The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then some perspective on how the two-year- old war on terror is going; a Paul Solman look at the dark side of global free trade; analysis by Mark Shields and joining him tonight, William Safire of the "New York Times"; plus a farewell report on the life and music of Johnny Cash, who died today.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A firefight in Iraq today resulted in the worst friendly fire incident since the end of major combat. U.S. forces killed eight Iraqi policemen and a Jordanian security guard. It happened in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. Nine other people were wounded. Iraqis said 25 officers in pickup trucks were chasing highway bandits. U.S. and Jordanian troops opened fire on them near a checkpoint at a hospital. The U.S. Military said its soldiers were attacked first, but it gave few other details. Two more U.S. Soldiers were killed in Iraq today, in a gun battle west of Fallujah. Seven soldiers were wounded. In all, 292 Americans have died in Iraq to date from combat and other causes. More than 1,500 have been wounded or injured during the war and since then. India said today it could not send troops to Iraq. It said its forces are busy fighting Islamic separatists in Kashmir. The United States. has asked for more international troops and aid in Iraq. The permanent members of the U.N. Security Council meet tomorrow in Geneva to discuss the issue.

It now appears one voice on an audio message released this week was Osama bin Laden. Wire services reported that today, citing analysts at the CIA. There was nothing to indicate when the recording was made. Another voice, of bin Laden's top deputy, warned of new attacks on the United States. We'll have more on the broader war on terror in a moment. Israel faced international criticism today, for saying it would "remove" Palestinian president Arafat. And thousands of Palestinians rallied to support him. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News.

LOUISE BATES: Yasser Arafat has little reason to smile, but that's just what he did as he arrived for Friday prayers at his Ramallah compound. He's been declared an obstacle to peace by Israel, which has promised to remove him, although it hasn't said how. The Israeli defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, reiterated the decision while meeting with the U.S. Ambassador. He said "the security cabinet has decided to expel Arafat in the time that it sees fit." Such wording has left open the options of deporting Arafat, capturing him, or killing him. Arafat is never so popular with his own people as when he is in Israel's sights. The announcement sparked immediate protests. In Ramallah, demonstrators marched towards Arafat's quarters to which he has been confined by Israel for 18 months. Pro-Arafat crowds in Nablus promised to become martyrs for the Palestinian leader. Protesters also poured into the streets of Jenin, Bethlehem, and the Gaza Strip, where children threw stones and set pyres alight. In neighboring Lebanon, Arafat supporters filled the streets of the country's largest Palestinian refugee camp. The Israeli announcement has also drawn criticism from world leaders, including Kofi Annan and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. opposes any action against Arafat. The Israelis said Secretary of State Powell made that point again today in a phone call to their foreign minister. The U.N. Security Council voted today to lift its ban on arms sales and flights to Libya. The sanctions were imposed after Libya was implicated in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people. The Libyans agreed last month to pay $4 million to each of the victims' families. Some of them spoke after the U.N. meeting today.

KATHLEEN FLYNN: We brought a Libyan dictator to its knees. Moammar Qaddafi has had to admit to the spire world that he and the Libyan regime he represents was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and for the death of our son.

JIM LEHRER: Other relatives said Libya still hasn't fully answered for the pan am bombing. The U.S. abstained in today's vote, and said its own sanctions would stay in force. It cited Libya's human rights record and pursuit of banned weapons. Iran now has until the end of October to prove it is not developing nuclear weapons. The U.N. nuclear agency imposed the deadline today. The Iranians walked out of the meeting in Vienna, Austria, to protest the action. If Iran ignores the deadline, the matter could go to the U.N. Security Council. That, in turn, could lead to sanctions.

The U.S. electrical grid had major problems hours before the August 14 blackout. A joint U.S.-Canadian task force said today it found voltage shifts, line problems, and power plant shutdowns across several states. The blackout ultimately cascaded across eight states and southeastern Canada. The task force said it's still not clear exactly what triggered the outage. In economic news today, wholesale prices rose in August. The Labor Department reported the producer price index was up 0.4 percent, a little more than expected. And the Commerce Department reported retail sales rose 0.6 percent in August, that was weaker than expected. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 11 points to close above 9471. The NASDAQ rose nine points to close at 1855. For the week, both the Dow and the NASDAQ were down a fraction of a percent.

Johnny Cash died early today in Nashville. He'd been in poor health for years. Cash left nearly 50 years of songs about hard times and heartbreak, including "I Walk the Line" and "Folsom Prison Blues." He was elected to the country music and the rock and roll halls of fame. Johnny Cash was 71 years old. We'll have more on his career at the end of the program tonight. Actor John Ritter also died overnight of heart trouble. He was best known for the 1970s TV sitcom "Three's Company." His current sitcom was "8 Simple Rules for dating my teenage daughter." John Ritter was 54 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the war on terror two years later, world trade trading, shields and Safire, and farewell Johnny Cash.

