The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, U.S. hostage Joseph Cicippio was freed in Lebanon and Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for independence from the Soviet Union. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we look at the independence vote in the Ukraine with a State Department official and three others. Then Art Hackett reports from Milwaukee on school choice, and Jim Fisher launches a series of essays marking the 50th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: American hostage Joseph Cicippio was released by his captors in Lebanon today. A short time ago Cicippio arrived at Rheinmine Air Base in Germany. He's expected to spend several days at a nearby Air Force hospital for debriefings in medical examinations. The 61-year-old accountant worked for Beirut's American University when he was kidnapped more than five years ago. After his release, he was handed over to U.S. officials at Syria's foreign ministry in Damascus, where he spoke to reporters before leaving for Germany.

MR. CICIPPIO: I've been five years without any newspapers, television, magazines, and what have you, what news has been out there for the last five years, so I have to learn everything over again. And I've been moved about 20 different times in the last five years and I also had an operation in the last two months, which they rushed me to the hospital for. So I'm happy about that, or I may not have been here this day. So I'm happy to see all you. Thank you all for coming today.

MR. MacNeil: Cicippio said he'd not seen either of the two remaining American hostages, Alann Steen and Terry Anderson, but he said his Lebanese captors had told him all the Western hostages would be released by the end of this year. The U.S. paid Iran $260 million in compensation today. The money is for weapons bought by Iran but impounded by the U.S. in 1979. That happened after Iran took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran during the country's Islamic revolution. A conflict over visas was resolved today, thus clearing the way for the Palestinian delegation to attend Wednesday's Middle East peace talks in Washington. The visas were for seven advisers to the delegation. But a key aide to Israeli Prime Minister Shamir said Israel won't be there on Wednesday. He said Israeli negotiators would not go to Washington for at least a week. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The Ukraine has become the latest Soviet republic to break with the central government. Voters overwhelmingly approved independence in a referendum yesterday. The republic is the second most populace after Russia. Its former Communist leader said today the Soviet Union has disintegrated, an independent Ukraine is born. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the United States would move toward recognizing an independent Ukraine. He said Sec. of State Baker would go to Kiev this month to discuss it. We'll have more on the story after the News Summary. Officials of the Russian republics said their takeover of central government finances was permanent. Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed to pay the Soviet government's bills Saturday after the Soviet state bank said it had run out of cash. A spokesman for the Soviet government insisted no final decision had yet been made. United Nations envoy Cyrus Vance talked for a second day with Yugoslav leaders about deploying peacekeeping troops in the breakaway republic of Croatia. His talks came amid heavy federal army shelling of the Croatian City of Osijek. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

MS. BATES: Dawn over Osijek, which knows no peace. For a dozen hours, the Eastern Croatian stronghold was shelled by Serbian forces determined to capture it. The battle has raged for months. The survivors in Osijek are tough and defiant. They refuse to leave.

MR. MacNeil: Many homes lack basements. Safe refuge is difficult. This woman's frustration over the continuing fighting is also shared by the U.N. Envoy, Cyrus Vance.

CYRUS VANCE: If we are going to have a peacekeeping operation of the United Nations, we have to show that we can have a cease-fire that is effective.

MS. BATES: In Belgrade, Vance met once again with Serbia's president, Slovodan Milotovich. The European Community has blamed Serbia for the failures of past cease-fires. After three hours of talks, Vance said many problems remained.

CYRUS VANCE: Yes. We had a long and fair discussion about what needs to be done to make sure that the agreement, which was agreed to in Geneva, is carried out. We discussed the obstacles that are faced to get that done.

REPORTER: Are things looking positive?

CYRUS VANCE: Well, it was a progressive meeting we had, but there's a lot of work to be done.

MS. BATES: Vance will also meet with Croatia's president, Tudgman. In Zagreb, Tudgman declared that international recognition of Croatia's independence would halt the fighting. He said its Serbian opponents would then be at war against Europe and the rest of the world.

MR. MacNeil: Back in this country, President Bush said he would leave no stone unturned to promote economic growth. He issued a directive which he said would help put Americans back to work. He spoke during a picture taking session with a real estate group at the White House.

PRES. BUSH: Today I'm directing the cabinet to assure the most effective implementation of existing programs, job placement, job training, unemployment, these unemployment benefits programs, safety net programs, small business loans. These will help to the degree existing legislation can those that are hurting. And we want to assure that the human problems made the most acute by the current economic climate are addressed as effectively as possible by the executive branch.

MR. MacNeil: White House Spokesman Fitzwater said today's action did not involve the allocation of new money but gave special emphasis to existing programs. The federal government today ordered new precautions for workers who may be at risk for infection from AIDS or hepatitis-B. The rules require the use of gloves, masks, and other protective clothing, and they specify how safely to dispose of potentially contaminated materials. Violators would receive fines of up to $70,000. The rules apply to both public and private sector jobs. The announcement was made in Washington by the head of the Occupational Health & Safety Administration.

GERARD SCANNELL, OSHA: A total of 5.6 million workers will be covered. More than 3/4 of them, 4.9 million, are employed in health care facilities such as hospitals, nursing homes, physician offices, dental offices. Other occupations, to name a few, include funeral services, linen services, medical equipment repair, emergency response, correctional facilities, and law enforcement. We estimate that compliance by employers with this regulation will prevent approximately 9,000 infections and 200 deaths annually.

