Syria, Turkey, Egypt, who are all seriously questioning some of our moves. And I think we're going to have other of our allies questioning our moves too if we move too far in the force field too quickly.

MR. LEHRER: Jim Hoagland, Sen. Dole pointed out the obvious, which is there is a Presidential election going on in this country. Do you smell any influence of that in this situation either from our side or Saddam Hussein's side?

MR. HOAGLAND: Well, I think the politics are in the thing. Obviously, in an election year every event is going to have a political meaning. I think it's important by the way to note that when Sen. Dole said earlier that Sen. Gore was taking a cheap shot, both Gov. Clinton and Sen. Gore have backed the use of force against Iraq in this situation, indeed at the time of Operation Desert Storm. I don't think that the President is seeking this confrontation in any way. Indeed, I would criticize the administration for allowing Saddam to have the initiative for him being able to call the timing and the shots on when confrontations occur, but obviously the timing ofan American response, the format, the packaging, if you will, of an American response, is going to be looked at by the White House with an eye toward what kind of political impact it would have. I would also disagree with Mr. Shuman's observation about the coalition. It's clear that the British and the French will join a military operation and I think there is support on Capitol Hill in Congress for the kinds of things that you've laid out, particularly if they work, particularly if they bring down Saddam, you'll see everybody rallying around.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Sen. Dole.

SEN. DOLE: I was going to say there's a poll released today showing that 70 to 24 percent, 70 to 24 think we ought to use military action and 67 percent say we ought to overthrow Saddam Hussein. So the American public is going to be with this bipartisan coalition, Congress and the President, if we have to take action, but as President Bush said, whose son are you going to send in? You know, he asked a tough question this morning. Whose son is going to go? And so it's not an easy choice for the President to make.

MR. LEHRER: So the public -- would you agree with that, Congressman Hamilton, while the American public doesn't like Saddam Hussein, would like him out of there, the idea of going in there with a major military force to get rid of him does not have the support of the American people and the Congress of the United States?

REP. HAMILTON: I really find no support for the idea of reinstituting the ground war and sending American troops in there on the ground. I think the Congress would resist that and my sense is the President doesn't want to do it either. So if we are talking about the use of force, almost certainly that use of force is going to be air power.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dole, I was intrigued by an item that Judy reported in the News Summary that you said after this White House meeting that you'd kind of changed your mind, you weren't sure that Jim Baker was going to quit and run the campaign after all. What's the deal?

SEN. DOLE: Well, there was some reference made about it by Sen. Pell, said, I hope Jim Baker doesn't quit, this is -- you know, he's done a good job, the effect, and I think the President at least intimated well, there hadn't been any deal made, so that may or may not be totally accurate, but I left there wondering myself whether Baker would make the move. You know, he's got some very important matters on the table now. Whether it's Iraq, whether it's the Middle East, whether it's MFN in China, there are a whole host of issues that he's dealing with and Rabin coming to the United States, the new prime minister of Israel, early next month, I don't know, but again I'm not calling the shots. I assume if the President says, Jim, please come and help us in the campaign, he'll probably do it.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Now, Jim Hoagland, you have said that you think it's almost he has to come now, is that right?

MR. HOAGLAND: It's a done deal. I think all of these trial balloons have become one huge trial dirigible on which Jim Baker is floating toward the White House. Imagine the morale at the Republican campaign staff if he doesn't come. And imagine what happens if George Bush loses this election and Jim Bush -- Jim Baker --

MR. LEHRER: Watch it. Watch it.

MR. HOAGLAND: -- Jim Baker didn't come and help him. I think it's done.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Well, gentlemen, thank you all four very much.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the NewsHour, the crisis in Yugoslavia as seen by the departing head U.N. peacekeeper, and the man who wants to turn the country into a monarchy, and an update on U.S. reaction to the French abortion pill. CONVERSATION

MS. WOODRUFF: We turn now to another continuing source of international tension, Yugoslavia. With no end to the fighting in Bosnia in sight, European Community negotiators in London were increasingly gloomy about the prospects for coming up with a political solution there. The one thing they cannot persuade the three sides in the conflict, Serbs, Croats, and Moslems, to sit down at the same table. We get two views on the situation now. The first comes from Major General Lewis MacKenzie, the head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Sarajevo. Gen. MacKenzie is a veteran of eight peacekeeping missions from Nicaragua to the Gaza Strip. He has been based in Sarajevo since February, and for the past month has commanded a force of 1200 charged with keeping the Sarajevo airport open to relief supplies. As Terry Lloyd of Independent Television News reports, this assignment has been rougher than most.

