The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the Bosnia mission. The administration goes to the Senate. Elizabeth Farnsworth interviews the Bosnian prime minister, President Clinton is in Ireland. Margaret Warner updates the Irish story. The week of politics according to Paul Gigot and Elizabeth Drew, substituting for Mark Shields, and the origins of man as seen by essayist Clarence Page. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton went to Dublin, Ireland, today, the fourth stop on his European tour. He addressed a crowd of more than 100,000 people in the city center. He told them peace in Northern Ireland was their victory too. Later in the day, he told the Irish legislature America is committed to supporting the anglo-Irish peace efforts. Mr. Clinton travels tomorrow to Germany, where he will address American troops headed for Bosnia. During a news conference with Irish Prime Minister Bruton, the President said their mission would not be risk-free.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I will tell them that we have done everything we can to minimize the risks, we have guaranteed for them very robust rules of engagement so that if anyone attempts to interfere with their mission or take action against them, they can respond with decisive, indeed, with overwhelming force, and that their peace and their security, their safety is uppermost in my mind and in the mind of their, their general officers, who have done all the planning for this mission, but that this is a mission very much in America's interest, where we can make a huge difference and stop the worst slaughter in Europe since World War II, and that I'm very proud of them for doing that.

MR. LEHRER: The President permitted the Defense Appropriations Bill to become law last night. He had threatened to veto the $243 billion measure. He said it contained money for programs he opposed, but he said he would let it go because it also had money for the Bosnia mission. An advanced party of U.S. troops is on the ground in Bosnia. Today they began scouting out the town of Tuzla. It will be the headquarters for American forces assigned to implement the Dayton peace accord. They'll be joined soon by visiting members of Congress who left today on their own reconnaissance mission. Two of them spoke before the party from Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington.

REP. SANDER LEVIN, [D] Michigan: There are going to be some risks in peace. There also will be serious risks in renewed war, and we're going to weigh these risks and be there firsthand so we can assess them realistically.

REP. SUSAN MOLINARI, [R] New York: We feel it is essential that as many members of Congress as possible get to speak to the leaders of these factions, talk to them and relate a message as to the overall concern and skepticism of America and to let them know that expectations are very high, and that we will be, in fact, watching, so the discussion is to gain information but also to send information to the people who will be counting on our troops there.

MR. LEHRER: Hearings on Bosnia continued on Capitol Hill for a second day. Senior administration officials answered questions about how Bosnia's Muslims will defend themselves if the peace deal breaks down. We'll have more on Bosnia after the News Summary. NATO ambassadors elected a new Secretary General today. Spanish Foreign Minister Javier Solana was their unanimous choice. He replaces Willy Claes of Belgium. Claes resigned in October, after he was implicated in a bribery scandal related to his earlier service in the Belgian government. The Senate Whitewater Committee continued its hearings today. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: The Committee heard from Randolph Coleman, attorney for former Little Rock Municipal Judge David Hale. Hale has pleaded guilty to a arranging an improper Small Business Administration loan. Some of the funds from that loan helped balance the books at Madison S&L, the Arkansas thrift that eventually failed under the ownership of Bill Clinton's former business partner, James McDougal. Hale has alleged then Gov. Clinton urged him to arrange the improper loan.

SPOKESMAN: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is--

MR. HOLMAN: This morning, Hale's lawyer told the committee he sought help for Hale from the White House when it became clear Hale was about to be indicted. Randolph Coleman said he talked directly to Associate White House Counsel William Kennedy.

RANDOLPH COLEMAN, Lawyer: He asked me if Hale was trying to, to negotiate anything. I told him there was, there probably were or would be some attempts in that regard. He asked me would Hale allege there was any face-to-face meetings? I told him, yes.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Republican Counsel: And when you say face-to- face meetings, what did he mean, or what did you understand him to mean by face-to-face meetings?

RANDOLPH COLEMAN: I understood him to mean Mr. Clinton.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, Democratic Counsel: The fact that Mr. Hill was, indeed, indicted in a prompt way, as we have heard from the SBA officials who have come here to testify, any notion of the White House being intimidated by any threats or suggested that they would do something improper to favor Mr. Hale because of years of what Mr. Hale might say was essentially erased, was it not, by the return of that indictment?

MR. HOLMAN: Former Deputy Attorney General Webster Hubbell testified White House lawyer Kennedy alerted him to the calls from Hale's lawyer, but Hubbell says neither he nor the White House took any action on Hale's behalf. The Whitewater hearings will continue next week.

MR. LEHRER: Senator Mark Hatfield said today he will not run for reelection in 1996. The moderate Republican from Oregon was first elected to the Senate in 1966. Today, he said five terms in office were enough. Hatfield announced his decision at a news conference in his hometown of Silverton.

SEN. MARK HATFIELD, [R] Oregon: My time in public office has allowed me to serve the needs of our state but the price has been very high. For the last 30 years my calling has been to live in Washington, D.C.. Thirty years of voluntary separation from the state I love is enough. With the blessings of the Lord, I look forward to many more years here with you and my family. Antoinette and I have no plans for retirement.