MR. MacNeil: Federal officials today made public what they described as the second largest cocaine bust in U.S. history. Officials from the Customs Service in the Drug Enforcement Administration said that nearly 12 tons of the drug were found hidden in concrete fence posts stored at a warehouse in Miami. They said the street value couldn't be determined. The cocaine had been shipped from Calle in Colombia through Venezuela to Miami. Eleven people in Texas and Venezuela have been arrested.

MR. LEHRER: Opening arguments were delivered today in the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith. He's the nephew of Sen. Edward Kennedy. He arrived at the West Palm Beach courthouse this morning. He is accused of raping a woman he met at a bar last Easter weekend. Smith denies the charge. If convicted, he would face up to four and a half years in jail.

MR. MacNeil: Kenya's president has recommended replacing his country's one party political system with a pluralistic one. The World Bank last week cut off all new aid to the East African nation until it made progress on reforms. The President, Daniel Arap Moi, has come under increasing international criticism for his authoritarian regime. His party has held an effective monopoly on power since 1963. Nelson Mandela urged the United States today not to lift sanctions against South Africa. The African National Congress leader said apartheid still exists in his country. He said that in New York where he will address the United Nations tomorrow. Before leaving South Africa, he said the ANC will take the lead in this month's multiparty power sharing talks with the white-led government.

NELSON MANDELA: We are convinced that the only answer to problems of South Africa is the policy which the ANC has put forward and, of course, as you know, we are the people who are responsible for this initiative and who feel that this is the right path to take to a new South Africa.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the independence vote in the Ukraine, school choice, and an essay about Pearl Harbor. FOCUS - ABANDONING THE MOTHERLAND

MR. MacNeil: Our lead focus tonight the latest chapter in the unraveling of the Soviet Union. Two events turned the weekend into a momentous one for the union and the republics of Russia and the Ukraine. In the Ukraine by nearly 90 percent, voters endorsed a referendum for independence for the republic of 52 million people. They did so after Soviet President Gorbachev said a separate Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Also over the weekend, the Russian republic took over the payroll and bank credits of the Soviet State Bank just as it was running out of cash. We begin our coverage with a report from the Ukraine, which also elected a President in Sunday's voting. The correspondent is Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

MR. RADO: On a hilltop above the city of Kiev, contrasting images of Ukraine's history. The churches of the czarist era and the monument to the red army, the theme linking them Ukraine's subjugation under the Russian empire. Today with only fading election posters to distinguish it from any other, Ukrainians went to work as citizens of a new nation. In a referendum, more than 80 percent of them had voted to end the centuries of rule from Moscow. They also chose as their leader Leonid Kravchuk, the former Communist ideology chief now transformed into a nationalist.

LEONID KRAVCHUK, Ukraine President-Elect: [Speaking through Interpreter] I have all grounds to say that a new Ukraine was born. Also, it was born calmly and with good brains as a good child should be born.

MR. RADO: Though the flag of the new nation fluttered above, there's still a rather forlorn air outside the headquarters of the independence movement, Rukh. It is Rukh which took the risks in the days when people were jailed for nationalism, who had lost the political battle in the election. Its main candidate, Vyacheslav Chornovil, stayed out of sight today as its supporters summed up the harsh lessons of the campaign.

URI LUKANOV, Rukh Independence Movement: The opposition doesn't have, didn't have an experience, considerable experience to take party, and the Bolsheviks had an experience. Kravchuk is very clever man. He was in his time a leader of, one of leaders of the Communist Party of Ukraine, but he understood that a destroying of the empire is objective process.

MR. RADO: More than 80 percent of the Ukrainian electorate turned out to vote yesterday, a remarkably high figure even by the standards of the new democratic elections in East Europe. For the last time, they had to use their Soviet internal passports to obtain their ballot papers. At issue over the weekend was the question of Western recognition of independent Ukraine. The voters here link Western recognition with aid and investment from abroad.

VOTER: I think it will be important. It will help our country to develop its economy and to become a development country and to better our life.

VOTER: If Europe shall feel us as a part of this community and show us this, it would be very strong moral stimulation for our development.

MR. RADO: Western business has already started to show its interest. The U.S. household products giant Johnson has opened a factory making cleaning agents and shampoo. The needs of consumers have been neglected to such an extent here that this is thought to be the first factory in the hall of the former Soviet Union devoted to making household products. In the past year, productivity has risen by 85 percent.

JAMES SHEPHARD, Johnson Kiev Corporation: We looked at seven different sites around the Soviet Union before we decided on a final location. And we chose the Ukraine because of its central location, large population, over 52 million, and the people here have been very responsive to our presence.

MR. RADO: A new Ukrainian currency is being printed in Canada for introduction next year. If Western investment is to take off, the new grevna needs to become convertible and no one at present can guarantee that. As voting day flags come down and the dreams of independence become reality, the Ukraine now faces hard economic decisions. The first will be on her relations with the old union.

MR. LEHRER: First we get the official U.S. government response to the Ukrainian vote for independence. It comes from Thomas Niles, a career diplomat who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs. He was selected by the White House today to represent President Bush in the Ukrainian capital later this week. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

THOMAS NILES, Assistant Secretary of State: Thanks very much.

