The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, the U.S. broke off talks with the PLO, Nelson Mandela arrived in New York for a 12 day visit to the United States, explosions aboard the U.S. carrier Midway injured 16 sailors. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, the suspension of the U.S.- PLO talks [FOCUS - ELUSIVE PEACE] and how they might affect the search for peace in the Middle East, then Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports on Nelson Mandela's first day in America [FOCUS - SYMBOL OF FREEDOM], and finally from the San Francisco Conference on AIDS [UPDATE - AIDS BATTLE] an update look at the battle against the dreaded disease. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Pres. Bush today suspended talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization. He said it was because the PLO had failed to denounce a recent Palestinian raid on a beach in Israel. The attack was headed off by Israeli soldiers who captured or killed all of the terrorists. U.S. officials had said before today a PLO statement which condemned all attacks against civilians without mentioning the Israel aid was not sufficient. Mr. Bush made the announcement at a news conference in Huntsville, Alabama.

PRES. BUSH: At any time that the PLO is prepared to take the necessary steps, we are prepared to promptly resume the dialogue. In the meantime, we would hope and expect that the peace process would proceed as intended and without delay. We remain committed to the pursuit of a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and to a just and lasting peace.

MR. LEHRER: The talks began in December 1988. They've been held in Tunisia between the U.S. ambassador in Tunisia and PLO officials. A PLO spokesman in Tunis said today his organization viewed the suspension as a provocation. He said the PLO would ask Arab countries to impose economic sanctions against the United States. We'll have more on this story after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Nelson Mandela was given a hero's welcome in New York today. He and his wife, Winnie, arrived this morning for a 12 day, eight city tour of the U.S. A ticker tape parade was held in his honor in lower Manhattan. Mandela again called for a continuation of sanctions against South Africa and he thanked his American supporters. We'll have a full report on Mandela's day after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: A fire and two explosions rocked the U.S. aircraft carrier Midway today. It happened during exercises in the Pacific about 100 miles Northeast of Tokyo. Sixteen crew members were injured; two are missing. The fire broke out in a storeroom four decks below the flight deck. The cause is under investigation. In Washington today, members of Congress reacted to proposed cuts by Defense Sec. Dick Cheney. The five year plan announced yesterday would reduce defense spending 25 percent. It would cut 600,000 military and civilian workers. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn told the Newshour the Cheney plan does not break any new budget cutting ground.

SEN. SAM NUNN, Chairman, Armed Services Committee: This forced structure cut was not a new breakthrough in terms of how we're going to reduce the budget further than what the administration has said. It was the last part of the dollar blank that was being filled in. In other words, Sec. Cheney had to make this kind of reduction in order to achieve his own savings. To achieve additional savings, which I think we can do but I hope we'll do it responsibly, we're going to have to make a lot of other decisions relating to the mix between active forces and reserve forces, the overseas deployments versus the deployments back in this country, the elements of readiness, how ready do we want forces that will not be called on in the early stages of battle, the whole question of modernization, how rapidly and what type equipment do we modernize and when, and the whole question of research and development, so those parts of the defense budget have to be examined.

MR. MacNeil: The sixth International AIDS Conference begins tonight in San Francisco. More than 10,000 people from 80 countries are attending. Outside the convention center, demonstrators protested what they claim is government foot dragging in the search for an AIDS vaccine. We'll have an update on the battle against AIDS later in the Newshour.

MR. LEHRER: Severe weather swept through Kansas last night. The storms brought tornadoes, sheets of rain and hurricane force winds. Mobile homes were overturned and trees were leveled. More than 30 people were injured, mostly in the Wichita area. The storms followed a day of extremely hot weather. In Wichita, the temperature reached a record 105 degrees.

MR. MacNeil: Soviet Pres. Gorbachev indicated today that he may step down as the head of the Communist Party. He made his remarks during the second day's meeting of the Russian Party Conference. Tim Uert of Independent Television News reports from Moscow.

MR. UERT: Delegates gathered for the second day of the Russian Party Congress amid an air of some tension after yesterday's angry exchanges. Mr. Gorbachev is clearly smarting from the attacks he's suffered here. One party official accused him of sliding towards the curter personality. A red army general warned that reforms had left the country open to attack. Said Mr. Gorbachev, some comrades are treating the general secretary and president very casually, and he added there could soon be another party leader. It's a threat he's made before and some observers argue it's an attempt to unite the party behind him before next month's big Soviet Congress. But as delegates from the republic of Russia celebrated the formation of their own party today, others believed Mr. Gorbachev will step down as general secretary, thereby distancing himself from an increasingly divided and unpopular Communist Party.

MR. MacNeil: If Gorbachev were to leave his post as Communist Party chief, he would still hold his job as Soviet president. Another Soviet republic today took a step towards breaking away from the Soviet Union. Uzbekistan, one of the poorest Soviet republics, is populated predominantly by Muslims. Its parliament today approved a declaration of sovereignty and said its laws supersede Soviet laws. It did not, however, call for outright secession from the Soviet Union, saying it would work instead within the Soviet federation. Also today the Western Republic of Georgia decided to create a commission to study how to achieve independence.

