The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour this Wednesday night, a summary of the day's news, a look at the job of keeping the peace in Afghanistan, the argument over televising the terrorism trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, a report from California on some personal fallout from the India-Pakistan dispute, a state of the world conversation with Katrina Vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" magazine, and a Robert Pinsky remembrance of a fellow poet.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: A U.S. Military plane crashed today in southwestern Pakistan. At least seven U.S. Marines were on board the KC-130 refueling aircraft. There were no signs of survivors. They were part of forces being used in the Afghan campaign. The U.S. Central Command said the plane slammed into a mountain as it was trying to land at a desert airport. The cause of the crash is unclear. In Afghanistan, a commander in Kandahar said several Taliban leaders had surrendered but were given amnesty and released. He said they would not be handed over to the United States. They included the Taliban justice minister, who commanded the once-feared religious police. A spokesman for the new foreign ministry said it was investigating.

OMAR SAMAD: We need to make sure that the people who surrendered are high enough or were high enough in the Taliban hierarchy to be considered as war criminals or associate terrorists associates. If that is the case, and if it's proven to be the case, then the interim administration will need to look further into this issue to see if there was as you mentioned earlier if it was handled properly or not.

JIM LEHRER: In eastern Afghanistan, U.S. planes bombed an al-Qaida complex near Khost again. It's been attacked at least five times in recent days. And in Kabul, the interim Prime Minister, Hamid Karzai, ordered all armed fighters off the streets within 72 hours. The United Nations wants the city cleared of gunmen as international peacekeepers deploy there. We'll have more on the peacekeeping mission in a few moments. There was a hearing today on whether to televise the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. Court TV and C-Span asked a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, to allow television coverage. Moussaoui is the first person directly charged in the September 11 attacks. At today's hearing, his lawyer joined the request to televise the trial. He said it would help guarantee fairness. Prosecutors argued it could endanger court officials and jurors. The judge may rule next week. The trial is scheduled to begin in October. Palestinian militants attacked an Israeli army post today after a lull in the region's violence. We have a report from John Irvine of Independent Television News.

JOHN IRVINE, ITN: Four weeks of relative calm came to an abrupt and bloody end with a Palestinian attack that left several Israeli soldiers injured and four of their colleagues dead. The Israeli troops had faced two gunmen, infiltrators who had cut through the fence that divides the country from Palestinian- controlled Gaza. Both assailants were shot dead during a prolonged firefight. Hamas has claimed responsibility for the raid. This afternoon, this afternoon, militants and mourners gathered outside the homes of the men who had carried it out. The attack is the first serious breach of a cease-fire called by Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat in mid December, and his administration has condemned it. The Israeli government, however, cites today's events and last week's massive weapons seizure as evidence that the recent respite from violence was nothing more than a lull during which the Palestinians regrouped.

JIM LEHRER: Hamas said it resumed its attacks because of what it called continued Israeli aggression against Palestinians. And late today, Israeli troops struck back, seizing three Palestinian police posts in Gaza near the shooting site. The Bush administration will join with U.S. Auto makers to create a generation of hydrogen- powered cars. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced that today in Detroit. He promised federal funding for research into hydrogen fuel cells. They produce electricity with no pollution. The plan replaces a Clinton-era program to develop gasoline- electric cars getting 80 miles to the gallon. Abraham said that effort had outlived its usefulness.

FOCUS - PROSPECTS FOR PEACEKEEPING

JIM LEHRER: Now, keeping the peace in Afghanistan, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Afghanistan took a step towards peace last week when the interim government formally endorsed a plan for a multinational peacekeeping mission. British General John McColl will lead the international security force, known as ISAF, which is charged with maintaining calm in and around the Afghan capital.

MAJ. GEN. JOHN McCOLL: The mission that I have been given is focused on Kabul, and the Security Council resolution is focused on Kabul. Whether or not the ISAF force is deployed outside Kabul subsequently is a matter for the interim administration to take up with the international community. But I'm clear that my mission is focused on Kabul, and my priority is to get that right from the outset.

RAY SUAREZ: Under the six-month renewable agreement, the United Nations-mandated force will patrol the area around Kabul with about 5,000 troops from at least 16 mostly European nations, and is expected to be assembled over the next few weeks. About 1,500 foreign soldiers are already on the ground in Afghanistan. Besides security patrols, their duties include assisting in rebuilding the war-shattered country's infrastructure, including hospitals, roads and airports; removing landmines littering the landscape; and training an Afghan security force. Afghanistan's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, today called for the creation of that force a national army. But for now, Afghan military forces remaining in Kabul will be quartered in their barracks. Effective today, all armed non- military men have been ordered to leave the capital within 72 hours. Security has been a top priority for Karzai since his inauguration last month. He said the Afghan people welcome the force.

