The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight, as the U.S. prepares for a Russian summit meeting, we get three perspectives on the arms control agenda; we examine the latest crisis for U.N. peacekeepers-- this one is in Sierra Leone; our "legacy of Vietnam" series looks at a group of Southeast Asian refugees who resettled in Minnesota; and we remember a prince of the Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal John O'Connor, who died last night. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: The protest on Puerto Rico's Vieques Island ended peacefully today. Federal agents evicted more than 200 people from a U.S. Navy bombing range during a dawn raid. Some of the activists had been there for a year, demanding the site be closed for good. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman was asked whether anyone might still be hiding on the base.

VICE ADM. ROBERT NATTER, U.S. Navy: We're going to search the area as best we can. We think it's going to be very thorough. Some of it will be done on ground, a lot of it will be done from the air. The type of terrain there doesn't allow for people to live for a very long time. It's a lot of scrub brush; there is no water. It's what you carry in. There is no food. So we would anticipate somewhat did head out into the bush, they would come back looking for food and water pretty soon, and it's also pretty hot.

RAY SUAREZ: Attorney General Reno said the protesters would not be charged unless they returned to the base or assaulted federal officers. Russian President Putin signed the START II Treaty today. It calls for Russia and the U.S. to reduce stockpiles of nuclear warheads. The Russian parliament approved it last month after a seven-year deadlock. But Putin has warned he'll abandon arms control agreements if the U.S. builds a missile defense system. We'll have more on the arms control issue right after the News Summary. The United Nations pressed for the release of hostages today in Sierra Leone in West Africa. Rebels have abducted at least 69 U.N. peacekeepers and observers this week. Four others are missing and presumed dead. The peacekeepers are trying to monitor a peace accord in the civil war in the former British colony. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. The Catholic archbishop of New York, Cardinal John O'Connor, died last night. He'd had a brain tumor removed in August, and suffered complications. He was elevated to Cardinal in 1985, and strongly supported Church positions on abortion and homosexuality. At the Vatican today, a spokesman said Pope John Paul II was deeply saddened.

JOAQUIN NAVARRO-VALLS, Vatican Spokesman: Cardinal O'Connor was an extraordinary figure of the Catholic Church in the United States, an extraordinary witness to faith and human dignity. He was a faithful shepherd, always performing his priestly duties with great compassion.

RAY SUAREZ: Cardinal O'Connor was 80. His funeral will be held Monday in New York. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. This was the 30th anniversary of the Kent State University shootings. Survivors and others gathered for ceremonies on the Ohio campus. Four students were killed and nine were wounded on May 4, 1970, when National Guardsmen opened fire during a Vietnam War protest. It happened after days of demonstrations and the burning of the Army ROTC building. A computer virus dubbed the "love bug" spread worldwide today. The virus appeared in e-mails titled "I love you." When they were opened, the bug reproduced and overwhelmed computer networks. It crippled systems across Asia and Europe, and infected computers in Congress, the CIA, and the Pentagon. The FBI said it was investigating. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to arms control, U.N. peacekeeping in Africa, the Laotians of Minnesota, and remembering Cardinal O'Connor.

FOCUS - ARMS CONTROL

RAY SUAREZ: The U.S. and Russia talk arms control again. We start with some background from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: The last few weeks have been a busy time for American and Russian diplomats, as they prepare for next month's summit in Moscow between President Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And the top item on their agenda will be an old standby from Cold War days, arms control. The administration is working to persuade Russia to agree to changes to the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty that would allow the United States to deploy an antimissile defense system in this country. The ABM. Treaty prohibits a national missile defense system that is capable of shooting down incoming missiles. But despite meetings last week between Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, the two sides had differences.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: We've had much to talk about in these past two days, and although we don't agree on all the issues, as I told the foreign minister, this is only to be expected; after all, we can't both be right all the time.

IGOR IVANOV, Foreign Minister, Russia: (Translated) Webelieve, and it has been stressed at the highest level, that the ABM. Treaty of 1972 should remain a cornerstone of the strategic stability and the basis for strategic stability in the world.

KWAME HOLMAN: The American plan now on the drawing board is much less ambitious than the so-called "star wars" system proposed in 1983 by President Reagan to stop a massive missile assault from the Soviet Union. Within the next three months, President Clinton is expected to decide if the U.S. should go ahead with the system aimed at stopping a small number of missiles launched from such countries as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Also on the U.S.-Russian agenda is a new treaty to reduce further both nations' nuclear arsenals. Last month, the Russian Duma ratified both the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which was rejected last year by the U.S. Senate, and a strategic arms reduction treaty with the U.S. called START II. That pact calls on each country to reduce its deployed nuclear weapons from 6,000 to between 3,000 and 3,500. START II would take those totals even lower.

SPOKESMAN: The President of the Russian federation and the President of the United States.

KWAME HOLMAN: When Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin met in Helsinki three years ago, they agreed START III should reduce each side's deployed nuclear weapons to between 2,000 and 2,500. Now there are reports Russia wants to go even lower. But last week, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, North Carolina Republican Jesse Helms, declared the Senate would not consider any arms treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration.

