The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Monday, we have full coverage and analysis of the unfolding crisis in Russia, President Yeltsin versus the parliament. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Russian President Boris Yeltsin moved to consolidate his power today as opponents in parliament took cautious steps against him. Yeltsin issued a decree placing the media under his protection. Russia's constitutional court met to consider the legality of Yeltsin's latest moves. Deliberations continued late into the night. Yeltsin declared emergency rule on Saturday and scheduled a referendum on who should govern Russia. The High Court's decision could provide a basis for impeachment proceedings in parliament. President Clinton reacted in Little Rock, Arkansas. He said he had no plans to move next month's summit from Vancouver to Moscow, but White House officials said the President would consider a site change if Yeltsin requested it. Sec. of State Warren Christopher called Yeltsin "the one person in that country who has the support of the Russian people." He spoke to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: The United States has strongly supported Russia's efforts to build a democracy. Under President Yeltsin's leadership, historic progress has been made toward a free society. We urge that this progress continue and that the Russian people be allowed to determine their future through peaceful means and with full respect for civil liberties. On that basis, Russia can be assured of our full support in the days ahead.

MR. MacNeil: We will have much more on the situation in Russia after the News Summary. A U.S. nuclear submarine collided with a Russian counterpart on Sunday. The USS GRAILING was on a routine patrol in the Berentz Sea when it struck the Soviet vessel. No one was injured. U.S. and Russian military officials reported little damage to either sub. They said the cause was under investigation. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: There was heavy fighting in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo today. A U.N. commander accused the Serbs of deliberately targeting civilian areas in their attacks. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

MR. VAUGHAN: It was said to be one of the heaviest artillery attacks on the Bosnian capital so far. A tank battle is raging along the West and approaches to the city with Bosnian tanks firing from the suburb of Stuck, which has been under fierce attack for five days. The fighting closed Sarajevo Airport. Desperately needed aid flights were suspended. In recent days, the Serbs have advanced the positions, enabling them to pour direct fire onto the western approaches to the city, making it more difficult to resupply Bosnian positions. The gains threaten to push the main battle line to the U.N. command post located in a former Sarajevo communications building. Sniper fire was also intense throughout the day. The head of U.N. forces in the city accused the Serbs of targeting non-strategic civilian areas. He failed in his attempts to persuade and to halt the barrage. Unofficial count said at least seven people were killed and scores more were injured. Meanwhile, help for the people of Sarajevo and Srebrenica is no nearer. These U.N. convoys still can't get permission to cross into Bosnia. It appears the Serbs are determined to maximize their holdings before the possible signing of a peace plan.

MR. LEHRER: The Socialist Party of President Mitterrand was soundly defeated in French parliamentary elections. The Socialists got less than 18 percent of the vote in yesterday's balloting. Conservatives won nearly 40 percent. Runoff elections will be held next week. The Conservatives are expected to end up with as many as 480 seats in the 577-member parliament.

MR. MacNeil: The launch of Space Shuttle Columbia was aborted today just three seconds before scheduled liftoff. After two of the three main engines had ignited, on-board computers shut them down. This is how the final countdown went.

COUNTDOWN: T minus 15, and we're coming up on a go for main engine start.

SPOKESMAN: Ten -- go for main engine start.

COUNTDOWN: Seven, six, five, four, and we have a main engine shutdown at T minus three seconds. We have a redundant set launch sequencer abort. And Columbia is now being --

MR. MacNeil: The seven-member crew left the shuttle about 45 minutes later. The five American astronauts and two German scientists were to have embarked on a nine-day science mission that has been delayed repeatedly over the past six weeks. NASA officials said the shutdown was caused by a faulty valve that kept the third engine from firing. The shuttle Columbia won't attempt another liftoff for at least three weeks. That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead the meaning of Russia's new crisis. FOCUS - RUSSIAN ROULETTE

MR. LEHRER: The upheaval in Russia is our lead story tonight. Our full coverage and analysis begin with this update report from Moscow by Ian Williams of Independent Television News.

MR. WILLIAMS: Outside the White House, the Russian parliament today, the number of hard-line protesters had dwindled. Above them in parliament there was a pause in hostilities, deputies holding fire for now in their battle with Yeltsin and waiting for Russia's Constitutional Court to rule on whether the President's weekend proposals are in accordance with the Constitution. Across town, the Court sat all day. A ruling against the President is needed before parliament can begin impeachment proceedings. Valery Zorkin, the head of the Court, emerged this evening to say he's still not got all the paper work he needs from the President. He said Yeltsin had telephoned the Court but they could not yet make a ruling. In what sounded like an attempt to buy more time, he appealed to the President.

VALERY ZORKIN, Chairman, Constitutional Court: [speaking through interpreter] The Constitutional Court did not start the confrontation with the President, and it's not in Mr. Kazbalota's pocket. On the contrary, it's appealing to the President to come to a compromise.

MR. WILLIAMS: The President's camp have hinted they will ignore the Court whatever it rules. Zorkin's weekend address to parliament in which he attacked the President led to accusations today from Yeltsin's press secretary of bias, a view supported by liberal observers.

