The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight we have excerpts from the President's afternoon press conference, two views of the Microsoft-Apple alliance, the governor of Guam with an update on the plane crash there, and a discussion about Pol Pot and justice in Cambodia. It all follows our summary of the news this Wednesday. NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton today announced new economic projections that put the federal deficit at its lowest level since 1974. The President said the deficit was expected to fall to $37 billion at the end of the fiscal year in September. He spoke at a news conference on the South lawn of the White House. He said the Balanced Budget Act signed into law yesterday would ensure still more deficit reduction.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Without the bipartisan balanced budget we just passed our budget officials estimate the deficit would rise next year to 50 to 100 billion dollars and stay at that level for years to come. With our bipartisan balanced budget plan, we now expect it not only to reach balance by 2002, but to have a surplus in excess of $20 billion and to be able to maintain that for several years thereafter.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The last time the U.S. Government ran a surplus was 1969. We'll have excerpts from the President's news conference right after the News Summary. On the Middle East story one week after the Jerusalem market bombing U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today Israeli and Palestinians must unite against terrorism to revive their peace process. She said Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority should cooperate fully with Israel in fighting terrorists, and both sides should refrain from unilateral measures that erode confidence. She made her comments at the National Press Club in Washington.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: We have come too far in the process of Arab-Israeli peacemaking to allow the vultures of violence to shape the region's future. The stakes are too high. Now that the threshold of mutual recognition has been crossed there can be no going back to mutual rejection, no going back to mutual denial. Neither party can return to an earlier time.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Albright said she is planning to go to the region by the end of August. It will be her first trip there since becoming secretary of state. Two of the computer industry's fiercest rivals announced today they will form an alliance. Microsoft agreed to invest $150 million in Apple, the company that makes Macintosh computers and software. The two also will work together to develop new interchangeable programs. Apple has suffered heavy losses and management defections in recent years. Apple's co-founder, Steve Jobs, announced the partnership at the Mac World Expo in Boston.

STEVE JOBS: If we want to move forward and see Apple healthy and prospering again, we have to let go of a few things here. We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win Microsoft has to lose. Okay. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job, and if others--[applause]-- and if others are going to help us, that's great because we need all the help we can get.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We'll have more on the Apple-Microsoft alliance later in the program. On the Korean air crash story the airline said today 29 of 254 people on board survived yesterday's crash on the U.S. territory of Guam. The survivors, including three Americans, had been seated in the front of the Boeing 747, which was largely intact. Sixty-nine bodies have been recovered from the wreckage. At least 220 people died in the crash, and at least another three died in the hospital after being rescued. The plane was carrying mostly Korean tourists but also at least 13 Americans, as well as 23 crew members. They were traveling to the Pacific Island from Seoul, South Korea. We'll have more on the crash story later in the program. Confrontations spread today in the Teamsters strike against United Parcel Service. Eleven people were arrested on a picket line near Boston. Across the nation dozens of people have been arrested in the three-day-old strike. Meanwhile, managers and non-union workers kept only about 10 percent of the company's usual deliveries moving. Late today spokesmen for UPS and the Teamsters said they would hold informal contract talks tomorrow. Illegal drug use among teenagers 12 to 17 declined for the first time in four years. That's one of the findings of the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse released today in Washington. It showed 9 percent of teens used drugs last year, compared with nearly 11 percent in 1995. That is still higher than the 1992 level of 5.3 percent. Alcohol use also dropped from 21 percent in 1995 to just under 19 percent last year. The survey also showed drug use among adults 18 to 25 increased by more than 2 percent in two years. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the President's press conference, the Microsoft-Apple alliance, the latest on the Korean air crash, and judging Cambodia's Pol Pot. FOCUS - Q & A

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: President Clinton's first solo news conference in nearly five months is our lead tonight. The President fielded questions from reporters on the White House lawn for almost an hour. Here are excerpts.

SONJA ROSS, Associated Press: Mr. President, the tax cut and budget bills that you signed yesterday were criticized by your own Treasury Secretary as "heavily laden with special interest provisions." You have the power to use the line-item veto to take out some of those special interest tax breaks. Are you planning to exercise that power?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the short answer is that I expect there will be some exercise of that. So what I've asked my staff and cabinet to do is to meet with me, first of all, make sure I am aware of the items that are subject to the veto in the tax bill and in the budget bill that I signed. And then the second thing we have to do is to make absolutely sure that none of these things that we don't think are very good were part of the agreement; that is, this was an agreement entered into in good faith. And I cannot use the line-item veto on anything that our negotiators agreed to let go through. I think that's very important. And I want to bend over backwards to make sure there's no misunderstanding on that. Allison, and then David.

ALLISON MITCHELL, New York Times: Mr. President, you say that the American people should know where every political figure in Washington stands on campaign finance. Yet, at the same time that you've called for an end to soft money, you continue to raise it for your party.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I certainly do. And I'm proud of it.