SEN. JESSE HELMS, (R) North Carolina: Not on my watch, Mr. President. Not on my watch, it's not going to happen.

KWAME HOLMAN: It was the next day when Albright offered this response.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: As far as what was said yesterday from the Hill, I believe that the American people support a policy that seeks to both further reduce nuclear dangers left over from the Cold War and to address new threats. And we're going to continue to pursue this policy in the months ahead.

KWAME HOLMAN: But the Russian government upped the ante, saying it would not go ahead with START II reductions if the U.S. pushes forward on a national missile defense system.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on U.S.-Russia arms control, we get three perspectives. Edward Warner is Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction, and is the pentagon's senior representative to the arms control talks with Russia. Stephen Cambone is Director of Research at National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, and was staff director of the commission to assess the ballistic missile threat. And Bruce Blair is the President of the Center for Defense Information, and was a nuclear missile launch officer in the early 1970's.

Assistant Secretary Warner, let's start with you. Now that Russia is fully ratified and the United States is signed up and fully ratified, what does START II oblige both powers to do?

EDWARD WARNER, Assistant Secretary of Defense: Well, first I must say that because there was a change to the START II Treaty that was negotiated in 1997, the two ratifications aren't quite in sync, so there still is a piece of an agreement to needs to go before the Senate. When START II comes into effect, it calls for a reduction down to 3,000 to 3500 total strategic warheads. It has a ban on all land-based multiple warhead intercontinental range ballistic missiles and a series of other sub ceilings. It will bring the forces down from START I levels that are up around 6,000 weapons, to the 3,000 to 3500.

RAY SUAREZ: And START III talks are in the air, and people are talking about what they may bring. Aren't the Russians looking for a much lower eventually total of deployable warheads than the United States is?

EDWARD WARNER: The two Presidents, President Clinton and President Yeltsin, agreed at Helsinki in 1997, that once START II is ratified they would move onto negotiate START III. The agreed ceiling to be sought at that time was 2,000 to 2500, down 1,000 from the START II level. By the way, the START II level wouldn't be implemented at this point until 2007. So we've still got some years. Yes, the Russians within six months began to talk about a somewhat lower level, as low as 1500, versus the 2500. We continue to believe, we did detailed analysis on the accept ability of the 2000 to 2500 at that time back in '97. We continued to look at those issues. We believe that the basis for at least the ongoing negotiations, there's now discussions, nearly negotiations, is still the number agreed at Helsinki, but we're prepared to hear out the Russians on their ideas for going lower.

RAY SUAREZ: Stephen Cambone, should we meet the Russian desire to lower those thresholds even further than previously planned?

STEPHEN CAMBONE, National Defense University: To reach a START III levels, you mean. I don't think so at this point. I think, as Ted has pointed out, we did do a careful look at the numbers of 2,000, 2500. We're certain that the numbers of warheads at that limit will meet our defensive requirements. And we understand that the Russians would like to see a lower number, mostly for economic reasons. But if they can live at 1500 and they can understand that our requirements are met at 2500, I think that's a reasonable situation. And we don't need to go down to lower numbers.

RAY SUAREZ: Bruce Blair, should we catch the spirit of the moment and try to meet the Russians' eventual totals?

BRUCE BLAIR, Center for Defense Information: Absolutely. I think that the numbers that they are bandying about of 1500 strategic warheads are none too low for the United States. I think the President can step up to this issue and proclaim that mutual deterrence and stability does not require the ability to launch 2,000 or 3,000 nuclear weapons at one another, and that we can and should continue the process of further reductions of nuclear weapons if for no other reason than to send the right message to the rest of the world, and to the 180 odd countries meeting in New York right now that we are serious about disarmament, and wish to see a successful extension of the nonproliferation treaty.

RAY SUAREZ: Can START II be implemented and can we start talking about START III, while on this separate track looms the issue of anti-ballistic missile systems?

BRUCE BLAIR: Well, we've painted ourselves into yet another corner on nuclear arms control. The Russians, as Secretary Warner pointed out, insist that the U.S. Senate ratify a number of protocols that were negotiated with the Clinton administration in 1997. And among those are protocols that essentially preserve the A B M Treaty. They also say that before START II will go into effect, that we have to have a START III Treaty negotiated, that is they will not deactivate weapons under START II until START III is more or less in the bag. At the same time, the Clinton administration says we won't negotiate a final deal on START III until the Russians have agreed to yet new amendments or revisions of the AB M Treaty to allow us to go forward with national missile defense. And of course, then the Republican Senate says nyet, no to all of the above, a pox on all your houses, they want to jettison the ABM Treaty. So we've put in jeopardy really the whole network of arms control treaties, the start regime, anti-ballistic missile treaty, any number of other treaties, according to Putin are in jeopardy, along with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. So the outcome of this diplomacy on national missile defense, this negotiation with the Russians, will be extremely consequential for American security.