ALEXANDER PUMPYANSKY, Editor, New Times Magazine: Zorkin has taken an absolutely political stance and he chose one side in the conflict between the two powers, so to say between the President and the parliament, and he, unfortunately, gave the possibility to use himself and this pretext of Constitution in the political fight.

MR. WILLIAMS: And there have been further indications of just how divisive an impact the power struggle in Moscow is having in Russia's regions. From Siberia to St. Petersburg, powerful regional leaders are lining up behind either parliament or President. Others are merely expressing anger, one local leader accusing Moscow politicians of behaving in a way that humiliates the Russian people. Anatoly Subcek, the reformist mayor of St. Petersburg, threw his weight behind Yeltsin, saying his was the best way out of the crisis andthat Russia's second city would begin work on Yeltsin's Plebiscite. In contrast, the city buses in Kenyura, the powerful industrial region of western Siberia, accused Yeltsin of stating a coup. Neighboring areas in this economically vital region are still formulating their response, but early signs do not bode well for Yeltsin's poll which would need the cooperation of local officials. The principle of appealing directly to the people did get a surprise boost though from the powerful Civic Union coalition of industrialists and center parties in an indication they may be hedging their bets. One leader insisted parliament was wrong to outlaw a referendum and that Yeltsin is right to insist on a poll to resolve the crisis.

ALEXANDER VLADISLAVLEV, Civic Union: It's his right. It's his constitutional right, so nobody can be against that. So the result of the voting will show the position of the President and position of the population towards him, so who can be against that?

MR. WILLIAMS: What are the tactics now at the Civic Union in the coming days or coming weeks?

ALEXANDER VLADISLAVLEV: There is no, there is no problem of whom to support. We want to support the parliament and the President, and we want both of them to try to understand that rigid movement now is very dangerous for Russia.

MR. WILLIAMS: But today Civic Union co-chairman Vice President Alexander Rutskoi showed he had well and truly broken with the President, saying Yeltsin's aim is to hide his government's blunders. Tonight Yeltsin in his first special decree since his weekend speech ordered his interior minister to tighten security around TV, radio and newspapers to forestall parliamentary attempts to take control. We have learned from parliamentary sources that messages have been sent from the White House to the Kremlin asking the President to reopen talks. Yeltsin seems in no mood to do so.

MR. LEHRER: Now some analysis of what is happening and how it all may end. It comes from three Russians and two Americans. The Russians are Sergei Gregoriev, a former adviser, press secretary to Mikhail Gorbachev, now a visiting professor at Northeastern University and Harvard's Kennedy School; Vladislav Drobkov, got it right did I not, the Washington Bureau Chief for Pravda; and Andrei Kortunov of the U.S.A./Canada Institute. The Americans are Condoleezza Rice, former member of the National Security Staff in the Bush administration, now a professor at Stanford University; and Abraham Brumberg, former editor the journal "The Problems of Communism." Mr. Kortunov, to begin with you, where does this all, where is all of this apparently headed tonight? Do you smell compromise, or do you smell a real collision even more than we've already had?

MR. KORTUNOV: Well, you know, I think that it will be very difficult to strike a compromise and at the same time to keep the presidential powers intact. If Yeltsin heads for a compromise, he can do it only in defense of his presidential powers, and like Gorbachev after the coup. I don't think that Yeltsin can retreat without major loss. If Yeltsin prefers to go ahead, I think the choice is very simple. He might try to become a Russian Pinochet because he cannot impose his will on the country without --

MR. LEHRER: Pinochet was the military ruler of Chile.

MR. KORTUNOV: Yeah. I mean that, you know, Yeltsin cannot really impose his will on the country without limiting political freedoms, or if he steps back, he'll turn into a Russian Gorbachev, just watching his powers eroding one day after another.

MR. LEHRER: So you, so what areyou saying? I mean, there is no good answer to this?

MR. KORTUNOV: I think it's "no win" game. I think whatever he does will have very serious and basically negative consequences for his personal power and for the political stability in the country.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Drobkov, do you agree?

MR. DROBKOV: Yes, I do. I think that Yeltsin made a terrible mistake, political mistake, announcing such strange kind of the presidential rule with the parliament not dissolved. I really don't know how he can manage to rule by himself having close to him the parliament which is in absolute disagreement with him, and the public, which is more and more critical of his rule. That's why I believe that he made a mistake.

MR. LEHRER: What about the Court's role in this, is this Constitutional Court, can it, can it resolve this? Does it have, really have the power, the political power as well as the legal power to resolve this?

MR. DROBKOV: It has the legal power to find out whether the presidential decrees are against the Constitution or they follow the Constitution, are they constitutional or not. But actually it seems to me it doesn't have any real political power to impose his decision. Actually, the decision of the Constitutional Court is needed for the parliament impeachment of Yeltsin if they decide to do so.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Gregoriev, what's your reading of it? Do you feel, are you as pessimistic about the situation tonight as your two colleagues?