ALLISON MITCHELL: Well, let me ask you--

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I do. I plead guilty to that. I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. And I don't think--suppose I said to you advertising is bad; your newspaper should stop advertising while everybody else does it, and trust me to tell everybody what a good newspaper you have. Just stop it. Just say no. You live in a competitive world. We live in a competitive world. And notwithstanding what the image may be constantly, and you see again in the press today, the Republicans raise more money, raise more big money, and raise more money from non-citizens than the Democrats do. But we have to raise enough to be competitive. But the lesson that we have learned is that there is too much money in this system, but it's because of the cost of communication. It's the cost of communication that's driving this up. And so we have got to get free air time or reduced air time, and we've got to get campaign finance reform. And I hope we can, but I will not at the same time bankrupt the Democratic Party. I just think we can't afford to just lay down our capacity to compete when what we really have to do is all agree to live under a new set of rules, which I will happily agree to live under. Yes, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: Mr. President, I want to ask a question about the UPS strike. But, before I do, I want to just clarify what you meant by the line-item veto, that you expect to exercise it. You mean, between and Monday you expect to exercise it, or exercise it in the fall, when there are appropriations bills?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I mean, I expect to exercise it, and I know- -I am anticipating that there will be some things between now and Monday that I would want to exercise it on, but I--I want to emphasize this--I have not had a briefing on this. I'm assuming that there will be something in there that was not agreed to by all of us in the budget agreement that it seems to me to be a good candidate for it. But I do not know of any specific thing now. As soon as I do, I will tell you. But I believe in the line-item veto. I believe it should be used, and, of course, as all of you know, it will be tested. I mean, as soon as I exercise it one time, somebody's going to file suit against it, and then we'll see what happens.

WOLF BLITZER: If I could ask on the UPS strike, there are a lot of small businesses out there that there are suffering right now as a result of this, and they see you standing by, encouraging both sides to go back to the bargaining table but not really doing anything about it. And some of your critics are saying that's because the labor unions supported you and the Democrats so overwhelmingly over these past few years. Is that a fair criticism of why you're standing aside and not getting directly involved in this strike?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No. Let me urge you all to do one thing because I think it would be very helpful to people--to the American people generally to know this. If you compare what I did in the American Airlines strike, which is the only strike I've been involved, you know, recently, where I had some authority, the airline companies--because they take passengers--are governed by a federal law which gives the President the power to intervene if there is substantial economic danger or damage to the country. The UPS strike with the Teamsters is not covered by that law. It is covered by the Taft-Hartley Act. If you look at the Taft-Hartley Act, there has to be a severe damage to the country. The test is very different and very high before the President can intervene. Now, I'm very concerned about all the customers and users of UPS and what's happening to them, but I do not believe that it is a fair reading of the Taft-Hartley law, which is the law I have to act under, that this high standard of that law has been met. This is--it's a totally different law from a law that affected the American Airlines case. And I think it's really important that the people understand that. Go ahead.

PETER MAER, NBC Radio: When this administration calls on the Palestinian Authority to take sustained action to prevent terrorism, what specific steps are you looking for. And secondly: Do you personally believe that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have fulfilled the obligation to prevent terrorism?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me answer them in order. No. 1, we expect them to resume meaning real consistent security cooperation with the Israeli authorities and the way that they do when they work best. No. 2, we expect them to act on the information that they have. You can't hold them on the information that they don't. But they have proven in the past quite effective at rounding up people and arresting them for good cause. And No. 3, we expect that if there are people there who are really serious threats to the peace and to innocent civilians that they should be kept behind bars if it is legal to do so. So that's basically it now. In answer to your second question I would have to say that I could not say that there has been constant 100 percent effort. That does not mean that we know--by the way--that does not mean that we know for sure, we in the United States know that these bombs would not have exploded and killed these people if 100 percent effort had been made. I can't say that. I'm not close enough to the situation. But I know that it's been discouraging for the Palestinian Authority. I know they get frustrated. I know that sometimes Mr. Arafat feels like he's caught in the middle, between his own population and their discontents and frustration, and his frustrations in dealing with the Israeli government. But none of that can be an excuse for not maintaining security. If you go back and read Oslo, they promised 100 percent effort on security, No. 1. No. 2, never mind Oslo. You can't have a civilized society if you permit terrorism. No. 3, in the end, terrorists are the enemy of moderate, constitutional government among the Palestinians. Those people who murdered those people in the market did not want a better peace deal. They want continued impasse. They want to destroy Israel. And that is not going to happen. There must be a peace process.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The President said he hoped Congress would hope him accomplish four legislative goals after the August recess: Campaign finance reform, entitlement reform, fast track authority to negotiate new trade agreements, and a commitment to binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. FOCUS - PICKING APPLE

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, a friendly bite of the Apple. Margaret Warner has that story.

MARGARET WARNER: In Boston this morning at conference of Macintosh computer users and software developers, Apple Computer, Inc. founder Stephen Jobs made a surprising announcement. He said that Microsoft Corporation had agreed to invest $150 million in its longtime software rival, Apple.

STEVE JOBS, Co-Founder, Apple Computer: The era of setting this up as a competition between Apple and Microsoft is over, as far as I'm concerned. This is about getting Apple healthy, and this is about Apple being able to make incredibly great contributions to the industry to get healthy and prosper again. [applause]

MARGARET WARNER: There were gasps and some boos from the crowd at Jobs' announcement. Then Microsoft chairman Bill Gates appeared on a huge screen via satellite.