MR. LEHRER: Romania inaugurated a new president today but the United States boycotted the ceremony. Ion Iliescu won last month's presidential election, the first free election there in more than 50 years. Last week he turned loose pro-government miners to violently suppress anti-government protests in Bucharest. It was that incident and a general crackdown on dissent that led the Bush administration to stay away from today's inauguration. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to where now goes the search for a Middle East peace, Nelson Mandela's first day in the United States, and an update on AIDS. FOCUS - ELUSIVE PEACE

MR. MacNeil: First tonight we come to the further unraveling of America's efforts to get peace talks under way between Israel and the Palestinians. Last week a new conservative Government took power in Israel which includes several cabinet members who oppose any peace initiatives with the Palestinians. Secretary of State James Baker sarcastically told the new Government to phone the White House when it was interested in peace. Today President Bush cut off the diplomatic discussions the U.S. had been openly conducting with the Palestine Liberation Organization since the end of 1988. His reaction was in response to an aborted terrorist raid on an Israeli Beach on May 30th by a branch of the PLO. At a news conference that the Huntsville, Alabama Space Center Mr. Bush said the P.L.O. should have denounced the raid promptly.

PRESIDENT BUSH: To date the P.L.O. has not provided a credible accounting of this instance or undertaking the actions outlined above. The U.S. does take note of the fact that the P.L.O. has disassociated itself from this attack and issued a statement condemning attacks against civilians in principle. But as we previously indicated this is not sufficient. The U.S.. P.L.O. dialogue has demonstrated that it could advance the Arab, Israeli peace process and at the same time the dialogue is based on the assumption that the P.L.O. is willing to abide by the conditions that it accepted in 1988 including renunciation of terror. Anytime the P.L.O. is prepared to take the necessary steps we are prepared promptly to resume the dialogue. Meanwhile we would hope and expect the peace process will proceed as intended and without delay. We remain committed to a comprehensive settlement of the Israeli, Arab conflict and to a just and lasting peace. It is often stated it is our view that such a peace must be based on those tow resolutions UN 242 and UN348 and the principle implicit therein for peace. For Israel security and Palestinian rights we believe that Palestinian participation is vital to any successful process and that there are real opportunities in this process. We strongly hope that Israelis. Palestinians and the Arab states will recognize these opportunities and take the necessary steps to create the environment in which a viable peace process can thrive. I think the very fact that we are taking and that is one of the reasons that I hope it can be restored can eliminate differences and I would like to feel that the P.L.O. because of our dialogue doesn't see as quite the hostile country that they once did. And there is all kinds of small points that are taken up by our Ambassador in Tunis that I think have reduced the levels of misunderstanding. I don't want to leave you the wrong impression that the dialogue has resulted in a more dynamic peace process but I do think that it is good and it encourages moderation within the P.L.O. ranks. We loose sight of the fact that Arafat did something that was predicted no Palestinian Leader could do when he recognized Israel's right to exist as a state. And some might say well it is about time and I am one of them but it was quite a step forward when he recognized resolution 242 and I think that was positive. And then I think that we have had a chance to solidify those gains as they might have been through dialogue. But I can't point to the fact that has really solved the question of Middle East peace. I just think that talking offers more potential than stiff arming each other. We can't digest it as long as this terroristic act is sticking in our throat and properly so.

MR. MacNeil: We get three views now where the Middle East Peace Process or the adrift of conflict goes from here. Richard Murphy was Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the second Reagan Administration. He is now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Rashid Khalidi is Associate Professor of Middle East History that the University of Chicago. Daniel Pipes is the Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. He joins us tonight from the Public Station WHY in Philadelphia. He is the Author of a just published book on the Rushdie affair. Ambassador Murphy does this development mean that the peace process is effectively dead for the moment?

RICHARD MURPHY, Former State Department Official: The peace process is at a very low ebb. It was before today's decision and I am afraid that it is at a lower ebb. I regret the decision. I can understand the President's reasons. It will slow things down.

MR. MacNeil: Daniel Pipes is the peace process dead?

DOUG PIPES, Middle East Analyst: Effectively. There was not much before and I don't see much at the moment as long as we continue the same way we have been pursuing it that is to say Palestinians and Israelis.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Khalidi is it dead?

RASHID KHALIDI, Middle East Analyst: It has been dead for a long time and I think this sets us clear back. I think that we are in fact moving more and more rapidly towards serious crisis which may lead to War in the region and I think this does not help us one bit to resolve that developing crisis.

MR. MacNeil: You say it has been dead for quite some time. Just spell it out. You mean there was not a genuine peace process going on even while the U.S. was continuing this dialogue?