UPDATE - WAR ON TERROR

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has the terror war story.

EDWARD ABINGTON: Speaking before the army's 3rd infantry division in Fort Stewart, Georgia, the president repeated his assertion that the U.S. Is "rolling back the terrorist threat."

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We are hunting the al-Qaida terrorists wherever they still hide, from Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, and we're making good progress. Nearly two-thirds of al-Qaida's known leaders have been captured or killed. The rest of them are dangerous, but the rest of them can be certain we're on their trail. The terrorists have a strategic goal: They want America to leave Iraq before our work is done. You see, they believe their attacks on our people and on innocent people will shake the will of the United States and the civilized world. They believe America will run from a challenge. They don't know us very well. (Cheers and applause) They're mistaken. Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. All who serve understand what this fight is about. Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places, so that our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in our own cities.

RAY SUAREZ: But more violence is promised in a new audiotape that the CIA says probably contains the voices of Osama bin Laden and Deputy Ayman Zawahari. The audiotape accompanied this videotape. Satellite Channel al Jazeera, which released it, said the video was probably made this spring at an undetermined mountain area. Bin Laden referred to the 9/11 hijackers.

OSAM BIN LADEN (Translated): Those young men, they caused great damage to the enemy. And they disrupted their plans of aggression. I had the honor of meeting those men and it was a great honor because God honored them with the task of defending Islam. I see them as a seed that will flourish in the aid of Islam, God bless them.

RAY SUAREZ: Zawahari cited the Iraq occupation.

AYMAN ZAWARI ( Translated ): We salute the Mujahadin brothers in Iraq and press on their hands and ask Allah to bless their sacrifices and valor in fighting the crusaders. Devour the Americans just like the lions devour their prey. Bury them in the Iraqi graveyard.

RAY SUAREZ: Today al Jazeera released another videotape, showing a man claiming to be one of the 9/11 hijackers reading his will. The man identifies himself as Saeed Alghamdi, who was on the jetliner that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Since the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden's al-Qaida has claimed responsibility for, or been linked to, a host of international strikes. They've occurred in places like Bali and Jakarta in Indonesia, Morocco, Kenya, and Tunisia in Africa, and Saudi Arabia and Yemen in the Mideast. In all, terrorist experts have linked al-Qaida to more than a dozen attacks around the world in the last two years, attacks that killed at least 480 people.

Meanwhile, a new report from the British parliament suggests the worldwide terror threat may be higher because of the Iraq invasion. The report says intelligence experts warned Prime Minister Tony Blair in February that deposing Saddam Hussein would increase the risk that Iraqi weapons would end up in the hands of terrorists.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the status of the war on terrorism and where Iraq fits into it, we get two perspectives: Richard Clarke was national coordinator for security and counter-terrorism on the National Security Council in the Bush administration on September 11-- he held the same job during the Clinton administration; and Harvey Sicherman served in various State Department posts in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Richard Clarke, we heard the president this morning give a fairly upbeat assessment of how the war on terrorism is going and his speech to troops. Do you share his view?

RICHARD CLARKE: Well, I think he glosses over some significant things. Foremost, that the war in Iraq has made it easier for al-Qaida in several ways. It's drawn our resources out of Afghanistan, number one. Number two, it serves as a great recruitment device for al-Qaida when they're trying to get more people to join, the fact that the United States is occupying Iraq serves as a great incentive. And thirdly, we have now deployed 130,000 Americans in a place where it's much easier for al-Qaida to attack them. So for all of those reasons, I understand why the president wouldn't want to talk about that side. His job is to improve morale, the troops and to give a rosy scenario. But because we are in Iraq things are better for al-Qaida and worse for us in the war on terrorism.

RAY SUAREZ: Harvey Sicherman, is your view closer to Mr. Clarke's or President Bush's?

HARVEY SICHERMAN: No, I would say I'm closer to the president. First, I don't think that rosy scenario is in the picture anymore. Last Sunday the president more or less informed the American people and the Congress of the United States in particular that this was going to be a lengthy war, and it would require a lot more resources than perhaps he anticipated, or that anybody anticipated, although I think deep down no one expected this thing to go very easily.

But that having been said, I'd like to take particular issue with the idea that we've made things easier for al-Qaida, particularly in Afghanistan. What we're beginning to learn in Iraq and what we should have learned in Afghanistan is that you simply have to apply more resources altogether. I think the resources are there. Part of the president's request has to do with Afghanistan. And as far as inviting al-Qaida to attack our troops, much as I don't like to make things more difficult for our wonderful soldiers in Iraq, if there has to be a drag-out battle with al-Qaida, I'd really rather it occur between our troops and al-Qaida than between our al-Qaida and our civilians.