MR. LEHRER: When are you going to the Ukraine?

SEC. NILES: Well, we're in the process of making arrangements. It's not the easiest place to get to from Washington. Probably Wednesday or Thursday, certainly this week.

MR. LEHRER: And who are you going to see and what are you going to tell them?

SEC. NILES: Well, hope to see leaders, expect to see leaders of the Ukrainian government, perhaps President Kravchuk or Foreign Minister Zalenko, some of the senior officials of his government. The message is a clear one, that we look forward to developing our relationship with the government of Ukraine, or with Ukraine, but that there are certain considerations that we'll take into account as we move in that direction, the way in which they develop their own policies and some of the areas of concern to us, respect for human rights, the relationship that they develop with the union and the other republics of the union, the attitude that they take on the arms control agreements entered into by the union, the CFE Treaty, the START Treaty, their attitude toward the Soviet nuclear weapons currently deployed in the territory of the Ukraine. These are some of the issues that we'll want to discuss or I'll want to discuss with officials of the government and then report back to the President and Sec. Baker.

MR. LEHRER: Is it generally considered by the U.S. government that independence for the Ukraine is a good thing, end quote?

SEC. NILES: I think we consider it a reality, something that's happened. We recognize Sec. Baker made clear when he was in Moscow in September for the CFCE Conference that the --

MR. LEHRER: The security group, the European security organization.

SEC. NILES: Right. He enunciated at that time five principles, the first one of which is that the future of the Soviet Union is for the people in the Soviet Union to decide, and people of the Ukraine, as was noted earlier in this program, decided overwhelmingly that they would go for independence.

MR. LEHRER: Soviet President Gorbachev said before this election that it would be a tragedy if what happened, a tragedy for the Soviet Union, if what happened Sunday did, in fact, happen. It happened. Is he right or is he wrong?

SEC. NILES: Well, I don't think it's possible to make that judgment now. Obviously, one of the things that we'll be watching as this process develops is what kind of a relationship there will be between the Ukraine and the other republics, notably the Russian republic, but also what sort of union emerges, if, indeed, a union does emerge to replace the one that has existed since the 1917 Revolution. I personally believe that some sort of relationship will be essential, particularly in the economic area.

MR. LEHRER: A confederation of some kind?

SEC. NILES: Something perhaps along the lines, ultimately the European Community, which has been cited as an example to the republics might wish to follow, but, of course, that's for the future.

MR. LEHRER: But are you going to lay down some conditions for U.S. formal diplomatic recognition on the Ukraine?

SEC. NILES: No, but I am going to make clear, as the President and the Secretary have previously made clear, some of the things that we consider important as this new Ukrainian government moves toward the establishment of its status as an independent country. And I've mentioned what those are: respect for human rights, rights of minorities, et cetera.

MR. LEHRER: The new President of the Ukraine said today that, and we quoted in the News Summary, that for all practical purposes this means the Soviet Union no longer exists. Do you agree with that?

SEC. NILES: Well, it would certainly appear to be so, but it's a little bit perhaps premature to write the obituary of the Soviet Union. In any case, that's not my responsibility. I'm simply going out there to talk with the officials of that republic and to explain what the position of the United States is as the President and Secretary have made clear, and get a report from them as to what they propose to do. I personally think that history hasn't ended in that part of the world.

MR. LEHRER: Has history ended for Mikhail Gorbachev?

SEC. NILES: I wouldn't think so. I think he has a role to play, but, of course, what that role might be is obviously open to question, but I think he will continue to play an important role.

MR. LEHRER: But isn't that role going to be decided by somebody other than Mikhail Gorbachev? Is he kind of just sitting, watching, and saying, okay, guys, what is it you want me to do?

SEC. NILES: What next?

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

SEC. NILES: I think he has more to say about it than simply watching and taking directions, if you will, from others, because of Yeltsin and now President Kravchuk or some of the other officials of the former union republics, as they were called. I think he remains a figure of some influence, some importance, and we'll just simply have to see what role he'll play in the future.

MR. LEHRER: Some have suggested that the United States government by allowing it to be leaked ahead of time before the election, that the U.S. would recognize an independent Ukraine, kind of cut Gorbachev's legs out from under him. He'd said, my goodness, we don't want this to happen, it would be a tragedy, the next day or a couple of days later, the U.S. was reported to be ready to support Ukraine independence, people allegedly voted on those grounds today, hey, look if we vote for independence, the United States will recognize, et cetera, guilty as charged?

SEC. NILES: I don't believe so. I think that vote of all of our soundings, and we of course have a consulate general in Kiev and officers from our embassy in Moscow have been visiting the republic consistently over the last three or four months, all of our soundings suggested that the referendum would come out exactly as it did even to the extent that in those orblas, or regions of the Ukraine where you have a majority Russian population, such as the Crimea, in certain areas to the East, in the area of Harkul, for example, we've suggested or our soundings suggested a majority vote for independence and, indeed, that's what materialized. So I don't think these, whatever was said last week about what the United States might or might not do had any impact on the election.

MR. LEHRER: You don't think leaks to the New York Times affect the vote in the Ukraine?