BILL GATES, CEO, Microsoft Corp.: Some of the most exciting work that I've done in my career--and it's been the work that I've done with Steve on the Macintosh. We're very excited about the new release we're building. This is called Mac Office 98.

MARGARET WARNER: The deal announced today is the latest episode in a 20-year battle between two companies that have helped reshape the world of technology for millions of Americans. Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer in 1976. It made its own computers or hardware, but Apple's real innovation was its software--an easy- to-use icon-based operating system that introduced millions of Americans to the mouse and its point and click function. Microsoft was founded in 1975 by Bill Gates and partner Paul Allen. It didn't make computers--only the software to run them. Initially, it pushed a rather complicated operating system called DOS. But in 1985, it came out with a new one called Windows that matched Apple's point and click system. And, unlike Apple, Microsoft allowed its software to be used in other companies' computers. By the time the company unveiled Windows 95 two years ago, nine out of ten home computers sold in the U.S. came with the Windows operating system already installed. In the process, Bill Gates became the country's richest man and his company became a major American success story. For Microsoft, today's move is just the latest in a series of acquisitions and alliances. Since 1994, Microsoft has joined forces with Teledesic, a satellite company, and UUNET Technologies, an Internet provider. Last year, Microsoft invested $220 million with NBC News to start a 24-hour cable news network and news Internet web site, called MSNBC. And in June, the company bought a $1 billion stake in Comcast, the nation's fourth largest cable operator. While Microsoft has seen its profits soar, Apple has been struggling, particularly since Steve Jobs left Apple to found a new company. For years, Apple has engaged Microsoft in legal battles, accusing it of stealing aspects of its operating system. And though a core of computer users remain loyal to the latest Apple products, the company's overall market share has dropped dramatically. Today only 3 percent of computers sold are made by Apple.

MARGARET WARNER: During a year of corporate reshuffling and job cuts, Apple's stock has fallen more than 50 percent. Today's announcement had a big impact on the stock price, pushing it up nearly 35 percent. Microsoft's stock went up just 1/8 of a point, essentially unchanged. For more on the deal and what it means we now have Gary Arlen, a computer technology consultant based in Bethesda, Maryland, and Ken Auletta, media columnist for the "New Yorker" Magazine and author of the book, The Highway Men: Warriors of the Information Superhighway. So, Gary Arlen, how big a deal is this in the world of computers and information?

GARY ARLEN, Computer Technology Consultant: Well, that's a very big deal, Margaret. One of the questions, of course, is whether Microsoft is polishing up the Apple or polishing off the Apple because there's a lot of questions about how this will play in the long-term. For right now, though, a $150 million investment really does keep Apple going.

MARGARET WARNER: Ken Auletta, how big a deal do you think this is?

KEN AULETTA, The New Yorker: [New York] Well, I think it's consistent with what Microsoft is doing, and Margaret pointed out several things they have done, just some of the things they've done. They're acting increasingly like a bank, investing their $9 billion in excess cash in various companies, building alliances with companies. I mean, look, if their investment today of $115 million just means that Apple's stock continues to go up, they made a very wise investment, because they're earning more money than they could with their excess cash and say Treasury bills. But I think it's also about creating business partnerships, which is very much consistent with what they've done with NBC and General Electric, what they did with Comcast and the cable industry, what they've done with Dreamworks and Hollywood studios, and what they've done with many industries all around the world.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Gary Arlen, let's focus now on Apple. What exactly does Apple get out of this?

GARY ARLEN: Well, the $150 million gets Apple a little new lease on life. Obviously, the relationship is described to begin putting some of the Microsoft software notices--notably Office 98 product- -into the Macintosh world is--brings new software into that dedicated Mac audience. I think Microsoft, though, gets one thing that is sort of a sub-context of this, and that is the Justice Department keeps looking down at what kind of anti-trust implications there are when one company, Microsoft, has such a commanding presence in the software business. This kind of relationship suggests that Microsoft is giving Apple the opportunity to keep its audience, its 10 percent market share alive and going.

MARGARET WARNER: Explain that further, Ken Auletta, if you agree with that, on this question about what it does for Microsoft legally. Now some people might say, wait a minute; these are supposed to be competitors, and now they're forming an alliance. Why isn't that an anti-trust problem?

KEN AULETTA: Well, the devil theory, which holds that everyone acts out of some devilish motive, would hold, as Gary just said. What Microsoft is doing is taking the heat off themselves from the federal government by saying, look, you're worried about Apple going out of business; we're going to keep it in business, so that you've got a competitor to the IBM-based system. That's one theory. The other theory is that Apple is, in fact--there's another devil theory, which is that we are investing in a company that has 8 million customers and if we can claim some of those customers for Microsoft, we're doing pretty good.

MARGARET WARNER: Sticking with Apple for just one minute, but can it save Apple?