RAY SUAREZ: Secretary Warner, does the ABM proposal put START in jeopardy?

EDWARD WARNER: There is no doubt that at this point there is a close inter linkage between the issue of the potential modification of the ABM Treaty and arms reductions. In some sense that's been the case from the very beginning. The original SALT agreements in the late 60's, early 70's, were the first SALT agreement and the ABM Treaty. So offense and defense are connected to one another. We want to modify the ABM Treaty because there is an emerging threat from the likes of North Korea and Iran with long range missiles coupled with weapons of mass destruction that will over the coming few years be able to threaten the United States territory. We ought to have the capability to protect the American people and the American homeland. The ABM Treaty of 1972, between Russia and the United States, then the Soviet Union of course, does permit limited defenses. The Russians have a limited defense system around Moscow. Now their system given 70's technology is a limited regional defense. We would propose a defense that is very thin in its ability too shoot down incoming enemy weapons. But it would cover all 50 states. So there is no doubt that the proposal we have represents a departure from the treaty as signed and agreed way back in the 70's. We need to be able to proceed to field that defense. There is strong consensus for that on the Hill, there's consensus among the major Presidential candidates on this issue and so forth. The Russians so far would certainly prefer that we stick with the current ABM Treaty and not be permitted to field the defense. Wee been in intensive discussions with them since last fall to try to convince them that we can move in tandem to deploy a limited national missile defense, sustain the main purpose of the treaty, which bans the deployment of an extensive defense that could threaten either side's nuclear deterrent. This thin defense won't do that. And we could move on from START II to START III. The two need to move in parallel at this point. We should be able to do so. We've sought to convince the Russians of this. So far they have not, as you saw from Foreign Minister Ivanov a few moments ago, we believe as they come to realize, that limited national missile defense is very likely to be in the American future, that they will come to decide that it's worthwhile to preserve the fundamental purposes of the ABM Treaty by in fact modifying.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Steven Cambone, where does that leave arms reduction talks?

STEPHEN CAMBONE: Well, I think it will depend on whether the Russians indeed do come to the conclusion that missile defense is going to go forward. There is some history here that we ought to remember and recall. In 1993, when START II was originally negotiated, the preamble to that treaty said that it was being done in cognizance of, in recognition of that we had an ongoing discussion then in 1993 with the Russians for a much broader system of defense than we were even proposing today. So the Russians have known that this process has been going forward for quite some time. So, that's one. Two, the agreement that was reached in '97 that is the subject now of discussion, has two parts to it really. One part has to do with theater missile defenses, let's leave that to the side for the moment. The other part is succession, that is, that there is that there now be four signatories to the treaty other than the United States. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

RAY SUAREZ: All former members of the Soviet Union.

STEPHEN CAMBONE: Now the Russians have attached to their ratification of START II the requirement that that succession agreement be in turn ratified by the United States Senate. It is that maneuver, if you will, that Senator Helms is objecting to.

RAY SUAREZ: Leaving the United States to negotiate with four foreign powers instead of one.

STEPHEN CAMBONE: Four, rather than one. And so then the question becomes, how can we get to a reasonable defense if the prior requirement is that we have to negotiate now with four and not just one? So the Senate is reacting and saying wait, slow down, let make sure we understand what we're going to do with defenses and how we're going to get there, and having made that set of decisions, we can reasonably move to the next question, which is moving beyond 2000 to 2500 number which in fact was agreed as well in 1997. So the package has been reopened not by Washington, but by Moscow.

BRUCE BLAIR: Well, Moscow does feel threatened by this proposal for deployment of national missile defense. And I think it's really important to understand that it will provoke reactions by Russia and China that could very well increase the net nuclear threat to the United States -- for example, in particular, by reinforcing Russia's reliance on nuclear weapons and on their strategy of prompt, early, massive use of nuclear weapons in the face of threat.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me get a quick response to that idea from Secretary Warner, that would push Russia to produce more warheads, not fewer.

EDWARD WARNER: Two things happened with Russia in the 90'S. As Russia's conventional forces collapse, there's no doubt within their doctrine and their general policies they are more prepared to use nuclear weapons if they are faced with grave threats to their security. But that's because conventional weapons are down. On the other issue, the Russians, I think in the last analysis, will agree to reductions in strategic offensive arms, and the lowering, and the modification of the AMB Treaty. They're going to lower it due to economic necessity, the end of service life in many of their systems, under any condition.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you all. Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, U. N. peacekeepers under attack in Africa....

FOCUS - PEACEKEEPING CRISIS

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, U.N. Peacekeepers under attack in Africa, the Laos legacy from the Vietnam War, and the death of Cardinal O'Connor.

RAY SUAREZ: Spencer Michels begins our coverage of the U.N. peacekeepers.