MR. LEHRER: General Motors will recall 470,000 Cadillacs. Environmental Protection Agency Director Carol Browner said today theluxury cars were equipped with illegal devices to defeat pollution controls. GM agreed to pay an $11 million fine and spend $25 million to recall and retrofit the vehicles. GM said in a statement the government didn't measure the auto emissions correctly. Fifteen suspects have been detained in the 1994 car bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina. Eighty-six people were killed, more than two hundred injured in the Buenos Aires attack. Argentine President Carlos Menhem said at least seven of those detained today are current or former military personnel. Nick Leeson pled guilty today to fraud and forgery charges in Singapore. He's the 28-year-old futures trader who caused Britain's Barings Bank to fail. He racked up $1.4 billion in losses. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Bosnia hearings, the Bosnia prime minister, an Irish debate, some political analysis, and a Clarence Page essay. FOCUS - BOSNIA MISSION: MAKING THE CASE

MR. LEHRER: We begin again tonight with the Bosnia mission and the specific mission of selling it to reluctant members of Congress. Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard the administration's case for sending 20,000 American soldiers to Bosnia. Elizabeth Farnsworth reports.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Three top administration officials faced tough questioning from the Foreign Relations Committee. Chairman Jesse Helms has been a staunch opponent of the President's plan to send troops in to Bosnia, and he made it clear from the outset that he hasn't wavered.

SEN. JESSE HELMS, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee: I cannot and do not and will not support sending American soldiers to fight and die for the sake of an agreement which may offer no more than the promise of a brief pause while all sides prepare for the next round of Balkan wars. Now, I simply cannot understand the logic of sending American soldiers to Bosnia. I take quite seriously the leadership role of the United States and the importance of fulfilling the commitments of our elected President. As the Majority Leader said yesterday, we have only one President at a time, and I agree with that. And I certainly agree that the President has the constitutional right to send the troops there. There's no question about that. He also has the constitutional right to make other mistakes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Republicans on the Committee worried about whether the mission could actually be accomplished in a year's time, and they asked the witnesses how the operation would be limited to just peacekeeping.

SEN. ROD GRAMS, [R] Minnesota: Do you see any scenario that would keep our troops there any longer or any scenario that would expand their roles and objectives than what you have outlined to this committee this morning? In other words, there's a lot of concern that this would be a slippery slope is what I think I'm trying to get across.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: We share, from the beginning have shared that concern. I wanted to tell you that we worked very, very closely with Sec. Christopher, Sec. Holbrooke in Dayton as the peace agreement was being formulated to be sure that these concerns were taken into account. I think as a consequence, there probably has never been a diplomatic document put together in this peace agreement that has had more input and more consideration from the military and primary in our mind was avoiding the mission creep.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Other members questioned whether the First Armored Division would be deterred by Bosnia's bad roads and dangerous bridges. The Chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff reassured the Committee that advanced troops in Bosnia now are trained to deal with the problem.

GEN. JOHN SHALIKASHVILI, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: Bosnia creates a particular problem, but we have data on the bridges. We are sending the necessary advanced parties to ensure that we understand fully which bridges might have to be reinforced, where you might have to create fording sites to get around it, so I don't want to minimize again any problems, but this does not come as a, as a surprise, nor will that force be unprepared to deal with it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The prospect of American casualties continued to dominate. Maine's Olympia Snowe asked what happens if the peace mission fails.

SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE, [R] Maine: If we do lose soldiers in this effort, what have they died for if they have not been able to achieve peace as the final outcome?

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: Senator, I think they will have died in order to give an opportunity for peace. They will have died in order to prevent the resumption of a war and atrocities. There's no guarantee as to how the situation will come out, but it's a very noble cause to have served your country and served NATO in an effort to keep the peace, in an effort to avoid a larger war, in an effort to prevent many casualties in the future.

GEN. JOHN SHALIKASHVILI: It will be very hard to face the death of a soldier, but I will note that they will have died--whether in an accident or due to some hostile action--that they will have died in pursuit of peace, and that this government, this body here, and the President have all thought about this long and very hard, and that this has not been some frivolous decision. I think I can live with that.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she can live with the risks too, despite the flak she's getting from her constituents back home.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, [D] California: I'm pleased to give 100 percent support, and I do it despite the fact my calls all run by the thousands to the contrary, but it's the right thing for us to do.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This afternoon, General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry went before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Republican Chairman Ted Stevens began by saying last night's decision by President Clinton not to veto the Defense Appropriations Bill guarantees that money will be available to begin the Bosnian military operation.

SEN. TED STEVENS, [R] Alaska: I command the President's action in signing our bill, and I really think this is the right thing. The President stated that the cost to Bosnia will be funded within the amounts we've prepared--report in our bill. I'm not aware of any agreement on that, but it is consistent with what we've attempted to do in our discussions with you, Mr. Secretary.

MS. FARNSWORTH: However, Stevens was concerned the United States is paying much more than its share.

SEN. TED STEVENS: I can't understand why, in view of the fact that we've been carrying more than half the burden already, we're now asked to carry at least a third of the burden of the ground force. How did we get the one--

SEN. WILLIAM PERRY: Sen. Stevens, I clarify that the one third was not is not a formula. It's what worked out from our belief that we needed to have a full division in for the American forces. We wanted to have a self-sustaining, fully capable operation, and that turned out to be 20,000 troops.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mississippi's Thad Cochran asked when the reserve units needed for the Bosnian operation would be notified.