MR. LLOYD: 0600 hours at the U.N. headquarters in Sarajevo, and Gen. Lew MacKenzie is reflecting on one of the smaller problems of war.

GEN. MacKENZIE: This is my second shaving kit. The first one got destroyed when a car was destroyed over at the Rainbow Hotel.

MR. LLOYD: He's a career soldier who's seen action in Cyprus and Egypt and Vietnam, but by far, the worst has been during his five months in this city trying to broker peace. He has to travel in an armor-plated car, which is often a target. To the warring militias he's not welcome here and his men frequently come under attack. He has also received numerous written, telephoned, and even faxed death threats. Overnight, Camp Beaver, where many of his troops are based, took hundreds of incoming rounds. Despite heavy artillery and mortars, no one was hurt. It's all very frustrating for the man who says the U.N. is the thin thread holding things together here.

GEN. MacKENZIE: I have mood swings that are as dramatic as anybody on my staff and I've gone through periods of despair absolutely. One of them was about 2:30 yesterday morning when my troops were being shelled for absolutely no reason other than to be here to try to keep the peace. And they're over there sitting there in their bunkers, having their equipment destroyed. That really pisses you off, to tell you the truth, but the fact of the matter is you then had to jump back and look at the positive aspects and the positive aspects we're bringing some food in. And we're bringing medicine in, and nobody's saying thank you.

MS. WOODRUFF: Earlier today I talked with Major General MacKenzie from Belgrade. He was there to meet with Serbian officials before returning home to Canada. Gen. MacKenzie, thank you for being with us. After three months of fighting -- and, what is it -- thirty-nine cease-fires, where do things stand right now in Bosnia?

GEN. MacKENZIE: Well, I've only been associated with I think 17 of the cease-fires, 15 of them EC, and 2 of them were brokered by the U.N. Right now, we're working on the last one brokered by the EC and it wasn't a particularly happy event because we had more heavy fighting at the moment of start of the cease-fire than we had before. But over the last four or five days, and I can only speak for Sarajevo, the fighting has died down significantly and restricted itself to sort of between 11 o'clock at night till 1 in the morning. But generally during the day, it's quieter than it has been for the last couple of months. But I hasten to add that we just have eyes in Sarajevo. We don't have a presence over the rest of Bosnia.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about the overall situation? How does what you just described translate into what it's like for the people still in Bosnia?

GEN. MacKENZIE: Well, that's one of the problems, if you want to describe it that way. What's going on in Sarajevo right now is under the microscope of the world. The international media is there. There is pretty good reporting coming out of Sarajevo. Nobody much is out there in the rest of Bosnia, where the situation is probably significantly worse in a lot of areas than it is in Sarajevo.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think you've been able to do much good in this situation while you've been there the last month or so?

GEN. MacKENZIE: I wouldn't pass judgment on something like that. That's for someone else to do, but I would say that the UNPREFOR force that was sent down there about five weeks ago to open the airport and to deliver the food to the city of Sarajevo and its surrounding areas exceeded expectations. We are anticipating about eight aircraft a day. We're handling twenty to twenty-two and we're delivering over 220 tons of food a day and medicine on the average into the city, so that is a very significant undertaking. And it was achieved in spite of the fact that we did not have a cease-fire.

MS. WOODRUFF: U.S. officials say that they're now considering air drops into Gorazde and perhaps other places. Would that be -- is that a good idea?

GEN. MacKENZIE: Well, I leave that decision up to the USA and the people that are considering it. The U.N. at present has no mandate outside of Sarajevo, but certainly it would be one of the viable solutions.

MS. WOODRUFF: What lessons do you take away from this experience, Gen. MacKenzie, at this point? You've been a peacekeeping force that's come into a place where there has been no peace to keep.