SEC. NILES: Well, I don't think so. It's not that widely read in Kiev yet.

MR. LEHRER: Right. How big a concern is this, the question about the nuclear weapons that are in the Ukraine and why the United States -- did that affect or is it affecting the U.S. decision to be so gracious and encouraging to the Ukrainian independence movement?

SEC. NILES: Well, it's obviously a very important factor for us, for the other republics, and for Ukraine's neighbors, Hungary and Poland, Czechoslovakia, et cetera, for all of Europe. The position that the United States has expressed regarding our expectations toward the Ukrainian government's position on the nuclear issue is the same position taken by every other country in Europe, that is, that we expect the government of the Ukraine to accede to the non- proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state and we take seriously their commitment which they've expressed, President Kravchuk and others, to get rid of the Soviet nuclear weapons currently deployed on the territory of the Ukraine as quickly as possible. So it is a very important issue. There's no question about it. But we are encouraged by what we hear from the Ukrainian authorities regarding their intentions, and this is one of the subjects, obviously, that I'll want to talk about when I'm there in Kiev, as for example, Undersecretary Bartholomew talked about when he was in Moscow in October with Ukrainian representatives. So this is a subject of considerable import.

MR. LEHRER: But do you feel like it's under control?

SEC. NILES: We're confident that on the basis of what the Ukrainian authorities have said thus far that they have the proper approach to these weapons. And this is one of the things that I'll try to confirm when I'm there.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you. But don't go away. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Boris Yeltsin's Russian republic announced tonight that it would recognize the Ukraine, independent Ukraine. So today did Poland and Canada. To discuss the Ukrainian vote for independence and other political developments within a quickly crumbling Soviet Union, we get three more views. Stephen Cohen is a professor of political science at Princeton University. Roman Szporluk, originally from the Western Ukraine, is a professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard, and Fedor Burlatsky, former editor of the Soviet newspaper "Literary Gazette," he's a member of the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies which has been inactive since the August coup attempt. Mr. Burlatsky is now a scholar at the Kennan Institute in Washington and joins us tonight from Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Szporluk, is the U.S. doing the right thing in moving so rapidly to support Ukrainian independence?

PROF. SZPORLUK: I would not say that it is moving very rapidly but the way it is moving appears to be the proper speed. The United States was very careful in warning Ukrainian sometime ago, most recently in August, not to act rashly, but after several months of very peaceful political process in Ukraine -- as we know, there were no riots, no demonstrations, no electoral abuses -- it has been carried out in a thoroughly respectable manner. I think the United States now can be assured that this is the will of the people and it proceeds still rather cautiously, because we do not have a full fledged recognition toward acknowledging this act.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Stephen Cohen, do you think the way the U.S. is handling this is right?

PROF. COHEN: It's hard to speak against this. It's like coming out against Mother's Day I guess. But I think the United States decision is worrisome, at best. It's not clear what the Bush administration's motives might be. It appears to be dictated more by American domestic political considerations and a thoughtful approach to what's going on in the former Soviet territories. It assumes what exists today, these rapid developments, are trends that will project themselves in the future. I'm not sure that's the case. And it doesn't ask any of the hard questions. For example: Should there be a union? Even if we don't want a union, will Russia reassert itself? Are we inviting and even inciting conflict by encouraging Ukrainian independence? None of these questions are asked. And finally, everybody's forgotten that in March of this year, in March of this year, there was a referendum in the Soviet Union about whether people wanted a union. 76 percent said they wanted a union. Now, a few months later, 90 percent say they want to be independent. Somehow these things have to be reconciled. No attempt in Washington is being made to think this through.

MR. MacNeil: Well, what should the United States do, in your view, just hold back and watch?

PROF. COHEN: Well, I mean, there are various ways of holding back and watching. I think we should say kind words to the new Ukrainian government. We should remember that what's going on in the Soviet Union, though Fedor Burlatsky, my old friend, may disagree, is less creative democratic activity by people than a war over power and property by factions within the old Soviet elite. Mr. Kravchuk was a loyal Gorbachev, even hardline Communist at one time. Mr. Yeltsin was a Communist. Virtually all the political actors were Communists and they're struggling over power and property, where people are largely silent, except when referendums are held. Referendums, themselves, are not democracy.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Mr. Burlatsky, is the U.S. doing the right thing?

MR. BURLATSKY: I think that there are no choices because it is reality. 90 percent voted for independence and we may understand why so much people voted for independence now and only one year ago 70 percent voted for Soviet Union. From my point of view, this is the result of last events during the coup and especially after the coup when the people in the Ukraine understood that not so much depends from them. The decision came from Moscow. That is why so much people, even the Russian people, even the soldiers voted for independence. What about the union? I don't lose some hope about the union, but what kind of union? I mentioned last time here on television about possibility of Europe, Asia, commonwealth. Maybe now this idea will be very successful, not soon, but we have equal possibilities now.

MR. MacNeil: If you haven't lost hope for the union, is the U.S., as some say, cutting off Mr. Gorbachev's legs by encouraging and announcing or indicating in advance that it would support an independent Ukraine? Is it harming Gorbachev's chances of keeping some form of union?