RICHARD CLARKE: Ray, the president says this too: That he'd rather have us fight al-Qaida in Iraq than in the streets of the United States. Well, of course we'd all rather have that, but we don't have any control over that. The president implies that by putting U.S. troops in Iraq, we have decided-- the United States has decided-- where the battle will take place, and that it will not take place in the United States. That's fallacious. There's nothing stopping al-Qaida terrorists from coming to the United States. They choose where they're going to fight us. And they can choose to fight us both in Iraq and in the United States. And in fact, they are.

RAY SUAREZ: And Harvey Sicherman, still in Afghanistan there are reports coming out now that Taliban is regrouping, its ranks topped up with new Pakistani volunteers. Does that create the conditions certainly in the border regions where al-Qaida can gain a foothold once again?

HARVEY SICHERMAN: Well, border regions are problematic both because of the terrain and the history of the political relationship between the Pakistani government and the British imperial, and the tribes in those areas. But we simply did not spend enough or do enough to extend control in Afghanistan to prevent this sort of thing from happening. And as far as the al-Qaida choosing to attack us in one place or another, these are small groups. If we're going after them and we're pursuing them all over the place, they have to devote a certain amount of time, energy, resources in hiding and defending themselves. And that in turn simply has got to reduce their operational capability to attack us in various places. So once you take the fight to them, you do begin to narrow down their choices.

RAY SUAREZ: Though the attacks have continued, is it possible for us to know how much... is it possible for the United States to know how much it has injured al-Qaida's operational capability?

RICHARD CLARKE: Well, we know what damage we've done. We don't know how well al-Qaida is, so we can know what we've done. And as the president says, we've eliminated two-thirds of the

known managers of al-Qaida. But presumably they've been replaced. Al-Qaida is not a small organization. The CIA estimates of the number of people who were trained in the camps in Afghanistan range between 20,000 and 80,000. And the United States and its allies have only caught 3,000 of them. And there have been new people joining al-Qaida since we invaded Iraq, so it's a big organization that can fight us in a number of places, and it can replace leaders who we arrest, but we have degraded the organization by getting many of the managers. We have degraded the organization by getting at their communications network and their finance network. They can still communicate and they can still get money, but it's slower than it was before.

RAY SUAREZ: Harvey Sicherman, along with degrading their capabilities, has the United States brought enough of the world community onboard in this fight so that we can be sure that countries that have al-Qaida cells on their territory are looking for them and trying to figure out where they are?

HARVEY SICHERMAN: That's been slow and erratic. The coalition building is a bit of a crapshoot particularly when you get beyond the known allies. And here I would say that the diplomatic arguments that have occurred over the coalition to fight terror with respect to Iraq, there may be on one level very poor relationships but on the level of intelligence sharing and indeed for that matter when we went to war in Iraq, the use of French air space or use of the German roads, the movement of our troops we still continue to get a lot of cooperation there. Where it becomes problematical is where you have governments that think that these groups don't make a threat to them. Indonesia has learned a little differently and since last may I think in Saudi Arabia they've figured out too that these groups are a great danger to them. So I would say that while we're not likely to get a lot of public support over the operation in Iraq, at the operational level, we're getting a lot.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Sicherman, earlier today when the president spoke to the troops, he first covered al-Qaida and the Afghan front and then moved on to Iraq, and he called it the central front in the war on terror. Is it? And how did it get that way?

HARVEY SICHERMAN: Well, it's a central front in part because we made it so. We said that Iraq was a particular combination of a terrorist state with an active development of weapons of mass destruction, and therefore we had to prevent it from getting those weapons of mass destruction and put it out of the terrorism business. Now there is an idea going around that if you can somehow bleed the Americans, they will run away. We showed in Afghanistan and in the immediate war in Iraq that they couldn't bleed us very well. Now they're trying to put that to a test. If they succeed and we are unable to make a goal of that in Iraq, well then we will have suffered a single defeat because they will then be able to say we know now how to wrestle the superpower to its knees.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard Clarke, the central front in the war on terror?

RICHARD CLARKE: Well we did make it the central front. The Iraqi government was not engaged in terrorism directed at the United States. The last time it had done that was 1993, so we had gone nine years without any Iraqi- sponsored terrorism directed against the United States. Now that we're there occupying the country, the two groups are engaged in terrorism against us: The former regime and al-Qaida. And there's a third group waiting in the wings and that is Iran and Hezbollah. So, yes, it's the central front on terrorism, but only because we've made it so. It was not a terrorism problem for the United States prior to our invasion.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, made it so in what sense, in the sense that we decided that that's where the battle would be or in the sense that by destabilizing the government of Saddam Hussein it became that front?

RICHARD CLARKE: Well, by virtue of occupying the country we caused a small element, a residual Saddam element to become terrorists and attack our troops. And we also moved 130,000 U.S. troops a lot closer to al-Qaida in a place where it's more easy for them to attack us.

So the only reason it's the central front is because we're there. Prior to our invading, Iraq did not pose a terrorist threat to the United States.