GEN. MacKENZIE: Yeah. And to be fair, we were there before the war started, so I mean the United Nations can't be blamed for putting us in there after the war broke out. We were in there before the war broke out. It was our headquarters location for the operation in Croatia, and a bit of a paradox having got there and set up and started operating our headquarters, and the war broke out. So it wasn't the appropriate thing to do to wash our hands of the whole thing and leave. We stayed there and carried out some very valuable humanitarian undertakings. But the whole idea of a peacekeeping force and all the mechanisms that a peacekeeping force puts in place obviously was difficult to the extreme to do it when there was no cease-fire. But perhaps this is a new challenge that the U.N. will face in the future.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is there any doubt in your mind, General, that the fighting, this is continuing because of Serbian nationalists, they're trying to purge Bosnia of everybody but like-minded Serbs?

GEN. MacKENZIE: There are no simple explanations to what's going on in Bosnia. You can go back 10 years. You can go back a hundred; you can go back two hundred. It's a very, very complex operation. Each day you can find somewhere, some location where you can lay blame. There's lots of blame to go around, but there are no simple solutions. There are many, many complicating factors that are causing the continuing problems in Bosnia.

MS. WOODRUFF: I understand that, but we've been reading a great deal in the last few days about this so-called "ethnic cleansing" that the Serbs are carrying, the Serb nationalists are carrying out, and people are comparing it to what Hitler and the Nazis did before World War II.

GEN. MacKENZIE: Yeah. And we've been hearing about it and reading about it over here for the five months we've been here, and not necessarily all on one side. That particular very disgusting term has been used throughout Croatia and throughout Bosnia and in other areas in this part of the world for some time, and it's a despicable type of activity. But once again, nothing's ever that simple over here, and I would hasten to add that our expertise, if there is such a thing, is limited to Sarajevo. And in Sarajevo, you had the ideal example of the three ethnic communities living in harmony up until the 6th of April. And we lived there with them in that situation for a month before the war broke out. So certainly they got along pretty well before the war and what's happening now, there are agencies that have much better information on that than we do.

MS. WOODRUFF: If you could sit down right now with the U.N. Secretary General, with President Bush, with others, leaders in the West, in Europe and so forth, and tell them what you think would bring this bloodshed to an end, what would you say to them? What advice would you give them?

GEN. MacKENZIE: Well, first of all, I wouldn't be permitted to do that, because I --

MS. WOODRUFF: I understand that, but I'm saying, given what you've seen, you've had a close-up look at what's happening.

GEN. MacKENZIE: Well, my personal opinion is, for what it's worth, is that in all the peacekeeping experience that I -- or in the peacekeeping missions that I've been exposed to, there has never been a solution without dialogue. And at present, for reasons that are quite justifiable to one side in the conflict in Bosnia, they refused to talk to the other side. That would be tacit recognition of them as an official entity within Bosnia and perhaps a recognition that it's a civil war as opposed to the presidency considers it a war of aggression. Now that is their decision. The fact of the matter is unless the sides get together across the table in daily, grinding negotiations and not have someone else do the negotiation for them in some other capital, all of which is very productive, but there has to be face-to-face contact. Otherwise, my own personal opinion is I don't see a quick resolution to the problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you saying there's absolutely nothing that anyone on the outside could do to bring this to a quicker solution?

GEN. MacKENZIE: I didn't say that at all. In fact, I would hope that what's going on in the outside will contribute to the solution. What I am saying in concert with that has to be the daily contact at the local level, but that's strictly my opinion and it obviously hasn't been listened to by at least one of the sides.

MS. WOODRUFF: But for the outside world to watch, what is it, 7,500 people killed in a small country the size of Bosnia, a region, you've had 2 1/2 million people from Yugoslavia flee as a result of all this. It's hard for people to understand why in this post cold war situation the West hasn't been able to do more.

GEN. MacKENZIE: Well, tell me what the West is supposed to do. I mean, I'd be delighted to share the solution with anyone who has a brilliant solution. This is a political and diplomatic challenge of monumental proportions. And to expect a peacekeeping force -- and I know you're not suggesting that --

MS. WOODRUFF: No, I'm not.

GEN. MacKENZIE: A peacekeeping force can only get in there and address at present some of the humanitarian aspects. Until there is contact between the sides, until the mechanisms are put in place in order to establish and maintain a cease-fire, then the requirement is that the people have to at some level get together and discuss solutions. And I would suggest that the people who are living in that country and the leadership within the parties of that country are in the best position to do that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Gen. MacKenzie, we thank you for being with us.