SPENCER MICHELS: United Nations peacekeeping forces are again caught in the crossfire of civil war, this time in the small west African nation of Sierra Leone. The U.N. said today that four peacekeepers, reportedly all Kenyans, are missing and presumed dead, and another eight are wounded, in fighting with forces of the revolutionary united front, the RUF, the principal rebel group in Sierra Leone. The country, with 4.5 million people, is a former British protectorate bordering Liberia and Guinea that gained independence in 1961. Its people are mostly subsistence farmers. This week, 69 U.N. peacekeepers trying to implement a peace agreement signed last July were captured by the rebels. A 23-member Indian detachment is reported surrounded by rebels in the east, and the U.N. command has lost contact with other units. The peace accord was designed to end a bloody eight-year-long civil war that left tens of thousands dead and thousands of others maimed, bearing the brutal signature of the rebels: Amputated hands and arms. The killings and abductions were swiftly denounced by United Nations officials.

MARIE OKABE, United Nations Spokesperson: The secretary-general expresses his outrage at the continuing deliberate attacks on U.N. personnel in Sierra Leone by armed groups and individuals belonging to the revolutionary united front.

SPENCER MICHELS: The attack was the worst on U.N. peacekeepers since ten Belgians were slaughtered trying to end the genocidal civil war in the central African nation of Rwanda in 1994. The previous year, 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were killed in Somalia. Some 8,500 troops, mostly from Africa and India, were deployed in April by the United Nations to begin disarming the rebels. The final force is to number 11,000, the largest peacekeeping contingent in the world. But getting the troops has been difficult. No American forces are to be involved on the ground. The U.N.-brokered peace deal, known as the Lome Accord, sparked controversy by giving some government power to the rebels. The agreement also granted blanket amnesty to all rebels, though war crimes prosecutions could take place. Rebel leader Fadoy Sankoh, who became a government minister by virtue of the peace agreement, and controls the country's major revenue stream, its rich diamond mines, agreed late Wednesday to free any hostages held by his forces. Peacekeepers had earlier surrounded his compound the capital of Freetown. Sankoh, who has made similar promises in the past, received a stern warning today from the U.S. State Department.

RICHARD BOUCHER, State Department Spokesman: The international community in the Lome agreement provided Mr. Sankoh with a second chance for legitimacy and a chance to participate with the international community in peace in Sierra Leone. But his actions of violence and noncompliance risk losing that second chance.

SPENCER MICHELS: Meanwhile, the United Nations has made an emergency request for 3,000 additional troops, and the Clinton administration is considering ways to give the U.N. force more punch.

RAY SUAREZ: Margaret Warner takes the story from there.

MARGARET WARNER: For more, we are joined by Ibrahim Kamara, Sierra Leone's ambassador to the United Nations; and Colum Lynch, the U.N. correspondent for the "Washington Post." Welcome, gentlemen.

First of all, Mr. Lynch, are there any updates on either the number dead or missing or the status of these captives?

COLUM LYNCH, Washington Post: Yes. The latest update is the situation is very fluid, and I think they're getting a lot of very confused and conflicted information. But the last reports of the number of dead is actually less than the u. N. Thought yesterday. So there were four Kenyan peacekeepers who were missing and presumed dead.

MARGARET WARNER: And actually before you sat down I think we did report that. But for instance, do they know exactly where these missing and captive peacekeepers are?

COLUM LYNCH: They know the general parts of the country. But , I mean, even in the case with the four dead, they haven't recoveredthe bodies. There is a series of cities and towns around Sierra Leone, there's one town, Makeni, and another Kailahun and a third, Magburaka and that's where the main exchanges have taken place over the last couple days.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Ambassador, tell us more about Foday Sankoh. We did identify him a little bit in our setup piece. Are you convinced he's behind this, and if so, why?

IBRAHIM KAMARA, U.N. Ambassador, Sierra Leone: Well, Foday Sankoh, definitely there is no denying that he's behind this. And everybody knows this. The United Nations knows this that he is behind all this new outbreak. His people are the ones. What he does is he goes out and tells the international community, or when he's faced with the cameras, the media, he tells his fighters, and when the observers leave, he tells them something completely different. He's not a man of peace. The people know it, the U. N. knows this, the international community knows that this man is not a man of peace.

MARGARET WARNER: But what do you think is his motive for doing this?

IBRAHIM KAMARA: Well, his motive is to rule Sierra Leone by whatever means.

MARGARET WARNER: To rule Sierra Leone.

IBRAHIM KAMARA: By whatever means, yes. But that will be against the wish of the people.

MARGARET WARNER: But explain the situation. Here he is a former rebel leader, he's now in your government, he has the rank of vice president, he's head of this ministry of mines. Yet he still has control over rebel forces.

IBRAHIM KAMARA: Well, exactly that is the most baffling aspect of all this. I mean, the man, well not force really but for peace the president had to bow down to pressure to negotiate a peace agreement with a murderer and a man whom the international community is considered to be the worst killer now alive on this planet. We bow down to some pressures and we negotiated with them in good faith. We signed the general accord, which he himself signed. And even though under some amount of discomfort for us, because some of the closest in the Lome agreement, we did not agree to. But we decided because we wanted this for the country and for our people. We didn't want to do anything that the international community will object to we agreed. And that is it. The ball now is in the court of the international community - there are more to this agreement - to the Lome agreement - and we are only waiting to see, because not a small man like Foday Sankoh cannot hold the world to ransom.