DR. KHALIDI: I would argue that there has not been a serious peace process for the past 18 or 19 months. From the very outset there was an assumption that the P.L.O. could be excluded from direct negotiations. That is to say dialogue was started with the P.L.O. but I think that it was a dialogue of the deaf. There was no serious attention to the idea that the P.L.O. itself was putting forward. And essentially what was adopted was the Shamir Plan which was an attempt to start negotiations between Palestinians in the occupied territories chosen by Israel and the Israeli Government. That ia non started even though the P.L.O. went along with this as did Egypt and Jordan. It never had much chance at success until it was finally torpedoed by Prime Minister Shamir himself. We are now involved in a different and much more dangerous dynamic. The Iraqi, Israeli non conventional arms rivalry, the destabilization of Jordan as result of the fears of the Intifada leading to the expulsion of Palestinians and the disenchantment and disturbance of the Egyptian Leadership at the failure of the United States to take a leadership role. All these things lead up to that we are in a much more dangerous environment and the drift that has been going on in American policy in the past many months has contributed a great deal to this situation.

MR. MacNeil: A drift in American policy. I was turning to Ambassador Murphy for a reaction?

AMB. MURPHY: We have been waiting for the Israeli Government to be established. Washington has been waiting for that. It took three long very difficult months. And the results are a Government which includes a number of leaders which say they are not going to move ahead any of the peace initiatives they are familiar with such as the Baker Plan. So it is a discouraging moment. But I would take issue with Dan Pipes in the issue of whether you can move ahead with Palestinians and Israelis. I think the way the Arab States have positioned themselves they are insisting the Palestinians and Israelis be in the first stage and they will join in later. So I think that is where it is going to have to start and the sooner we get back in a dialogue the sooner that day will come.

MR. MacNeil: So you are saying. You and Dr. Khalidi seem to agree that the peace process whether it was serious or not was torpedoed by Israelis not by P.L.O. terrorism?

AMB. MURPHY: I think terrorism in this instance has been seized on as an excuse. I don't think that you can argue that terrorism has ever threatened the State of Israel. What threatens Israel are the Arab Armies the Arab Forces and if you don't want to get started and you don't want to work on the problem of Palestinian representation you are going to talk about terrorism is killing the process but I don't agree with that.

MR. MacNeil: Daniel Pipes.

MR. PIPES: As Ambassador Murphy just pointed out, the real danger to Israel is the Arab Army and that leads me to the conclusion that negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians are not on the one hand and the Israelis other are incomplete because you are lacking a very major actor and that is the Arab states. Think back ten or fifteen years ago when Sec. Kissinger and Pres. Carter were engaged in the peace process they were going to Cairo and Aman and Damascus, they were going to where the power is. Today and for the last two years, the peace process has been a peace process between the government of Israel on the one hand, and a bunch of individuals on the other, but essentially private individuals.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go back. There was some, some optimism a couple of years ago when the United States seemed to be taking the new initiative. First of all, Shamir came up with the idea, let's give the Palestinians some elections and in order to set up the elections, Baker came up with the plan of whom the Israeli government could talk to among the Palestinians to set up the elections. That's the process that's been derailed now, right?

MR. PIPES: Absolutely, at the same time.

MR. MacNeil: But that was regarded as a constructive step towards, at least one step towards something positive down the line.

MR. PIPES: Absolutely. My problem is that the Palestinian-Israeli part of it was taken and given all the attention. Those four points that Prime Minister Shamir offered also included a point about the Arab states in Israel. And so I submit to you that if we're going to have a peace process in the future, it's got to include the Arab states. And so long as it's just the Palestinians, it really can't go very far.

MR. MacNeil: Let's just come back to the act that was taken today. First of all, if Arafat did precisely what Mr. Bush wants him to do, denounced in specific terms this particular action, terrorist act, and took some action to expel Abas from the Palestine Council or took some punitive action, would that restore the peace process?

AMB. MURPHY: I think that would restore the dialogue. I think the President's given a very clear signal that Arafat should begin to do something. He gave him credit for disassociating the PLO, itself, and he did say that the Palestinian participation is essential to success of the process, but he's saying, look, the time has passed for you just to say you can't handle it, those aren't just presidential words, but the time has passed, your movement is threatened by adventurers such as Abu Abas, and you'd better do something about it. If you can't as the chairman, then start something with the Palestine National Council, start the disciplinary process.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Khalidi, can Abas, I'm sorry, can Arafat and should Arafat do that?

DR. KHALIDI: Well, I think that Arafat should do that. I think the attack was stupid and obviously was intended, was directed, I would say, at the PLO's own diplomacy. It was intended to sabotage it and thanks to what's happened today, it has succeeded in sabotaging, the whole thrust of PLO diplomacy. As to whether he could do it, he obviously was between a rock and a hard place in the sense that we know that the attack was announced from Baghdad, we know that that means that the group that launched it, Abu Abas's group, is supported by the Iraqis. We know also that it was launched from Libya. The response to this attack might have been to say that this is an attack launched by a group sponsored by two Arab states and in that way enabled the PLO to simply say, yes, we disassociate ourselves from acts of terrorism, but there's not really much we can do when a group supported by two major Arab states carries out an attack like this. I think this all in a sense leads us into issues that distract us from what we should be looking at. The PLO was asked to meet a set of conditions that Israel was not asked to meet. The PLO was asked to recognize Israel. Israel has never been asked to recognize Palestinians self- determination. The PLO was asked to recognize 242. The Shamir government has never been asked to commit itself to the application of 242, to Jerusalem say, or the Golan Heights say, or other occupied territories. The PLO was asked finally to renounce terrorism without any definition of that and Israel has never been asked to renounce, for example, bombing raids in Lebanon, which it's carried out about a dozen of since the dialogue began. I think the dialogue began on an unequal footing. I don't think that the administration has really taken Palestinians proposals very seriously. It's taken the Shamir plan and run with it, and I think that in a sense, what's most important is to get negotiations between the PLO and Israel going, but I would agree with Don Pipes, I think also to begin a process of involving the Arab states, because they clearly are also important and they are also the actors with Israel who in a sense are sliding towards war even as we speak.