SEN. THAD COCHRAN: Has that occurred?

GEN. JOHN SHALIKASHVILI: We are notifying today the units and the members of the House and Senate who are involved and, of course, the staffs of our committees, so it is today that this process is ongoing.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And Senators promised congressional hearings on Bosnia would be ongoing as long as troops are on the ground.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Another salesman for the mission is the prime minister of Bosnia. He's been in Washington talking to members of Congress, as well as administration officials, and Elizabeth talked with him earlier today. NEWSMAKER

MS. FARNSWORTH: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for being with us.

HARIS SILAJDZIC, Prime Minister, Bosnia: My pleasure.

MS. FARNSWORTH: In your remarks in Sarajevo after the signing in Dayton, you said, "This is not a just peace, but it's better than going on with civil war." Now, in the period of time that's passed since then, do you feel the same way, or are you a little more enthusiastic?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: I still think there cannot be a just peace after 200,000 killed and 2 million expelled out of their homes, but it would be unjust to go on with war, for many people to die, if we can give the peace a chance right now. And I think that's what we are doing right now.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Was your lack of enthusiasm about the peace, your reservations, was it partly because it does validate ethnic cleansing?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: Well, it does validate ethnic cleansing. It's the worst ethnic cleansing, unfortunately, and that is the painful part of it. For some time the ethnically cleansed areas, the areas from which people had to go out of threat of life, will remain for some time under the control those who did it, of the perpetrators of this crime. That's the painful part of it, but again to continue the war might mean more cleansed people, more killed people, so I think it's a good agreement in Dayton. We have a good agreement. We shall proceed with it and hopefully, we shall implement it as soon as possible. That's why we hope that the troops will leave there within a week.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Is that what you're doing? Tell me what you're doing here in Washington.

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: I came here to ask support from the American Congress to send the American troops within the NATO troops to Bosnia-Herzegovina, because I believe that without the American troops, the NATO operation will not be the same. We need the confidence, we need the trust of the American troops and the Americans enjoying my country. We need the credibility to make this truce a lasting peace. I must tell you that without the United States of America, we Europeans cannot do it. That's fact. That's why we need the American troops there. That's why we need the American presence, and that is why we needed the American leadership and the initiative in this peace process, and that is why we reached the Dayton agreement, because of the American leadership there. That is a fact.

MS. FARNSWORTH: As you know, one of the worries of those who are skeptical about sending troops is they worry about what the Bosnian Serbs will do, and in recent days, Bosnian Serbian leader Radovan Karadzic has said, he would, he would--that the Serbs would turn Sarajevo into another Beirut if there's not a re-negotiating of the Sarajevo part of the peace accord. Is that something you take seriously, or is that a lot of just sort of big talk right now?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: Well, that individual said many things, and the latest one is that he completely agrees with everything and--but I--what is important is that a big majority of people, including the Serbs, and especially the Serbs in some areas, welcome the agreement. There are some that would, of course, lose some privileges, if you like, or will have to leave other people's houses and homes where they live now, but that's minority. The great majority of Serbs in Bosnia and of the Serbs in Serbia proper welcome the agreement, they greet the agreement. They want peace, because they had been intimidated into the war by their leaders. They have been manipulated into this war. No, no person wants war. The Serbs, just like any other people in the world, want peace, not war. War there means war in the region and Europe usually. Peace there means peace everywhere in Europe. That's how it is, and that is why, I think, we must do it. We must implement the agreement. That is far from perfect but it's better than war in my mind.

MS. FARNSWORTH: So at this point you're not terribly worried about the Bosnian Serbs acting against the agreement once the troops get there?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: Of course not. That's scare-mongering there. We know who those people are. They're afraid of justice, among other things. They know that the international tribunal in the Hague would want some of them brought to justice to answer some questions.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The war crimes tribunal.

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: The war crimes tribunal, and I think it should be done. A great majority of the people are just normal people living in Bosnia; like the rest of us, they want peace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I wanted to ask you about the war crimes tribunal. The peace agreement recognizes "the obligations of all parties to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes." But there's no mechanism in the peace agreement for bringing people to justice. How do you expect this to work?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: I think that the implementation force will have the right to apprehend and deliver the war criminals to this tribunal, and I think that's the right thing to do, the only thing to do, because whatever happened to those dead and raped, and, and camped, and whatever, we cannot, you know, bring it back, but we can deliver the minimal justice, and that is to punish those indicted.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I want to ask you some other questions about your expectations from the peace agreement. People who are worried about U.S. participation, are worried about troops being called upon to do non-military tasks, and the peace agreement does talk of troops, for example, fulfilling supporting tasks like observing and preventing the interference with the movement of refugees. How do you see that working? Would the troops protect refugees as they're moving from place to place? How do you understand that part of the peace agreement?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: I want to make this very clear. We are not asking the foreign troops to come and fight our war or build our country. We fight our wars, as you know, alone, with the arms embargo upon our backs also, unfortunately. We fight our wars, and we win our wars. We build our country, but we need a catalyst there because of the mistrust, the distrust, whatever, there now in the country, because we had bitter fighting. We have a lot of people dead. We want a force there, a credible force, to bridge.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But I'm just curious about how--let's say relatives of yours need to return to a village that they were kicked out of, and they're not allowed to. Would you--would it be your expectation that the implementation force would help them return?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: The implementation force would see that the other force is withdrawn within a period of time from that village, or from that area, and they would move in and stay there for three months, until things settle down, and then you have the right of return.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I see.