MR. GREGORIEV: Yes. This is a rare occasion when you will find three Russians agreeing with each other. And I think that I am very much pessimistic and I'm very much worried about what's going on in Russia today. We were on the verge of abyss of a major crisis, but I think that unfortunately Mr. Yeltsin's move aggravates the crisis and unfortunately now it will be much more difficult to find a peaceful solution accommodating all the sides. Why do I say accommodating all the sides? Because I don't think any of the sides are strong enough to win at this time.

MR. LEHRER: Even, no matter what the Court does?

MR. GREGORIEV: Well, the Court, the Constitutional Court in Russia is not the Supreme Court of the United States. It's a new institution. It's also a problem of the Supreme Justice of the Court switching once pretty early at the beginning of the whole conflict, but, nevertheless, I think that the Court can play a constructive role, but it has to be really more constructive. It has to be really addressed to both sides, not only to one side.

MR. LEHRER: Did, would it be a fair reading, at least from the news report that we just ran, that the head of the Court seemed to be saying, hey, look, we didn't create this, why doesn't somebody else solve it, we don't want to do it? Is that the way you read that as well?

MR. GREGORIEV: Well, in an ordinary situation, not in a situation of political crisis, that's exactly the reading, but I think in a situation of real serious political crisis, the Supreme Justice of the Constitutional Court has to go beyond this, has to be above all this and try to broker peace between all these guys.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Condoleezza Rice, from your perspective, you've heard what the three Russians have said, they're pessimistic, and also highly critical of Yeltsin. Is that your view as well?

MS. RICE: Well, I think that Yeltsin was in a very difficult situation. Clearly, the Congress over the last week had stripped him of all powers, and the issue for him was whether or not he wished to become essentially a figurehead or to try and force a confrontation. I think he's decided to try and force a confrontation, but I think it's easy to get caught up in the nice legalities of this, the constitutional issues, when really what we have now is a fairly "bare knuckles" power struggle in Moscow. And, indeed, the balance of power probably doesn't really rest either in the Kremlin or in the White House, but increasingly out in the regions, where it's not clear how these regional leaders are going to react to the call for a referendum and, indeed, with the security forces which fortunately to now have said that they will stay out. I would just make one further point. This has been characterized as a struggle between the old Communists and the reformers, but, in fact, nothing is ever as it seems in Russia, and this is a much more complex situation. There is a vast middle that has yet really to be heard from. The Civic Union seemed to me to be very much hedging its bet in saying that they were both for the President and for the parliament. So this is the first act, not the end game of the struggle in Moscow, but we ought to understand it for what it is. This is now "brass knuckles" power politics now.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Abe Brumberg?

MR. BRUMBERG: Yes, I agree with much that has been said. I do think, I agree with my Russian colleagues here, that Yeltsin made a momentous mistake by acting the way he has by his so called "presidential powers" which are almost unlimited for the next few weeks, at least in theory. I think that there was a possibility of a compromise between him and parliament. Parliament is not one single, monolithic body incidentally. Parliament represents all sorts, as we've just heard, all sorts of forces, some very pro-Yeltsin, some very anti-Yeltsin. In fact, Yeltsin I think enjoys about 20 percent of unequivocal support in parliament. So there was a chance of getting some kind of a compromise, and I'm afraid that for the time begin he blew it, and he has started a process whose end is not in sight and which is not easy to predict.

MR. LEHRER: But Condoleezza Rice said that he, in order for him to -- if he had struck a compromise, he would have had to have given up the power he has to be president of his country.

MR. BRUMBERG: Well, you know, it was this particular parliament which Yeltsin has called a Bolshevik parliament about to institute another Bolshevik regime. It was this very parliament, we must remember that, that gave him those powers last December in order for him to proceed with the economy. It wasn't an anti-Yeltsin body. It was a pro-Yeltsin body that gave the President more powers. He did not acquit himself very well, ergo, we are seeing anti-Yeltsin reaction.

MR. LEHRER: Yes, go ahead.

MS. RICE: May I make a comment? I would agree that the problem here is that over the last year the Yeltsin government and his now successful prime ministers have not managed to find a way to pull the country out of crisis. That's why I think the parliament was able to mobilize against him. But the fact of the matter is also that the moves that the Congress took a couple of weeks ago would have taken away the very powers that they granted him in the compromise in December. Nonetheless, we are concentrating on the drama of what's going on in Moscow, but the point needs to be made that the real issue is: Does Boris Yeltsin have a plan for running the country? And that is what is going to make it very difficult I think for him even should he win the referendum.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Gregoriev, I'd love your comment on that, but also the traditional point that Ms. Rice made a moment ago, which is that the characterization, in fact, Yeltsin, himself, has characterized the opposition as being people who want to bring communism back. Is that, is that an accurate description? And, if not, describe it accurately, from your point of view.

