The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary this Thursday, we focus on the next steps in Bosnia, we talk to European negotiator Lord Owen, then former Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and key members of Congress debate the options for the United States. Finally, British, French, and American journalists discuss the unusual split between the U.S. reaction and that of major allies like France and Britain. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The Serb-lead government of Yugoslavia today said it was cutting off all but humanitarian aid to Bosnia's Serbs. The United Nations Security Council has blamed Belgrade for supplying the Bosnian Serbs in their 13-month war against the republic's Muslims and Croats. Belgrade's announcement followed the refusal by the self-declared Bosnian Serb parliament to approve the Vance- Owen peace plan. Instead, they voted to let the Serb population of Bosnia decide in a referendum. President Clinton called the parliament's action "a grave disappointment." He said it was a delaying tactic and called on the International Community to respond quickly and decisively. He spoke in Washington.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The International Community I believe must not allow the Serbs to stall progress toward peace and continue brutal assaults on innocent civilians. We've seen too many things happen, and we do have fundamental interests there, not only the United States but particularly the United States as a member of the world community. The Serbs' actions over the past year violate the principle that internationally recognized borders must not be violated or altered by aggression from without. Their actions threaten to widen the conflict and foster instability in other parts of Europe in ways that could be exceedingly damaging. And their savage and cynical ethnic cleansing defends the world's conscience and our standards of behavior.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Clinton said he directed Sec. of State Christopher to unite European allies on tougher measures against the Bosnian Serbs. Christopher continued his mission in Belgium and Germany today. But he said his discussions with European leaders would now focus exclusively on punitive measures to stop the fighting. So far, he's been able to muster much support for U.S. plans to bomb Serb artillery. In Brussels this morning he strongly denounced the Serb rejection of the peace plan, calling it a very, very unwise decision. The United Nations Security Council held consultations on Bosnia today. There was no immediate official reaction to the Serb vote. The Council was expected to declare safe havens around the Muslim enclave of Zepa. The Bosnian government said Tuesday that Serb forces had launched a fierce assault on the region where 40,000 refugees are reportedly trapped. U.N. officials said they were negotiating a cease-fire with Serb commanders. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: There was bipartisan congressional support for President Clinton's Bosnia policy today. House Speaker Tom Foley said he believed Congress would approve whatever the President requested. Defense Sec. Aspin and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Colin Powell discussed Bosnia in closed-door sessions with members of Congress. A group of Senators has just returned from a fact finding trip to the Balkans. They talked to reporters on Capitol Hill.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: It's very important that the International Community continue to send the signal that President Clinton has forcefully done in the last two or three weeks, and that is that the International Community's patience is exhausted, that the siege of the villages has to be stopped, and that there must be an open access for the transportation by the United Nations of both food and medicine to the areas where there's so much suffering going on.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. The peacekeeping route which we all hope is the first option to pursue will not have clear, definite lines like Somalia or other areas. It'll be blurred day after day. It'll require a conviction to hang in when our own troops, together with our allies, are taking hits, hits from sides we may not know from whence the bullet comes. It is that confusing.

MR. LEHRER: All of the program after this News Summary is on the Bosnia story.

MR. MacNeil: The productivity of U.S. workers slipped in the first three months of the year. The Labor Department reported non- farm productivity fell at a .1 percent annual rate. That compared with a 4 percent increase in the fourth quarter of last year. It was the first drop in two years. White House officials said today the President may delay sending his health care reform plan to Congress until mid June. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton discussed the plan with members of Congress on Capitol Hill today. She told reporters her task force would complete its recommendations by the end of May, but she said the President would take some time to build support before making the details public.

MR. LEHRER: There were fatal shootings at two post offices today. A gunman in Dearborn, Michigan, killed one person and wounded two others. The man was later found dead, an apparent suicide. Police said he worked in the post office garage and was upset at being passed over for another job. Another gunman opened fire in a Dana Point, California, post office. He also killed one person and wounded at least two others. Postal workers said he was a former employee. The man fled after the shooting. Police have launched a search for him.

MR. MacNeil: The Space Shuttle Columbia returned to Earth today after a 10-day mission, landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California early this morning. It was diverted from Florida because of bad weather. The mission was sponsored by Germany. Two Germans were among the seven-man crew which conducted experiments on how organisms adapt to weightlessness. That's our summary of the news. Now it's on to the next steps in Bosnia. FOCUS - RAISING THE ANTE

MR. LEHRER: We devote the rest of the program tonight to the Bosnia story. The Bosnian parliament rejection of the Vance-Owen peace plan brought a call from President Clinton for the United States and its allies to take action. But will they? We'll get answers to that question from the European Envoy, Lord Owen, from members of Congress, from former Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and from European and American analysts. We begin in Bosnia, with the vote of the Bosnian Serbs. Our report is by Nik Gowing of Independent Television News.