MR. MacNeil: Dan Pipes, even if the dialogue with the PLO and the U.S. were reinstated and Arafat did what the President wants him to do, there's still a new government in Israel which is intransigent about, or key members of which are blocking efforts to have an Israeli dialogue with the PLO as a first step, so can the peace process go anywhere as long as that government is in place?

MR. PIPES: You mentioned that there are key members who don't want a dialogue with the PLO. You've got to distinguish from the Israeli point of view between the PLO and the Palestinians. The Israelis are very reluctant to get involved in negotiations with the PLO for reasons that are quite apparent.

MR. MacNeil: I misspoke, to quote a late White House press secretary. I should have said with the Palestinians, I'm sorry.

MR. PIPES: With the Palestinians I think it's an open question. The government is a brand new one. It's only a week old. We don't really know what they're willing to do and what they're not willing to do and we don't know how long it's going to last. So I would say let's not pre-empt, let's not decide in advance what they're going to do, what they're not going to do. Let's give them a chance to formulate policies.

MR. MacNeil: But Mr. Baker seemed very convinced that he was dealing with a very negative new situation, wasn't he, do you agree with that?

AMB. MURPHY: Well, I think he's trying to nudge the Israeli government and as the President today is trying to nudge the PLO. They're both trying to get some motion to revive the process. And against the backdrop of what's going on in the military field, the politicians may be stalemated, the diplomats may be stalemated, the military engineers are going right ahead with nuclear chemical biological research.

MR. MacNeil: Now there are a number of people and we just heard it from Dr. Khalidi who are very worried about the situation degenerating into new conflict or new war. Do you share those fears?

AMB. MURPHY: I'm concerned when there's no hope out there of a political solution that people, yes, are going to start to drift into a mind set which is, well, there's no hope but let's have a go.

MR. MacNeil: What sort of people would drift into that mind set and what would it cause them to do?

AMB. MURPHY: I think you can find those individuals in every community, be it in the Palestinians or in each of the Arab states and in Israel, those who have pinned their fortunes to the argument that a political solution is going nowhere, the U.S. can't do its job, Israel is totally recalcitrant, it will do nothing, in Israel, the feeling that, you know, you've heard those voices, let's just clear the Palestinians out of the territories, get them across the river. That's a prescription for a war down the road.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Khalidi, where specifically do you see the military danger arising?

DR. KHALIDI: I think there are several possibilities. The Iraqi- Israeli non-conventional arms race is something terrifying because it's, how should I put it, it's an arms race in which there are no rules. Israel has nuclear capabilities. Iraq has very major chemical and possibility other capabilities and seems to be developing its nuclear capabilities. In-between them there is a state, Jordan, which is at the moment very unstable and which is growing increasingly unstable. Jordanian leaders are convinced that the failure of the United States, Israel and the Palestinians to launch a peace process will mean sooner or later further deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and expulsions of Palestinians; this is going to lead to a vacuum and that vacuum is going to have to be filled. And that is, in fact, the second major danger, further destabilization in Jordan, leading both Israel and Iraq into adventures which could be very very dangerous. Finally, just one point.

MR. MacNeil: Go ahead.

DR. KHALIDI: Yitzhak Rabin said yesterday that if Syria and Iraq have a rapprochement, this could lead to a war. Well, there's another potent possibility. Syria could feel itself impelled to align itself with Iraq, and that would create a very powerful force on Israel's Northeast frontier. So those are three possibilities; I think there are others.

MR. MacNeil: Daniel Pipes, how do you assess the military dangers at the moment?

MR. PIPES: I must say I'm much more optimistic. I really don't see where a war can take place. I don't see a war between Israel and Iraq; it's out of the question. Iraq has a major confrontation still unresolved with Iran. It will leapfrog over Syria and Jordan to take on Israel, which has proven to be much stronger. The Syrian government is in bad shape, I don't see them trying a war at this point. The Jordanians, God forbid, they would never start a war against Israel on their own, I just don't see it. I agree that this is not a good period for diplomacy. I really see no prospect of war.

MR. MacNeil: Amb. Murphy, is U.S. initiative the only way to get a real peace process going, or given the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, is there now real hope of some wider forum or wider pressures which could be brought to bear?

AMB. MURPHY: Personally, I think there's scope for more U.S.- Soviet dialogue on this to explore how we might work together. Washington today is much less negative about cooperation with the Soviets than was the case in the '70s, even in the '80s, and I think that's an area that has to be probed. How much are they ready to do?

MR. MacNeil: Gorbachev referred to that while he was, the need to internationalize.