GARY ARLEN: Well, one of the things it does, for example, is it can keep Apple going. And it's got a very loyal following--that 9 or 10 percent of Americans who are Apple fanatics. They love their Macintosh. They--it was shown in some of the clips from the media in Boston today. It also--

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning when they booed--

GARY ARLEN: When they booed the relationship with Microsoft that was taking shape, it underscores how much they love their Macs. There also are some other things going on here. I mean,Microsoft will be--the Internet Explorer, the so-called "browser" for the Internet, will become the preferred browser, the default browser, on Macintosh computers. And that is a very important point too.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Explain the meaning--if you buy a Mac, you might have a couple of different browsers, but it will automatically boot up Microsoft's version unless you ask for something else.

GARY ARLEN: Unless you ask for Netscape Navigator, which is the other major one. And actually, the browser for the Internet is the only major category of software in Microsoft--in which Microsoft comes in second place. So this really brings Microsoft yet another audience, while consolidating this relationship with the Macintosh crowd.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you see that as a big deal for Microsoft, Ken Auletta?

KEN AULETTA: I mean, listen, I think Apple is a company that has made some disastrous decisions. We should not forget that. And just the decision which you mentioned in your piece to keep the proprietary system and not allow it to be used on other computer companies--I mean, that was a very stupid decision. And it's been followed by other stupid decisions. So this is a company hanging on by its fingernails, and Microsoft is coming along, and perhaps giving it a second wind, perhaps not. But those fanatics--and there are many--it's a wonderful system--and it's not just a system; it's also a belief system. I mean, Mac--the Mac was a system that people believe was anti-IBM at first and then became anti-Microsoft. So if you wanted to fight against the big guys, you supported Mac and Apple. That is increasingly a shrinking pie. It's not 9 or 10 percent any longer. It's 3 percent of all computers sold are Macs, so--and last year was 10 percent. So it's a dying business. And they have to save it. So he's done what he thinks he can to save it.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But stay with me for a minute, Ken Auletta. Is this--does this spell the end of that Apple culture, that exclusivity, some called it isolation?

KEN AULETTA: Absolutely.

MARGARET WARNER: Yes.

KEN AULETTA: No question.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you think we're going to see, Gary Arlen, a lot of cross--other kinds of cross-pollenation between the two? I mean, is this the forerunner of even these two systems kind of merging?

GARY ARLEN: Well, there's a lot of things going to change in this business. One of the things Apple does bring to it is the emphasis it's put on the so-called information appliance. Microsoft is very interested in this. It's--

MARGARET WARNER: Explain that.

GARY ARLEN: The information appliance or the set top box that really starts to bring the computer to the television set, and you can do a lot of computer things on a TV set or a cable system. Microsoft is very interested in that. It spent over $400 million a few months ago to buy a brand new company called Web TV. Apple has worked strongly in that area for several years. It's interfaced the kinds of user-friendly facilities it's always developed and brought this into the set top. They are developing something called PIPPIN, a very cute little interfacing set top box that brings the computer to the TV set. Microsoft and Apple can work very closely together on that project. And that's really the future of how most Americans and most people in the world will get computers.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying this is not a one-way deal. I mean, Apple, there are some things Apple can actually bring technologically to Microsoft.

GARY ARLEN: Absolutely.

MARGARET WARNER: Ken--

KEN AULETTA: I wouldn't overstate that.

MARGARET WARNER: You wouldn't?

KEN AULETTA: Because Apple, in fact, has been cutting its R&D budget, while Microsoft has been increasing it dramatically. And, in fact, one of the things that's depressing about Apple is they've allowed a whole generation of programmers and brilliant people to flee and go over to places like Disney.

GARY ARLEN: In fact, the people who started Web TV came from Apple.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Ken Auletta, let's go back to a point you made right at the beginning, what we haven't had a chance to get to yet, which is that this was part of a--this much greater strategy on Microsoft's part, and we've outlined it--that they're going into all these alliances. This may sound like a stupid question, but why? Why does Microsoft want to keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger?

KEN AULETTA: Well, what Microsoft wants to do. I mean, they're hedging their best. No one quite knows what the dominant or the ascendant--we don't know whether we're going to be watching television on our computer screen or on a TV screen, or maybe our telephone screen, and we don't know what systems we're going to be using and what software. So what Microsoft is trying to do is get a seat at many different tables. Web TV gives it one seat; Comcast and cable investment gives it another seat. The Apple investment gives it another seat. The NBC--MSNBC investment is still another seat. And they have alliances with hundreds of companies around the world and in the market, and they're trying to hedge their bets. They've got all this money--$9 billion in cash, excess cash--and they say, let's use it and build alliances and maybe one of these bets or several of these bets are going to pan out.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree?

GARY ARLEN: Absolutely. And that's the exciting part. We don't know which ones they're going to be.

MARGARET WARNER: But Microsoft has got to make sure that it's got a front and center position whichever way it goes.

GARY ARLEN: It has that position already. It's how far they can push it.

MARGARET WARNER: Ken Auletta, what do you think this is going to mean for other competitors?

KEN AULETTA: Well, actually, I want to know--one of the things I want to know is what Larry Ellison is saying. Today, I noticed that one of the analyses--

MARGARET WARNER: Explain who he is.

KEN AULETTA: He's the head of "Oracle," and he is perceived as public enemy No. 1 of Microsoft, and it was announced today--

MARGARET WARNER: Because "Oracle" is the No. 2 software company next to Microsoft.