MR. GOWING: After 17 hours behind closed doors, the Bosnian Serbs had defied pressure from the world and Serbia. For Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, the stark realization that to the vast majority of the 80 politicians sitting around him what he says and urges from Belgrade now carries no weight. After all, the western belief that President Milosevic has ultimate control over Bosnian Serbs' liked military commander Gen. Miladic, this morning's decision proved he didn't and hasn't for some time. The Bosnian Serbs are now on their own. In a bizarre gesture, the Bosnian Serbs thanked Greek prime minister Mitsitarkus for coming to warn the parliament of the catastrophe now awaiting them for rejecting the Vance-Owen plan. But in cancelling Dr. Karadzic's signing of the Vance-Owen map, the Bosnian Serbs have broken loose. Their security in the hands of Gen. Miladic, appointed to Bosnia last year by President Milosevic. Can President Milosevic now control Gen. Miladic and the Bosnian forces? It seems unlikely now. Just before dawn, Dr. Karadzic and President Milosevic shook hands frostily. The new reality is that last week's split with Belgrade has now become a rift valley. Milosevic has, if anything, been pushed by last night's rejection towards world condemnation of the Bosnian Serbs and agreeing to Lord Owen's demand that Milosevic and Serbia seal the border with Bosnia, thereby isolating Dr. Karadzic's military machine. But to do so, Dr. Karadzic warned, would create a situation that could not be controlled if NATO warplanes launched limited air strikes.

DR. RADOVAN KARADZIC, Leader, Bosnian Serbs: And if it happens, nobody can predict what would happen, because people live in dramatic circumstances. People will defend themselves. I don't know whether we could maintain a unified command if somebody attacked us. We -- in the first 45 days of the war without unified command, that was terrible. That was a clear chaos.

MR. GOWING: That is why federal president Dobritza Chausic talked somberly of no one now being able to predict the future. The Bosnian Serb fighters will not surrender land and be confined to what they call mini Nagorno-Karabakh type enclaves. "Not the point," said President Milosevic this afternoon as he bade farewell to Prime Minister Mitzatarkus after the Bosnia Serbs rejected so dismissively their overnight peace mission to parlay.

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, President of Serbia: I believe that all people in Bosnia wanted peace, and that decision is one irresponsible decision which will not cut continuation of process. And I'm sure the talks will be successful.

MR. GOWING: What Milosevic does now may hold the key to that process and preventing or at least delaying western air strikes in Bosnia.

MR. LEHRER: Soon after Gowing filed that report, Serbia said it would cut off most supplies to the Bosnia Serbs. In a speech this morning, President Clinton denounced the Bosnian Serbs and said the world must respond. Here's an extended excerpt.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have this morning directed Sec. Christopher to continue to pursue his consultations with our allies and friends in Europe and Russia on tougher measures which can be taken collectively, not by the United States alone, but collectively, to make clear to the Serbs that we are embarked on a course of peace, and they are embarked on a costly course. The vote last night simply makes this Christopher mission more important. Sec. Christopher will be insistent that the time has come for the International Community to unite and to act quickly and decisively. America has made its position clear and is ready to do its part, but Europe must be willing to act with us. We must go forward together. That is what we seek, not to act alone, not to act rashly, not to do things which would draw the United States into a conflict not of its own making and not of its own ability to resolve but simply concerted action that the International Community can and should take to deal with these issues.

MR. MacNeil: The co-author of the plan that Bosnian Serbs rejected is Lord Owen of Britain, a former British foreign secretary, and he's been the European Community envoy on the Yugoslav issue since last September. He joins us now from the Independent Television News Studio in London. Lord Owen, thank you for joining us.

LORD DAVID OWEN: A pleasure.

MR. MacNeil: Do you agree with President Clinton that Europeans and Americans must unite to put new pressure on Bosnia's Serbs?

LORD OWEN: Yes, I do. I think that that is absolutely vital over the next few critical weeks.

MR. MacNeil: What form of pressure?

LORD OWEN: Well, I think that we're already united on economic pressure on what political pressure we can bring to bear. The new pressure, of course, that has come tonight is very important, and that is the Yugoslav and Serbian political leaders deciding to cut the, effectively the links that they have had with the Bosnian Serbian army and not exactly sealing that border but not allowing any of the crucial supplies, oil, petrol, spare parts, and other things that have been fueling this war. They're going to just keep it to humanitarian supplies. I think it's very important that United Nations monitors are there on those frontier posts to verify that that is exactly what is happening.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think Belgrade's action makes new outside pressure from the U.S. or NATO or Europe unnecessary?

LORD OWEN: I'm not sure is the real answer. I think none of us are quite clear about how important those oil supplies are, how much petrol they have stored away, how much they can continue. I suspect that they're able to continue for some weeks without those supplies, and if they then in that period also continue ethnic cleansing and trying to take Muslim towns and villages, then I think we will be forced to consider some other actions. And I think that's what people are bending their minds to at the moment, and it's a very difficult one.

MR. MacNeil: Do you believe that the threat of military action played some part in getting first Mr. Milosevic in Belgrade, and then Mr. Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, to support the peace plan?