AMB. MURPHY: Yes. It could have been just a throwaway line. We just don't know, in my opinion, how ready they are to commit prestige and energy. But one thing that's clear is the energy is not completely within the area. They need a push abroad from outside.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Khalidi, is it only dependent upon a U.S. initiative and U.S. pressure from the administration to get this going, or are there other efforts?

DR. KHALIDI: Well, I think Amb. Murphy is right. I think that involvement of the Soviet Union would be very positive. I think that it might also be useful to involve the Europeans. Europe is a much more important actor, I think, and will continue to grow more important in this region and they too might have a contribution, particularly because one of the things that has to be done is putting some kind of limit, some kind of cap, on both nuclear proliferation and the proliferation of chemical weapons and delivery systems. And I think it is inconceivable to do this without both Soviet and European participation.

MR. MacNeil: Well, we have to leave it there. Dr. Khalidi, Daniel Pipes, and Amb. Murphy, thank you all for joining us. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, Nelson Mandela comes to the United States, and an AIDS update. FOCUS - SYMBOL OF FREEDOM

MR. LEHRER: Nelson Mandela's arrive in the United States is next tonight. The South African anti-apartheid leader landed in New York this morning to a tumultuous welcome. Charlayne Hunter-Gault reports.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It was a welcome that was uniquely New York, the city's ticker tape parade reserved for only the most celebrated of heroes, and today it was South African leader Nelson Mandela's turn to be lionized in lower Manhattan's canyon of heroes. In an extraordinary display of good will, New Yorkers by the hundreds of thousands turned out to honor Mandela on his first visit ever to the United States.

NEW YORKER: This is history, you know, and it's a moment I would never miss.

YOUNG MALE NEW YORKER: Nelson Mandela is someone with courage I think obviously is an understatement, someone who symbolizes the existence of life, I think, someone that is a role model for everybody to live by.

YOUNG FEMALE NEW YORKER: He was imprisoned the year I was born and he's out this year, my 27th year, and I'm thinking he's an amazing, amazing man.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The day began with Mandela's arrival at JFK Airport, an arrival delayed by about an hour due to Mandela's lack of rest from a hectic, six week, fourteen nation tour. In a moment of historic symbolism, Mandela was warmly greeted by the city's first black mayor, David Dinkins. The mayor invited Mandela to New York shortly after his release from prison in February. The crowd of dignitaries attending the airport ceremony included New Jersey Gov. James Florio and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

GOV. CUOMO: Nelson Mandela has been for the world an instruction in the indestructibility of the human spirit, a wonderful example of how a mind strengthened by truth and a heart fueled by passion can resist and conquer, devoted throughout his life to something larger than himself, to his family, to his people, to his country, to justice, he emerged from prison full of dignity, despite all the large and small insults visited upon him, undaunted by the threats and the awful persistence of the oppression he struggled against. He became to the whole world what he had been to his own people for more than 1/4 of a century, a new symbol of courage, a new symbol of valor, a new symbol of hope.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And then it was Nelson Mandela's turn in this country to raise funds for the African National Congress and to press for continued sanctions against the South African government, Mandela said he could see the light at the end of the tunnel.

NELSON MANDELA: I was sent a message in all these countries is that sanctions should be maintained. [Applause] We are saying so because sanctions were introduced for the purpose of dismantling apartheid and of making sure that every South African, black and white, is able to determine in his own future.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because of the late arrival, there was intense speculation that some of the events before the parade would be cancelled, but Mandela, accompanied by his wife, Winnie, and other members of the delegation, kept his first scheduled appointment at Boys and Girls High School in Brooklyn.

MR. MANDELA: For your cause to enjoy the support of the youth, the future leader of this country and the world, cut down my age almost by 25 years.

MRS. MANDELA: In South Africa, when we see you, we see the young lions in the struggles of the South African people. [Applause] And when we see you, we usually greet you by saying -- [speaking African].

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The Mandelas rode in a bullet and rocket proof plastic bubble set on a flat bed truck, dubbed "The Mandela Mobile". Despite a schedule that fell even further behind as the day wore on, the crowd's spirits throughout the parade were undiminished.

YOUNG GIRL: I feel that I have to show my support for what Nelson Mandela's standing for. He's not just standing for the black race, but he's standing for everybody's right for freedom of speech and freedom of every type. And I think that Mandela is possibly the greatest hero of the 20th century.

MAN ON STREET: He's a plus of the many freedom fighters that we have been witnessing all through the history, from Marcus, to Malcolm, to Martin Luther King, et cetera, so he's a plus that continues the struggle for human minds, not the particular freedom of human beings, but freedom of intellect, because I recognize that it's a high sense of freedom is the freedom to think for yourself.

YOUNG GIRL ON STREET: I'm like shaking. I came down, was walking down here, and was crying, and like I know he's here and he's out and he's like able, to you know, spread his word, and we have more problems in terms of how we deal with one another between sexes, between races, between just all of us have so much difficulty and he is the symbol of our getting together and like pairing it off which is like a battle all the way and his dedication is incredible.