RAY SUAREZ: Harvey Sicherman, do you agree?

HARVEY SICHERMAN: Well, it did pose a potential terrorist threat and Saddam was doing quite a lot of damage through his payments to suicide bombers against the Israelis. And there was always the question as to what extent he was involved with other groups perhaps at some distance that were trying to get at us. And so Iraq was a case again of the potential for what he might do with weapons of mass destruction but in the hands of a regime that had some very good record... a very good qualifications to be on the terrorist list.

RAY SUAREZ: If this is a war against terrorism, how do we know when it's over?

RICHARD CLARKE: Well, you don't ever know when it's over, because there are periods when terrorist groups recede because they've been attacked badly. And then they regroup. This is the history of so many terrorist groups. And it's probably going to be the history of al-Qaida. Those known managers that the president talks about, they'll be replaced. There will be a retrenchment. There will be a resurgence and bin Laden will be their hero for generations. You know, we do have the support of the governments throughout that region in the Middle East, but we don't have the support of the people. We don't have the support of the people in Pakistan, we don't have the support of the people in Saudi Arabia, and we can't just deal with terrorism as a law enforcement and intelligence matter. We also have to deal with it at that time diplomatic and ideological level, and we're not doing a very good job of that.

RAY SUAREZ: Harvey Sicherman, is this by definition a war without end?

HARVEY SICHERMAN: Well, let me frame it this way: I think what's at stake here is an international order where the targeting of civilians doesn't get you ahead. What the terrorists are trying to show is that they can get ahead in international relations through this method of targeting the civilians in order to achieve their end. I think it's in the interest of everybody who wants a peaceful and a secure and, for that matter, even a prosperous international system that we put this off-bounds, that we say to people, as I think the president and all those engaged in this war are trying to say, that if you target civilians, if this is your method of trying to get ahead, number one, you won't get ahead, because we won't change our policy; and number two, we'll kill you.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you both.

RICHARD CLARKE: Thank you.

HARVEY SICHERMAN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: trade trade-offs, Shields and Safire, and the music of Johnny Cash.

FOCUS- TRADE-OFFS

JIM LEHRER: Now the gains and possible losses of the move toward freer trade. World trade talks continued today in Cancun, Mexico, where the 146 members of the World Trade Organization are negotiating cuts in farm subsidies. The larger goal is a wide- ranging global trade deal by the end of next year.

Our business correspondent Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston looks at the move to free trade, and its potential side effects.

PAUL SOLMAN: The theory behind the WTO is clear: Global trade should lead to global prosperity, which combined these days with democracy, represents hope for stability in a dangerously unstable world. But what if both free trade and democracy have dangerous side effects of their own? Unlike the very visible protestors at the WTO last week, the author of a provocative recent book called "World on Fire" is pro globalization.

The book argues, however, that many non-western economies are dominated by deeply resented ethnic minorities, and that globalization and democracy could actually make the resentment worse. The book's author: Yale Law School Professor Amy Chua.

AMY CHUA, Author, "World on Fire:" Just imagine if Bill Gates and the other wealthiest Americans were all-- just pick an ethnic group-- were all Chinese or all Arab. And then imagine that the 70 percent rest of the American population lived in entrenched poverty and had experienced no upward mobility for the last several generations.

PAUL SOLMAN: Or not much.

AMY CHUA: Or not much. Then you really come close to the situation that I think actually holds true in much of the non-western world.

PAUL SOLMAN: Chua argues that groups like the Chinese in Southeast Asia, the Indians in East Africa, the British in Zimbabwe, the Jews in Russia all are elite minorities perceived as benefiting from free market globalization at the expense of the so-called native majority.

AMY CHUA: Markets make this hated kind of outsider minority richer and richer, while democracy empowers the poor, frustrated majority who is easily manipulated often by opportunistic demagogues. And the result is typically a very explosive situation.

PAUL SOLMAN: Chua's thesis is born of her background. Her family, which grew a turn of the century fish paste business into a plastics conglomerate, is part of the tiny Chinese elite that controls more than half of the Philippine economy. The Chuas themselves experienced ethnic resentment with a vengeance.

AMY CHUA: In 1994, I received a call from my mother that my aunt, my father's twin sister, had been murdered in her home in the Philippines by her chauffeur. And he was a member of the Philippines' roughly 80 million, incredibly poor indigenous ethnic Filipinos, most of whom make less than two dollars a day, 40 percent of whom live in temporary shelters all their lives.

I ended up going to find the police reports. And under "motive," although the killer had taken jewels and some money from my aunt before he killed her or after, there was only one word under motive, and that word was not "robbery," but it was "revenge."

PAUL SOLMAN: In the decade since, ethnic tensions in Southeast Asia have, says Chua, grown worse, most notably in Indonesia.