KEN AULETTA: Correct. And they have different visions of how the future may work itself out. And it was announced today that he is joining the board of Apple, and he happens to be one of Jobs' closest friends, and yet, he's an enemy of Bill Gates. So how does that work out? I mean, I'm fascinated to hear more about that.

MARGARET WARNER: Any theory? Any theories?

KEN AULETTA: Well, I mean, one theory would be that a smart businessman sits back and says, look, Gates can help save Apple. But Ellison is a very emotional, passionate man. And I don't know how his passion squares with his logic. I'd like to know.

GARY ARLEN: I think it's very exciting and very interesting about the consolidation that's about to take shape, not only Ellison joined the Apple board, but you had folks from an IBM veteran, a Hughes aerospace spokesman--Java--Sun Microsystems, so there's-- altogether--there's consolidation, the mishmash of people working together while working competitively. It's a very interesting future,this business.

KEN AULETTA: There's also a notion, we shouldn't forget, when you go back to the mid 70's, when Apple is formed. There may be some- -there may be some--there may be two characters in a garage today creating the next Apple.

MARGARET WARNER: Yes. But in the meantime, going back to this less competition, is this good for consumers or not?

GARY ARLEN: Short-term probably not. Long-term, I think there can be some very interesting issues of standardization, things to take away the confusion that have permeated this business since the beginning. It's what--60 percent of Americans don't have a home computer right now, and really that's the market these kind of things are looking for, how to get some of that un-computerized households into this world.

KEN AULETTA: That's a very important point, the notion that one of the reasons that television is a mass medium is that it's easy to use. Computers is not a mass medium. It's under 40 percent usage because it's not easy to use. And so once you can replicate those common standards so that everyone could talk to one another and do it as quickly as you can with a remote control, then you have the possibility of making computers a mass medium.

MARGARET WARNER: Which will be exciting for us all. Thank you both very much.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour, the governor of Guam on the Korean air crash and justice in Cambodia. UPDATE - KOREAN AIR- FLIGHT 801

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, an update on the crash of Korean Air Flight 801. First James Mates of Independent Television News.

JAMES MATES: Eight hours after the Korean Air 747 plowed into this hillside the wreckage was still burning fiercely. The impact had broken the fuselage into six pieces. The tail, with its distinctive Korean Air logo, was the only part still recognizable as an aircraft. There had been several explosions. It seemed inconceivable that anyone could have survived. Yet, 30 did. Some were even able to walk away.

REAR ADMIRAL MARTIN JANCZAK, U.S. Navy: Some of the passengers were thrown clear. And we actually found passengers in this saw grass that's down here.

JAMES MATES: One of the first on the scene was the governor of Guam. He pulled a 13-year-old Japanese girl from the wreckage. She wouldn't let go of his hand.

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ, Guam: And the one little girl that I found, she wanted me to go ahead and get her mom, who she saw burning. And I just couldn't get there because the flames were too much for anybody to get in there and try to grope through in the dark.

JAMES MATES: All 30 survivors are in hospital. They have told how there was no indication of trouble before the crash, but in the moments that followed there was chaos.

CRASH SURVIVOR: The fire and then the people--some of the people falling out--help me, help--sound--the fire--

JAMES MATES: But while attention was on those who lived, the vast majority of the 254 people on board hadn't made it. Relatives of the dead had rushed to the crash site, some to pray, some to weep. There were similar scenes at Seoul Airport, where grief was mixed with anger at the lack of information about just who had survived and who hadn't. The one thing they'd been told for certain was that no one else will be found alive.

REAR ADMIRAL MARTIN JANCZAK: It's unlikely we will find any additional survivors of the crash, and we have our forensic team and our crash recovery people that are going in to do the actual forensics to try to determine why this happened.

JAMES MATES: Now it is a question of locating the remaining bodies and getting that investigation underway.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Charles Krause spoke to Guam Governor Carl Gutierrez by phone late this afternoon.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Governor, thank you very much for joining us. Tell me--there have been conflicting reports about the number of survivors. What is the latest figure?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ, Guam: Well, we as of yesterday, we had 30 survivors, and this morning, we have a little bit of a conflicting figure, whether it went down one, two, or three less, and so we're trying to verify that right now, whether there are twenty-seven, twenty-eight, or twenty-nine left.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What is--why would there be conflicting figures? Is it because of the hospital, or what?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: It's because we have them in two hospitals, and everybody's frantically doing their thing and you know in the operating room and all that, and we just haven't been able to ascertain, you know, some of the reports come out--we don't whether it's official or not, but we'll get them locked in by an hour from now.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The little girl that you pulled from the wreckage, how did you get there so quickly?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Well, you know, I only live about six minutes drive from the crash site, and when I got there, I figured that there were people there already. When I started driving in on the access road, the people were actually trying to remove the pipes that were ripped up, a fuel line, by the crash, and then I got my security and a police officer, and we ran down there about a quarter of a mile to try to get there as soon as possible, and we heard the screams, and we just went down to where the screams were so we could get to the people and let them know that help was coming.