HAMID KARZAI, Interim Prime Minister, Afghanistan: They see the presence of U.N. forces as a guarantee against interference, as a guarantee for the commitment of the international community, of the big powers, of the United States, and as a guarantee internally within Afghanistan that they will be given a sense of security. So that's... All those concerns are legitimate and we support that.

RAY SUAREZ: But security outside of Kabul remains an issue, with daily reports of armed bandits attacking aid workers, stealing food rations and taking control of roads elsewhere in the country. U.S. troops will not take part in the peacekeeping mission, but will provide logistical support. General Tommy Franks, the U.S. Commander overseeing the war in Afghanistan, has overall authority over the British-led security force, but he will not direct their mission.

For more on making Afghanistan secure, we get three perspectives: Sir Jeremy Greenstock is the British ambassador to the United Nations; retired Brigadier General Stanley Cherrie was assistant division commander of Task Force Eagle, which in December 1995 was the first military unit to go into Bosnia to enforce the Dayton Accord-- he is now a consultant; and Barnett Rubin is director of studies at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University. He has written widely on Afghanistan and was a consultant to the United Nations team that helped organize the Bonn conference.

Mr. Ambassador, let's start with you. Let's get it out on the table at the outset -- who this British led force works for. Is it a UN mission? Is it a NATO organized mission? How is it constituted?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: This is a UN Authorized mission, but it is not a UN Mission. It's not composed of the UN Component nor is it led by the United Nations. It is a force which the Afghans have agreed under the Bonn agreement of December to have in their country in Kabul and its environs under the terms of that agreement. And the duties of that force and the way in which it will operate have been agreed directly with the Afghan authorities who retain primary responsibility for security in their country, including in Kabul. So this is an assistance force; it is not a force that is independent of the Afghan authorities.

RAY SUAREZ: What are the rules of engagement governing the force's operations at the outset around the capital of Kabul?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, these have been worked out in some detail with the Afghan authorities and signed with the minister of the interior last Friday the 4th of January. Under the UN authority, this force has the right to use, as we say in UN parlance, all necessary measures -- in other words lethal force if necessary to carry out its mandate, which is to make sure that there is security behind the Afghan authorities in and around Kabul -- so that the interim administration, all members of it and they come from many different factions, can work without fear that another faction from their own will interfere with their personal security. So it's to enable the interim administration to work in Kabul.

RAY SUAREZ: General Cherrie, maybe you could discuss some of the difficulties of a mission like this, no matter where it is in the world and some of the specific challenges in a place like Afghanistan.

BRIG. GEN. STANLEY CHERRIE (Ret.): Well, as my former commander General McKenzie in the ARC used to say, getting there is about 70% of the problem, getting in, getting set up and getting organized to do the mission. I think it's going to be a little more difficult in Afghanistan. When we went in, in December of 1995, the factions' leadership had agreed to a peaceful settlement. Now we really didn't know for sure whether that was going to take hold, but they were almost at their culminating point, they were tired, they had been at war. That doesn't appear to be the case in Afghanistan now. So there will be some problems. The fact that it's a multi-national unit, multi-national units pose their own individual challenges, language, equipment, but they can be worked out. But any time you have a wide span of multi-national forces, it makes it a little more difficult. The topography of Afghanistan, it's difficult terrain. So there are some similarities ensuring freedom of movement, making the forces go back to the barracks, et cetera. But it will be a tough mission, but I think, I'm glad to see it's coming about.

RAY SUAREZ: Tough, as you say, but dangerous for the peacekeepers?

BRIG. GEN. STANLEY CHERRIE (Ret.): I think in this case from what I know about Afghanistan from watching television, I think it's a little bit more dangerous than it was in Bosnia in 1995. As I said, they had agreed to a peace and when we came in, although there were some tense times, the war and the fighting, they were facing one another in a zone of separation, but there was no fighting in December of '95.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Rubin, should we even be calling this a peacekeeping mission? Is there peace to keep yet in Afghanistan?

BARNETT RUBIN: Well, whether there is or not, the mission of this force is not to keep the peace. That is unlike the mission in Bosnia, this force is not sent there to enforce or to monitor an agreement among the warring parties. This force is sent there with the agreement of essentially the victorious Afghan party, which is a coalition, in order to as Ambassador Greenstock said, assure the political neutrality of the capital and to maintain security there so the government can go about its business, but also very importantly so that people from all over the country can come there in delegations, meet with people from all parts of the government, and carry out the necessary preparations for holding the Loyah Jerga or Grand Council, which will take place there in June. Again the role of the secure assistance force which is what it is rather than a peacekeeping force will be& important in assuring the neutrality of the capital city when that very important gathering takes place.

RAY SUAREZ: Why is that an important distinction for you between a security assistance force and a peacekeeping force?

BARNETT RUBIN: Because the mission is quite different, and the risks that it entails are quite different. They're not interposed along front lines. What -- their mission is really in many ways a capacity building mission because they're supposed to be transitional toward building up the Afghan national security forces and a peacekeeping mission also generally refers to one that is organized directly by the United Nations. That's what it means in peacekeeping parlance, and of course as Ambassador Greenstock says, it isn't that kind of mission.