MR. BURLATSKY: I think that the struggle for federation was a wrong idea. You may start the struggle for confederation before and even for some sort of Europe-Asia commonwealth like in the West European countries. I don't lose such idea even now.

MR. MacNeil: All right. Mr. Szporluk, has the U.S. as the most powerful actor in the West here by indicating the way it was going and now pursuing that today, has it made it more difficult to hold together some kind of union, economic union, federation, confederation, whatever?

PROF. SZPORLUK: Not at all. On the contrary, I think as Mr. Burlatsky said, the United States has recognized political realities, and to my mind, the most important political reality in the Soviet Union now is the re-emergence of Russia as a great power. And what happened in August of last year was takeover of the -- first of all, Mr. Gorbachev's best friends, his own team, rebelled against the union -- then when they were defeated, they were defeated by Mr. Yeltsin's friends, under the banner of a democratic Russia. So political realities now in this former Soviet Union are as follows. There is now an independent Ukraine. There is a de facto independent Russia. And whatever happens in the future will be the result of negotiations of discussions between these two states and various other states. I think we should stop thinking about Mr. Gorbachev as being one of the major powers in the Soviet Union. He is a great man. He has accomplished great things, but the happiness of Mr. Gorbachev should not be the utmost concern for the United States.

MR. MacNeil: What harm is there, Steve Cohen, going back to your view of this, what harm is there in the line the U.S. has taken, facing reality the others say?

PROF. COHEN: Well, I like what Mr. Niles said when Jim asked him if this was a good thing, Ukrainian independence. He didn't say it was a good thing or bad thing. He said it's a reality. Today's realities aren't necessarily tomorrow's realities. So let's look at real possibilities. Prof. Szporluk mentions the reality of a great power Russia emerging. What kind of Russia will this be? The whole assumption is it's going to be benign, democratic, that Yeltsin's going to be there and he's going to be there in a liberal democratic way. I think these are the slimmest possibilities. I can foresee many factors driving Russia to a kind of vengeful attitude toward the outside world, toward the Ukraine. There are 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. No stable Russian government can turn its back on those 20 million Russians.

MR. MacNeil: What does the U.S. moving towards recognizing the Ukraine either politically and later diplomatically, what has that to do with the Russia you're talking about?

PROF. COHEN: It incites the Ukraine to go further, in my judgment, than it should go at this moment. It incites the Ukraine to pretend as though it is an independent state, that is one that can exist independently, before it negotiates consensually vast problems of territory, of Russian minorities inside the country. Look! Poland has claims to Ukrainian territory. Russian has claims to Ukrainian territory. Moldavia has claims to Ukrainian territory. Romania has claims. All these problems are pregnant with civil war. To lurch toward an independence that it can't sustain economically and to be encouraged by the United States to do this, because this is kind of a imprimatur in world affairs, is a mistake I think. First negotiate. Otherwise, the outcome will be resolved by force of arms, rather than negotiation.

MR. MacNeil: Sec. Niles, what do you say to that?

SEC. NILES: Well, I think that Prof. Cohen misunderstood the nature of the position we've taken. Basically we are going, or I've been asked to go to Kiev to talk about just some of the things that he's concerned about. And the United States has not lurched into a decision here. Quite the contrary. I think we're moving in a responsible way, and by no means taking the most forward position among the Western countries that are concerned. He mentioned the case of Poland. The government of Poland today announced that it has recognized the government of the Ukraine, the independence of the Ukraine, and considers the Polish Ukrainian border to be established once and for all. So some of these doomsday issues that Prof. Cohen mentioned may not, indeed, come to pass. We certainly hope they won't.

MR. MacNeil: Do you want to argue with him?

PROF. COHEN: Well, doomsday issues, today's realities aren't tomorrow. Germany once recognized the borders of its neighbors and then Hitler came to power and challenged those borders. Bear in mind that most of these people who are running these governments today won't be around five years from now. That might include Boris Yeltsin. We have to see the different competing forces that are in all these territories. I'm glad to hear from Mr. Niles that the United States is not going to lurch toward recognition, but that is not what was leaked in this country two or three days ago. It appeared that we were going to act quickly, if only for domestic political reasons, in this country.

MR. MacNeil: Sec. Niles, are you, is the United States, in fact, not going to recognize the Ukraine diplomatically until all these various areas, if you won't call them conditions, all these various areas are satisfied?

SEC. NILES: What we're trying to do, and what I've been asked to do is to go to Kiev to talk with the Ukrainian authorities about the positions that they will take, propose to take, on issues of concern to the United States, some of the issues that Prof. Cohen mentioned. I'll report back to the President and the Secretary and obviously they will take these responses from the Ukrainians into accountin reaching our own position. We, as Marlin Fitzwater made clear today, intend the answers come back, as we expect they will, in a positive way to move ahead toward establishing a new relationship with the, with Ukraine. But it's not a question of lurching ahead. Indeed, we are trying to establish the type of framework, or a framework within which some of the negative consequences that Prof. Cohen mentioned would be prevented.

MR. MacNeil: Could, Mr. Szporluk, could the United States have slowed down Ukrainian independence by doing it any differently?