CHARLES KRAUSE: How many people do you think were trapped alive in the crash, in the wreckage?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Trapped alive? We found a lot in the wreckage that were not burned but for the most part the center fuselage was where the bodies are charred now--so maybe over a hundred and fifty, sixty people got caught in there.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Now, how were some of the passengers able to survive? Where were they?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Well, most of them I found were thrown out of the wreckage, and some actually were thrown out and were severely burned on the way out, and as a matter of fact, that's how the little girl got out. Her mom told her to get out and save herself, and she got out, and I found her getting away from the plane, and put her up in--out of harm's way with a flight attendant, and stayed with her, so we were trying to put people into one clearing so that when the medics came it would be a lot easier to administer first aid.

CHARLES KRAUSE: So you seem to be saying that there were at least a couple of minutes there after the plane crash where people could escape in a sense?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Yes, that's correct, but they probably were mangled up in the seats and just could not free themselves, just like the mother and the daughter that were--as I saw it--it was the top part of the first class cabin of the 747 that got ripped off the top and thrown about 25 yards away and were trapped under the seats and managed to--it took us about five hours to six hours to get them out.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What are the survivors saying about the last couple of minutes before the plane crash? What happened?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: The gentleman--a citizen of New Zealand named Barry Fahl--I also had him in close proximity to the little girl and was communicating with him in, of course, English and the others could not, and he said that he's a helicopter pilot and a mechanic, by the way, and worked on Guam and he said that when he- -when the plane was coming in for a landing, he felt the landing gear come down, and thought it was--everything was normal--there was nothing happening, and it gathered no emergency alert, and when it banged down, his only description was that they landed three miles short of the runway.

CHARLES KRAUSE: So the reports that there was an explosion before the plane hit the ground, from what you've been told, that doesn't seem to be the case?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Well, one passenger certainly didn't know that, and he's pretty much adept at aviation matters. He would have known--and he was very lucid.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Do you have any idea yet what might have caused the crash?

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: I have no idea, and I don't want to speculate. The black boxes are now in Washington, D.C., and in about an hour and a half, the NTS--the National Transportation Safety Board will be on Guam to make those determinations.

CHARLES KRAUSE: I understand what you're saying, but there have been reports that the landing system at the airport had been out of service for over a month.

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Well, you know, you're talking about the-- that was taken off July 8th by FAA, and will be put back on line on September 11th, but every airline, of course, has to--are alerted--they file their flight plan before they take that into consideration, and hundreds of planes have been landing since July 8th without any incident, and as a matter of fact, two Korean airline flights landed last night under the same conditions, so it's really--I wouldn't bet that it was a contributing factor.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Were there other jets that had landed before or immediately before the Korean Airlines plane that actually--

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Absolutely. That was our busiest time of all the hub service of Guam coming in at 1:15 and 3:15 in the morning, and as a matter of fact, we were at the crash scene, and several of them flew overhead to go in and land.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Well, Governor, we're going to have to leave it there, but I want to thank you very, very much for joining us. Thank you.

GOV. CARL GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much. FOCUS - CAMBODIAN JUSTICE?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now Pol Pot and justice in Cambodia. We start with some background. His real name was Soloth Sar, but the world knows him as Pol Pot. Few pictures of him exist. He remained mostly behind the scenes in the years 1975 - 1979 when he and his Khmer Rouge tried to remake Cambodia into an agrarian utopia. They forced people to move from cities to the countryside and murdered the educated and the skilled. More than one million people were slaughtered or died of starvation. In 1979 the Vietnamese invaded and overthrew Pol Pot, who fled into jungles near Thailand and led a Khmer Rouge guerrilla war from there. After 18 years, and now 72 years old, he has appeared--a prisoner of his own movement, and on trial for recent atrocities--at least that was the impression created. Journalist Nate Thayer of the Far Eastern Economic Review and a cameraman were the only westerners allowed to attend and photograph this so-called people's Tribunal.

NATE THAYER, Far Eastern Economic Review: I was shocked that the point we arrived the show trial began. And it was an extremely surreal historic moment.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The trial took place in an open-air mass meeting hall. Hundreds chanted "Crush Pol Pot and his clique." The longtime Khmer Rouge leader sat slumped in a wooden chair, grasping a bamboo cane and a rattan fan, ill from heart disease and persistent malaria. Participants stepped up to crude microphones to humiliate and denounce the fallen strongman.

NATE THAYER: There was a debate within the leadership on whether to, in fact, kill him, cut him off from medical care or give him the medical care and allow him to live his final days under house detention.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In the end, Pol Pot was sentenced to live the rest of his life under house arrest. His fate is one piece of the complicated puzzle that is Cambodian politics today. Even after Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge followers were overthrown by the Vietnamese in 1979, Cambodia remained in turmoil. In 1991, the United Nations brokered a peace agreement and sent thousands of UN troops and volunteers into the country to set up a special election. The vote in 1993 produced a coalition government with two prime-ministers: Prince Norodom Ranariddh, representing the royalist forces, and former Khmer Rouge member Hun Sen. But the Khmer Rouge refused to disarm; the UN had no mandate to force them to; and low level fighting continued. Last month as rumors surfaced that Pol Pot had been captured, fighting broke out between Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh's forces. Violence escalated, and several of the Prince's top officials were assassinated. Hun Sen seized control of the government. Ousted Prime Minister Prince Ranariddh fled the country. The trial of Pol Pot in the jungle is related to the struggle between the two Cambodian leaders, in that- -along with their other differences--they are competing for the support of Khmer Rouge fighters. That support could become important if full-scale civil war breaks out. Now, three perspectives: Dith Pran was born in Cambodia and lived through the Khmer Rouge regime. The movie "The Killing Fields" was about him. He recently edited the book Children of Cambodia's Killing Fields. And he is now a photojournalist at the "New York Times." Teeda Mam was also born in Cambodia and survived the Khmer Rouge. She is the author of the book To Destroy You is No Loss. She is now a software developer in San Francisco. And Steven Ratner is an assistant professor at the University of Texas School of Law. He served as legal counsel in the State Department during the Cambodia peace talks and co-authored the book Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law to be released later this year. Thank you all for being with us. Teeda Mam, you suffered terribly under Pol Pot. Tell us your impressions of this trial.