MARGARET WARNER: Colum Lynch, before we go on to what has to be done, what would you add to what U. N. officials believe is the motive behind this? For instance, there have been published reports that this rebel leader's forces control the diamond producing areas in the East, that he's got a lucrative smuggling business. Do U. N. officials give credence to that, that he doesn't want the U.N. peacekeepers interfering with that?

COLUM LYNCH: Yes. There have been exchanges over access to the diamond areas, and I think he is reluctant to allow U. N. access to that area. But there's another thing happening which is that you're in a transitional mode right now. A Nigerian led force was in the country for several years acting in a similar role that the U N. is playing now. So during this transition it looks like Sankoh is trying to test the will of the United Nations.

IBRAHIM KAMARA: Absolutely.

COLUM LYNCH: It's not clear whether he wants to cause trouble for them or just show them he's the guy who runs things or whether he wants to draw them out. But in terms of sort of the motive for the latestround of fighting, there was one instance that bears looking at, there was a case on Monday in which a number of Foday Sankoh's forces are obliged under the peace agreement to turn over their weapon to the U. N., and it turns out that there were about ten of his forces who actually decided to do that, and they received a bit of money in exchange. However, they had not gotten the authority to do that from their own authorities, from what seems to be a continuing military force that has considerable control over their actions. And so they went to this disarmament camp and they basically demanded the release of these ten soldiers who they consider deserters. And they went in there and brought, destroyed the camp, started kidnapping U. N. personnel, and later in the day began in some sort of very bloody exchanges with Kenyan peacekeepers there.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Colum Lynch, what are both the rules of engagement for these peacekeepers, and to what degree are they armed? Are they this vulnerable or are they able to defend themselves?

COLUM LYNCH: The rules of engagement, as in many of these peacekeeping operations, is rather vague. They do have quite robust rules of engagement. But they can use all force necessary to respond to an attack by soldiers or even to force their way throughout the country. Under the agreement the U.N. should be able to go anywhere it wants and it can use force to make sure that it can do that. However, there is a feeling that many of the troops that are in Sierra Leone do not have the kind of equipment that one would, you know, one would sort of expect from sort of a modern western military. So it's a bit rough going when they engage these guys, and quite often they're outnumbered by the rough troops.

MARGARET WARNER: So Mr. Ambassador, what is it you want to see the U. N. do now?

IBRAHIM KAMARA: Well, the U. N. is in Sierra Leone with a mandate; we only want them to go by the mandate that they have. And to be able to implement that mandate, as Colum just said now, they need to have the equipment, the proper equipment to carry out this mandate. We told them from the beginning, the issue that Sankoh will test their resolve, Sankoh has not done it. We told them if he leaves, this man will try to test you. And we even told him that this man is dangerous when the Guineans on their way to join UNAMSIL were disarmed.

MARGARET WARNER: But let me ask you one other thing -- Concerning this, the U. N., for instance, has asked for more reinforcements, as we just reported. But do you think that given what's happened they're even going to get reinforcements from member nations?

IBRAHIM KAMARA: If they are properly equipped, as Colum said just now, they have the proper equipment, let me tell you something. For what we knew, those who have armed some of these boys, some of them ten in number, and these people have a mandate to carry out. All we're asking that the mandate which they have, when people perform peacekeeping duties, they go with a specific mandate, not only to protect themselves, but to protect civilians, and U. N. personnel, and people - I mean -- civilians in imminent danger and nongovernmental organization and to open up the country. This is their mandate. This is what we expect them to carry.

MARGARET WARNER: What are you hearing, Colum Lynch, about what the U. N. is prepared to do here? Is it going to take robust military force, is there the will to do that?

COLUM LYNCH: I think yesterday morning I think there was a sense of panic that something had to be done dramatically immediately. There were requests by the secretary- general to European capitals to London and Paris in particular, to go to provide more logistic support for rapid reaction force -- but also to consider actually providing European troops to participate in this operation. The British government, Foreign Minister Cook today ruled that out, he ruled out the deployment of British troops. However, he said he would provide some material support. The United States is currently mulling whether to send airlift capacity communications and that sort of thing for a rapid reaction force on the ground that would be run primarily by Indians and Gerkas, but that would be designed to deter these future attacks. As I said, there was more enthusiasm for some of these tougher morrow bust responses yesterday than I think there is today.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, we'll have to leave it there. But thank you both very much.

COLUM LYNCH: Thank you very much.

IBRAHIM KAMARA: Thank you very much.