PROF. SZPORLUK: I believe we are spending too much time talking about the United States as a factor in Ukrainian politics. I would respectfully disagree with Prof. Cohen, not only about his numbers. There are not 20 million Russians in Ukraine, there are closer to 12 million. But what is even more important is that actually in Ukraine you do not have an ethnic strife, Russo-Ukrainian hatred, which comparable phenomena we are familiar from other part of the Soviet Union. This is the political miracle of Ukraine, that there is, in fact, no Russo-Ukrainian conflict which is breaking it apart which so many observers were expecting. Also, speaking about those party machines and party elites, this is, of course, true, anybody of any importance is a former Communist today in the Soviet Union. But we should avoid some kind of a post-Communist witch hunt. We should not forbid former Communists to participate in politics. And the genius of Mr. Kravchuk, the political genius, lies that while he was a party hack, earlier enough he recognized that Ukrainian democratic national movement is a force and he just told them, let us argue together, let us reason together, and then eventually, like a real politician, he stole their ideas and sold them as his own.

MR. MacNeil: Let's move back to Moscow and the Kremlin at the moment. Will, you said the Kremlin could not be a viable independent state, will the need of the Ukraine to create some kind of strong economic links, if not union, with Russia and other parts of the old Soviet Union, does that mean that some kind of de facto union is going to have to be created again?

PROF. COHEN: Probably. And the question in my mind -- well, my own position is, I don't believe in miracles. Prof. Szporluk says there's been no ethnic violence, it's a miracle in the Ukraine. I don't believe in miracles. I think it's been conditions and that the country is full of the potential.

PROF. SZPORLUK: Hard work on the part of both Russians and Ukrainians and Jews and Poles to prevent ethnic conflict.

PROF. COHEN: Well, let's hope that continues to be the case. I think there's going to be a greater Russian commonwealth or union. There has been for centuries. And the only question in my mind is: [a] How is it going to come about? Is it going to come about through negotiation or the force of arms? And, therefore, what kind of greater Russia is it going to be, consensual and semi-democratic, or despotic? And I think any lurching away from the resolution of these problems through negotiation, from buoyant proclamations of an independence that would be hard to sustain without violence, damages the possibility of some sort of consensual outcome.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Burlatsky, do you see the Ukraine an independent, or a Ukraine that's declared its independence, nevertheless, needing quite quickly to make some form of economic union with Russia and thus recreate some form of federation, confederation?

MR. BURLATSKY: No, I don't think that federation is a realistic - -

MR. MacNeil: Whichever word you use to describe it.

MR. BURLATSKY: Yes. I think that maybe a confederation or a commonwealth is more practical, maybe to happen not soon. But I believe that the real economic interests, the culture tradition, Russian and the Ukraine, they were very close long time with the church, with the language, with the culture, will overcome the difficulties. In the future, it will create some sort of integration, but we must not hurry, we must not press each other. I don't believe, I hear some explanation in the United States that maybe it can be a war between the Ukraine and the Russia republic, I don't believe in it. It is against the tradition about this nation. There are no such problems which can create such war, in spite of the fact that there are some very important problems, military problem, demographic problem, economic problem, and others. But now is a time for compromise and Russia and Ukraine and other republics may find some sort of integration which will give equal position for every republic.

MR. MacNeil: Let me ask Sec. Niles, is that what the U.S. government believes at the moment, Mr. Secretary, that the Ukraine's need for some kind of economic union with Moscow is going to create in some form what Gorbachev has been trying to create, some kind of whatever you call it, union, federation, confederation, commonwealth?

SEC. NILES: Well, I believe that the pressures on both Russia and the Ukraine, plus the other former union republics to form some kind of an economic union, some sort of a common market, a free trade area, will be very strong. It may be, as Mr. Burlatsky suggested, some time before the dust settles and the circumstances are such that this union could be formed, but I do believe that it will come to that, because the lengths which had been established within the area known as the Soviet Union are such that you simply can't break them, economic links, I mean.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Sec. Niles, Mr. Burlatsky, Mr. Szporluk, and Steve Cohen, thank you all for joining us.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, school choice and Pearl Harbor. UPDATE - LEARNING BY CHOICE

MR. LEHRER: Now a report on paying for private school with government vouchers. Since the fall of 1990, more than 500 low income students in Milwaukee have enrolled in private schools at public expense. We have an update report from Art Hackett of Wisconsin Public Television.

MR. HACKETT: What is touted as the future of U.S. education bears a stunning resemblance to times past. At the sound of a hand rung bell, children file into a building that dates back to 1902, a building vacated by the Catholic Archdiocese. The school, Bruce Guadalupe, was set up about 20 years ago by parents who were willing to pay tuition for their children to attend. In part, they wanted their children taught bilingually, with an emphasis on Hispanic culture, and the school's director, Walter Sava, says they were also dissatisfied with the results of the public school system.

WALTER SAVA, Bruce Guadalupe School: I don't think any business would survive as long as the schools have survived if they provided the kind of product that has come out, not just Milwaukee, but public schools in general. And why we put up with it as long as we have, I still don't understand.