YOUNGER MAN ON THE STREET: I'm here to hear him speak because he is a man of principle, he is a man of courage. Not a lot of people in the world would forsake 27 years of their lives in jail for any cause. When a person like Mandela comes around and you have a chance even to get a glimpse of him, you don't waste that opportunity. That's why I'm here.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At city hall, the Mandelas were greeted by an even larger platform of dignitaries, including many of the city's civic, religious, and business leaders.

MRS. MANDELA: Our children will remember you in the books of history. We hope this is just a dress rehearsal of that day when you shall join hands of us, when we shall hoist the flag of the African National Congress and we shall be celebrating that independence of South Africa rightfully with you -- [Speaking African].

MAYOR DAVID DINKINS, New York: I told Winnie Mandela if I had been smarter I would have rearranged the schedule. Today we join not only to welcome a hero but also to join in a heroic cause, the struggle for a free South Africa. Human rights is the most powerful idea in human history, and today we stand within sight of eliminating the last system of legalized slavery on the face of the earth. But while victory over apartheid can now be imagined, even foreseen, it will not happen without intensive efforts by freedom loving people around the world. Economic sanctions against the apartheid regime are essential and they must continue. Nelson Mandela is out of jail, but he and his people are not yet free. He is no longer a prisoner of conscience, but the conscience of his nation remains imprisoned. New York City does not and will not do business with or in South Africa so long as racism remains the law of the land.

MR. MANDELA: Our people have made enormous sacrifices in their struggle to liberate the evil system of apartheid. They are ready to make even greater sacrifices if need be to realize the dreams of millions upon millions of people for a united, non-racial, non- sexist, democratic South Africa. It will not be long before we can twin the liberated City of Johannesburg with this vibrant, generous, and extraordinary city. Apartheid is doomed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: At the end of the city hall ceremony, the Mandelas were scheduled to go to Gracie Mansion where they will stay with the mayor and his wife for the next three days, days that are expected to test the stamina of the 71 year old Mandela as millions of New Yorkers and others continue their welcome of a man the mayor called "a modern day Moses".

MR. MANDELA: [Speaking to Crowd in New York] Thank you. UPDATE - AIDS BATTLE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight an AIDS update. The sixth international conference on the disease opened in San Francisco today and opening day was marked by demonstrations by AIDS activists who want changes in drugs and immigration policies. Three people who are playing key roles in the fight against AIDS joined us earlier this afternoon from San Francisco. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, he oversees AIDS treatment and vaccine research for the federal government, Dr. June Osborn, chairman of the National Commission on AIDS, she's the dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, and Jeffrey Braff, executive director of the Gay Mens Health Crisis, a private service organization for people infected with AIDS. Dr. Osborn first, is there any major good news about AIDS to be reported at this conference?

DR. JUNE OSBORN, National Commission on AIDS: [San Francisco] Oh, yes, I think that there's been a good deal of incremental progress across a broad range of biomedical research initiatives that Dr. Fauci can tell you lots about and others around the world have contributed to. I think there's also increasing evidence that by using what we now have learned, we can teach people to protect themselves against the virus and education as a vaccine until something in a bottle shows up much later. Education is an effective way to help people protect themselves and avoid the virus. I think we'll hear lots of incremental progress in those areas and that's very good news.

MR. LEHRER: You mean fewer people are actually being exposed to the disease?

DR. OSBORN: Or could be if we were able to use that information as effectively as we're learning how to. There are political and other barriers to the use of that information, and I think we need to develop the will to deploy it as effectively as possible.

MR. LEHRER: In general overview terms, where do matters stand on the spread of the disease, itself, and the incidence, and death rates, and those kinds of things?

DR. OSBORN: Well, in the United States I think we need to expect matters to seem to be getting much worse for a while because we're going to reap the harvests of the decade of the '80s in the early part of which we didn't really know what to do, as the epidemic expressed itself for the first time, and then in the second half of which we argued about how to use our information, and that will mean that we'll see the numbers of sick people double and double again in the next few years.

MR. LEHRER: Double from what they are now to what --

DR. OSBORN: Yes. Right now, we've had over 130,000 Americans diagnosed with AIDS, itself, which of course is the last most formidable expression of the progress of HIV, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and of those, about 80,000 have died. What that means in terms of the future is right now we're struggling to grapple with 50,000 surviving Americans with fully developed AIDS syndrome, and we anticipate we will be up in the two to three hundred thousand range of total diagnoses quite soon and, of course, those people will be alive. So in terms of the health care system, we should be braced for a very severe stretch. And in places where there's been a lot of AIDS already, that stretch is going to put us on the brink of disaster unless we respond quite quickly, but AIDS is spreading, in addition, more rapidly in areas that are not the epicenter or expressing itself, the diagnoses of AIDS are showing up in areas that are not epicenters at an increasingly rapid rate, and most of the diagnoses of new cases of AIDS now are outside of the major cities that weren't associated with the earliest part of the epidemic.

MR. LEHRER: And that's because the education effort is working in the major cities.