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: So there is--that's a very carefully scheduled thing, and I think it will be--it will be successful because, as I said, the majority of people want to see this happen, this happen, and people want to go back to their homes. People do not want war, but the problem is, the problem is that we have this ideal ethnic purity, whatever that means, of ethnically pure territories there, and the Belgrade regime with which we now made peace had this idea of the expansion of Serbia at the expense of Croatia and Bosnia. That project is now over because it has failed, so that is why I believe in this peace.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you find? You've been back home since the signing in Dayton. Are people optimistic? Are they--do they fear this will be just one more cease-fire and, and peace agreement that's broken?

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: Well, it depends. The majority of people are very optimistic about this. They welcome the peace. Some of them, especially those, of course, that come from the areas and regions to remain under the control of the Serb terrorists, now those are not very enthusiastic. But some of them say, well, let's have peace, let's make peace; we have the right of return. The international community has been obliged to create conditions for return, so we will return one day. Most of the people are enthusiastic. Some of them, of course, it's very painful for them to know that there hometowns will remain under the control of the perpetrators of the crimes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you so much for being with us, Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER SILAJDZIC: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Ireland, our Friday night political analysis, and a Clarence Page essay. FOCUS - PEACE IN IRELAND?

MR. LEHRER: Now, Ireland, a divided island of many troubles, the place where President Clinton is finishing up a triumphant business. Margaret Warner has that story.

MS. WARNER: Emotional crowds of thousands mobbed the American President during his two-day visit to the island, in Northern Ireland yesterday, in the Irish Republic today. Yesterday's visit to Northern Ireland, the first ever by an American President, took Mr. Clinton to streets that were patrolled by British troops until just 15 months ago. These streets were the scene of much of the violence during a 25-year civil war that claimed 3,000 lives. The President and First Lady visited Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods in Belfast and in Londonderry, and Protestants and Catholics alike cheered them.

SPOKESMAN: --as we invite to the platform the President and First Lady of the United States of America, Bill and Hillary Clinton! [cheering]

MS. WARNER: In Belfast, the President met in a bakery with Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army. Mr. Clinton's decision to allow Adams into the United States last year created a political furor in Britain, but the Irish said it helped create a climate to pursue peace in Northern Ireland. The administration is still heavily involved in pushing the peace process, which has been stalled in recent months. The public's hopes for peace were vividly clear yesterday. A Protestant schoolboy described what the cease-fire has meant to the people of Northern Ireland.

YOUNG BOY: I think the peace is good because there is no shooting or bombing. It means that I can play in the park without worrying about getting shot.

MS. WARNER: The boy then joined hands with a Catholic schoolgirl whose father was killed in the violence to wish the President a good voyage. The President ended his Northern Ireland tour by lighting a Christmas tree in Belfast.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: As I look down these beautiful streets, I think how wonderful it will be for people to do their holiday shopping without worry of searches or bombs, to visit loved ones on the other side of the border without the burden of checkpoints or roadblocks, to enjoy these magnificent Christmas lights without any fear of violence. Peace has brought real change to your lives.

MS. WARNER: Today, the President was in the Republic of Ireland for a sentimental celebration of his Irish roots. There too he was visiting a place in the throes of change. Just 10 days ago, the heavily Catholic Irish electorate narrowly endorsed a referendum to legalize divorce.

SPOKESMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, the President and First Lady of the United States.

MS. WARNER: Today in Dublin, a huge crowd, estimated at 100,000 people, roared its approval for Mr. Clinton's peace efforts in Northern Ireland. The President responded by calling on them to help their prime minister support the cause of peace.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Stand with him as he takes risks for peace. Realize how difficult it is for them, having been in their patterns of opposition for so long to the North of you, and realize that those of you who have more emotional and physical space must reach out and help them to take those next hard steps. It is worth doing. And to you, this vast, wonderful throng of people here, and all the people of Ireland, I say, America will be with you as you walk the road of peace.

MS. WARNER: Now, for more about Ireland and the peace process, we get two views. Ray O'Hanlon is senior editor for the "Irish Echo," A New York-based weekly newspaper, and John McCarthy is a professor of history at Fordham University and a specialist in Irish-American relations. Welcome, gentlemen. Ray O'Hanlon, Ray O'Hanlon, can you hear me? We seem to have a little technical trouble here. Can you hear me now?

RAY O'HANLON, Irish Echo: I can hear you, yes.

MS. WARNER: Terrific. Ray O'Hanlon, usually when an American President goes to a European capital, it's a rather routine affair. How do you explain this enthusiastic emotional outpouring that the President seems to have received?