SERIES - LEGACY

RAY SUAREZ: Another of our reports on the legacy of the Vietnam War, 25 years after the American withdrawal. Tonight, we have the story of a group from Vietnam's neighbor, Laos. The Hmong fought for the United States and are now trying to make their way in this country. Correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro of Twin Cities Public Television in Minnesota has our report.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For a few days each November, an arena best known for Minnesota's famous high school hockey league has become the site for a new tradition, called the Hmong new year.

(Singing in Hmong)

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The twin cities are home to the largest Hmong population in North America, about 60,000 people. They began arriving from Laos and Thai refugee camps in the late 70's, initially placed here by local church-based refugee relief groups. And while this community has plenty to celebrate, social workers and educators say it's been a struggle. Of all the Southeast Asian refugees who fled for the U.S., none was more reluctant or less prepared than the Hmong. Hmong music, artwork, and ceremonies depict an agrarian people who fled once, a century before, from China to almost total isolation in the hills of Laos. Until the mid-20th century, the Hmong did not have a written language or a currency.

SPOKESMAN: There is money now. Soldiers are paid about ten dollars a month. A road is started toward the south.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which made this film about the Hmong, also brought them into the political mainstream by recruiting them to fight the communist Pathet Lao. 70-year-old Chong Neng Vang is one of thousands of Hmong men who put down their sickles and took up U.S.-provided arms for a grueling, costly guerrilla war.

CHONG NENG VANG: (Translated) We were living in peace and did not want any part of the war, but we were being captured by the communists, and tortured. We were fighting to keep our way of life.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: After 16 years as a soldier, in which he saw four brothers die, Vang has little more to show than a body mangled by shrapnel and bullet wounds. Even though he came to the U.S. in 1981, he has still not adjusted to a culture he does not fully understand, in which his own way of life is not understood.

CHONG NENG VANG: (Translated) I do not speak the language, so that has been difficult. I do not own my own home. We have to rely on our government Social Security check. In Laos, we were able to perform our rituals without embarrassment, without worrying about neighbors. Here there is no space to perform animal sacrifices. Our rituals are not accepted here.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Those rituals are integral to Hmong religious customs and practices, which are unique and not influenced by other major Asian religions. Funerals can last anywhere from four to seven days. A pig is sacrificed as guests partake of a sumptuous meal. A chicken is also sacrificed, and used to convey the departed spirit to the afterlife.

XAO VANG: The chicken is the most important thing of the dead person because the chicken can fly and can make a noise to let people in heaven know that she is coming.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But it is perhaps language skills that have most handicapped many in the Hmong community. Chong Neng Vang's son Ce, who was in his early 20's when he arrived, says he still feels handicapped by his limited English and by his inability to provide for his wife and nine children.

CE VANG: (Translated) In Laos, we had a lot of children because you needed them as helpers. Here, having more children is more costly.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Costly and constant reminders of what the parents don't know about American life, reminders most evident when the kids reach school age. Mee Moua is a community activist who came to the U.S. from a Thai refugee camp when she was six.

MEE MOUA, Attorney/Activist: For you and me, our children go to school and they come home at the end of the day, I know that I have to set aside a certain amount of time to do homework and a certain amount of time for television watching, and then at a certain time they go to bed. These are everyday routines that we take for granted. My parents never had that.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Moua says parents frequently don't know how to prepare their kids for school, and many cannot understand what their children are learning. Even today, some schools are unable to provide interpreters for parents, and are forced to use children to translate from teacher to parent during conferences. This undermining of traditional parental authority is blamed for a high occurrence of depression, even suicide among elders, and in part for teen delinquency and gang activity.

MEE MOUA: And so because that has been set up, you give an opportunity for the kid to become the parent, to learn so much more than what the parents know, and you're just sort of giving them more opportunities to... I guess to break away from, you know, the parents' authority. And that's, I think, the crux of what's making life really hard here for Hmong families.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But for all the problems within the Hmong community, things are improving. Unemployment, for example, is down from 60% earlier this decade to about 45% now. And there are some real successes, like Mee Moua, who is a lawyer with a prestigious Minnesota firm.

MEE MOUA: We are really no longer refugees. Many, many people are working individuals, they're business owners in this community. We have well over 800 Hmong businesses in the twin cities alone. I'm a member of the Hmong Bar Association.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But to achieve that success, Mee Moua, like a growing number of Hmong women, broke with one tradition: That's marriage and motherhood in their early teens. Moua married at 29, and recently became a new mother at 30. Moua is optimistic for her son Chase's generation, which she says will benefit more fully from the education system, even if many of their parents haven't. Ce Vang and his wife, Cher Xiong, placed their children in a new charter school that emphasizes a strongly disciplined core-knowledge curriculum.

CE VANG: (Translated) I like the discipline, the fact that they wear uniforms. They seem to look out for the overall well-being of the children.

CHILDREN: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

FRANKLIN SONN: The New Spirit School was founded in 1998, and although not targeted or even located in the community, quickly filled up with Hmong kids. They now account for 85% of the enrollment.

TEACHER: Everyone say, "lifeguard."