MR. GREGORIEV: No. I would agree with Condoleezza Wright [Rice]. I would think it's a very inaccurate characterization, and I was surprised to hear it from the lips of the former Politburo member or candidate to the Politburo, who Yeltsin was, about the deeply entrenched party apparatchiks and the power structure. It's a different thing. It's a post communist parliament. It's, it's struggled between different post communist groups on their exit away from communism. The problem is that while now both the parliament and Yeltsin are engaged in the struggle, the Communist Party is getting stronger outside of the parliament, and that's one of the most negative implications of this struggle. I think that's most important, that we have to understand now.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of negative possibilities now, Mr. Kortunov, beginning with you, what are the, you know, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, oh, my goodness, is there going to be an armed coup, are we going to start shooting at each other? Give me the worst case scenario from your perspective. In other words, you laid out a pretty bad, some pretty bad possibilities. Take it to the next step for me.

MR. KORTUNOV: Well, I think that there are at least three different worst case scenarios, and you might choose any of them.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

MR. KORTUNOV: First, I think we might see an uncontrolled escalation of confrontation. There is certain logic in the confrontation, and probably Yeltsin and the parliament will have to take steps that they didn't want to take from the very beginning.

MR. LEHRER: Meaning if they were going to compromise as Abe Brumberg says they should have, that should have happened a long - - it's too late under your thing for them to really give it up?

MR. KORTUNOV: I don't know about egos, and there is logic in development, and especially if the blood is spilled somehow by accident or because of provocation from each side, it would be very difficult to stop the process from escalating. The second worst case scenario would be that these developments will boost the disintegration of the country because it will be used by local leaders, by local warlords to separate themselves even further from Moscow to seek if not independence at least more and more autonomy of Russia if you wish, and finally I think that we might face a prospect of a third force emerging, that people frustrated with how the parliament and the President act would act on the assumption on both your houses and will turn to some more radical and probably more political force. For example, we can expect a rise of nationalists or even more communists. I think we cannot expect them just to sit and wait till Yeltsin and the parliament resolve the contradictions among themselves.

MR. LEHRER: So the very thing that people, that Yeltsin and some of his people have been saying that the Communists are trying to take over again could, in fact, happen if this is not, if this, what we call in this country gridlock of a massive scale continues?

MR. KORTUNOV: Well, not through the parliament. What I'm scared of is the power of the street, and untold --

MR. LEHRER: Outside.

MR. KORTUNOV: -- escalation of violence in the street, not in the parliament.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Drobkov, what scenarios do you see?

MR. DROBKOV: I think that the third scenario Mr. Kortunov mentioned is the most probable, then there will be another, the third force, which will become stronger and stronger and will push aside both parliament and Yeltsin.

MR. LEHRER: Is that the Civic Forum group, would that be part of that, no, not necessarily?

MR. DROBKOV: In the best of possibilities, it will be Civic Forum group but in the worst of possibilities it will be some kind of nationalistic, maybe pro-military or very close to the military force.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Gregoriev, do you see it that way too, that's the one to dread?

MR. GREGORIEV: I exactly see it the same way. I think that so far there are two groups fighting for power. Both of them are not communists anymore. They discuss their ways. Yeltsin is more radical in terms of attitude towards the economic reform. In the parliament, people advocate other ways that reflect more slower, provincial periphery attitudes. But in the meantime, I think that we have to first of all be scared of other forces outside of the parliament. Army is one of the forces, and it's not clear whether the army will support Yeltsin. In fact, I do believe that this is the case when the army will not support Yeltsin but decide to have all the people demonstrating around, to have all the people who are losing faith that democracy is a way out for Russia, that democracy offers any kind of genuine solution for the Russian people out of crisis, and that's the most interesting here.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Rice, Sec. Christopher said today that Boris Yeltsin was the only political figure who had the support of the Russian people right now. Would you agree with that?

MS. RICE: Well, we're certainly not certain of that until there are elections. He is, I think, still the most popular leader in the country, although Rutskoi is also a very popular figure. I think the problem that the Clinton administration is dealing with is that Boris Yeltsin embodies reform in Russia as we would like to see it unfold, rapid marketization, privatization, a belief in a foreign policy that I think has been quite good to the West, and so it's not too surprising that the administration I think finds Yeltsin and reform almost synonymous, although clearly it's a more complex situation. But if I could just introduce maybe an optimistic note into this rather pessimistic discussion, it is entirely possible that you could have the disintegration of Russia with regional warlords, some supported by regional army commanders, going their own way, and Moscow effectively becoming irrelevant. I think that would be very dangerous. But there's also another trend going on in the country, and that is that some of these regions and some of these city states like Nizninovgorod are actually undertaking fairly radical economic experiments in the absence of leadership from Moscow that could lead to decentralization and some economic progress in some parts of the country. That obviously means that you can't have a cataclysm in Moscow, but it does mean that perhaps some of the reasons are not as dependent on Moscow as they might have been even a year ago.

MR. LEHRER: Is there a Brumberg scenario?

MR. BRUMBERG: I don't know whether there's a Brumberg scenario, but I would like to say something about the army because I do think that we tend in this country to become terribly scared. You know, the army is going to step in, there's going to be a coup, an army coup and so on. I think the army, we must remember, I think the army had its fingers burned, as it were, in the August '91 coup, when they were, at first theywere called out by the putsches and then within 24 hours they had to side as they did, I'm glad they did, with Yeltsin, and I think this was a lesson which the army in general would not like to forget, and this is why they are anxious to stay out. Now they may be pulled in if there is a growing confrontation between the parliament and Yeltsin, if Yeltsin decides that he cannot get his way otherwise, he may yet call upon the army, for certain units of the army to act. But this is something, it seems to me, that the army would very much like to avoid.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Kortunov, who besides the army has the guns in Russia?