LORD OWEN: No. I don't think it was anywhere near as crucial as you in the United States think. I think the second tranche of economic measures is absolutely crucial for President Milosevic. I mean, I was with him in Belgrade 10 days ago when I think he made the decision to go for a peace settlement and to support the plan and to argue for it with the Bosnian Serb leaders. And he was trying to effectively abort the coming into action of their second tranche of economic measures, which I think he saw as damaging. He was unsuccessful then, but he continued to try and get a peace settlement. In fairness, I think he has done a good deal, and I don't think one can claim that he hasn't matched actions to words, particularly with the decision that he's taken tonight. But whether that will be enough, I don't know. They are very insulated from world pressures and very isolated in their attitudes in parlay. And the problem is how we actually get at these people. They, they want to stick on the territory they have. They want their republic of Serbska, and they are digging their toes in and particularly worrying was Gen. Maladic, who in the debate took a very contrary view. Now, of course, they haven't actually voted against the peace plan. What they voted for was a referendum to delay, but Dr. Karadzic's performance needs some serious examination. I mean, he, after all, signed the agreements on Sunday, told everybody that he would go back and support it. In his first speech, he referred to the plan as a catastrophe, and argued that they should have a referendum and did not put the vote for the plan and put his full support behind it.

MR. MacNeil: What would be the effect of further threats of military action now? For instance, as some people are discussing, if President Clinton asks the Congress to support him and then Congress were to debate that, which would take some time, and if it then approved it, what would be the effect on the Bosnian Serb mind of doing that?

LORD OWEN: It's very hard to tell. I don't think they're easily frightened. I think there is always about the Serb character an element which wants to believe that they are singled out by the world for special harm and of paranoia, and also a sort of fatalism is there, but I think the thing that will really worry them, they won't admit it, but many of them will be shocked and surprised that their fellow Serbs can have, seal the border and turned against them not just in words but in actions. And I think until we can really see how that works out over the next few days, it'll be hard to calculate our actions. So I wouldn't object at all if there's an open debate in Congress about further military action. I think you've got to carry America with you. I think the most important thing which I would like to see in terms of a partnership is the U.S. put maybe only a couple of thousand troops into the U.N. peacekeeping force if they're on the ground at the moment, and then you would experience the problems we face, the French, the Spanish, the British, in how you deal with, for instance, attacks from the air when you have troops on the ground. It's not easy, and I think sometimes over the last few weeks some of the misunderstandings have been because there's a feeling in America that you can have a purely sort of safe intervention from the air without realizing the implications for those who are on the ground already in the U.N. forces, not just in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where there are 10,000 U.N. troops. There are 16,000 in Croatia who would be very vulnerable to counteraction from Serbs, who are very militant, in parts of Croatia.

MR. MacNeil: What would be the effect of actual -- not just talking about it but actual military action right now, either air strikes, as has been discussed on Serbian artillery positions, Bosnian Serb artillery positions, or lifting the embargo and arming the Bosnian Muslims? What would that do?

LORD OWEN: I don't think lifting the embargo would have much immediate military action. You know, the sort of weapons which they're short of, artillery and such like they would need training on anyhow, but I mean really I cannot believe that this war is going to be helped by putting more arms into the situation. We've already had the Croats and the Muslims fighting in Central Bosnia, demonstrating how much this is a civil war. I am afraid that unless you could certainly get the Russians to guarantee that they would not see lifting of the embargo as a license to supply the Serbs with the modern, sophisticated weapons which by and large the Russian Federation have held back, I think that just puts petrol on the already flaming war and just simply genders more fighting. And I also -- it has a sort of element of cop out about it. You know, you just leave them to fight it out. I -- that has no support in Europe, lifting the arms embargo.

MR. MacNeil: What about air strikes, what would that do to Serbian morale now, Bosnian Serbian morale?

LORD OWEN: Well, I think it depends on the circumstances. The first experience we had of the threat of air strikes came over Srebrenica. Remember, the Canadians went in and disarmed the Bosnian government forces and then it looks as if they're going to be attacked by the Serbs. The British gave a public commitment that they would use aircraft to protect the Canadian troops. The United States may have done something in private as well, but the British actually, the prime minister openly said he would come in to support the Canadians. Now in those sort of circumstances you would get the support of the U.N. Security Council and the Russians. But if you widen it to an attack on Bosnian Serb arms and positions, then I think you will have difficulty, and I really think you must go to the Security Council. There are circumstances maybe where the Security Council, whose patience is running out on this whole thing as well, might actually endorse it. I'm prepared to consider any action within the context of the U.N. charter and authorized by the Security Council.

MR. MacNeil: Speaking of the Security Council, they have just this evening declared that Sarajevo and several other enclaves besieged, Muslim enclaves besieged by Bosnian Serbs, should be regarded as safe areas, and it called for the encircling of Bosnian Serb forces to withdraw to a point where they no longer threaten the towns and their inhabitants. Based on experience up till now, do you think in the two weeks or the ten days until this referendum that the Bosnian Serbs will observe that?