MR. O'HANLON: Well, I think obviously the links between the United States and Ireland go back many years. What we're seeing for the first time and in your program earlier the prime minister of Bosnia almost hit the nail on the head, that he feels that Europe alone can't settle the problems in Bosnia. And I think the Irish people realize after years of attempts between the Irish and the British to settle the problems in Ireland, that there is a need for another force, a third force in the United States, so I think there's a great expectation now that the goodwill and the intervention and the support of the United States will actually move this peace process to a point where it does become permanent and safe.

MS. WARNER: John McCarthy, bring us up to date on where the peace process stands for an American audience that's not deeply involved. I mean, the last time I think most people here paid attention, both Gerry Adams and John Hume, the British Labor politician who helped put this cease-fire together with the White House, a very celebratory St. Patrick's Day, but then nothing seemed to happen. What is the status of the peace process?

JOHN McCARTHY, Fordham University: [New York] Well, what happened is that peace has continued. I think it's very important to realize that peace has been in existence in Northern Ireland now for over a year. The peace process, which would mean the beginning of deliberations, the ending of possessions of arms by private armies, all this will take a little bit more time. I think the President by coming as a peacemaker and not as a person with an agenda but as a person who's helped those trying to make peace has done a great service to the people of Ireland, which is one of the reasons he was so well received. And I think what they've done is they have set in motion a temperament which will make the--anyone favoring the resort to violence or even the option of violence as a means of advancing a political agenda completely unacceptable. And hopefully, people who have any influence on people who are in possession of arms will use that influence to get them to come around and collaborate with the international authority that's being set up to forever remove the weaponry as a part of politics in Ireland and in Northern Ireland.

MS. WARNER: Ray O'Hanlon, is that how you see where the peace process is now, the fact is we've had a 15-month cease-fire and so peace is here already?

MR. O'HANLON: Well, I think from what I hear certainly that in Northern Ireland, the feeling among so many people is that this is something so absolutely precious and unique that it was, one person said to me, if somebody shot just one bullet, there'd be thousands of people protesting on the streets the very next day, that they have tasted peace in a way that an entire generation has missed, and I think President Clinton set out as a symbol yesterday the-- there was attempt by some politicians in Ireland and Britain to say that the United States really has no role here, that President Clinton is some sort of outside meddler. But I think the people gave their answers out on the streets of the Belfast area and Dublin.

MS. WARNER: So you're saying the people are ahead of some of the politicians?

MR. O'HANLON: Absolutely. I mean, I think I was surprised even. I mean, there was a lot of expectation about the visit obviously, but particularly going to Northern Ireland where the divisions have been so evident to see such an enormous crowd which clearly was Catholic and Protestant alike, whatever about the set peace, appearances of a Protestant boy and a Catholic girl, but the pouring out of the emotion and the feeling on the street was quite spontaneous, and I think President Clinton himself was, was very surprised at this, and certainly politicians were, and I think that at least augers well for the future. I think politicians have to take the message from what they've seen on their TV sets in the last couple of days.

MS. WARNER: John McCarthy, why is Prime Minister Major insisting that the IRA, that the military arm of Sinn Fein surrenders some of its weapons before the British will sit down with Sinn Fein?

MR. McCARTHY: It's not a matter of the British sitting down with Sinn Fein. It's a matter of the peace process going into operation which would mean all of the people of Northern Ireland sitting down to try to arrive at some solution, a solution far short of their rival ultimate objectives. It's pretty hard to expect people to enter such a framework or such a deliberation ifthey know some of the parties have weaponry at their back, regardless of the professtations of peace.

MS. WARNER: Let me interrupt you, though, and just ask, for instance, in South Africa, DeKlerk did not insist that the African National Congress surrender its weapons. In the Middle East, the Israelis didn't insist that the PLO lay down its weapons. This does seem a bit unusual.

MR. McCARTHY: Well, the situation in Northern Ireland is completely different from that in South Africa, where you had a small minority of people ruling ten or fifteen times as many people. Similarly, in, in the Middle East, what did happen is that Yasser Arafat and the PLO admitted the reality of the state of Israel. One of the things that would make the unionists, I believe, more receptive to Gerry Adams and to talking with him is for the IRA to--and Sinn Fein to admit the reality of Northern Ireland as an entity in which the majority of people still prefer their union with Britain. Until, until all of the parties realize they're not going to get their ultimate objectives, the unionists are not going to get the old regime of unionist majority rule. On the other hand, the Sinn Fein and very hard-line nationalists are not going to get a unification of Ireland without the approval of a majority of the people living in Ireland. It's when political figures are willing to operate within these narrower parameters which actually were set at least 10 years ago with the Anglo-Irish agreement between Margaret Thatcher and Garrett Fitzgerald, that if these parameters were continued to be accepted and if political figures operated within those, I think you'll move very fast toward some kind of a, a harmonious settlement in Northern Ireland.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let me get Ray O'Hanlon in here. Ray O'Hanlon, do you see any prospect that the IRA and Sinn Fein would make a further gesture, surrender some of their weapons, make the kind of acknowledgement that, that John McCarthy just referred to, to get this thing going?