AMY CHUA: The free market policies in the '80s and '90s led to a situation in which the country's tiny, 3 percent Chinese minority controlled an astounding 70 percent of the private economy. Now the introduction of democracy in 1998, which was hailed with euphoria in the United States, unfortunately brought about a violent backlash against both free markets and against the Chinese.

MAN ON STREET: We're all afraid. They want to damage anything.

AMY CHUA: So 5,000 shops and homes of ethnic Chinese were burned and looted; 2,000 people died. The wealthiest Indonesian Chinese left the country, taking with them between 40 and 100 billion dollars of ethnic Chinese- controlled capital. And that, as you can imagine, plunged the country into an economic crisis from which it has still not recovered.

PAUL SOLMAN: What is it about globalization that advantages market-dominant ethnic minorities?

AMY CHUA: It's important to see that free trade is often just touted as a kind of mantra and people assume that, "oh, free trade is going to lift everybody out of poverty." And it's just not the case because in most developing countries, in many developing countries certain ethnic groups have head starts in terms of capital, education, international financial connections. So in the short run, what a lot of poor majorities experience from privatization or the influx of foreign investment or free trade is sometimes the removal of subsidies. That means that their prices go up. In addition, unemployment, at least temporary, which means that their livelihoods are really stricken - and not only that, most importantly, they see these trade liberalization policies benefiting disproportionately certain people who are in a better position to benefit from foreign partners. You know, I mean, when foreign investors from the United States or England or Germany come in, they are not going to go to the poor slums and enter into a joint venture with the slum dwellers.

PAUL SOLMAN: Even before globalization, Chua notes, many of these countries were ethnic tinderboxes needing little to ignite them. Serbs resented the economically successful Croat minority; East Africans resented the market- dominant Indians, imported by the British in the late 1800s to build railroads. Attorney Reshma Saujani's family was among the wealthiest in Uganda.

RESHMA SAUJANI: Several houses, several cars, chauffeurs, servants, all of that. I do remember though my father did experience some sort of like ethnic violence. He remembers coming home one day and his cousin Babu had been decapitated by a local black who as he was walking behind the railroad on his way home from school.

PAUL SOLMAN: Decapitated.

RESHMA SAUJANI: Yes. His head cut off.

PAUL SOLMAN: Uganda's Idi Amin expelled some 75,000 Indians in 1972, as powerfully depicted in Mira Nair's movie, "Mississippi Masala."

ACTOR: What's in the bag?

ACTOR: What's in your bag?

ACTOR: Nothing. Just food.

PAUL SOLMAN: Physician Amit Gohil's parents tell of the same experience.

DR. AMIT GOHIL: People were being shot, Indian girls were being raped as they tried to depart. And on the road from Kampala to Entebbe, there was like numerous checkpoints, many soldiers taking all the possessions, all the meager possessions that they... that people had at the time.

RESHIMA SAUJANI: And my mother and her sisters got this bright idea to kind of hide Jewelry in toothpaste tubes, in their Colgate toothpaste. And so they made out with a little bit of Jewelry. I still wear my grandmother's ring actually on my hand, the gold one. I still wear it to kind of remind me every day of how much they've sacrificed and suffered in this tragedy.

PAUL SOLMAN: To Amy Chua, however, the point is that though Idi Amin was hardly democratic -

AMY CHUA: I was just reading coincidentally in the "Economist" the other day an obituary for Idi Amin and one of his former ministers said that this act of expelling the Indians was pretty much the most popular thing that Ida Amin had ever done, I mean, it was incredibly supported and cheered on by the majority. And things really sadly have not changed that much. And just recently, a politician campaigned in Kenya on an expulsion platform; he said, look, vote for me and I'll expel the Indians.

PAUL SOLMAN: Chua's point: Globalization and democracy are exacerbating ethnic tensions. Former World Bank economist William Easterly, however, doubts it. We brought him together with Chua in Washington Square Park near New York University, where he now teaches, to explain why.

WILLIAM EASTERLY, Former World Bank Economist: Ethnic conflict is certainly a tragic reality in a lot of places, but I'm not sure that free markets and democracy make it more likely. Free markets are not a panacea; they don't work overnight, but in the long run that's the way poor countries become rich is through the combination of free markets and democracy.

AMY CHUA: If it were possible that free market and free trade policies could lift the entire country out of poverty you wouldn't have the problems I'm talking about. That has never happened.

WILLIAM EASTERLY: I think it has happened. It's happened in Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong.

AMY CHUA: And those are all countries without a market dominant ethnic minority.

WILLIAM EASTERLY: Well, Professor Chua, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. I think democracy and free markets and free trade and privatization is the best hope for these countries to become richer.

PAUL SOLMAN: Meanwhile, in places like the Philippines, free market inequality heightens resentment, Chua insists. So our last stop was a Philippine neighborhood in Queens, nestled below the elevated subway that storms its way to Manhattan. Amidst the travel agents and cocktail lounges, the remittance shops for sending money back home, we thought we might find ethnic resentment in the flesh. Rolando Katigbak, a retired Filipino accountant, was the very first person we approached.