LORD OWEN: No. And I don't think we should give much credibility to a referendum in a war ravaged country which the Serbs have made the major contribution to the war, so I don't honestly believe that we should give any credence to this referendum. It may be a mechanism for getting off the hook, but I hear that Dr. Karadzic is predicting that there would be only 1 percent support in a referendum for a peace plan. I think the referendum is a device which we shouldn't have much truck with.

MR. MacNeil: Well, do you -- to come back to the first part of the question, do you think the Serbs, if they design, the Bosnian Serbs, if they design the referendum just as a delaying tactic, as President Clinton said, are going to go on trying to grab more territory, will this U.N. resolution be effective in stopping them?

LORD OWEN: No, I'm afraid it won't. That's the sort of resolution which is wishful thinking. I mean, how do you protect Sarajevo unless you are prepared to put ground troops in and literally fight them back. You might be able to use air power, but it's very difficult to single out an artillery gun in the midst of a forest and distinguish it from an area that might be in the midst of a village within the forest, so you go in with your pilots and attack it, and you might well find that there is quite a lot of what they call collateral damage. Air power can be used to tilt the balance. It needs to be done with considerable skill and care, and the danger is that you will be seen as a combatant. So, in my judgment, we've got to come back to the Security Council and work within those limitations. Now this isn't dramatic stuff. It doesn't feed the demand of people who say do something immediately. But I am still convinced that what has happened in Belgrade tonight is the issue of great importance, and open separation between the Serbs, actual action by the Belgrade in terms of cutting off supplies.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Lord Owen, thank you very much for joining us.

LORD OWEN: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Now four members of Congress and a former Secretary of State debate the American course of action from this point forward. They are the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, Democrat of the State of Washington; Sen. Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Sen Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, a member of the Defense and Foreign Operations Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee; Congressman Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Lawrence Eagleburger, who was deputy secretary of state and then secretary of state in the Bush administration. Speaker Foley, what do you think should be done now?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Well, I think we have to work in concert with our allies and with the U.N. I think it would be a mistake for the United States to attempt to take any unilateral action here. Indeed, the lifting of the embargo would require a Security Council action.

MR. LEHRER: But what do you think the United States should be getting the United Nations Security Council and the rest of the world? In other words, what should be our position? What do we want them to do, do you think?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Well, I think the first thing, there's a need, I feel, to have some concerted policy with our European allies, and so if the United States were to go to the U.N., for example, and ask for the embargo to be lifted against supplying, the embargo against supplying the Bosnian Muslims with weapons, and that is not supported by our European allies, it couldn't be done. So the consultations that the Secretary of State is having now are important, and I think that we have to devise a unified policy. I think the President is going to move in that direction. Obviously, it's an area where there are no good choices. There is probably a great consensus here in this country that we don't want to see U.S. forces on the ground in any combat situation. But even the use of air power, which as Lord Owen has pointed out is not easy, I think would require some, at least politically require some authorization from the Congress. But let me say this, because I think there may e some misunderstanding about this. There's a great presumption in this country that what the President requests in the way of congressional authorization will be done. There has not been a case in recent years where a President of the United States has gone to Congress and asked for authorization authority before or after that where it has not been given.

MR. LEHRER: So you think that would happen this time. If the President decides to go for lifting the embargo or to go for air strikes, you believe the Congress of the United States will support him?

SPEAKER FOLEY: I do believe they would, but I think it would be enhanced remarkably and very importantly if there was a large degree of cooperation between our allies, if there was U.N. sanctions for that, and in addition to that, if there was Russian cooperation, Russian Federation cooperation.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lugar, what's your view? What should come first? Should the President go to Congress now and say, look, here's what I think the United States through the U.N. Security Council should be pushing, and do you support me, or should he get the consensus or whatever consensus he can get from the allies and then go to Congress? What do you think? What's your advice?

SEN. LUGAR: My view is the President has to state why this important for America to do at all, and that is the basis at least for the conversation beginning. I think the President could point out the need to manage crisis in the world, and this is the first one that's come up that's terribly important and without management, a catastrophe could occur. He could point out what I believe will be devastating economic effects in Europe of a spread of war and, thus, loss of jobs and loss of income in this country as we try to base a recovery upon our export potential. Those arguments have not been made thus far. In fact, we are talking about the horror that we have in watching this humanitarian situation unfold, and the fact that aggression should not pay and ethnic cleansing should not pay, and those are important arguments, but they're not enough right now to sway the American people or the Congress. So that has to occur. Now beyond that, I think the President has to take a look at a broad set of options. I think those are coming into the fore. Adm. Aborta in NATO South, with whom our delegation consulted this past weekend, would be able to be helpful, and I understand may be coming to Washington, but at this moment, the President, in my judgment, has not been served with a gamut of options he needs, far short of going for war and attack.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with Lord Owen that nothing dramatic should happen in that right now?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, I think Lord Owen makes a very good point that things are changing in Sarajevo, and they're changing in Belgrade in the sense that if, in fact, the Serbians are not going to resupply Bosnian Serbs, that changes the thing very, very markedly. If, in fact, the economic sanctions already having their effect upon Serbia and Montenegro and thus, likewise upon Serbs, that's going to change the situation. I think we don't know that that has happened thus far, but the events of the last 48 hours are probably very important.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Gramm, what's your view of this? Will we move quickly, or wait this thing out a few more days?