MR. O'HANLON: Well, there are possibilities. In the Downing Street communique the other day, we had the setting up of an international commission to be headed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, and this group's task is essentially to get around the problem of the IRA arms and how much they cough up in advance of all party talks if and when. I think Sinn Fein and the IRA will probably sit back now and watch to see how this commission does its work. It will produce findings by mid-January which are not necessarily binding on the Irish or British governments. But Sen. Mitchell's skill as a negotiator learned in Congress could well pull a rabbit out of the hat, and I think that what will happen now is that the peace process and the sticking problem over harms has been fought a certain amount of time by the setting of a commission headed by Sen. Mitchell. I think that's where all eyes, Sinn Fein and the IRA's included, will go from now. I don't anticipate any immediate gestures, though, from the IRA.

MS. WARNER: But you're saying maybe this commission could come up with a recommendation that would give everyone political cover to get this issue behind them?

MR. O'HANLON: There's a lot of talk about fudging, and they may just well be able to come up with fudges for everybody, for the British government and for the IRA. And you've got to remember that the United States is going to be very much in the background when you have the likes of Sen. Mitchell there, and I think the United States will be pressing for some sort of compromise onthis issue which really hasn't been defined. Nobody said how much arms should be surrendered. It's been widely argued that even if the IRA surrendered every weapon it had, it could probably re-arm in a month. I mean, what is required is a disarming of mines more than an actual surrendering of rifles and explosives.

MS. WARNER: But before we end this, I want to ask you both, and John McCarthy, let me start with you, about Ireland, itself, the country of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland. There was a lot of attention given here to the referendum vote 10 days ago legalizing divorce by a very narrow margin. Nine years ago it lost two to one. Is there tremendous cultural change going on in Ireland, itself?

MR. McCARTHY: It's true, however, I think it may have been overdrawn. I suspect that had the referendum been held a couple of- -a couple of weeks later, it might well have lost, you know, in contrast to the overwhelming opinion polls that suggested constantly a few months ago that divorce was an easy thing, but then as you moved closer to the day of elections, people in Ireland began to have reservations. I still think there are a good number of people in Ireland, and I think had it lasted a couple of more weeks, who may well have rejected divorce. These people sincerely feel that letting in divorce is the beginning of the slippery slope down towards what you might call a California style of marriage, where marriage is looked upon as much like a commodity that you can return if you're unhappy. What was very significant is that this negative vote was so strong in spite of the unanimity of all the political parties, of all of the media, of all of the intellectual and cultural elite in Ireland in favor of divorce, it's an amazing phenomena. Now, it is true that a cultural liberalism and secularism has set in in Ireland which some suggest is as--almost as dogmatic as the older Puritan dogmatism of Ireland, sort of the other side of the same coin, that any champion of the sort of social conservatism has looked upon in certain circles in Ireland, particularly, you know, in the media and in academia, as almost eccentric. Well, there are still a significant number of the Irish people who, who would fit in that category.

MS. WARNER: Thanks. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but we're going to have to leave it there. But thank you both very much for being with us. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. LEHRER: Now, our Friday night political analysis by "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot and Washington columnist Elizabeth Drew, substituting for Mark Shields, who, by the way, is doing fine after a hip replacement operation. Paul, how important is Sen. Dole's decision to go along with the Bosnia troop deployment?

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: [Tempe] Well, it's absolutely decisive in terms of what the U.S. Congress is going to do. It means that the President is going to get his way. He's going--the Congress is certainly not going to cut off funds. But it also means that he's going to have the implicit agreement of the Senate Majority Leader, and I would assume a fairly good portion of the Republicans in the Senate, including, for example, John McCain, who is supporting Phil Gramm for President, and has a great authority on military issues. He's cooperating with Sen. Dole in this effort, so it means an awful lot politically, and Bob Dole is doing this, let it be said, at some political risk to him because this is not an easy vote. The popular thing to do among Republicans out in the primary states is to just say no to this. It's not very popular. So Dole is taking some risks to do this.

MR. LEHRER: How do you assess the risks for this politically, Elizabeth?

ELIZABETH DREW, Author/Journalist: It is a risk for Dole. The-- it's not all politics, but the political up-side for him is it's a calculated way of showing him as the statesman, as the more mature leader than his rivals. It is risky, as Paul said, because it's not where the body of opinion lies among Republicans, but it could very much redound to his benefit. What we're seeing is we're seeing Dole, the statesman. This is the--and he's very good at it. This is the Dole that many people came to admire over the years, who's been somewhat disappointed with his campaign thus far. I think this could do him a lot of good in the general election if he's the nominee.

MR. LEHRER: Is he tied to this operation now? John McCain was on this program last night. He said it on the floor of the Senate. He told Elizabeth Farnsworth last night, I--he thinks that people should take responsibility in the Senate, along with the President. Does this mean Bob Dole is doing the same thing?

MS. DREW: Very much so. One of the things that's interesting, Dole, not unlike other politicians, is saying, well, I'm going to have a resolution of support, but I'm going to specify some very important things, almost all of which are already specified, but they have to put their fingerprints on it and say, I changed this and I made it better. But in the end, yes, he is sharing responsibility. One of the things that has struck me is even in the House where there is probably majority, definitely majority Republican opposition, no one is saying the President doesn't have the authority to do this. They say the only way they could block it would be to vote to cut off the funds, and there's no move to do that.