DR. OSBORN: It's too early to see the effects of that in terms of AIDS cases, which is what I had been talking about. We can see it in terms of a downturn in numbers of new infections with the virus, but part of my point for the early part of the 1990s is that things are almost sure to get worse before they get better, even if we prevented another single instance of spread of the virus because of the very long time this virus takes to express itself, up to 10 years on the average is now the estimate. So we're going to be paying for our ignorance and then our inability to use what we knew for the next several years. And I think it's terribly important for people to understand thatand to brace for an effect without getting discouraged since I do think we have learned some things that can help us to curtail further spread if we use them.

MR. LEHRER: Dr. Fauci, what are the good news developments in the scientific end, particularly toward development of vaccine and of course, treatment?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, National Institutes of Health: Well, in the area of vaccine, a number of studies that took place in the middle and latter part of 1989 and into 1990 have indicated something very important vis-a-vis vaccine research, and that is the establishment of the feasibility of what we call protective immunity or the body's ability to fight against an initial exposure to HIV, and this took the form of animal studies both in the monkey model, which is infected by a related virus called simeon immunodeficiency virus, SIV, and most recently from a couple of laboratories the human immunodeficiency virus in chimpanzees, in which these chimpanzees were immunized and then challenged with the live virus, and they were protected either from disease or in some cases even from infection. The reason that's so important, it's a fundamental scientific observation, is that we know we at least have the tools to be able to develop a vaccine. With regard to the general public though, they have to realize that this can't be translated into a vaccine tomorrow. You have to do step by step in- the-trenches good science for the next couple of years, and then it's going to take a few years after that in order to have a vaccine proven to be safe and effective. So you're really talking about the end of the 1990s if things work the way we hope they will work. But it's better than we thought last year, because last year at this time we weren't even sure if it could be done. We know now it can be done. We just have to do it.

MR. LEHRER: There is no question then in your mind that by the end of the 1990s there could be a vaccine that could eliminate this disease?

DR. FAUCI: Well, there is always a question when you're talking about biology, so I will never say there's no question in my mind. I'm saying that we have the tools to do it --

MR. LEHRER: All right.

DR. FAUCI: -- and I think we can. There's no guarantee, because you may come up with a situation where something might work in the animal and much to your surprise, it doesn't work in the humans, but that would be unusual. At least we have the tools. So if, in fact, it plays out the way we hope it will, there may be a vaccine that's available for widespread use by the end of the 1990s.

MR. LEHRER: Now on treatment.

DR. FAUCI: Well, treatment, again, we're probably a little bit ahead of where we are in vaccine in that we have a couple of drugs, one that's already marketed, AZT. We have interferon alpha, there are some promising studies with DDI, DDC, and a number of other combinations of drugs, that have us start to feel from a philosophical and a strategic standpoint that what we can look forward to in the 1990s, and I hope that will be within the next couple of years and maybe a little bit later, is what we call early intervention, is the use of a combination of drugs which are given at relatively non-toxic doses that can be administered chronically over a long period of time to individuals early on in the course of infection, before they become sick with full blown AIDS, and that regime would hopefully allow them to lead disease free lives for a considerable period of time. How long that is? We don't know. Initial studies of AZT alone indicate that when someone is without symptoms and have modest diminution of their immune function, you can prolong the disease free state by a fine period of time, a year, year and a year or what have you. What we really want to do is really prolong that so by the middle or end of the '90s we'll be able to say that we have AIDS from a therapeutic standpoint or HIV infection before it becomes AIDS, that's really a manageable chronic disease; this is the goal.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Braff, how would you summarize where the battle against this disease is right now, both in the terms that Dr. Osborn was speaking about, which is the spread of the disease in the 1990s, and what Dr. Fauci was talking about in terms of vaccine and treatment?

JEFFREY BRAFF, Gay Men's Health Crisis: I'd like to take both of what they say and say there's a good news/bad news story, but I think it translates into totally a bad news story. We're talking about a doubling or a quadrupling of the number of people with full blown AIDS over the next few years. We're also talking about the availability of drugs like AZT that, No. 1, have proven to be toxic to a number of people who take the drug, and No. 2, are really not available to most of the people with AIDS or with HIV disease in this country. AZT is a very expensive drug. There is not the support system available to deliver this drug to the thousands of people that need it. There are 37 million people in this country with no form of health or medical insurance that need to depend on the public good for treatment and for care. It's an intolerable situation and based on what Dr. Osborn said and based on what we think is going to happen, it can only get worse. I know at Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York, we deal with 3,000 clients on a monthly basis with full blown AIDS and these clients frankly have become destitute in a lot of cases as a result of their disease. AIDS is a very expensive disease to work through and frankly, the support systems are not, are just not there for people with HIV disease.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Braff, your organization is boycotting this San Francisco Conference. Why are you doing that, sir?

MR. BRAFF: Well, Gay Men's Health Crisis has a three part mandate. The first is service to clients, the second is education about HIV and AIDS, and the third is advocacy for people with HIV disease, and after a very long and protracted and difficult discussion at our staff and board level, it was felt that the only way we could demonstrate advocacy for people with HIV disease calling into question the reprehensible stand that the United States government has taken about immigration and about travel restrictions of people with HIV disease was to boycott the conference, come to San Francisco, and get our message across to conferees, to the President, to the Secretary of Health & Human Services, and really call for action.

MR. LEHRER: Dr. Osborn, is that an effective way to deal with this problem?