SEN. GRAMM: Well, Jim, first of all, I think it's going to be very easy to get into this conflict. I think the difficult thing is going to be defining the objective, achieving the objective, and getting out. We've been long on the why, very short on the how. I have not talked to a single military person that thought bombing along could be decisive. I think it's clear that even if the peace agreement were reached, we're talking about 75,000 ground troops. If we went in shooting, the number would be much larger than that, and what I do not hear from the administration is a clear plan as to how we're going to achieve an objective, how it's going to make things permanently better, and then how we're going to get out of this conflict. And I think that's what's missing. The agreement of our allies is great, but what we really need that we do not have, something we didn't have in Vietnam, something we did have in the war in the Middle East, is a plan.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Lantos, where do you come down tonight?

REP. LANTOS: Well, what was missing was action by the previous administration. There are no good options now, but there were excellent options a year ago, basically the use of credible threats of force. That is basically what has turned this situation around. Milosevic is --

MR. LEHRER: You disagree with Lord Owen when he --

REP. LANTOS: I fully disagree with Lord Owen. I think the President has already achieved two significant victories. He demonstrated that diplomacy without the threat of force is doomed as our diplomacy was and as the pitiful performance of the great European powers over the last year and a half demonstrated. The one thing that I missed in Lord Owen's excellent statement was a recognition of the fact that the first post Cold War test was flunked by European leadership. Yugoslavia is in Europe. There are great powers in Europe. There are huge military forces in Europe. And had the great European powers exercised a credible threat of force a year ago, Milosevic would have been where he is today, cutting off the supply of petroleum, cutting off the supply of spare parts, separating himself from these people. I think it's, it's very, it's a very serious mistake to ask on May 6th, what do we do tomorrow. I think the first question is: How did we get here? And we got here because of lack of political will on the part of Western leadership both in this country, but particularly Europe.

MR. LEHRER: Former Sec. Eagleburger, you were -- this happened on your watch.

MR. EAGLEBURGER: I'm one of those that didn't have the will to take care of it.

MR. LEHRER: Do you plead guilty?

MR. EAGLEBURGER: No, I don't plead guilty, but if I can go back to something that Lord Owen said, which I think is an important point here, I think we do have to see before we decide anything much for the next week or so what the impact of the Milosevic statement is in terms of how it may or may not affect the Bosnian Serbs. I can't -- I don't trust Milosevic any farther than I can throw him, and I would also remind you that he has on more than one occasion in the past sworn that they weren't supplying the Bosnian Serbs to begin with. But let's see if, in fact, he means it. Let's see if that begins to change their judgment. I will upset Sen. Gramm, but I basically agree with him on everything he said. I think we are wrapping ourselves around a tar baby here that we may find it very difficult to get out of it, and Tom, you know, there's going to come a time, I don't know how many more months it will take before the problems that this administration faces are their fault, not ours, but, you know, that'll go on for a while. I can only say that we spent four years trying to solve and failing to solve a miserable, rotten, messy situation. I don't think it was soluble then. I very much worry about the process of incrementalism in the use of force as a way of trying to solve it now. I think we have to be very, very careful, or we may be into something that it will take a lot of dead and a lot of time to get out of.

MR. LEHRER: Where do you come down on this question of whether or not there's a connection between even what the, what Belgrade has done now and the threat of force, a realistic threat of force?

MR. EAGLEBURGER: Well, I would have said -- I think basically I agree with Tom, although maybe not with quite that much fervor. I was interested to see David Owen say that that was not the fundamental cause. But having all of that been said, I think the threat of the use of force probably had some impact on what's occurred over the last few days. Interestingly enough, I think the use of force will be far less effective in making them change their minds and do what we want than the threat of the use of force has been. So I think we need to be very careful about the distinction. Once we cross the line and start using force, we should have learned and apparently have not that these incremental little steps are not the way to deal with a problem like this.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Lantos.

REP. LANTOS: Just two footnotes. The second major achievement so far was the Yeltsin achievement. President Clinton went out on a limb supporting Yeltsin. Yeltsin won the referendum, and the moment he won that referendum, he disassociate himself from the Serbs, and he is on our side, which I think strategically is an extremely important achievement.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman --

SEN. GRAMM: Could I respond to Congressman Lantos?

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

SEN. GRAMM: I guess I'd say two things. First of all, my experience at least as a little boy suggests to me that if you're going to threaten to use force, you'd better be ready to do it. and I think that's where the weakness that we face is, and that is: How can we use it effectively, and if we start bombing, a new President, his first outing in foreign policy, and it doesn't work, are we going to be ready to send in ground troops?Secondly, before we are too critical of the Bush administration, first I don't think we ought to be partisan on this, Tom. Secondly, I wonder when this is all over if you're going to be ready to compare this to George Bush's leadership in the Gulf. I hope we can. I hope it compares favorably, but I'm very worried about.