RAY SUAREZ: Mr. Ambassador, does the document that was signed last week carry with it some obligations on the part of the interim Afghan ? We've discussed already what your force is going to do, what the British led force is going to do. What does the government have to do?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: The government's job is actually primary, it is responsible under the Bonn agreement for security throughout the territory of Afghanistan. And the mission of the international security assistance force is to assist that process, as Professor Rubin has just explained. So the interim administration must first of all take responsibility, and then make sure that the assistance force is allowed to go about the business of creating the security for which they've asked it. But as time moves on, the interim administration will build up its own new security forces, and this is for discussion, and the international forces there to help that process, train the new force, help it describe its tasks, and do other part of its mission under the Bonn agreement. So it's a double process. It's there to help the interim administration start, and then to help it take over the business of security with real Afghan forces.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, today the interim leader, Hamid Karzai, talked about forming an Afghan national army, he talked about disarming the armed men who walk the streets of the capital. It sounds like, from the mission that you're describing, that a lot of different forms of expertise are going to be needed in what is still a relatively small force?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, the force will grow of course to between four and five thousand men. And could I also say that the British, as leaders of this force will be working with other Europeans, the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, in due course a Turkish contingent and maybe others, have some experience of this kind of operation. I'm afraid there have been a number of wars over the last decades where we've had to involve ourselves as peacekeepers, not least the Balkans, and we have learned the mixture of military diplomatic political reconstruction tasks that they're actually going to have to do in practice. So yes it's difficult, yes it's risky. But yes also the forces going in there has experience in these things and they are very keen to work to help the Afghans to see their way around these rocks.

RAY SUAREZ: General Cherrie, when Generals get documents like the one that was signed in Bonn, do they sometimes to figure out how to put into practice on the streets what politicians signed in a hotel ballroom somewhere?

BRIG. GEN. STANLEY CHERRIE (Ret.): Yes, they do. And that's one of the things you do up front. The mission analysis what is we call it, taking a political document and then turning that into actions and orders that your subordinates can understand. And listening to the Ambassador and the Professor, this mission is as much wider, and has more to it than the mission, not to demean the mission we had, but we had clearly identified tasks that we had to do, establish a zone of separation, remove the warring factions from that zone, ensure freedom of movement, and marking clear minefields and some others. But they were pretty much tasks that were understandable by the military, form joint military commissions. This will take some doing to translate it into things that military people and security people understand. But as the Ambassador said, the British are pretty good at s, they've been doing it for a long while. We were working for a British led headquarters, the ARC, they do a pretty good job at translating that into actions and orders.

RAY SUAREZ: And professor, given the complexities of the mission you've been hearing described, are there parties in Afghanistan who have a vested interest in making sure this fails?

BARNETT RUBIN: Well, obviously the remnants of the hardcore Taliban and al-Qaida still may be lurking around would want it to fail. At this point I don't think there's any group say within the government or otherwise who has a vested interest in making it fail per se. But the fact is that in carrying out its mission, depending on what happens, it may encounter some group. For instance, there could be conflicts of various sorts among the different communities in Kabul City. There was fear of that in the early days after one section of the Northern Alliance entered the city. So if such a thing broke out again, and fortunately we haven't seen such a thing in the last few weeks, then the force would be called upon to intervene to try to calm the situation. It's possible that one group or the other would feel they were being treated unfairly. I think the conflict will come more if the interim administration tries to call on the force or on the international community to expand its activities to other parts of the country, because this is only in Kabul and its environs. But clearly there's a need for a secure assistance force in other parts of the country too, as you noted in your report. There are undoubtedly warlords and others in those sections of the country that might not like the interim administration agreeing to an international force coming in to remove them from power. That's something that might be coming up down the road. But the immediate tasks are within Kabul itself where I don't see that type of opposition.

RAY SUAREZ: And Mr. Ambassador, as you just heard the Professor discuss, are there enough forces... that want the opposite, that one doesn't necessarily working to see this fail, but are actively working for this to succeed? Putting aside the differences that for Kabul to pieces in previous civil wars and now are actively behind the success of the ISAF force.

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Yes, I think so. I think the size of the force has been very carefully calculated. At one stage some of the Afghan ministers were after a smaller force, they wanted to do a lot of this work themselves. I think a good compromise has been worked out. Remember, we're dealing with Kabul and its immediate surrounds, to the airport. We're not talking about the wider territory. That remains the responsibility of the Afghans. If they want help for that in the future, they must ask the international community for that. But I think four to five thousand for this kind of security behind the Afghans in Kabul is about right.

RAY SUAREZ: And what kind of consultations will have to go onto get a wider mandate? Is it merely up to the interim government to ask this new force to widen its brief on the ground in Afghanistan?

SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: No. I think we must be careful not to assume that. If the Afghan interim administration wants other security duties done on other parts of Afghan territory, it will have to ask for a new force from scratch, with a new UN authority. This force is not authorized to use its military power outside this immediate topographical area. They would have to start from a fresh start.

RAY SUAREZ: Ambassador, Professor, General, thank you all.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour, a special television in the courtroom story, a local angle to the India-Pakistan dispute, Vanden Heuvel of "The Nation," and Pinsky reads a poem.

FOCUS - TV TRIAL?

JIM LEHRER: The debate over televising the terrorism trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and to media correspondent Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: Moussaoui is the so- called 20th hijacker; he'll stand trial in the fall for allegedly conspiring with Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization to commit the September 11 attacks. Are there special circumstances in the Moussaoui trial that would justify an exception to the ban on cameras in federal courtrooms?

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us to discuss that question are Henry Schlieff, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Court TV Cable Network; and Chuck Rosenberg, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney from the federal district handling the trial. Last year, after a decade prosecuting sensitive cases for the federal government, he joined the private law firm of Hunton and Williams. The Justice Department declined to join the discussion. Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

Henry Schlieff, what are the arguments for cameras in this trial as opposed to others?

HENRY SCHLIEFF, CEO, Court TV: Well, I think the four principal arguments are quite simply in this trial the plaintiff in this lawsuit is not just the victims versus Moussaoui, it's not New York City versus Moussaoui, it's the United States of America. And I think we as citizens of this nation are virtually a named plaintiff, and argument one could make in fact about our access in all federal trial courts, particularly here, though, we are victims -- maybe not victims in the sense that we lost loved ones, but we shared in the loss of those who did. We were witnesses to the collapse, to the horrible bombing of those buildings; we should be allowed to be witness to the proceedings of someone allegedly to have been part of the planning of that destruction. And you know, I think as a legal matter, Terry, I think on its face, the rule prohibiting access right now is unconstitutional. It's an abrogation, if you will, of the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press -- a press, by the way, both print and broadcast. And lastly, in most particularly in this lawsuit, what a wonderful opportunity, what a unique opportunity to show our system of justice how it works, how it provides in fact a fair trial for virtually anyone, regardless of how evil or malevolent they may be.

TERENCE SMITH: Chuck Rosenberg you've prosecuted cases like this. Any of those arguments persuasive to you?

CHUCK ROSENBERG, Former Federal Prosecutor: Not to me, no. First, on the rule that precludes cameras from being used to televise federal criminal proceedings has been on the books since 1946. And the four courts of appeals that have addressed it have all unanimously agreed that that rule is constitutional. I don't think there's any question about that. Frankly, the Supreme Court has permitted a time, place and matter restrictions on television stations, on print, broadcast media. This is nothing more than a time, place and manner restriction. It's neutral, it's reasonable, and it's appropriate.

TERENCE SMITH: The rule that you mention, as you say, 1946, there have been a lot of changes, have there not?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: There have.

TERENCE SMITH: Between technology and what not.

HENRY SCHLIEFF: That's exactly our position, Terry, that certainly looking at technology, and I think most of the concern and the basis upon which the rule was promulgated was the large obtrusive technology, cameras and lights. We've come a long way, as you well know. I think frankly it's one of the reasons why 37 out of 50 states allow cameras in. I think their experience has been good. Our experience in court TV with over 750 trials and proceedings, not one of which has ever been reversed because of the presence of the camera, has also been favorable. I think looking at C-Span, which is again yet another example of new technology, our ability to see a sister branch of government broadcast is a helpful one -- and lastly the very studies, the more current studies since 1946, the four studies in New York, the two studies in California, one post O. J., all of which concluded no negative impact from cameras in courts.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Let me ask Chuck Rosenberg as somebody who has done this, what are the negative aspects from the prosecutor's point of view?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: It doesn't matter how small you make that camera -- one fact remains. I have prepared hundreds of witnesses to testify in trials in federal district court. Putting aside law enforcement officers, those who are already comfortable in the courtroom, I've never met a witness who wanted to be there. And so when you prepare these witnesses for trial, you tell them if you're nervous, just talk to me, it's just you and me. The refrain now will be very different Terry, it will be just you and me and 60 million of your closest friends. It's a very intimidating procedure. Witnesses are not in their element, it's traumatic for some of them. And I don't see how the size of the camera, number one, makes the witness feel better, or number two has any constitutional significance what so ever.

TERENCE SMITH: Henry Schlieff, what about intimidating witnesses?

HENRY SCHLIEFF: I think that's a very legitimate concern, it's one that we address consistently. I think what we see is that the rule in the 37 or 38 states, for example, is that on the judge's discretion, he can have cameras excluded from the proceedings. We are simply looking for the standard affirmative presumption that cameras should be allowed in. If there are specific issues, national security, a specific level of uncomfort on the part of witnesses, we can turn our cameras off, indeed as we did in a trial that we are covering yesterday on Court TV. I think the presumption should be in our favor, we are perfectly welcome or perfectly satisfied to have a judge exercise his good discretion.