CHILDREN: Lifeguard.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: School officials say Hmong parents were attracted by the promise of more parent involvement in school affairs. English-as-a-second-language teacher Allison Stone says parents are deeply concerned, but often limited in how much help they can offer from home.

ALLISON STONE, Teacher: Their culture is very oral, which kind of translates in a school setting that kids are able to learn the language and they're able to speak and to understand much sooner than they're able to read and write. And I think that's especially the support that's lacking at home is their reading and writing.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: However Stone says Hmong parents are able to team with teachers in instilling a learning discipline, and school director Michael Ricci says the kids have many more Hmong role models.

MICHAEL RICCI, New Spirit Charter School: They have now their own professionals in this community-- lawyers and doctors and dentists-- not unlike any other immigrant group that came here 100, 150 years ago had to start with the very basic professions before they became educated into the higher professions.

(Speaking Hmong)

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And those now in the professions, like Mee Moua, have helped bring considerable political savvy to the Hmong community. They are lobbying Congress for an exemption to the English language requirement for the U.S. citizenship test. And in Minnesota, they won a loud public battle with a popular radio station over controversial broadcasts they deemed offensive.

ANNOUNCER: It was not our intention to offend the Hmong community. We are sorry for stating that Hmong should either assimilate or hit the road. Hmong are deserving of our fullest respect.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: That issue of respect continues to torment the community's elders, like Chong Neng Vang, men who lost the land they fought for, and lack the tools to cope in their new home.

CHONG NENG VANG: (Translated) The U.S. Government, the C.I.A. initiated the contact with us. They began this relationship. Now it seems like we're left out to dry. I was a soldier, and I would like to be treated like a soldier, with a veteran's pension.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For now, Vang's generation of old Hmong soldiers will more likely depend on their children, at least for respect as elders, as they celebrate the old traditions and the new achievements of an emerging Hmong American community.

RAY SUAREZ: The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill earlier this week making it easier for Hmong to obtain American citizenship. The bill awaits Senate action.

FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

RAY SUAREZ: Finally tonight, remembering Cardinal John O'Connor. Elizabeth Farnsworth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: John O'Connor was tapped by Pope John Paul II to be archbishop of New York in 1984. Less than a year later, he was elevated to Cardinal. As pastor for New York's more- than two million Catholics, he adhered to traditional teachings and values, never fearing controversy or confrontation. He defended a celibate male priesthood and opposed the death penalty, contraception, and abortion. Soon after coming to New York, he publicly admonished prominent politicians for their abortion rights stands.

CARDINAL JOHN O'CONNOR, Archbishop of New York: (1984) I do not see how a Catholic in conscience could vote for an individual explicitly expressing himself or herself as favoring abortion.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: O'Connor also clashed with New York's homosexual community, banning gays and lesbians from the city's St. Patrick's Day parade. The Cardinal grew up in a working-class family of Irish immigrants, and was an advocate for workers. Ordained in 1945, O'Connor spent 27 years in the navy serving as a chaplain during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. From his New York base, he traveled and got involved in international politics. His 1987 trip to Israel helped set the framework for establishment of diplomatic relations between the Jewish state and the Vatican six years later. Known for his charm, wit, and self-deprecating style, Cardinal O'Connor enjoyed engaging with the press and speaking his mind no matter how bluntly.

CARDLINAL JOHN O'CONNOR: (1985) We can always formulate responses more accurately, perhaps more gently, more delicately. But the more fundamental question -- can I recall an instance when I have misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church? And I don't think that I have.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: With his health declining, O'Connor made one last trip to the Vatican in February, where according to his secretary, he expressed his gratitude to the Pope and told him good-bye. In a statement today, the Pontiff expressed his sorrow, saying O'Connor was a deeply spiritual man, a warm and zealous pastor, an effective teacher of the faith, and a vigorous defender of human life.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And for more, we're joined by Monsignor Philip Murnion, director of the National Pastoral Life Center, an education and research organization for American Catholic Churches. He is also a priest of the archdiocese of New York; and Scott Appleby, professor of history and director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at Notre Dame.

Monsignor Murnion, this is a man hard to pigeonhole, very traditional in some matter and liberal on others, like capital punishment and labor issues. How do you explain that?

MONSIGNOR PHILIP MURNION, National Pastoral Life Center: Well, I think as I said to him one time, I said, you're not conservative, you're traditional -- meaning you're not doctrinaire of some whole philosophy of life, but you come to the real Church as a real anchor, and for the life of the Church. And so the positions he held had a certain consistency to them that wasn't so surprising to people within the Catholic community, but often looked like it was contradictory to the larger community because some of those issues divide the American population and the American electorate.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Scott Appleby, given those divisions in the American population and electorate, how influential was the Cardinal?