MR. LEHRER: Is it too early to call what might happen in the House on this, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: Oh, I think it is. I do know that I talked to Sen. McCain today actually. He had mentioned that he was trying to get some cooperation from the, from the House Republicans. Newt Gingrich was, was interested, but I'm not so sure that Newt Gingrich, who is like Dole in many respects an internationalist, and somebody very mindful of presidential authority on foreign policy, I'm not so sure he speaks for his troops on this one. There is a deep-seated feeling in the House that this is--that this is a bad idea. So I'm not so sure that they're even going to step up to the plate and vote. A lot of them feel that they already voted. You know, they voted a couple of weeks ago not to allow funds for this. Of course, that'll never become law. But a lot of them want to just have a resolution that says we hope it works, God bless the troops, but this is the President's idea.

MR. LEHRER: How do you read, Paul, the presidential politics on the Republican side? I mean, Dole and Lugar are now the only two Republican candidates who, who are supporting what the President or they don't support exactly what--but anyhow, they're going along with it. What does this do to Phil Gramm? What does this do to the others?

MR. GIGOT: Well, the others clearly believe that this is a good opportunity for them to have an issue against Bob Dole. What it's hard to judge--and I think only time will tell--is how popular-- how powerful this is as a issue at the grassroots. You saw back in the 1970's, for example, the way Ronald Reagan used opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty, that it was very powerful, that that sense of nationalism was very strong, and worked against the other people who supported giving away--giving back the Panama Canal to Panama. I think there's some calculation like that going on here as Phil- -on Phil Gramm's part and on Pat Buchanan's part. But Elizabeth is right about the statesman calculation too. People, I think Americans are willing to give very wide berth to Presidents who say something is in our national interest, and they're going--they want to have a debate, they want to make sure that Congress plays a role. I think what Dole--what's interesting about what Dole is doing here is he's not just giving the blanket endorsement. He's giving a qualified endorsement with conditions. And I disagree with Elizabeth a little. I think some of those conditions are actually very important, in particular, the one of arming the Bosnians so that if we get out at the end of a year, there's going to be a Bosnian-Muslim state that has some chance of surviving, so we can get out with, with some kind of honor and some sense that the mission succeeded. I think Bob Dole is going to say Bill Clinton is getting us into Bosnia, Bob Dole has a strategy to get us out.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dole also said yesterday, Elizabeth, that okay, the public--he said in his case the calls and the letters and everything were 80 percent opposed, that he said by the time this thing moves a little further, he believes after the debate that public opinion will swing. Does he know something?

MS. DREW: No. But I think that that debate could be a very, very important debate, you know, an exciting debate, perhaps an historic debate. On Paul's point about the conditions that Dole is setting, one is that the troops won't get involved in nation-building, the administration said they're not going to do that. One is that they won't get involved in moving refugees; they said they won't do that. On the one point about arming the Bosnians, they've been quite clear up to a point. They've said, we want equal arms, we want them to be armed sufficiently when we leave; we do not want the United States or NATO to do this if they can remain neutrals in this peacekeeping effort, but they have assured the Bosnians that we will see to it that it will happen, and that is why the Bosnians went along with the agreement.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to some other things quickly here. The budget negotiations, are they really as broken down as they appear to be, Elizabeth?

MS. DREW: No, they're not. They are in a--actually in a recess, in a deliberate recess. We could call this "Waiting for CBO." This awful business about the numbers, the CBO numbers--

MR. LEHRER: Great title for a play.

MS. DREW: Exactly.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MS. DREW: Congressional Budget Office, they are arguing, as you know, over what economic assumptions to use, and they are arguing over when they will decide what are the economic assumptions. It's not great up there, but there's a lot of sort of pre-mating dancing going along, pre-negotiation dancing, and I don't think they intend to get serious for a little while. The Republicans are trying to lay a trap for Clinton of which he's completely aware, and that is, well, just tell us how much more you want to spend, just tell us how much less you want to cut taxes. Well, he's not going to do that. And at some point, you have a split within these negotiators. Some are more interested in a deal than others. But there will be some negotiating, I would say, as we get towards December 15th, when the--

MR. LEHRER: The temporary continuing resolution expires.

MS. DREW: Expires, and there's talk of a shutdown, but I don't think anybody can afford a shutdown.

MR. LEHRER: What's your reading, Mr. Gigot?

MR. GIGOT: Well, she wasn't waiting for Gigot, I guess. I think- -I am glad to have somebody else join me on the Pollyanna side of this occasion or the optimist side. I've been thinking that there was going to be a deal for a long time.

MR. LEHRER: And you've been wrong so far.

MR. GIGOT: Exactly. And I'm beginning to think that I might be wrong at the end of it. The White House did something this week that makes me wonder how much they really do want to deal. They proposed to the Republicans that they cut a deal on these separate appropriations bills which fund the government for this oncoming year. And meantime, let's get a deal on that, and then we'll start the hard negotiations over Medicare and Medicaid and welfare and the taxes, which the Republicans consider to be the meat of their budget. Now, the Republicans weren't going to take that deal, and they rejected it, but it makes me wonder if this administration is beginning to think we have the upper hand politically, we maybe ought to fight this thing if we can just get a truce on that funding for this coming year. Let's fight it right through November. There's an awful lot of people in the Democratic Party right now who are telling their President that that's the kind of fight that they went to go for.