REP. LANTOS: If I may comment on that, I supported George Bush's leadership in the Gulf. I was one of those Democrats who supported him because he was right. And I fully agree with you that a credible threat of force works only if there is a political will to use it should that be necessary. That should have taken place a year ago. By January 20, when Bill Clinton took office, there were no good solutions. That's not a partisan statement. It's just a recognition of the fact that history's merciless, and if you don't take the right decisions at the right time, those opportunities are gone.

MR. LEHRER: Speaker Foley, you said that you thought the Congress would support the President on whatever he wants. What do you base that on?

SPEAKER FOLEY: Well, I don't want to sound as if there would be an automatic and easy acceptance of whatever the President might recommend, but the reality is that the Congress over a long period of time has responded when the President of the United States has come to the Congress and said we need as a country to move forward in this particular area, and I need your support, your authorization, and wherever it might be. The opposite is true. There's no record of failure. There's not a single record in modern history of the Congress rejecting presidential leadership, but it doesn't mean there wouldn't be a debate, that doesn't mean there aren't serious concerns, and worries have been expressed by the speakers on this program. I think everyone realizes that there are very difficult problems in the use of force. There is a need to have a clear plan, to know how we're going to extricate ourselves after, if we do involve ourselves in this effort. There's a need to have cooperation with our allies and so on. But at the end of the day if the President determines a policy and comes to the Congress, I think that there'd be a heavy presumption in the Congress to support the President. He would need to communicate effectively, as Sen. Lugar said, with the country, to explain the program, the policy, and the reasons behind it and where the U.S. national interest was involved.

MR. LEHRER: Has that been done, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER FOLEY: I don't think yet it's been done sufficiently, no. I don't think a majority of Americans yet have a clear idea of the stakes for U.S. policy interests in Bosnia and these various options that we're talking about. By the way, I do think that we ought to give, as Sec. Eagleburger has said, and Lord Owen, some time for Milosevic's recent statements to be proved. But at the end, if there is an action requested, I just think the presumption will be that it will be granted.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lugar, what has not been said that needs to be said to the American people about this?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, a great deal. I think the program tonight illustrates the complexity and even as we talk, the changes are occurring, but I think that the President really has to discuss what our role is going to be as a role of power, what leadership means, what the future of NATO may be, how disputes are resolved, and what criteria we use to get in them. There are a lot of threshold questions here in addition to the action steps, and these are very important because otherwise we're going to make national policies that decrease our defense expenditures faster than our obligations or maybe we have no idea of how those obligations or responsibilities are hinged to defense policy. I just have a feeling we have not been discussing for the last four months very much foreign policy at all or are very much defense policy, and now suddenly because events in Russia, the President had to come to the floor and surely this crisis brings them there, so we're all discussing, but it's in the abstract, without having a comprehension of America's role.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Senator, what do you say to Congressman Lantos's point, if a constituent in Indiana or anywhere else in the country says, wait a minute, why is it the United States that must lead this effort, why is that Europe has not done anything over these last 14 months, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, picking up on the Congressman's point?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, the Congressman could, as each one of us could, I think detail strange political circumstances country by country, which include lack of political will and past history and constitutional problems, but the fact is that we should not have anticipated I think that Europe would come to the fore any more than any other group of nations right now. Americans, I think, have to understand that when it comes to world leadership, we are it. Now, some Americans are uneasy with that burden. Their shoulders begin to feel very worry about it all, but I think that is the fact, and it doesn't mean we have to do it all, but it does mean we call the meetings. We try to set the agenda, and we have to be very certain in our own minds about how we're going to pull it off, because the ability to do that gives us great authority, but the failure to do it could be perfectly disastrous not only for us but for the rest of the world.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Eagleburger, your interest in Yugoslavia dates way back before you were the deputy secretary of state and secretary of state.

MR. EAGLEBURGER: It's all my fault.

MR. LEHRER: It's all -- No. No. That was not going to be the question, right. And you've talked on this both in your earlier capacities, on several occasions you came on this program as this situation was growing worse and worse and worse. Out of office now, looking at this from the outside, what do you think has gone wrong? What -- was this thing impossible to stop to begin with, or where were the mistakes made, if they, in fact, were mistakes?

MR. EAGLEBURGER: Well, you know, was it possible to stop? All I can tell you is I think we tried, and I don't think really it was possible to stop it. At one stage maybe early on it would have been if we and the European allies had all been of one mind, and we clearly weren't.

MR. LEHRER: Why were the United States and the European allies so far apart? And it's apparently still that way.