MR. KORTUNOV: Well, we can speak about three forces, I think. Well, the army is the most important but also the forces of the ministry of interior, the former Soviet militia, and the KGB, or now it's the Federal Security Agency, and all these three power ministries are extremely important, though all of them are actually weak corporate axis rather than strong corporate axis, and we cannot exclude that they will be divided and some factions of these will support Yeltsin, some of them will support parliament. Some of them will support local warlords. So I think that in most cases Yeltsin is not able to mobilize any major military potential to support his fight with the parliament, and one of the indications that he does not feel too secure here is that he, himself, made the statement that he expects the military to stay outside of his conflict with the parliament.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. All right. We'll leave it there, and don't you all go away. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Yes, we look now at the American response to all this, what some have called the first foreign policy crisis of the Clinton administration. Sec. of State Warren Christopher outlined the administration's views on the Russian power struggle in his speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Christopher endorsed the steps Yeltsin has taken so far, including his call for a national plebiscite.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We welcome President Yeltsin's assurance that civil liberties, including freedom of speech and of the press, will be respected at this difficult moment. We also welcome his firm rejection of imperial and Cold War policies. The most important point is that Russia must remain a democracy during this period, moving toward a market economy. This is the basis, the only basis for the U.S./Russian partnership. Russia's reformers are now looking to the West for support at this moment of extreme difficulty. The United States has a deep self- interest in responding to this historic challenge. We should extend to the Russian people not a hand of pity but a hand of partnership. We must lead a long-term western strategy of engagement for democracy. We must understand that helping consolidate democracy in Russia is not a matter of charity but a security concern of the highest order. It is no less important to our well-being than the need to contain a hostile Soviet Union was at an earlier day. As we meet, a great struggle is underway, as you know, to determine the kind of nation that Russia will be, however, as we focus on today's drama, it's important that we maintain a long-term perspective. Just as our vigilance in the Cold War took more than four decades to pay off, our commitment to Russian democracy must be for the duration. Our engagement with the reformers must be for the long haul, whether they're out as well as whether they're in, whether they're down as well as when they're up. However difficult things may be in the short run, we should have faith that the strategic course we have set supporting democracy's triumph is a correct one.

MR. MacNeil: We get two views from Congress now. They come from Sen. Bill Bradley, Democrat from New Jersey, and Richard Lugar, Republican Senator from Indiana. They join us from the Senate gallery. Sen. Lugar, what do you think of the administration's response to all this?

SEN. LUGAR: I think the administration has made a very positive and constructive response. It seems to me that Yeltsin had very little choice given the confrontation that was really forced by the parliament with the stripping of powers than to move as he has, and he's moved with a deference to keep the parliament in place, to keep civil rights in place, to advise the military to stay out of it, and a variety of some resolutions, a claim of potential constitutional solution to which the executive and legislative branches sort out what they are to do and an election then to fill the parliament. Inevitably there had to be a new Constitution. It would have been better under other circumstances, but it leads to one good scenario of all this, is we may come to a conclusion. Now we in the United States as Dr. Rice pointed out support democracy, as Sec. Christopher said. We support market economics. Yeltsin's been moving in that direction. Without that movement, it's apparent that the parliamentary majority would not have been in favor of more privatization or even private property in some cases, that clearly a foreign policy that might have gone back from Russian cooperation at the U.N., so we have some things at stake in this respect and probably ought to speak out. And I applaud the President for doing so.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Bradley, do you disagree with that at all?

SEN. BRADLEY: No, I don't disagree. I think it seems that what Yeltsin has done is to say that the problems of, the problems that he's confronting and that the answer to the problems of democracy are really more democracy. And that's why these referendums are going to be set in April. Ultimately, the people will decide. They'll either decide in the streets or they'll decide at the ballot box, and it seems to me this is a positive way to proceed. There are a lot of players in this game. You know, there's a lot of talk about the military, but ultimately, I think the referendum's success is going to be determined in the region, and I think they will be major players in this drama.

MR. MacNeil: Is the United States, Sen. Lugar, in danger of investing too much in Boris Yeltsin?

SEN. LUGAR: There is always that danger but --

MR. MacNeil: On the parallel that President Bush was criticized for staying too long with Gorbachev?

SEN. LUGAR: Most people commenting about the situation have tried to point out the differences, and that is that in the case of Boris Yeltsin, there does not appear to be another alternative in sight, that there may be unknown persons and we ought to try to identify many of them in the parliament or elsewhere in Russia now, but for the moment, Boris Yeltsin is positively headed in the directions that we think are best for us and best for Russia. In the case of the Gorbachev analogy, the case is often made that Yeltsin was an alternative after a while, not initially, that our support of Gorbachev was very important but that in due course Yeltsin embodied, in fact, democracy, that he had the legitimization in the election by the people and perhaps we should have recognized a little bit more of that sooner.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Bradley, is the administration leaving enough options open if Yeltsin, himself, doesn't make it through this situation?