GEN. MacKENZIE: Thank you very much. Good night.

MR. LEHRER: A second perspective now on Yugoslavia from the man who would be its king. He's Crown Prince Alexander whose family ruled Yugoslavia from the end of World War I until it was sent into exile after World War II. The Crown Prince was born in England and raised there and in the United States. He's been in Washington this week meeting with administration officials. Charlayne Hunter-Gault talked with him yesterday and asked why the people of Yugoslavia might now unite behind a monarchy.

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Today we have a disaster at hand and the hope really is in the constitutional monarchy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you think those republics would want a monarch again?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Today we've had a break-up of Yugoslavia and the constitutional monarchy has a good ground base in all parts that are attached to Serbia, or where there are Serbs that inhabit, Montenegroans, but I've also got a good standing with all religious factors, all people who believe in constitutional monarchy, or I should say to put it more accurately all people that believe in democracy. My message has always been the democratic factor with respect to religion, with respect to ethnic groups, and so on.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you think that the non-Serbian peoples, the Muslims and the Croats and the others, would put their trust in someone who is Serbian? Now, particularly given the ethnic cleansing that's been going on, do you have indications that you would be different in terms of the way they looked at you?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Well, firstly I should state that I'm violently against ethnic cleansing. I'm a great believer in the respect of religions and ethnic groups and I was educated in the West, including the United States, and I have worked in the West, so I have a good base. I understand democracy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What role, if you were to return, would you see yourself playing?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: My role is to be a sort of figurehead but defender of democratic values and democratic rights. I have a role model and, of course, that is King Juan Carlos of Spain. The transition from a totalitarian state, the fascist one of Spain, to a great democracy which we see today in Spain, and a successful one at that too. Of course, there are many lessons to be learned and Spain is not as complex as the former Yugoslavia.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you don't have Slobodan Milosevic.

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Yes, they were lucky. They don't have Slobodan Milosevic.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how do you -- I mean, he's not going to let you just walk back into Yugoslavia and --

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Well, I have been there and I've demonstrated the pull that I have and that the people want a change. But you see, he still is in command, but it's eroding slowly. The people really want to have democracy come. He still controls some of the media, and particularly our TV, a lot of intimidation going on, and of course ,the factor of the armed forces which is very important. But the country's in a total state of confusion. The government is working for the government but not for the people. Health care is collapsed. Social services have collapsed. There's a bleak future. Sanctions are beginning to bite now. Even before sanctions, the economy was a disaster. The export and import industry have gone completely now.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Does Milosevic have to leave? Do you think that -- I mean, is there room for both of you in the same --

PRINCE ALEXANDER: There is no room for a person who does not believe in democratic values. You see, we should live under democracy too, but he's not the only one who must go within the former Yugoslavia. There are others. For example, Tudgman must go. We must implement democratic values in Belgrade and Zagreb and Mr. Izobegovic must do the same in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Everybody has got to put democracy first where government works for people and not against the people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is it your sense that the West simply doesn't understand what's happening there?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Well, the West understands one thing, which we all understand, that the bloodshed must stop. And the only way to do that is to take a hand of the situation and by implementing democracy in Belgrade, in Zagreb, and in Sarajevo, and Izobegovic. Once you do that, and to take control of their three armed forces, and implement observers from the West, that is, military observers from the United States, NATO, for example, in coordination with the United Nations and European Community, and start proper negotiating using these military observers to supervise the disarming of the irregulars, of which there's a lot to do, I think then we can get down to something meaningful. You cannot disarm one lot because the other lot will suffer from an attack. It has to be balanced. It has to be very strict and very well coordinated.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What message are you sending to the State Department and this government?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: It's a very clear message. You see, we were the pretty face of communism for years under Tito. He was accepted everywhere in the West. He was propped up by the United States as the buffer against East expansion from the satellite countries of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union, itself, access to the Mediterranean. Now, these successors who have taken over today using the apparatus, they must get a clear message from the United States. And I'm counting on the United States. I've lived in this country. I admire it tremendously.