PAUL SOLMAN: What is the attitude towards well-off Chinese people in the Philippines?

ROLANDO KATIGBAK: Well, there a sense of jealousy since these people came from another country.

PAUL SOLMAN: Amy Chua was standing to the side.

PAUL SOLMAN: She's Chinese.

ROLANDO KATIGBAK: I got to hand it to you Chinese people, you have business acumen, better than our own people.

PAUL SOLMAN: But it still makes you resent them?

ROLANDO KATIGBAK: Of course. If you. If you get rich in your own country I don't care. But our resources are being used by other people who came over... ( train rumbling )

PAUL SOLMAN: The train drowned Katigbak out. After it passed, Chua posed one final question.

AMY CHUA: But do you think the Chinese through their businesses add anything to the Philippine economy by helping create jobs or -

ROLANDO KATIGBAK: Not as much as we would expect them to.

AMY CHUA: You don feel they give back to their country enough?

ROLANDO KATIGBAK: Not enough.

PAUL SOLMAN: In a sense that exchange is at the hard of the globalization debate. If people around globe think the WTO benefits only those on top, they'll resent it. And Amy Chua adds: where those on top are an ethnic minority like hers, the resentment can become incendiary.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & SAPHIRE

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Safire. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and William Safire of the "New York Times," who will be here for these Friday night sessions while David Brooks gets his "New York Times" column properly launched.

Welcome, Bill.

The president asked this week for $87 billion, more, for Afghanistan and Iraq -- both military and reconstruction. Does it make sense to you?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: It's a lot of money. But it's less than one percent of our GNP. It's not the kind of percentage of expenditures that we had in previous wars. And it is to fight a war. And I think when you see the reaction of the opposition, the Democratic candidates, in most cases you will see grumbling, and this money could be used for all the wonderful things here, but you won't find many votes against it because I think most people believe that war is costly.

JIM LEHRER: Are you one of those people, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I'm not Jim, I think it's an enormous amount, I think it's sticker shock to the American people, sticker shock to the Congress. We're now looking at $160 billion that this war will have cost in its enforcement and its rebuilding; 65 and a half billion of it is going to go toward military operations. This was after the deputy secretary of defense told us before it would be somewhere around $10 billion to rebuild Iraq. I think it's, you know, quite the contrary, it's more than the Persian Gulf War cost, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, I mean all combined. So it's a lot of money.

JIM LEHRER: What about Bill's point that we can afford it, it's a war and it's an expenditure that we have to do it?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think what you'll see is I think you'll see for the first time, I've never seen -- Democrats have been rather docile and submissive group throughout this entire process, as energized and as angry as they are on Capitol Hill, I think you're going to see a lot more open debate, a lot more open testimony, a lot more open questioning, and demanding of answers to these policies. I don't question the last analysis the president will get it, Jim, but this isn't guns and butter, this is guns and caviar. mean, this is a president who says we're going to continue to can you taxes, and especially for the --.

JIM LEHRER: Is that what this is, guns and caviar?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: He went back to the War of 1812, which I think we under spent on and we would done a lot better if we had financed that one properly, but we shouldn't argue about that here. I think we can afford it if we're going to turn around the Middle East. That's what this whole thing is about. We've been losing for the last 50 years. And if we're going to attack the basic problems of dictatorship, tyranny, misery and poverty in the Middle East, here is our great historic opportunity. And that's what we're doing, and it's expensive. It's more expensive than we thought it would be, granted. But it's a great, great gamble and it's a gamble we have to take.

JIM LEHRER: Why do we have to take it? There's no alternative to this?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Well, the alternative is to pull out, admit defeat, allow the United States to be, to usea favorite expression, a pitiful, helpless giant, and where does that leave us? No credibility in the world with egg on our face, and with the war being fought over here instead of over there.

JIM LEHRER: How are Democrats going to counter that, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think the Democrats are going to counter it predictably. You heard John Kerry in the debate this past week say why are we opening fire houses in Baghdad and closing them in the United States of America to much applause. Let's be very --.

JIM LEHRER: As an old speech writer, Safire, you give him points for that one?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Sure, and that's the sort of thing you can hear a lot of, but when it comes down to a vote, they will vote against providing the troops where the necessary money.

MARK SHIELDS: I'm not sure that the Republicans who historically have hardly been the party of foreign aid, have hardly been the party of subsidizing infrastructure and turning on electricity and water in the back waters of the world, all of a sudden are going to become these apostles and converts to just unlimited foreign aid, which what is this is, and nation building. I think it's going to be an awkward political move for an awful lot of people involved.

JIM LEHRER: Which way, you mean -

MARK SHIELDS: I think for the Republicans, I think for the president and the president is going to have a tough time selling this. I mean, you hear more and more grumbling on the Republican side about the -

WILLIAM SAFIRE: In terms of --.