MR. EAGLEBURGER: So far apart is I think wrong, but there were clearly some countries, and Germany is clearly one of them, who to put it bluntly I think was anxious to see the Yugoslav situation come apart and was prepared to move quickly to recognize Croatia and Slovenia, but, Jim, there's a lot of history here, and it's terribly complicated. My basic point I think is -- and it gets back to something Sen. Lugar just said here, which is I -- we do have to have our allies with us, and I must say, and one of the things that makes me a little nervous right now is -- and I do not mean this as a criticism of the current administration, my sense of it is that the secretary's trip around Europe did not get warm and great enthusiasm for really getting tough, and I think partly the evidence of this is that the President's not going to send him back again, and I -- and we've heard a lot of talk here today about these things collectively, all of which I agree with, except we get back to the point that you raised and which we're still discussing, which is: Where is the community view on this one amongst -- in the alliance? And I am very worried that there isn't a great deal of community view. And the longer we wander around here trying to collect everybody to make sure that we all agree on what's going to be done next, the more we are sending a message to the Serbs that we are not collectively ready to deal with it.

MR. LEHRER: Well, then let me ask you this question, a direct question: Does the President of the United States have the power to bring everybody together?

MR. EAGLEBURGER: If we're prepared to get nasty enough I suppose so.

MR. LEHRER: You mean nasty enough with our friends?

MR. EAGLEBURGER: With our friends, but, again, David Owen has a point? They've got troops on the ground; we don't. We want to get tough in the air. They're worried about their troops on the ground. It is a legitimate argument. What we have heard all day here today is how complicated and messy this problem is, and it, therefore, leads me to where I think Sen. Gramm is, which is we had better be very careful as we tread through this mine field, or we're going to lose a foot. And I'm afraid I do not think that we are in the position at this stage to be very clear about what it is we ought to do next.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We'll leave it there. Thank you very much. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: President Clinton's call for collective action and this discussion put more focus on how the European allies of the United States will respond to the latest developments in Bosnia. To sample some European thinking, we turn to Jacqueline Grapin, a French journalist who is president of the European Institute in Washington, and Michael Elliott, Washington Bureau Chief of the Economist of London. And joining them from Boston is Anthony Lewis, columnist for the New York Times. Ms. Grapin, Sec. Eagleburger, former secretary, just said he's very worried there is no community of view between the allies, traditional allies, on this. Why do you think that is from the French point of view?

MS. GRAPIN: Well, from the French point of view, there is one difference, is that the French have 5500 people on the ground, and they have to take care of these people. The government is responsible for their security, so what they would like to know is: What is it that the U.S. really wants? How is it going to be organized, and how can it be done in such a way that is efficient and those troops are protected? I should remind that 5500 troops, that is twice what the UK has, and that the U.S. has refused to have ground troops, so there is a lot of consultation to do before anything can be done militarily over Serbia right now.

MR. MacNeil: Michael Elliott, why from the British point of view, is there no community of views on this at the moment, to use Sec. Eagleburger's phrase?

MR. ELLIOTT: I think what Jacqueline has said goes pretty much to British public opinion as well, about two and a half to three thousand British troops in Bosnia. The French troops are spread all over ex-Yugoslavia. The British troops are concentrated in Bosnia. There is a great deal of concern that extra military action would put them at risk. There is a sense that the humanitarian effort under the auspices of the U.N. has not been pointless. If you remember, when we were discussing this before the winter, there was a general perception that there would be dead, starving dead Bosnians during the winter. That didn't happen. So one has to assume that the humanitarian effort achieved something, and there is then a question of whether one risks the humanitarian effort without specifying precisely in advance, precisely what the objectives of stepping up pressure would be.

MR. MacNeil: Tony Lewis, this is probably the first big rift between traditional allies on an important issue since the Cold War disciplines fell away. You heard what Congressman Lantos said, that it was a pitiful performance by the great powers in Europe and that they'd flunked the first test of leadership. A lot of Americans I talked to ask, well, what about the Europeans. Are these charges of European failure fair in this circumstances, do you think?

MR. LEWIS: I found myself, Robin, agreeing with Congressman Lantos. I don't disagree with what's just been said about the French and British troops on the ground and their humanitarian role. That's fair enough. But you have to go back to the beginning when the Serbian aggression began with the shelling of Dubrovnik and then the destruction of Vukovar and then the move into Bosnia. In all that time, there was certainly, I think to use Mr. Lantos's words, a pitiful reaction. I don't think you can exclude the element of accident as an explanation. The accident of leadership. If Mrs. Thatcher, Lady Thatcher as she now is, were still in office we wouldn't be here discussing this, because she would have stopped it at the start, instead of which we have a prime minister out of the Neville Chamberlain mold who has done everything he can to avoid significant action in the former Yugoslavia.

MR. MacNeil: Is that a fair charge, Michael Elliott?

MR. ELLIOTT: I think this is a very difficult point that Tony raises and which is implicit in your question, Robin, and let me see if I can be as precise as I can. We should not slip into the assumption that because Bosnia is in Europe, this is a European problem in the way in which it would be if there was a civil war going on in Nebraska. Now, like it or not and regret it or not, the truth of the matter is that there are very different perceptions of national interest in Europe, there are very different countries, very different capabilities. I thought Sen. Lugar was absolutely right. What we have in this situation is not the United States and Europe. We have one superpower, we have two engaged medium sized powers, France and Britain, and then we have a lot of people like Canada, Sweden, and Spain, who are helping on the margin. It is not possible in these circumstances, like it or not, to look to something called Europe for political leadership. Indeed, as Tom Lantos said and said absolutely correctly, I will develop his point, but he implied it absolutely correctly, the one occasion when there was a clear European initiative to do something about this situation, the point Larry Eagleburger made too, was when under German pressure the European Community recognized Slovenia and Croatia in December 1991. If there is one clear disastrous position in this whole sorry tale, that was it.