TERENCE SMITH: Chuck Rosenberg, what about the constitutional mandate for public access to these trials?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: Let's be very clear about this. This courtroom is open. Anybody who wants to a ten this trial can attend. Moreover --.

TERENCE SMITH: Should he or she get a seat?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: There will be provisions for media, for instance, print or broadcast, there will be an overflow room so those who can't make it directly into the courtroom will still be able to watch the proceedings closed circuit TV, that was done today at this very hearing we're talking about. So make no mistake about it, this courtroom is open, all federal courtrooms are open. Nothing has changed.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, there won't be cameras in the courtroom, is that correct?

HENRY SCHLIEFF: There's been no indication that they'll allow closed circuit yet. I know that that has been a bill that was introduced in the Senate in December by Senator Allen, which was unanimously passed in the Senate. The House has not yet ruled. But we think you begin to play a legal issue here of where do you draw the line. It seems to me that those allowed in to see closed circuit extend beyond injuries the mere victims or people in New York or Pennsylvania, I think we are all victims, I think it's a difficult line to draw between who should be allowed into closed circuit and who should not. I think once you allow closed circuit, I think you have to allow cameras in completely.

TERENCE SMITH: What about that?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: Well, it is a difficult line to draw; I think it's a fair point, but we drew; we drew it in Oklahoma City and we'll draw it again. It can be done and has been done. I think the bill to tell advise it for the victims is exactly right, it's what needs to be done to bring some sense of closure to these people.

HENRY SCHLIEFF: I think it's interesting, though, that some of those victims' families have already come out and said that they find it difficult to go to some of these central locations where closed circuit would be available. They have come out, the victims' families, have specifically asked to have court TV be able to carry this with its cameras.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Chuck Rosenberg, the defendant in this case, his attorneys have asked that the trial be televised. Should that or does that carry any weight?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: Not in my mind. It's not the first time a defendant in a highly publicized case has asked for that. Congressman Hastings -- at the time a judge in Florida -- made the very same request in the 11th Circuit, upheld rule 53, the rule that precludes televising proceedings in federal criminal trials, said it was perfectly constitutional. But, Terry, if I may, my sense of it is that it's little more than a ploy to bring his brand of martyrdom into every living room in America, and I think we'd be playing right into his hands, frankly, if we grab it for that reason alone.

TERENCE SMITH: What would you say to that, Henry Schlieff, about the possibility of grand standing?

HENRY SCHLIEFF: I don't think the Nuremberg Nazi war criminals, the tribunals which we had the benefit of being able to see, or an Eichmann trial, which we were able to see, I don't think anybody felt as that they were inspired to be a war criminal, I disagree. And particularly when you have a witness like that subject to cross-examination interrogation, I think the grand standing takes place when somebody sends in a home video.

TERENCE SMITH: Another issue that arose today in the courtroom was the possibility of a live radio broadcast, in other words without the cameras. What's your view of that?

HENRY SCHLIEFF: Well, I think it's an interesting question by the judge. It clearly shows that she is struggling with the desire to have greater access, I think. Clearly it would be a step in the right direction, not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's delay transcript. But I think we're still missing something that it clearly reads in the Constitution that we are entitled to observe the proceedings. To me observe means to see the testimony with our own eyes.

TERENCE SMITH: Chuck Rosenberg, what do you think, what do you think of live radio?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: That makes it a tougher call, except for one impediment. And I understand why people who want television in the courtroom ignore it. But it's that rule; it's that darn rule that keeps getting in the way. The rule that prohibits cameras also prohibits audiotapes of any federal criminal proceedings.

TERENCE SMITH: So the judge would have to mind that unconstitutional?

CHUCK ROSENBERG: She would have to find that unconstitutional, and she would have to find that unconstitutional in the face of every appellate circuit that's addressed it and has found it to be perfectly constitutional, so it's a big, big hurdle.

TERENCE SMITH: Henry Schlieff.

HENRY SCHLIEFF: I wouldn't say -- certainly coming from court TV I wouldn't say rules are made to be broken, but I do think rules are made to be revisited. And I think it's about time I think now coming out of the 1940s, new technology, clearly a greater understanding, greater experience, greater track record and evidence if you will of success, 38 states, most states allow cameras in in some fashion, allowing appellate. I think it's about time for that rule to be revisited.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay, I'm afraid that's the time we have. Thank you both very much.

FOCUS - REFLECTIONS

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Indian- Pakistan dispute as seen by immigrants in the United States. Spencer Michels reports.