JIM LEHRER: Money -- too much money?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: In terms of foreign aid, yes, the goal posts have switched, both parties are now running against the other side. But the isolationism, which can characterize the notion of don't spend the money to finish the job, I think is not going to play. I think Americans will bite their lip and say let's go through with it.

JIM LEHRER: What about the conservative Republicans, Mark's point, where you've got taxes, you've got all kinds of rising expenditures, in other words the federal budget is going up, the federal deficit is going up, it runs counter to everything that conservative Republicans believe in -

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Well, now you're talking about taxes and spending.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: We want to hold down spending and we want to really hold down the rise in taxation. Now, I'm an old supply-sider. I believe that when the economy is in recession or in stagnation, which is what we've had after Clinton, the time has come to stimulate the economy. And the wonderful thing, Jim, is when you stimulate an economy, then profits come in, and the government gets a lot more money, revenues, from those profits, and that's what shrinks the deficit in the long run.

MARK SHIELDS: I guess that's what we need is another tax cut at this point, I'm surprised the president hasn't pushed for one. The president boasted over the fact that we'd come out of the recession in October of 2001. And what a marvelously shallow recession it was because of the president's own inspired leadership and his enlightened policies.

Here we are, you know, basically more than two years, two years later, and unemployment, I mean, we've had a job loss recovery, and I think it's a tough thing to say we really want to spend all this money overseas in a shifting rationale, Bill talks about democracy, and ridding totalitarianism from the region and all the rest of it. That hadn't been the rationale. The rationale that weapons of mass destruction under this regime posed an imminent threat to the well-being of the United States of America and its citizens.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: There were several rationales, and one of which was the Wilsonian idealism of carrying democracy into the Middle East.

MARK SHIELDS: Oh, boy.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: That was a big one, and ties to al-Qaida was another big one and weapons mass destruction was a third.

MARK SHIELDS: So one out of three is what it comes down to.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Two out of three, and we haven't found the weapons yet.

MARK SHIELDS: The al-Qaida connection, Bill, is about as flimsy as a luncheon in Prague.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Not what we're seeing now.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of President Bush, there are some Democrats who want his job. How does Dean look? Dean is the frontrunner, we've had another debate, we've had all kinds of developments today, Gephardt -- Dick Gephardt compared him, he compared Dean with Newt Gingrich, calling for reform of Medicare -

MARK SHIELDS: That's rhetorically hitting below the belt -- that really is.

JIM LEHRER: Dean replied that that's the silliest thing he'd ever heard. Where does, how does Dean look?

MARK SHIELDS: What's happening, Jim, is that Dean came out against the war early, he looked sort of lonely, and to some people brave for doing so. Now with the post-war debacle, disaster, he looks almost prophetic. And he's really captured a good foot hold in the Democratic party, he's got strong support, he's got 151,000 contributors, seven times as much as the next Democratic candidate.

JIM LEHRER: How is he doing --

MARK SHIELDS: So the others are finally realizing that somebody has got to bell this cat. It was Joe Lieberman's turn, Joe Lieberman took him on his misstatement of sort of the mantra language of Middle East politics.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: It's not our place to take sides.

MARK SHIELDS: Not to take sides, he said, and to be an honest broker is okay, but you can't take sides, you have to be even handed. So he was in trouble on that. Gephardt now, Kerry is going to take some shots at him. Each of them is trying to be the one guy against Howard Dean.

JIM LEHRER: What's your feeling about Dean right now?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: I'm a Republican. I remember George McGovern, and I'm rooting for Dean to get the Democratic nomination.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Because I think he's eminently beatable. For example, in this thing he just did with mark referred to, the change of a position that the Democrats have had for 50 years on Israel, where it's not our place to take sides. Now, immediately Nancy Pelosi came out and said it's unacceptable to take that position. And his campaign immediately put out a statement saying that was a misstatement. It's the big leagues now. He'll get hit, he'll blunder, and the press and the media, I'm for the press, I'm against the media --.

JIM LEHRER: Say that again please?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: I'm for the press.

JIM LEHRER: What that means?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: How, the role in the Constitution, freedom of the press. But media, sneaky electronic, stuff like this. So he's going to get a reexamination as the frontrunner should. And I think it may turn out he'll have a glass jaw and he'll blow.

JIM LEHRER: Do you understand why he's leading? Do you agree with Mark that his strong positions on the war brought attention to him -

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Yes, I think you're right about that -

JIM LEHRER: -- and he spoke to the Democratic constituency in a way they wanted to be spoken to?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Here's the two schools of thought. School number one is the country is polarized, 50-50, and if that's the case, the guy on the left has to rev up his troops and move left and win the nomination, and then he can win the election, and the same thing with the guy on the right. The other school of thought says there's still a swing vote, there's still a bunch of independents, 20 percent, 30 percent, in the middle. And if you do the extreme pitch for dovish, peace, liberal, or super right wing, you'll lose. Now, which school of thought are you? I still believe that there's a big swing vote in the middle.