TEEDA BUTT MAM, Author: [San Francisco] I was very sad to see that trial, especially the town meeting that was held where Pol Pot was being prosecuted and is a similar one that I'm used to during the four-years of terror that I was under Pol Pot, so, you know, to me it was a setup show, and I am pretty sure that people were sitting in the trial were not at all aware of what was going on. And the justice was not being done there because it's not a real trial with people who understand law, but it was more of a show.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The people--staying with you, Teeda Mam, for a moment, the people in the audience seem so young.

TEEDA BUTT MAM: Yes, very young. Most of them are my age, and when Pol Pot came to power, I was 14v@ or these people how we remember--understand--a full understanding of what's going on.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dith Pran, what was your reaction to the trial?

DITH PRAN, New York Times: [New York] Well, I, first of all, I like to say that I'm ready to testify in--when the news Pol Pot being captured, I was very excited that I prepare with the book that my wife and I work together to prepare for us to witness because Cambodia we don't have enough evidence, and, as you know, that the trial that it happened in the jungle, it's similar to a trial Hitler--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In other words, it's as if the SS were to try Hitler to have Khmer Rouge trying Pol Pot, is that what you're saying?

DITH PRAN: Yes. It is similar.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And it's not meaningful to you at all. It's just a show trial.

DITH PRAN: No. And also you can say it's a political game. The Khmer Rouge want to purify themselves because they know that the name Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot is well known to the outside world as a criminal, so right now they want to clean themselves, so they can infiltrate another system or another tactic in order to come back into the power they had to change their new strategy. They want to show the Cambodian people that they are clean right now. We don't believe Pol Pot--Pol Pot is finished. We real nationalists, and please, you know, help us that to fight back, to get into the power. That is the way that I seek.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me interrupt you one second. Does it seem to you, even if it's a show trial, does the trial indicate that Pol Pot has lost his position of leadership of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, always make some kind of tactic to confuse the people. I remember in the early 80's they say, well Pol Pot retired, but they still behind. But this time to me it seemed that Pol Pot is really finished because he's sick, and he's old, and you can see that it's not a coup. What I saw, that the new generation, these are not the group that--who are responsible in the Cambodian genocide in the 70's; they were around late 40 and the old generation in a circle it's not there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Let me--I'll come back to you in a second. Teeda Mam, what about that question, do you also think it means that Pol Pot is no longer in control, and does that make a difference to you; that just one person is not there now?

TEEDA BUTT MAM: The sad part is this whole show is about trying to blame one person for a genocide of 2 million people, and what is scary is by putting up the show, a lot of people think they can get away with it, and the people who are involved here are the people who try to clean themselves up and it's very dangerous if the world accept that that is a trial because this is not. The trial is very tricky. I lived with them for four years. They lie all the time, and they always have this very, very complicated, where no one can understand what's going on. Obviously, Pol Pot was very retiring. He was very old, and he looked sick to me, but they gesture--people around him, you know, they just have somewhat a fear and respect for him. And that's really sad.

DITH PRAN: Excuse me, because--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: One second. I want to get to Steve Ratner here before we go any further. As somebody who's looked at this issue and the issue of international law and atrocities like Pol Pot, how did the trial look to you?

STEVEN RATNER, University of Texas Law School: Well, on the one hand like others who care about human rights, I'm glad to see he has apparently been apprehended by somebody. But this--what we had seen is not justice, and it's not accountability. What it is is something that is reminiscent of the show trials that Stalin put on in the 30's and they took place in China during the Cultural Revolution. It's not real justice because itdoesn't have all of the things that make for justice. It doesn't have fairness for the defendant. It doesn't have cross-examination. It doesn't have a real jury or a judge. It's just a show trial. And so because it blocks the real authority of a trial it's not going to create the kind of closure and justice that a real trial can create. And the reaction of the two distinguished Cambodian Americans I think makes that absolutely clear. We don't see a sense that the issue of Pol Pot is behind us, and I would also underline the fact that it is very much focusing on one person when, in fact, it was a movement with many people, most of whom are beyond the--beyond the scope of justice at this point.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ratner, what should happen now? And I understand when I say should I mean they would also be possible within this scope of international law.