MR. LEHRER: Where does the United States start? I mean, what could the United States do?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: We have some very fine leaders throughout the former Yugoslavia who have come up from various walks of life, some of them have been scientists, doctors, in the literary arts and so on, who are now politicians, who are running political parties. These are the people who must be given some help.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Some political leaders in this country have called for even tighter sanctions. Do you think in the end that sanctions can work? I mean, it is going to produce --

PRINCE ALEXANDER: I think that sanctions are really being directed in the wrong way. The sanctions are hurting the people. I remember very well President Bush saying we have nothing against the people of Iraq. Now, how about saying we have nothing against the people of Serbia? Because the people of Iraq and the people of Serbia have been subjected to a regime which is working against them. What our problem is, is would the regime, the administration. The administration must go and democracy must come in.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how long can you -- can this go on, I mean, given the --

PRINCE ALEXANDER: I'm very conservative about that because every day is more hurt for the people. Take the hospitals, for example. I went to these hospitals, no anesthetics, no antibiotics. Insulin is running out in the specialized side. We have a disaster which we should look into more from the West to see what we can do to help it. This cannot go on. People are dying.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the greatest obstacle you think you face now towards salvaging your country and bringing peace to it?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: The stupidity of a self-centered bunch of leaders who have no concept on how to treat another human being.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any optimism that this is going to end anytime soon?

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Well, I'm still young and I know for sure democracy always wins in the end. But how many more lives have to go before we get there? So I'm pleading to the United States, give us a hand for democracy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Your Highness, thank you.

PRINCE ALEXANDER: Thank you very much. UPDATE - RU486 - LIFTING THE BAN?

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, an update on the French abortion pill, RU-486. The Food & Drug Administration has placed RU-486 on a list of drugs not permitted into the United States. The issue made news recently when Customs officials seized the drug from a pregnant California woman trying to import it for her own use. The FDA says the drug which induces abortion in early pregnancy is untested. But critics of the FDA say the ban is politically motivated. Besides, they say, RU-486, which is legal in Britain and France, has therapeutic uses for many disease, ranging from hypertension to brain tumor. Today they brought their case to Washington. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett has our report.

MS. BRACKETT: Actress Cybill Shepherd succeeded in attracting media attention to a Capitol Hill hearing today, but this couple told a real life story. Forty-nine year old David Grow suffers from a rapidly growing non-malignant brain tumor. Yesterday he told Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder his doctor thinks the drug RU-486, used for abortion in France, could save his life.

REP. PATRICIA SCHROEDER: Don't get lost in these halls of Congress.

MS. BRACKETT: But Grow can't get RU-486. Caught up in the swirl of abortion politics, the drug is not approved in the U.S. The Food & Drug Administration has issued an import alert that keeps the drug out of the country for personal use. So what do you want to say to the FDA now?

DAVID GROW, Cancer Patient: I want them to open this up for all the other uses of an abortion and led the abortion controversy rage on as a separate issue, and to get the drug. What I want is an expeditious resolution of my case and cases like mine, because I don't have time to wait.

MS. BRACKETT: Schroeder prepared Grow and his wife for their testimony before a House Subcommittee today.

DAVID GROW: My wife and I have tried to handle the situation quietly and privately by going through proper channels to receive RU-486. At every step, I and my doctors have met with -- have been met with the proverbial red tape. We do not pretend to understand the short-sighted wisdom of the FDA regarding its import ban on RU- 486. Obviously, we cannot agree with it. I and many others in my situation stand a good chance of becoming just another health care statistic because we were denied the opportunity of having every medical resource readily openly available to us in our fight against our disease.

MS. BRACKETT: Committee Chairman Ron Wyden blasted the FDA for continuing the import alert against RU-486.

REP. RON WYDEN, [D] Oregon: In the chair's opinion, RU-486 has now been effectively blocked for all uses in this country because one use doesn't pass the administration's anti-abortion political litmus test. The anti-abortion forces have successfully lobbied the Reagan-Bush administration to maintain and impose the import alert to send a message to the drug's French manufacturer. That message is clear. Don't try applying for a general drug approval for RU- 486 in this country. You won't get a fair shake for this drug.

MS. BRACKETT: The FDA did not testify at the hearing and would not agree to do an interview, but said, neither President Bush or the administration would ever prohibit or impede research on RU- 486. But several physicians testifying today, including Dr. Robert Dixon of the Endocrine Society, said their research had indeed been impeded by the FDA's import alert.