MR. HACKETT: But in the fall of 1990, some new children were added to the mix, children whose parents were also dissatisfied with the public schools. Only these children from low income households had their tuition paid with $2,500 each in state aid. That state aid money would have gone to the Milwaukee public schools had the children remained there. The program is known as "Choice" and the number of children taking advantage of it is increasing. The six schools participating enrolled 341 Choice program students in 1990. This year there are 534. But this experiment has turned into a battle, a battle over the right of poor families to decide where their state money should be spent, in a public school or a private one. The project's legislative sponsor, State Representative Polly Williams, says too many of the parents and children involved in the Choice program, it was obvious public schools did not work.

POLLY WILLIAMS, Wisconsin State Representative: They left the public schools, go into the private school, and the children are just like 100 percent changed. Children are happy. They love going to school. Their grades have improved. The parents are involved. Everybody's happy.

MR. HACKETT: But everybody is not happy, perhaps least of all Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Herbert Grover.

HERBERT GROVER, Superintendent of Public Instruction: What happens to the common school for the common people? What happens to the equity that must be in the American educational enterprise? This distraction, privatization of public education, is really a placebo or a distraction from the real issues facing American education because we don't have the courage to create a domestic storm around the condition of our children.

MR. HACKETT: In Wisconsin, the storm has surrounded the Choice program, itself. Over two years after it was signed into law, the program's future is uncertain. The state supreme court heard arguments recently over the constitutionality of funding private schools with public tax dollars.

JULIE UNDERWOOD, Attorney, Department of Public Instruction: Here public funds are given to the private schools without any regard for the educational level of their staff, the availability of library or counseling services, the scope of their curriculum, or the adequacy and safety of the facility. This is truly no strings money.

CLINT BOLICK, Attorney For Choice Schools: If there is a way to get these kids out, if there is a way to get them a good education, or at least an education that their parents think is good, why can't we do that under the Constitution? It seems to me to turn the promise of equal educational opportunities on its head to deny that.

MR. HACKETT: Does Choice work? The early statistics are far from definitive. But the researcher evaluating Choice says he's encouraged by the heavy involvement of the Choice parents in the schools.

JOHN WITTE, Researcher: They're on the governing boards of the schools. They're on parent councils and curriculums. They're in the schools all the time. They know the teachers, the classrooms are small. So there's an accountability there that's enormous in terms of the people in that school. That's hard to do in any inner-city schools in Milwaukee because people are bussed all over the place and the parents can't get to the schools and they don't even know what's going on in the schools. And often they don't feel very welcome in the schools.

MR. HACKETT: Many of the parents we spoke to said that was a major concern with the public schools. Teachers were not telling them what was happening to their children.

PHYLLIS PURDY, Choice Program Parent: My kids had problems and I don't know if it was really with the teachers or what. With them relating their problems to me, you know, they didn't tell me till the end, you know, when it wasover with.

MICHAEL SHACKLEFORD, Choice Program Parent: My son was having a lot of problems in public school and no one was addressing these problems. And when he got suspended, they would notify me perhaps four to five days late.

MR. HACKETT: Too late for you to do anything about it?

MR. SHACKLEFORD: Yeah.

MR. HACKETT: Both Phyllis Purdy and Michael Shackleford say their children are doing much better at Urban Day School. With 195 enrollees, it's the largest of the six Choice schools. Its executive director, Zakiya Courtney, says it's not uncommon for a child to be a discipline problem in the public schools and do better in the smaller classrooms at Urban Day.

ZAKIYA COURTNEY, Urban Day School: We have one little boy, he's in fourth grade now. When he came last year, he was just a, you know, a little boy in the classroom, and when his records came, his records were really awful. It said that this particular child was so bad that they had to hire an aide to be just with him. And we did not put his records upstairs with the other records just yet. At the end of the year, the teacher did see the records and she came to me and she said, this could no be the same child that I had all year.

MR. HACKETT: But researcher John Witte cautions that the overall results of Choice may not be as glowing as these cases might suggest.

MR. WITTE: It's not going to be go or no go, this is the best thing that ever happened to American education or the worst. I cannot conceive right now of this being the savior of American education and certainly I can't see it being the demise of public education.

MR. HACKETT: And the Choice program has had its problems. Witte is concerned about the high turnover rate among first year Choice students. Only 45 percent of the Choice students enrolled last September returned this September. Some may have returned to newly renovated specialty public schools, such as this one, with programs for the gifted and talented. Others may have moved out of the district or dropped out of school altogether. And some parents learned the perils involved in being personally responsible for determining if a school's adequate when the state doesn't provide certification. The children of Leah Wallace and Phyllis Purdy began the Choice program attending the Juanita Virgil Academy. It dropped its religious emphasis and enrolled 63 Choice students. But by mid- year, it had dropped out of the Choice program. It later shut down entirely.

LEAH WALLACE, Choice Program Parent: I saw the failure coming. I called Urban Day but there were no openings. So before I let my children get deeper and deeper in this hole that they're digging, I just pulled them out of there and just let them go back to their regular schools.

PHYLLIS PURDY, Choice Program Parent: But see, my kids went there for that whole half a semester and never brought home a book, and I kept asking them, where are your books, we don't have any. Now, they did get the voucher from Milwaukee Public Schools to buy the kids books but they lost it on their desks somewhere. So the kids never had books. And I hoped for the best, but it was just a bad choice. It was just a bad school, you know.

POLLY WILLIAMS, Wisconsin State Representative: Now this particular school that closed down was a school that State Superintendent Bert Grover should never have certified. See in the law it says the state superintendent will have to certify or have to approve of all schools that participate in the program.