MR. LEHRER: Okay, another, another quick thing. Gingrich and the GOPAC problem. How serious is that for him? He says it's a phony issue.

MS. DREW: Well, it's not welcome news. Gingrich is more bothered by the various ethics charges that have been filed and that get brought up again and again than he lets on. This is a potentially serious filing. A new ethics filing has been made on the Hill because of the report from the Federal Election Commission saying that in the 1990 election which Gingrich very barely won--that's not material but it's interesting--

MR. LEHRER: Less than a thousand votes.

MS. DREW: Less than a thousand votes.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MS. DREW: That GOPAC--I'll explain GOPAC in a second--which is supposed to only be handling state races, local races. It's not supposed to be--it was not supposed to be involved in federal races, supported--that's the word they use--supported Gingrich in that race to the tune of $250,000. Now, there's a big stack of documents that the FTC put out that show soliciting of funds, that show donors asking Gingrich to do some things with federal agencies. They don't show the quid pro quo, but they do suggest that this was not just a state and local set of races. And there are earlier GOPAC issues that have already been filed and they're a little bit dangerous for him because it could sort of explode into questions of a whole network of funding and interrelationships of the groups that he's been involved with.

MR. LEHRER: Do you see it as a serious matter, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think it would become a more serious matter if you do--if you are able to prove that in return for a donation something was done politically. That gets you into the old Keating Five problem where in return for donations something was--pressure was applied to get a fix or to get something like that. Without that, I think you have a, some ethic, some election technical violations that are alleged that, in fact, the FEC was the Federal Election Commission, which monitors elections, had been willing to settle for a $150,000 fine, and Gingrich and his PAC, GOPAC, his former PAC, GOPAC, decided to fight because they thought that they could win. So what you had with this filing was the FEC's filing this in court and it's going to be adjudicated. So on that stuff by itself I think that certainly these headlines are bad for the Speaker at this time. There's no question about it. The last thing he needs is another headline like this, but I think that that by itself is a fairly discreet problem unless you get to the, to the other side of what happened as a result of the donations.

MR. LEHRER: Okay, speaking of what happened, is happening here is we have to go. Thank you both very much. ESSAY - ROOTS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Clarence Page, a columnist for the "Chicago Tribune," looks at a photo exhibit about the origins of man.

CLARENCE PAGE: Perhaps once upon a time, Adam and Eve saw this vision, Dawn over the great Rift Valley in Ethiopia. Adam and Eve were Africans, scientists say, and they probably lived in this part of the world, Ethiopia, in East Africa, and if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, that makes us all, all of us humans, African, all cousins. We are the world, and the world is us. For 30 years, African-American photojournalist Chester Higgins, Jr., has traveled to over 30 countries tracing the contours of the African diaspora. What he found is currently on exhibit in New York's International Center of photography and the recently published book dealing with spirit. "I believe there is a collective memory in all of us," Higgins wrote, "a memory in tune with a universal flow of light." Maybe he's right. Maybe no matter how black or blonde we may look on the outside, we have the memory of Africa on our inside. Our veins flow with the blue waters of the River Nile, the Niger, the Congo, the Limpopo, to look at the African is to look at you. We all are related, only some of us are related a little more closely than others. Africans have a saying about us, their visiting American cousins. The African-American comes to Africa, they say, to find themselves, only to discover that he left himself back in America. The African has many cousins around the world. Few of us ever get to Africa, but we all carry Africa around in us. We Africans abroad are the children of the diaspora, which means we are children of mixed marriage, "two warring ideals in one dark body," said W.E.B. DuBois. We are burdened and buoyed up by a double consciousness, a terrible twoness, at once anchored in African soil and orphaned from it like others in the diaspora, scattered like seeds to the shifting winds of history, and commerce, and change. We are the offspring of Mother Africa, kidnapped more often than not, then abandoned. Now we long for both parents, the conqueror and the conquered. Yet, there is a hesitation. Our parents are reluctant to claim us, and we them. We made changes in the world. We brought our African food, our rice, and our yams to the dinner tables of the world. We brought our rhythms and our language, and the world also changed us. We became West Indians; we became Afro-Europeans; we became Afro-Brazilians; and we became African-Americans. When we travel, we marvel at how many cousins we have and how much we have in common, yet how different we are. To be African-American is to be questioned. Why? We are often asked. Why do you call yourself African-American? Why can't we all just be American? I think most of us would rather just be American, but that choice never has been left up to us. Maybe someday it will. Then the many races of the world will return to what they once used to be in Mother Africa, one race, the human race. I'm Clarence Page. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, President Clinton addressed the Irish parliament in Dublin. He goes to Germany tomorrow, where he'll meet American troops headed for Bosnia. An advanced party of U.S. troops has arrived in Tuzla. That town will be the headquarters for American forces. A delegation from Congress left for Bosnia on its own reconnaissance mission. And we'll see you on Monday night with interviews with Defense Sec. Perry and Former President Carter, among other things. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.