DR. ROBERT DIXON, The Endocrine Society: Research in other countries where RU-486 is available for human clinical trials shows that the use of this drug could mitigate the symptoms and perhaps elucidate and eliminate the causes of a number of ravaging diseases and conditions, including various uterine disorders, which resulted in infertility, Cushing Syndrome, breast cancer, meningioma, severe hypertension and diabetes, to name only a few. Because of the current import alert, the federal government is implicitly allowing the censorship of meritorious research. Thus, the long-term commitment and coordination necessary for the successful conduct of research is not available and there is no question that our process -- that our progress in a variety of promising fields of biomedical research has been slowed considerably, if not halted altogether.

MS. BRACKETT: The anti-abortion movement has been blamed for blocking efforts to bring RU-486 into the U.S. even for research purposes. Not true, says Richard Glasow of the National Right to Life Committee.

RICHARD GLASOW, National Right to Life Committee: We have not tried to oppose any non-abortion related research. We have not opposed any non-abortion related research in the United States, or any other country, for that matter.

MS. WOODRUFF: Though Glasow was challenged by Chairman Wyden on that claim at today's hearings.

CHAIRMAN WYDEN: You have made the point that you haven't asked - - that you all are not against non-abortion research, what troubles you is abortion research. But as you and others who have looked at this issue know, once the drug is available for use, not just research, but once the drug is available for use in one area, it would be available in others. Given that, is it correct to say that you don't want to see this drug used in our country for any purpose, because one of the uses may be as an abortive agent?

RICHARD GLASOW: We do not oppose abortion-related research. We are leaving open the situation after that. We are not making a commitment one way or the other, but I think it's very problematical whether RU-486 would ever get approved for non- abortion related research in the United States in the foreseeable future.

CHAIRMAN WYDEN: So you are saying then that you might be willing to accept the actual use of RU-486 in this country even though one of its uses may be as an abortive agent.

RICHARD GLASOW: We would evaluate the data when the time comes.

MS. BRACKETT: But the anti-abortion movement has fought hard against the use of RU-486 for abortion. Because of that vocal opposition, the French company that developed and manufactured RU- 486, Roussel Uclaf, has never submitted an application to the FDA. In a statement today, the companysaid in order to make an application "abortion must be widely accepted by the public and by medical and political opinion." It is difficult to say this is so in the United States, where the President is of a different opinion. The availability of RU-486 has moved to the top of the agenda of many women's advocacy groups. The strategy is to try and create the kind of public atmosphere that would encourage Roussel Uclaf to apply to the FDA. It was this woman's group, the Woman's Issues Network, that brought Cybill Shepherd to Washington to testify at today's hearing.

CYBILL SHEPHERD, Abortin Rights Activist: I'm here to speak out against a terrible injustice that is also a medical and scientific travesty. The fact that as we gather here today thousands of American women are being needlessly subjected to surgical abortion when, in fact, a safe medical alternative exists.

SPOKESMAN: The crucial point that we're trying to bring home to the American public is that abortion stops a beating heart, and that's just as true of an RU-486 abortion as it is a surgical abortion now.

MS. BRACKETT: As the battle continues to rage over the use of RU- 486 for abortion, David Grow's options continue to shrink.

DAVID GROW: If RU-486 were available to me, it could mean a 75 percent chance of a future for me and my family, which includes five children, one of whom is 15 and whom I hope to have the opportunity to put through college. And I've no doubt that if RU- 486 were not the subject of a political controversy, I would have found a way to get it a long time ago.

SPOKESMAN: I just want you to know that when you all leave today, we're going to pull out all the stops and to work with you and the FDA to see if we can make the system work in your case at this time.

MS. BRACKETT: The FDA said this afternoon it was not familiar with the details of the Grow case, but said it will look into his particular situation immediately. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Tuesday, United Nations weapons experts began to inspect Iraq's agriculture ministry following a three-week standoff. They were there for six hours and said they would return tomorrow. White House Spokesman Fitzwater said the Iraq crisis had been defused for now but tensions remained and Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Al Gore said the Bush administration botched foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with a report on new ways to make dead beat dads pay up. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.