DR. OSBORN: Well, I think people have had to vote their own conscience on that. I happen to be a talker type rather than a boycott type and so I'm going to say my concern and disappointment about our failure to fix our immigration policy from within the conference hall rather than outside of it. That's something of an individual matter of conscience and judgment, and I am pleased to say that nobody seems to be mad at me for that decision anymore than I'm mad at others for standing outside in order to express their views. I think that we need to express ourselves. The issue around which the controversy swirls is one that I very sadly could not have gotten resolved in time for the conference. We worked very hard through the National Commission on AIDS to try and express a sense of urgency. Our present travel and immigration policies are grossly discriminatory for persons with HIV infection and, indeed, they serve no public health purpose. They are very political in their inspiration and very hostile in appearance to the rest of the world, particularly if you recognize that the United States has a very large fraction of the HIV infection among travelers in the world. So there are many things wrong that policies rebound terribly on refugees and on people in the embassy program and so on, and so I share the concern. It's a matter of personal decision as to how to express it.

MR. BRAFF: I'd like to say that Gay Men's Health Crisis, if I may, we are certainly believers of working inside the system to see the system change. You have to understand that our decision to boycott was a result as Dr. Osborn says of our total frustration, total frustration to get either the administration or the Congress to do anything on this issue.

MR. LEHRER: I understand. Dr. Fauci, another thing that has been, there's been a lot of talk lately about the fact that the public, the American public, is just tired of hearing about AIDS. How do you read that situation? Do you agree with that?

DR. FAUCI: Well, it depends on what you mean by the American public. If you're talking about the public in general --

MR. LEHRER: Yeah, I am.

DR. FAUCI: -- I think in many respects they are, and that's unfortunate, because when you get to that situation of being tired of hearing about it, then you can become complacent, complacent not only for themselves, but also complacent and insensitive to the real problems that are going on in those groups of individuals who are infected, who are suffering, and who are dying. And it's a very difficult situation when you have complacency on the part of the general population and you have other parts of the population that are suffering terribly.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think has caused that, doctor?

DR. FAUCI: Well, I think it is because there is a growing feeling that has been actually with us for some time that it is their problem, not "our problem". And if something is homogeneously spread throughout the population, everybody mobilizes to be very concerned about it and it really captures their intention. But when you have a significant segment of the population who are viewing it incorrectly so, that it's somebody else's problem, then they just don't want to hear about it anymore. I mean, you occasionally read about it in the paper, you have an international congress, it gets some media play, and then they forget about it.

MR. LEHRER: That must make you very angry, Mr. Braff?

MR. BRAFF: Yes, it does. I think it's important to note that initially AIDS has been a disease of marginalized population, gay men, people of color, and generally when that happens, people of different classes react to this by saying, as Dr. Fauci said, their problem, not mine. Unfortunately, it's everybody's problem. I think that there is a, the social fabric of the United States is being tested by this disease, and I just hope it's not going to be found wanting.

MR. LEHRER: Dr. Osborn, you said, you laid it out, what the strain, that's probably even a mild word, that all of this could put on the American health care system in the next few years, and yet people don't seem to be aware of this, don't seem to be preparing for it. What's gone wrong in the education process on that side of it?

DR. OSBORN: Well, I think some of the themes that have just been mentioned have contributed to that sense of detachment from what's happening. In fact, I think that people, far more people do know people with AIDS than are aware of it because the atmosphere in the United States has been so hostile that many thousands of people have had to do their own grieving for themselves or their loved ones in secret. I know many such stores that would be very poignant to tell. And it's so uncharacteristic of American people to be uncompassionate. I think we've got to overcome that and recognize if not me at risk, then my children, and if not them, their children's children. We're in here for the long haul, for many decades with this virus, and it's up to us to be responding now in ways that will minimize the problem for future generations whether or not we are directly at physical risk. What needs doing is sometimes sounds foolish, that is, we do need to re- examine the way we deliver health care to American people. We do not have an adequate floor on the access to the wonders of American medicine, and we need to reassess that. But I think we need to do what we have to about AIDS with a sense of hurry and therefore, be wise in both respects. If we take a good approach to revising aspects of our health care access and financing, and are thoughtful about it, we'll be doing favors for our elderly because much of AIDS care need not be in the expensive context of hospitalization. It can be better, as well as cheaper, outside. But that's true of a lot of care for other chronic diseases and for the elderly. So we've got an urgent, but a very constructive job to do to help our health care system.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Dr. Osborn, Dr. Fauci, Mr. Braff, thank you all three for being with us tonight from San Francisco. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again, Wednesday's main stories, Pres. Bush suspended the 18-month dialogue between the U.S. and the Palestine Liberation Organization, Nelson Mandela arrived in New York for a 12 day visit to the United States, explosions aboard the U.S. aircraft carrier Midway injured 16 sailors, and late today, the U.S. government prosecutors said they agreed to release up to $6 million from Manuel Noriega's European bank accounts. Defense attorneys had threatened to withdraw from the case because the freeze on Noriega's accounts were preventing them from being paid. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with full coverage of the House floor debate on the flag burning amendment. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.