STEVEN RATNER: Well, there are a variety of options as far as trials go. You could have at trial in Cambodia under Cambodian law, or under international law, but the Cambodian court system is right now in shambles. The judges get paid practically nothing; they can be bribed or threatened by one side or the other. There is no respect for the rule of law, for defendants' rights, and so unless you had a massive international assistance to Cambodia, or a trial that involved foreign judges and foreign assistance, Cambodia is not ready for trials immediately. Now, when you switch to trials outside of Cambodia, you could either have an international trial, or you could have a trial in another country. An international trial by the UN would require setting up a special court because there's no standing international criminal court.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So that would be like the court that's dealing with the war crimes in Bosnia.

STEVEN RATNER: Exactly. You'd need another court like the one for Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, which would require a decision by the Security Council of the UN, where one has to deal with the reluctance of some countries, in particular, China to see this issue handled by the United Nations. As far as a trial in a third country would go, there are some countries out there that have laws on their books that permit trials for crimes outside of their territory by foreigners, against foreigners. Canada is one of those countries the U.S. doesn't have a law that would cover the Khmer Rouge atrocities but when the U.S. government approached the Canadians last month on this issue, the Canadians were not enthusiastic about the idea.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And just briefly, its--these are not likely to happen, the other options you laid out right now. I mean, Pol Pot is some place where perhaps nobody can get at him, is that right?

STEVEN RATNER: Right. And overlaying all of these political problems is the issue of custody of the defendant and access to witness in--witnesses and evidence. The fact is that Pol Pot and the other Khmer Rouge leaders are not currently held by anybody who really has the legal authority to try them, and they'd have to be handed over to either the Cambodian government or to a third country or to the United Nations somehow.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dith Pran, what would you like to see happen next?

DITH PRAN: Well, I see that it is--the stage of trial that they have, and I don't feel that Pol Pot will be handled through the democratic nation or through the Cambodia government. I like to see the trial in Phnom Penn, under the supervision of international community.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But you don't think he will be handed over. Why?

DITH PRAN: Why? Because Khmer Rouge when we see the show that night, you can feel that the people still respect them, and they're not going to let the founder of a Cambodian Communist leader to get out from their hands. This is some kind of--they still look to me- -they still respect these guys, and they know that if they hand over to the international community or to Cambodian community, we will try them with a system of democratic system, and I'm very pessimistic, because this is a time that we want to show the world. Why not? They say, well, we're going to give you or turn over our former leader, but it seem for me--that's why I say it's a show trial. And what I like to talk right now is the problem for the future, what's going on right now in my country, if you want to hear about--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I do want to hear, but I want to ask Teeda Mam first. I hope we'll have time to come back to you, Dith Pran, but Teeda Mam, what do you want to have happen now, with--with Pol Pot and with judging the Khmer Rouge leaders?

TEEDA BUTT MAM: Well, you know, Pol Pot is a special case. He is unique. Not that many people like him that kill their own people, and so I think the international community should treat it as special case, and I think he must be brought to trial, given the fact that he had committed enormous murder, 1/4 of the population of a country completely destroyed, Cambodia, completely destroyed the society that was once a very safe and peaceful place to live. It's very important, you know. There are few things, and first, it helps a victim like myself, whose fathers and many families were killed by him--feel closure to this painful experience we have. Secondly, you know, the prime minister of Cambodia today is also a Khmer Rouge, and he is committing murder right now as we speak. He is killing--may not be--the number Pol Pot--the number of people that Pol Pot had killed--but he also is committing murder to threaten, to scare people, to grab the power into his grip--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Excuse me one minute. We should just clarify that he was an ex-Khmer Rouge--he left when the killing got--he went to Vietnam--

TEEDA BUTT MAM: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: --and came back after the Vietnam invasion.

TEEDA BUTT MAM: Yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Before we go into that--and I hope we have time--we may not tonight--to get into the current political situation--and I'm sorry about that--but Steve Ratner, it does seem incredible really that this person who is responsible for this--I mean, just leave aside that other people were responsible too--is sitting in that jungle and nobody can do anything about it.

STEVEN RATNER: Well, of course, it's not a question that nobody can do anything about it. It's a question that nobody wants to do anything about it. The crimes that were committed against the Cambodia people were also committed against the entire international community. That's why we call them crimes against humanity. And there's a responsibility on the Cambodian government to try to apprehend Pol Pot and his ilk, and there's a responsibility on the international community as well to assist in that endeavor. At this point the politics of the issue has caused the government to choose here to amnesty certain Khmer Rouge officials in order to get them into--supportive of the government or to keep Pol Pot sort of out in the jungle where he becomes an excuse for a large military budget, and the international community has decided that if the Cambodia government is not interested in supporting the idea of accountability, it's not going to take the lead, and so that's the impasse we're in right now.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much for being with us. And we'll hope to get to the current political scene later. Thank you. RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, President Clinton announced federal deficit projections for 1997 had fallen to $37 billion, the lowest level since 1974. Microsoft and Apple Computer agreed to end their long rivalry, and Microsoft will invest $150 million in Apple. In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she expects to travel to the Middle East to help revive the Arab-Israeli peace process. And late today spokesmen for UPS and the Teamsters said they would hold informal contract talks tomorrow. We'll be with you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with an interview with Secretary of State Albright. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.