SEN. BRADLEY: Yes, I think they are. I think it's important to keep our lines of communication up for everyone, including the parliament, the Civic Union, the army, the church, the regents. I mean, I see this as a very interesting development because under the Constitution of course there was no provision for separation of powers, no -- it was always a very vague concept, if it existed at all, and the real power was the Communist Party, and there was certainly no provision to resolve a conflict between a popularly elected President and a parliament, and I think that's why Yeltsin has pushed this back to the people and said let them decide on April 25th, in terms of new elections for parliament, in terms of the Constitution, and in terms of his and Vice President Rutskoi's own service. I think it was a stroke of genius to link Rutskoi with Yeltsin in terms of the popular referendum because they are often seen in a competitive light.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Bradley, how far would you like this country to go in observing the constitutional niceties? Suppose this Constitutional Court does rule that Yeltsin's decrees are out of order, that he's unconstitutional, and the parliament then votes to impeach him, what should the United States do then?

SEN. BRADLEY: Well, I don't think we should get involved in the domestic politics of Russia. I think that, you know, whether the parliament impeaches or not, it'd be a little bit like England or France saying that we shouldn't have impeached Richard Nixon if we had reached that point. I don't think we should get involved in the domestic politics of Russia. I think what we should do is what we should have done for, oh, since August, 1991, and that is come forward with a very important and dramatic program that will support our values and Russia in times of crisis. I think we have to be very clear that we do not support self-determination of the autonomous republics within Russia, that we support individual human rights for Russian minorities, in the republics. I think we should then propose a very massive exchange program, everything from high school students to military officers, have them come to the West in order to learn and study. I think that it would also be important that we have debt relief both in terms of rescheduling the debt and in terms of debt/equity swaps. I think we should move to try to help replace the Chernobyl-style nuclear reactors that threaten the environment of Europe and the world. I think we have to have a much bigger humanitarian aid package, and we should consider linking a social safety net aid with radical monetary reform that given a cap on the money supply could stabilize their currency. I think that now is the time for us to step forward with this package and face up to our responsibilities if we're serious about building long-term Russian/U.S. cooperation.

MR. MacNeil: Do you expect the President to offer something like that package when he meets Mr. Yeltsin at the summit?

SEN. BRADLEY: I would hope so. I would hope so. We have to begin to think of this in terms of the long-term investment, and I believe that this is the time to make such a proposal.

MR. MacNeil: Would you support, Sen. Lugar, would you support such a package if the President were to do it at the summit? Is this the time to do this?

SEN. LUGAR: Yes. We ought to be talking at the summit about the debt problem, credits for the 15 republics, Russia, obviously, but some resolution of the former Soviet Union debt is absolutely imperative, whether it be stretching out or reconstructing it, forgiving part of it. Most of it is owed to other countries, I would point out, and that is why the G-7 arrangement is very important. And we probably ought to give some thought to engaging the G-7 into the summit conference in the event that we want to show some solidarity with the Russian economy and the rest as we resolve their problems. I would just emphasize again the need to get on with the energy deals. Bureaucracy of Russia has prevented a good bit of this, but here they need to have repair of their oil equipment. We ought to be involved in helping them extract more, not as a sense of aid but an ongoing, long-term situation. Bill Bradley mentioned that energy provides that. I would add another element that I hope will come up, and that is that we could offer along with NATO, using the infrastructure account, some housing units for Russian officers to be withdrawn from the Baltics, and from Belarus. That would be very important in terms of the stability of Russia presently. The suggestion Sen. Nunn and I made when we returned to President Bush in November, and I think had currency then and still has currency now, and would show at least some results fairly rapidly to the Russian people as to how these arrangements with the United States might work.

SEN. BRADLEY: I might add Export-Import Bank financing for trade in the oil and gas sector, and political insurance for investment in the farming sector or the energy sector.

MR. MacNeil: Do you, gentlemen, both think -- it sounds in a way as though you aren't talking about the same situation as all the Russian guests who have just been talking to me -- do you think that that kind of offer of real aid right now will offset or prevent, preclude the kind of dangerous scenarios we've heard them describing?

SEN. BRADLEY: I personally think that the future of Russia is going to be decided by Russians, not by Americans. The question is: What should we do to build a long-term relationship with Russia that is consistent with our values? All of these things I think could do both.