JIM LEHRER: In other words you could get the nomination but you couldn't win the election?

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Right.

MARK SHIELDS: I would just remind Bill, it's dangerous in politics to wish for things, because I remember the Democrats in 1980 saying gee if the Republicans would nominate Howard Baker we're dead, if they nominate even George Bush we're in trouble, but if they'll only nominate that guy with the prematurely orange hair from California-- Jimmy Carter will be reelected; 44 states later Reagan is in the White House and on his way to a second term. I think Howard Dean, what he's done, it's always unnerving to those in politics; he's brought in a lot of people who haven't been involved before. I think it's just a little bit of an over simplification to say he's a lefty. I mean, this is a guy who has a gone control position which is not acceptable to most of the people in the party.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: I don't mind being called a righty.

MARK SHIELDS: No, but I don't think you can pigeon hole him to some left winger, you know.

JIM LEHRER: But the important thing, Mark, I don't know whether you did, but I wrote down what Safire said, so we'll see what happens. In other words --

WILLIAM SAFIRE: That's not fair.

JIM LEHRER: I know. You think because it's on television it goes away. We're going to go away for now, we'll see you all next Friday. And welcome, Bill.

WILLIAM SAFIRE: Thank you.

FINALLY - MAN IN BLACK

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, remembering Johnny Cash. Arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports.

JOHNNY CASH SINGING: I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down living hopeless in the

hungry side of town...

JEFFREY BROWN: Johnny Cash was the "man in black," a singer and songwriter who became a country music superstar and an American icon.

SPOKESMAN: Album of the year, Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison.

JEFFREY BROWN: In a career spanning four decades, he would win 11 Grammy awards, sell more than 50 million albums, and influence several generations of musicians. He is today the only person besides Elvis Presley to be inducted into both the country music and rock and roll halls of fame.

Born in Arkansas during the Depression, Cash learned to play the guitar while in the Air Force in the early 1950s. His first major hit, recorded in 1956 on the legendary Sun records label, was "I Walk the Line."

JOHNNY CASH SINGING: I keep a close watch on this heart of mine. I keep my eyes wide open all the time. . I keep the ends out for the tie that binds, because you're mine, I walk the line. .

JEFFREY BROWN: In his signature deep gravelly voice, he sang of working people and the downtrodden. Often of, and to, prisoners. ( Applause )

Some of his greatest mainstream success came in the late 1960s after Cash married his second wife, June Carter, of the famous country music family. They had met initially backstage at the Grand Old Opry.

JOHNNY CASH: I was 24 years old, and I introduced myself. And she had been touring with Elvis Presley and Elvis had talked about me, and she asked me if I'd get her some of my records. So I did it, I got the records right to her first thing next Saturday night. And we've been talking sweetly ever since.

JEFFREY BROWN: June wrote hit songs for her husband, including "Jackson" and "Ring of Fire," and they toured the country together.

SINGING: I'm going to Jackson, look out Jackson Town. . I'm going down to Jackson. .

JEFFREY BROWN: June, who died this May after 35 years of marriage, also helped her husband in his longtime fight against depression and drug addiction. Throughout his career, Cash recorded with many stars, including Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson. He continued to record albums in the '80s and '90s, and just last month he made new headlines and reached a new generation of fans winning an MTV award for his music video "Hurt."

JOHNNY CASH SINGING: What have I become? My sweetest friend -- everyone I know, know goes away in the end .

JEFFREY BROWN: In recent years, cash had battled a disorder of the nervous system. Johnny Cash died early this morning at a Nashville hospital from complications of diabetes. He was 71 years old.

JOHNNY CASH SINGING: I won't let you down.

JEFFREY BROWN: One of his signature songs was "Folsom Prison Blues." Here, from several periods of his career, is a clip from the documentary "Johnny Cash: the Anthology."

JOHNNY CASH SINGING: I bet there's rich folks eatin' in a fancy dining car they're probably drinkin' coffee and smokin' big cigars but I know I had it comin' -- I know I can't be free but those people keep a-movin' and that's what tortures me --well, if they freed me from this prison if that railroad train was mine, I bet I'd move out over a little farther down the line far from Folsom Prison that's where I want to stay and I'd let that lonesome whistle blow my blues away. ( Applause )

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again the other major developments of this day: U.S. troops mistakenly killed eight Iraqi policemen and a Jordanian west of Baghdad. It was the worst friendly fire incident since the end of major combat. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during a raid against Iraqi insurgents. And the U.N. Security Council voted to lift its ban on arms sales and flights to Libya. The U.S. abstained, and said its sanctions would remain in force.

JIM LEHRER: And again before we go, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. Here, in silence, are two more.

JIM LEHRER: A reminder that "Washington Week" can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.