SPENCER MICHELS: The San Francisco Bay area is a magnet for a large number of people from India and Pakistan. Of the estimated two million Indians-- most of them Hindus-- who live in the United States, a quarter of a million live, work and worship near San Francisco. And of the estimated 750,000 Pakistanis in the U.S., More than 50,000 of them live in the Bay area; they are mostly Muslim. Members of both groups found work especially when first in this country, as taxi drivers and small storeowners. Others, especially Indians, bought hotels in poor sections of the city, and often did well economically. But both Indians and Pakistanis say that those images are outdated. Today their ranks are filled with highly educated, well-paid high-tech workers and engineers, many of whom came here in the early days of the Silicon Valley boom. Others arrived more recently on special visas for highly trained tech workers. Hasan Hamdani is a Pakistani community leader and former university teacher of South Asian studies.

HASAN HAMDANI, Pakistani Community Leader: Pakistani community is the compared to other community living in the United States-- immigrant communities. They hold more bachelors and masters and Ph.D.'s in engineering and medicine than any other immigrant communities.

SPENCER MICHELS: Raman Rao is an Indian community leader and an engineer.

RAMAN RAO, Indian Community Leader: I'd say most of the Indians that came in the '60s and the '70s and '80s, say 80% are probably engineers and professionals-- doctors.

SPENCER MICHELS: Pakistani and Indian immigrants to America have been watching closely, and in some cases, taking the side of their homeland in the dispute between India and Pakistan over who controls Kashmir. The two countries were created out of British India in 1947. Most of Kashmir currently belongs to India, though most of the population is Muslim. Recently, the fighting and tensions have intensified, especially with the suicide attack on the Indian parliament in December, allegedly by Pakistani terrorists.

SPOKESMAN: The people of San Francisco are in full support of the people of Pakistan.

SPENCER MICHELS: Pakistani-Americans rallied recently in San Francisco, some to call for peace, some to push for a vote by Kashmiris on their own future, and some simply to convince Americans that Pakistanis should not be blamed for the terrorist attacks. Helping to organize this demonstration were Asim Mughal, who runs a Pakistani news service, and Naubahar Ali, a Pakistani poet. They worry about Pakistan's image in their adopted country.

ASIM MUGHAL, Pakistani News Service: The images that you see on the television, some groups jumping up and down, demonstrating pro Osama or anti America, is actually clearly wrong.

NAUBAHAR ALI, Pakistani-American Poet: It makes us very nervous. It doesn't represent our point of view. And we are nervous that people are thinking we are all like that. We are totally not like that.

SPENCER MICHELS: But many Indians living in America, including Kashmir-born engineer Maharaj Kaul, still espouse the Indian Government's point of view. He says Pakistan's military government is responsible for the trouble in Kashmir. Kaul says his own family, who are Hindus, had to leave Kashmir for India and the U.S. because of Muslim terrorists.

MAHARAJ KAUL, Indian-American Engineer: When you see your relatives, or other people, you know, they're scattered all over the place; mostly not because of their choice. When you see that, it does hurt. There are 300,000 of them who left Kashmir after 1989; the terrorist war was a religious war. Every year, it gets worse and worse. And so they packed up and left. And those who stayed behind, I think they paid for the mistakes with their lives.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Kaul acknowledges that succeeding generations of Indian Americans won't care as much as he does.

MAHARAJ KAUL: Their children, of course, won't even know where India is. (Chanting )

SPENCER MICHELS: While Kaul is not religious, many of his fellow Indian immigrants are. 12,000 came to pray at the Shiva-Vishnu temple in Livermore, California, last New Year's Day. Hundreds come every weekend. The temple is one of the principal centers of the bay area Indian community. Most of these people retain close ties to the homeland. And many, including the temple chairman, Raman Rao, feel some kinship with fellow South Asians from Pakistan.

RAMAN RAO: India and Pakistan are actually brothers. And coincidentally, it so happens that I actually roomed with a person... A student from Pakistan at Michigan State. And he was from Karachi, and we got along famously. That so... And we speak the same language.

SPENCER MICHELS: Rao says there is less political passion among Pakistanis and Indians in America than there is back home.

RAMAN RAO: I think most educated, rational citizens of the U.S., whether they're Pakistanis or Indians, probably have a different perspective than the same people if they were citizens of Pakistan or India, you know? And that's rightfully so, because I think we shouldn't have... we should not bring the baggage from there where we are from.

SPENCER MICHELS: Other Indians in America, like Anuradha Mittal, a political scientist and an advocate for food and development, blame the politicians in both Pakistan and India for the current tension.

ANURADHA MITTAL, Indian Food Activist: Here are two countries, which have often diverted attention from domestic issues, such as increasing hunger and poverty, to focus on military tensions in the regions. So you have two governments who have a stake to continue this religious fundamentalism because that's how they stay in power.

SPENCER MICHELS: Mittal worries that fundamentalism in both countries could lead to disaster.