SEN. LUGAR: I think we have to underline that this is an election as it's now posed on April 25th between two relatively unpopular alternatives, namely the President and the Congress, and there have to be some reasons why Russians who are disillusioned with politics altogether and a plague on all houses might take some heart. And I would think as the guests have already pointed out on this show that one of the great problems is whether people will vote at all and whether in the various parts of Russia, the various national ethnic groups and their leadership might even allow voting. The estranged election in this country, we've had 40 states that were voting and 10 that were not, but that is a predicament that might be a part of the April 25th referendum without some thoughtfulness.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go back to our other guests. Still with us are Sergei Gregoriev, a former Gorbachev adviser; Vladislav Drobkov, Washington Bureau Chief for the newspaper Pravda; and Andrei Kortunov, an analyst at the U.S./Canada Institute in Moscow. They're joined still by two American experts, Prof. Condoleezza Rice at Stanford University and author Abraham Brumberg. Mr. Brumberg, what do you think of the way the Clinton administration is handling this? The Senators seem to approve of it?

MR. BRUMBERG: Well, I do think that President Yeltsin is the elected President of Russia and obviously, therefore, if only for formal reasons, he merits our support. I might also add, however, that the Congress is a democratically elected body too, so it would be a mistake, it seems to me, to side with one against the other. We ought to support the President of Russia because that's legal, and the decent thing to do, but without going overboard and joining him directly or indirectly in a confrontation with his critics.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think that --

MR. BRUMBERG: That would be wrong.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think that's what the administration is doing?

MR. BRUMBERG: No, I don't think that's what the administration is doing right now, but I think that danger ought to be avoided.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Drobkov, what do you think of the Clinton administration's approach to this?

MR. DROBKOV: I would like to see more concrete approach, more concrete programs which could really help Russia to move through this very difficult transformation period and not the Russian government. The mistake, it seems to me, which was made by the previous administration and can be made by the administration we have now not to support directly Yeltsin or former, Gorbachev before, but support of the government structures which haven't produced, unfortunately, for us, unfortunately for Russia, a comprehensive plan of reforms. Still they haven't produced it. The International Monetary Fund is trying for more than one year to get this kind of plan and without any great success, but to support the direct and concrete programs and projects in Russia, and I remember that Clinton administration officials told even before Clinton was elected that the approach to Russia will be more concrete, more decisive and on some particular programs. Unfortunately, we haven't heard even today in the speech of Sec. Christopher the concrete proposals for helping Russia in these special, specific areas.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Kortunov, what do you think?

MR. KORTUNOV: Well, I would like to add that this country, the United States, has a set of very clear interests and national security priorities towards Russia, and let's face it, these interests and these priorities might be endangered by the opposition rather than by President Yeltsin. After all, if you look at who criticizes the START II Agreement, these are people in the Congress. Who criticizes "soft position" of Yeltsin towards the Baltics or towards Ukraine? Again, these are people in the Congress. That's why I think it's extremely important for the American administration to show that there is a certain border line that any government in Russia, no matter who it will be, cannot cross without endangering the whole frame work of relations between the two countries, and, therefore, the United States should have a very clear, fallback position in case Yeltsin has to leave.

MR. MacNeil: But to support Yeltsin at the moment is correct?

MR. KORTUNOV: Well, I don't think that the United States should support personality. I think the United States should support certain policies, and of course that includes arms control. That includes fair relations to other republics or the former Soviet Union. That includes human rights, and I think that should be made very clear that the United States will stick to these principles.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Gregoriev, what do you think of this?

MR. GREGORIEV: Well, I agree that the United States should first of all base its policies not on individuals because we have examples from recent history when putting on certain individuals could o more damage to American relations with Russia than help. At the present stage, I think it is important to be able to convey this idea to the people of Russia, that the American people are supporting the transition of Russia towards a new society that's painful, it's complicated, but it's not a problem of supporting one group after another. It rather has to be a problem of reaching the average Russian in explaining that's what the American people are doing. America has got its own problems. America has to solve many other issues on their agenda. That's what the Americans are doing. That's what an average American is sacrificing to help an average Russian.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think it looks, at the moment, it will look tonight to people in Russia that that's what the Clinton administration is doing or that it is backing Yeltsin?

MR. GREGORIEV: Well, I think it looked to me especially on Saturday that the American administration was backing Yeltsin. And it's hard to criticize this line since Yeltsin is the duly elected President of Russia. It's true. On the other hand, I would agree with Mr. Brumberg. What about parliament? It also was elected in a due way according to the Constitution in 1990. I think it is dangerous to take sides. I think that even as Russians today we're not sure about the outcome in terms of who will win and who will lose, and I think for America in terms of long-term strategy, I would agree with what Sen. Bradley said, it is absolutely necessary first of all to reach the people and not to create an illusion that the politicians in Washington are trying to make a decision instead of the Russian people.

MR. MacNeil: Condoleezza Rice, how do you think President Clinton is handling this?

MS. RICE: I think they've done pretty well in what is a very difficult high wire act. I empathize somewhat because it is very difficult. It's easy to sit here and say you shouldn't personalize the policy but in Russia, where the institutions are very weak, and you have one very powerful man who appears to epitomize everything that we hope will happen in Russia, market reforms, democratic reforms, a foreign policy that is very good for the West, I think it's very hard not to say that you support Yeltsin. I think as long as they couple that with a clear indication that we are prepared to live with whatever truly democratic processes produce in Russia, that we're all right. I do think there's one further danger though. We need not to overpromise. I would agree completely with Senators Lugar and Bradley that it is in our interest to support Russian reform, that we need to do everything we can imagine to try and do that. But ultimately, this is a huge historical revolution. It's going to be decided in Russia, not in Washington, not in Bonn. If we look at the difficulty that East Germany or the eastern part of Germany is going through with West Germany paying almost exclusive attention to bringing that economy up to speed, we know that on a scale a hundred times worse, Russia has to go through a much more painful transition than that. So since we're in this for the long haul and since this is going to be a very long revolution indeed, I think we have to be careful not to overpromise what Western aid can actually deliver and continue to say the Russian people, we will support your transition, but ultimately, this revolution is up to you.