MR. HACKETT: But State Superintendent Grover points out that the private schools that lobbied for Choice didn't want the state mandating anything more than minimal requirements.

HERBERT GROVER, Superintendent of Public Instruction: We have no authority. It's not in the law. Read the law. I have no authority over those schools. That's one of my complaints. Why don't we subject these schools to the same authority that this office has over the public schools in the state that are going to dip into the public treasury to ensure some uniformity and some accountability, but they don't want that. Oh, no. Just send the money on time and we'll self-validate.

MR. HACKETT: Researcher Witte agrees Grover did not have the authority to reject a school, but adds that he probably should have.

JOHN WITTE, Researcher: I do believe that you have to try to desperately avoid this Juanita Virgil situation, where schools close in the middle of the year and put these kids on the streets or back into MPS and a school that they don't have any way to connect to.

MR. HACKETT: But to hard core supporters of Choice, state regulation would defeat the whole purpose of the experiment. After all, public schools are regulated and certified. And in Milwaukee, people by the hundreds are fighting to get away from them.

MR. LEHRER: Recently, the University of Wisconsin issued a first year evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The report said students in Choice schools did not score significantly higher on aptitude tests than did students in the city's regular public schools. ESSAY - PEARL HARBOR REMEMBERED

MR. MacNeil: Tonight we begin a week long series of essay and reports leading up to the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Tonight's essay is by Jim Fisher, columnist with the Kansas City Star.

MR. FISHER: This is South Kansas City, one of those typically middle American neighborhoods, boxy houses, trees, lawns now brown with autumn. Behind me is 624 East 66th Terrace, the home where my parents, my older brother, and I spent the years 1940 to '45, the war years. I don't come here often, but when I do, I always look at the big front windows behind which is the living room, and I remember. I remember Pearl Harbor.

RADIO ANNOUNCER: A huge bomb hurtling smack down her funnel exploded the Arizona's boilers and forward magazine.

MR. FISHER: Pearl Harbor, has it been 50 years since those black and white pictures and newsreels hit America between the eyes, photographs of sunken battleships, explosions, screaming planes, 50 years since FDR got up before Congress.

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the empire of Japan.

MR. FISHER: It could have been yesterday. I remember it was a sunny day, a Sunday, when my family, like millions of others, listened to the radio. My father was in the living room, listening to the big Philco. Even though I was not yet five years old, I remember something coming over the air and my father, who was the smartest man I ever knew, said, remember this son, this is important. And I remembered. As long as we had that Philco, no matter how exciting the Lone Range or the Shadow got, I couldn't look at it and not remember Pearl Harbor. And I could never think back to that house on East 66th Terrace and not recall that afternoon when everything changed.

ANNOUNCER: Americans rallying to the cause. Enlistment in the armed forces is their answer to Japan's dastardly attack.

MR. FISHER: Pretty soon there were lines of men volunteering for the services, ration points that came in the mail and allowed you so much food, men going off to war, kissing women good-bye, gasoline and tire shortages, people turning in scrap metal and rubber, bacon grease and old newspapers. The letter "v" became a symbol for all of us, "v" mail for the soldiers and their families. For my brother, Mike and I, "v" meant victory garden, cucumbers and tomatoes grown out back, "v" for victory. We played guns and war. We wore aviator hats and steel helmets. Even on our tricycles, we were pilots and soldiers, formal portraits spoke volumes about the times, my brother and I standing almost at attention in our soldier suits with Sam Brown belts and epaulets, or in our sailor P-coats and navy watch caps. There were things we didn't understand but didn't forget either, like the woman in the neighborhood variety store. Before my wondering eyes, she started picking up glassware and smashing it to the floor. A clerk rushed over, confronted her, then joined her in smashing cups and ashtrays. Simple, my mother said, it was made in Japan. But it wasn't always so simple. A Jewish family moved in a few blocks away, something that apparently just wasn't done in our neighborhood, and one morning their house was splattered with mud. I don't know if they stayed or left, but I do remember the mud. For a child, it was a wondrous time. We saw things kids our age probably never saw before, such as the huge B-25 bombers built right here in Kansas City that would pound the enemy. We saw the inside of war plants where our fathers worked. As kids, we knew the technical terms. We knew this F-4U Corser was powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial engine built not 30 blocks from where we lived. That Corser being pulled down 95th street by a farm tractor was more than just war production. It was America on the march in a world that it barely knew and understood even less. And for 140 million Americans, it started in 140 million different ways. For me, it started on a sunny Sunday in Kansas City far from the billowing smoke over Pearl Harbor, lifting battleships, the destroyed planes. What rained out of the sky that day was not just bombs and torpedoes. It was change, inexorable, pervasive, and, above all, irreversible. On December 7, 1941, the chickens came home to roost. America's splendid isolation was gone and, like it or not, we were a world power. For us, as young as we were, we knew nothing would be the same again, ever. I'm Jim Fisher. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, American Joseph Cicippio was freed by his Lebanese captors after more than five years as a hostage. Late this afternoon, the group holding American hostage Alann Steen said he would be released within 48 hours. And citizens of the Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence from the Soviet Union. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.