ANURADHA MITTAL: Do we want our governments to go to war and fight a war that I do not want, and I know my friends and my community doesn't want? Do I want to be part of a war, which can go nuclear? No.

SPENCER MICHELS: While some partisans from each side blame the other, many Indians and Pakistanis in America appear more comfortable publicly advocating peace than calling for their side's victory.

SERIES - THE SHAPE OF THE WORLD

JIM LEHRER: Next, another New Year conversation on the United States in the world, with American commentators on international affairs. Gwen Ifill has tonight's.

GWEN IFILL: And joining me is Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of "The Nation" magazine. She's also editor of the book "A Just Response: The nation, terrorism, democracy, and September 11" that will be released this spring. Welcome.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, The Nation: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: I want to read to you what "The Nation" editorialized on October 1. I assume you had a hand in this, and it's an interesting way of looking at this. You write: "After the dead are properly mourned after we have reliably established how this happened and who was responsible, then we Americans must undertake a most difficult conversation among ourselves. A true national debate about what sane national security means in the 21st century." So now a couple of months later, can you say whether it's happening?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: We have not had a sane full debate in this country about what a sane foreign policy would mean. What we do know is that on September 11th this administration was pushed away from its unilateralist stance. We do know that internationalism, that engagement with the world community, that engagement with treaties that this administration is beginning to shred, Kyoto, the ABM treaty, even torpedoing the biological weapons convention, is not a measure of foreign policy or national security. I want to bring your attention today to the story that we are now the United States beginning to set up permanent bases around Central Asia. This is going on without any discussion in Congress or really in our media, nor have we had a discussion about what a superpower means in a world riddled with nuclear weapons. Why don't we have a vigorous debate? Some of it is because the Congress has not taken it upon itself to at this stagein the war -- and Bush has said we are now moving into the next front, where is Congress in terms of overseeing clarifying the scope of this war, but what we do know is internationalism -- is really democratic internationalism is the most realistic, really the most hard headed, sane foreign policy for this period.

GWEN IFILL: Would it be fair to say that the nation generally is anti-war, believes we should not be at war?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I mean what does war, I mean what does war solve? But what I think needs to be done now as we conclude this phase of the war in Afghanistan, we've seen the Taliban toppled, there's still the eradication of the al-Qaida network, but with the United States could do and what Bush talked about early on in this war is put itself at the head of a global initiative to rid the world of poverty, to become part of a development agenda in terms of internationalism. Even people like the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, Gordon Brown, hardheaded realistic politician, has talked about a development initiative. In western industrialized countries, put up $50 billion -- this is 1 percent, by the way, of the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut just passed by our Congress -- to address issues that contribute to the festering crises of global poverty, of the enormous gaps in equality in this world.

GWEN IFILL: At a time when the government is waging what appears to be at least at this point an enormously popular war, you write about moral and legal restraint. We had Robert Kaplan from The Atlantic Monthly on last night; he talked about power first and principles later. Sounds like you're talking about principles first.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I think that is a country that needs to reconcile its professed values with its national interest. And that has been a struggle throughout the course of U.S. History, and it's something that is now a prime moment to undertake that debate. Of course we want to eradicate world poverty, and of course we have a military budget, do we need more billions at this stage when what we saw on September 11th in a world riddled with nuclear weapons, with 20 people, would three airplanes, probably causing $300 billion worth of damage, does that mean we add more billions to a defense budget, or do we undertake to really address the underlying causes of terrorism around this world, around despair that breeds these problems, and work to address those issues?

GWEN IFILL: But even among the left, the progressive, such as yourself, there is quite as debate going on about whether there is an appetite for this right now, for these kinds of actions right now, whether there should be some sort of effort to explore the roots of anti-American rage in the Islamic world instead of getting to payback, I guess.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Nothing that happened on September, you know, nothing the United States has done in terms of its policies justifies what happened on September 11th. What I do think September 11th leads the United States to o if it's wise and if it has the confidence of global-leadership is to assess what a humane internationalist policy could be at this stage, moving on so that you begin to diffuse those crises in the world, whether it's in the Middle East or whether it's in India, Pakistan, again the confrontation of two nuclear powers. And I think that's what the United States should do in terms of entering a vigorous national debate. Now, in terms of military force, the nation, yes, supported a measured discriminate use of military force, but unless you work as hard to rebuild Afghanistan and again through the United Nations, the military victory may in a year be virtually meaningless if you don't have peace brought to that country through development and reconstruction.