SCOTT APPLEBY, University of Notre Dame: I think he was very influential, in terms of setting forth an image of an American archbishop who was very much in the mold of Pope John Paul II. In that sense he was something of a throwback to the age when a bishop came forward, spoke the teaching of the Church in an unambiguous and sometimes unnuanced way even, very strongly, this is what the Church teaches. I think a lot of Americans, certainly New Yorkers and beyond that, respected someone speaking from that firm principle, even though many people would disagree with one or another part of the package. That as Monsignor Murnion see is kind of consistent for Catholics, but on has other people scratching their heads.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Monsignor Murnion, d you agree with that? And what were the other sources of his influence, is it that he was in New York, is that part of it?

MONSIGNOR PHILIP MURNION: Certainly that's the case. As the New York Times recently doing an article on Governor Bush's letter to Cardinal O'Connor to apologize to Catholics declared that the archbishop of New York is the de facto head of the American Catholic Church, the archbishop of New York has always been a central place for the Catholic Church within the Church itself and certainly within the media. The fact that it's a media capital helps to make the position of the archbishop of New York a figure that is to be reckoned with throughout the country. So it is partly the position, and it's also partly the man -- a man who relished being in that position, relished the opportunity to be able to speak to the entire country through the media, and waded into that with great gusto.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What was he like as a person? You worked with him.

MONSIGNOR PHILIP MURNION: Well, he was a man who really sort of didn't just take the position of the archbishop of New York, he became the archbishop of New York. I mean, the person of John O'Connor was the person we all saw. That position and that responsibility occupied every corner of his life. He could be quite demanding on those who worked with him because he was very demanding on himself. He slept very few hours in the course of a day, maybe four hours a night, and expected a similar kind of commitment and competence from those around him -- could be anxious to try to apologize if he was too harsh perhaps with an associate, but through himself totally into the position, into the responsibility, and looked for some similar kind of commitment from others around him.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I read that he was very impulsive and I read that in some of the priests of New York see his motto was ready, fire, aim. Did you ever hear that?

MONSIGNOR PHILIP MURNION: Actually, he talked about being impulsive himself one time, when I was in a gathering of priests with him, how sometimes he just says things without much prior thought. The example he gave us was at that the pulpit of St. Patrick's Cathedral on St. Patrick's day one year, when he was urging the congregation to try to support the efforts toward peace, he thought to himself right in the middle of his homily that he should do something himself, so just announced that there would be a pilgrimage in Northern Ireland, without any prior planning or consideration. And suddenly after that mass his staff had to scramble to figure out how to put together such a pilgrimage.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Scott Appleby, he left out some Catholics, didn't he, especially homosexuals? Explain that.

SCOTT APPLEBY: Well, in keeping with the teaching of the Church, he was opposed to homosexual acts, and yet he tried to have compassion for individuals that doesn't always play, frankly, among people who felt the Church was not fully accepting of homosexuals. And so because his teaching style was so straight forward and at times combative, he did alienate people, not just homosexuals, but feminists within the Church, because he was fairly clear and direct about kind of the hard edges of the Church's teaching. Although as a pastor I think he grew over the course of his leadership of the Church in New York, and it was important to him to be seen to have that compassionate side of his personality, and certainly the compassionate face of the Church be front and center, because he believed in the dignity of all human people. And the positions on abortion and on other issues having to do with sexual morality, are very much part and parcel of the Church's teaching on the dignity of life, its sanctity, and so he had to kind of tow a hard line for those, while showing dignity and love for people. But you're right; not everyone accepted that package.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Monsignor Murnion, what do you think is his major legacy for Catholic thought, briefly, and then for Catholic practice?

MONSIGNOR PHILIP MURNION: Well, I think as Scott Appleby was saying, he was inherently a bishop of the Church and was very careful about fulfilling that responsibility. But he became such a pastor to the city, relating to almost every part of the city's population, from the very beginning - I mean -- in his first year he left the diocese to go to Puerto Rico to learn Spanish so he could communicate better with the Spanish community. But whether it was the African-American community or it was the Jewish community, or it was the policemen or it was the firefighters, there was almost no segment of this population that he didn't feel a personal responsibility for. So he made the Church very much a part of the whole life of the city, the labor unions as well. So I think it's that kind of legacy that his successor can build upon , that there is a sense in which the Church is not isolated. It's deeply woven into the fabric of this city.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Professor Appleby, what do you think, briefly, his major legacy will be?

SCOTT APPLEBY: His legacy was to preserve the Catholic Church's public presence, and its strong witness to Catholic teaching at a time in New York and in the nation when the Church could have begun to be ignored. O'Connor assumed that people still wanted to hear what the Catholic Church had to say on a variety of public issues, and that assumption and his work on it really made it true. He's continued to be covered widely and the teaching of Church was covered widely as a result. And that wasn't a done deal, given the late 20th Century , that the Church would continue on the a prominent public voice in culture and society.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you both very much for being with us.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: The protest on Puerto Rico's Vieques Island ended peacefully. Federal agents evicted more than 200 people from a U.S. Navy bombing range. And Russian President Putin signed the START II Treaty; it calls for Russia and the U.S. to reduce stockpiles of nuclear warheads. We'll see you on line and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks and good night.