MR. MacNeil: Will the kinds of packages the Senators were talking about, and the administration's been hinting will be coming out at the summit, will it make any difference in a situation like this?

MS. RICE: I think it can make a difference at the margins, particularly I think if you can reach out to the Russian people perhaps, for instance, with small business support so that you begin to actually get a constituency, an economic constituency for, an economic and political constituency for the reforms that Yeltsin is trying to make that it can be quite helpful, but ultimately this is going to be a very, very painful transition no matter what we do, and I think we have to be a little bit careful in what we promise.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Brumberg, what difference would such a package make, do you think?

MR. BRUMBERG: Well, a package would make the difference in the sense of telling the Russian people and the government that we are ready and prepared to help them in what has just been called the transition to a democratic system. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to make a point against simplification, if I may. For instance, we've heard from I think Sen. Bradley that the Constitution of Russia does not provide for separation of powers. Now, that was true for the Brezhnevite, as it were, Constitution, but it's no longer true today. It is precisely the parliament, the so-called "communist dominated parliament," which created the executive presidency, which created the Constitutional Court, and thus created a system of checks and balances. I would also like to speak out against this idea that it's become very popular that the parliament represents reaction and the President represents democracy. It is not as simple as that. There are many people in parliament who support the President. There are many people who oppose him, but not from the point of view of communism or right wing policies, and I think we ought to be careful before we indulge in such exaggerations and simplifications.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Bradley, do you want to --

SEN. BRADLEY: Yes. Who is the final voice under the Constitution?

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Brumberg.

MR. BRUMBERG: The final voice under the Constitution is most certainly the parliament. The question is whether it's going to be a system in which both parliament and the presidency can have certain powers, or is it going to be, as Mr. Hezbolato wants, just parliament or all, or as Mr. Yeltsin seems to prefer, just he himself? The question is of a balance.

SEN. BRADLEY: But the point is: Who resolves a conflict between the parliament and the President?

MR. BRUMBERG: If it is a legal conflict it goes to the Constitutional Court.

SEN. BRADLEY: So you're saying that the Constitutional Court is the final decision, not the parliament?

MR. BRUMBERG: In cases where there are questions and disagreements yes, absolutely.

MR. MacNeil: Do you, let me ask Sen. Lugar this. We had the report from ITN that they understood that the White House, the American White House, had sent a message to Yeltsin urging him to reopen talks with the parliament. Do you think that is a good function for the United States to be urging him to try and seek some sort of accommodation with the parliament?

SEN. LUGAR: No. I'm doubtful that they would have done such a thing. I would agree with Sen. Bradley. We ought to stay out of that altogether, and I would further comment that the Court that's involved here is clearly a derivative from the parliament. People on it are almost like the parliamentarians. They would prefer not to make a choice, and then if we were to give any advice, we ought to ask them not to make them. I just think we're at a point in which our interests in the United States which have been underlined by the panel have to come forward. We're in favor of the START Treaty. We're in favor of disarmament, working with Russia. We're in favor of commerce in which we engage Russia. The majority of the parliament, not all, but a majority are opposed to privatization, opposed to private property, opposed to START II, as far as we can tell. Now that is a serious problem and that is one in which we simply cannot stand back and simply hope it all works out. It seems to me our diplomacy has to be very positive in behalf of forces in Russia, including the President but not exclusive with him that are in favor of Russia becoming a part of the civilized world.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Kortunov, just finally, what effect do you think it will have if the West is able, led by the U.S., to come up with some kind of package? You've heard the various sorts of aid that have been discussed, and they've been discussed for a long time. What effect on this situation can that have?

MR. KORTUNOV: I hope that this aid will not be wasted, and as a Muscovite, I hate to say this, but I would advise go beyond Moscow, go directly to the region, because these are the regions where the fate of Russia is ultimately decided, and I think that it is extremely important to cultivate new political and economic elite which are emerging in the region because they can bypass Moscow and take much more pragmatic and much more sober solutions.

MR. MacNeil: I'm afraid, sorry, gentlemen. I just want to say to Mr. Kortunov and all you gentleman and Condoleezza Rice, thank you very much. We have to leave it there. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, as we just heard, Russian President Yeltsin took steps to consolidate his power as Russia's High Court met to determine whether his emergency decree was legal. The space shuttle Columbia's launch was scrubbed with three seconds to go. NASA officials blamed it on a faulty valve in one of the engines. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with coverage of President Clinton's first formal news conference and a Newsmaker interview with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.