GWEN IFILL: You have also editorialized a lot about what's been happening here at home since September 11th, particularly about the civil liberties debate. Have you gotten response to this kind of argument where you can sense there is some real concern about that abroad and around the country, or do you sense that you're kind of in a lonely place?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well we know that abroad there is great concern - I mean the Spanish government, which has had a history of dealing with terrorism with the Bask problem, has refused to extradite terrorists because of its concern about the civil liberties situation in this country. And put aside the nations editorializing, there are police chiefs around this country who are opposing Attorney General Ashcroft's trolling for Arab American men -- in any war, civil liberties comes under attack, but to have unreviewable military tribunals, to have warrantless monitoring of attorney-client privilege, to have an administration that refuses to give out information on detainees, something "The Nation" has joined with others to seek information about, this is in violation of the very principles this country stands for and for which we proclaim we are fighting in this war against fundamentals fanatics who seek a repression of women, of people, and we wish the left -- progressive left in particular has stood for the very values of democracy, of opening up countries, of affirmation of the rule of law. If we don't stand for that, what does America stand for?

GWEN IFILL: Does the progressive left fine itself in a box at a time of war, advocating peace at a time when people are war-like? You've written about that.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think we're always the left wing of the possible. We speak for voices that perhaps in several decades will be proved more accurate and more true to the American principles. The right to dissent, speak out is the first American principle. But I have to say if you think about the left and what I has stood for in terms of democracy, internationalism, holding to treaties regarding human rights, I think that the progressive left is part of the American ideal, part of the greatest aspirations of America, and I might add, in terms of Afghan women and the successes we've seen of Afghan women returning to schools after the repression of the Taliban, it was the progressive left and the feminist community in this country that spoke out against when this administration paid no heed to those conditions.

GWEN IFILL: You have been unabashedly pro United Nations -- said the United Nations should be taking a lead this. Would it be better in your opinion if the United Nations were left to take whatever retaliation was necessary?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think the United Nations needs to be brought in now at every stage of what we call the campaign against terrorism. It is the world body we have. It is a body that was created after other wars, and it speaks to the collective will of the world, and Afghanistan -- the United Nations will be sorely needed in terms of reconstruction and rebuilding. And I have to say this administration has talked the talk, but will it walk the walk when it comes to providing the United Nations with the resources that body needs, and might I add, we should use the United Nations and the international criminal court to bring so many of the terrorists tojustice.

GWEN IFILL: What about beyond Afghanistan, there's so much talk right now about Somalia and Yemen and Iraq and other place where is there may be al-Qaida cells. You have written that you believe that a wider war is not necessary.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think the "The Nation" has written that the eradication of al-Qaida is crucial, clearly. But we should move from bombing to a policy of rigorous law enforcement, of coordinated intelligence, of trans-national financial interdiction, and move away from the war bombing model, into a far more coordinated sophisticated model of eradicating these networks. If we move into a war model, we will uproot the very coalition that has proved successful in waging the war in Afghanistan.

GWEN IFILL: As you write these things in an atmosphere or a time of war or whatever you want to describe it, do you feel like you're blowing it into the wind?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: No, I believe that, as I said, the very values that the progressive left speaks for are ones that are part of the world community and part of the very I deals America stands for. And my only hope is that we spend as much energy in this next period in bringing development, in addressing poverty, and in really bringing the development agenda to the world and spend as much energy doing that as we have in militarizing our foreign policy, and in waging a war that in the end will not help people's lives as much as other policies.

GWEN IFILL: Katrina Vanden Heuvel, thank you very much for joining us.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: We'll continue this series next week with Trudy Rubin of the "Philadelphia Inquirer."

FINALLY - LOST ART

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, NewsHour regular and former Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky remembers a friend and fellow poet.

ROBERT PINSKY: On December 8, the poet Agha Shahid Ali died-- too young-- of a brain tumor. Shahid was a Kashmiri, a Muslim, and a cosmopolitan who wrote splendid poetry in English and lived in America. He's admired for his wonderful poems and for his dignity, his outrageous comedy, his sweet nature. His books include: "A Nostalgist's Map of America," and "The Half-inch Himalayas." His poem on the Dacca gauzes exemplifies Shahid's nostalgia, his sense of history, his grace; a sensibility as fine as the gauze fabrics he describes here.

"The Dacca gauzes. Those transparent Dacca gauzes known as woven air, running water, evening dew. A dead art now, dead over a hundred years. 'No one now knows,' my grandmother says, 'what it was to wear or touch that cloth.' She wore it once, an heirloom sari from her mother's dowry, proved genuine when it was pulled, all six yards, through a ring. Years later, when it tore, many handkerchiefs embroidered with gold-thread paisleys were distributed among the nieces and daughters-in-law. Those, too, now lost. In history we learned: The hands of weavers were amputated, the looms of Bengal silenced, and the cotton shipped raw by the British to England. History of little use to her. My grandmother just says how the Muslims of today seem so coarse, and that only in autumn, should one wake up at dawn to pray, can one feel that same texture again. 'One morning,' she says, 'the air was dew-starched.' She pulled it absently through her ring."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day: A U.S. Military refueling plane crashed in Pakistan. At least seven U.S. Marines were on board; there were no signs of survivors. The plane was supporting the Afghan campaign. And there was a hearing on whether to televise the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. He's the first person directly charged in the September 11 attacks. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.