MR. MacNeil: Jacqueline Grapin, how do you respond to the charge of pitiful performance from the French point of view?

MS. GRAPIN: Well, I would say that first when you ask anybody in Europe what is Sarajevo, most people would not tell you this is the capital of Bosnia. Most people would tell you this is where the first World War started in 1919 -- in 1914. And because of that, there is a certain reluctance all over Europe to deal with this very difficult problem instinctively. There is a lot of prudence around. Now the French have been at the forefront of trying to deal with it. As I said, they have more troops on the ground. They have tried to, to facilitate a combination of actions and they're still trying to do so. I must say that at the beginning, the European Community, the twelve countries, have had difficulties putting their act together. Right now, it is much better, and it is too bad that at this point there is a difficulty to coordinate with the United States because this is exactly at the moment where the Europeans are really coming together so I think on both parts effort should be made to clarify the situation both in military terms, what could we do, what do we want to do, and also in political terms, because there is a lot about what NATO should be doing in this, in this question, should the Europe and western Union be involved. What process are we going to use? We are just not ready to have a coordinated action at this time.

MR. MacNeil: Well, is that, Michael Elliott, in your view, is the progress towards a united Europe and attempts to get a united foreign policy there, is that hamstringing the action of countries like Britain and France at the moment, or is that just an excuse?

MR. ELLIOTT: No, I don't think so, Robin. I think that's an irrelevance, frankly. I mean, I think the European countries have worked together as well they can to form a common position, but this is essentially, essentially there are complications, a triangular question. I mean, this is the United States, Britain, and France. That's what counts. It is unquestionably true, and I think David Owen made this point, and it really does need to be made again and again, that the discussions among the allies in the last few weeks would have been much easier, they would have been much easier if American troops had taken part in the humanitarian effort under U.N. auspices.

MR. MacNeil: Tony Lewis, how do you respond to that? Do you think that's a valid point?

MR. LEWIS: I think that is a valid point. I definitely do.

MR. MacNeil: In other words, somehow this country has lost some authority in the discussion because its leadership that Sen. Lugar said when it comes to world leadership, we're it, but it's somehow less credible if we're not, if they haven't, if the U.S. hasn't anted up troops?

MR. LEWIS: That's true, even for this limited purpose, but I think there's a graver fault in a sense. I think that President Clinton, although I entirely agree with Congressman Lantos that he was saddled with something which was a result of a colossal failure by -- the failure of nerves by the previous administration as well as by Britain and France, but President Clinton has not at all articulated in public the concern that makes this such a great issue for him. He has spoken of his anguish. He's said it's the hardest issue he, foreign policy issue he faces. He's almost been public in his anguish but he hasn't articulated what Sen. Lugar spoke of, the reasons why we as Americans ought to care. If you got out on the line, you told the story, what the interests of the world are, what the American interests are, which I think is a pretty easy story to tell, myself, I think that kind of leadership would move the European leaders, not going with them, consulting with them in this kind of quiet way, and if I may be slightly invidious, sending a secretary of state who as recently as a week or two ago sounded as skeptical about forceful action as the Europeans do. He doesn't carry a great deal of credibility, in my view.

MR. MacNeil: Jacqueline Grapin, just on the personal level, a level of ordinary Frenchmen, are they having the agonized debate that Americans are having over the moral responsibility to stop ethnic cleansing? You know what I'm talking about, a large debate about moral responsibility.

MS. GRAPIN: Yes, very much so. And they have had it for more than one year now. It started much earlier than it had started in the U.S., and it's a very dividing debate. You have very popular politicians such as Mrs. Simone Vale, who was the president of the Yorgon parliament, who has been in concentration camp, who has been the leader of the mission who has been in Bosnia to research about crimes and rapes which have taken place there, and she's really torn because, on the one hand, she would like something to be done. On the other hand, she knows that we all have to be very prudent about it. So the debate is really extreme in France, and it has been so and very moving. You must also remember that a lot of refugees are coming to France and we host them, we have to find jobs for them in a time where we have 10 percent unemployment in France, so it is a daily problem. It's not abstract at all. It's something we live every day.

MR. MacNeil: Michael Elliott, has there been a similar debate in Britain?

MR. ELLIOTT: There has, there has, and as Jacqueline says, it's been going on for a long time. I don't think it's been honestly any better, better informed, more passionate, or more intelligent than the debate here. The same kind of questions that have been raised here about precisely what the British interest is in Bosnia has been raised. I mean, there is an important point here. I mean, I yield to none in my admiration for Tony Lewis and his colleagues, but it has to be said that the kind of red blooded muscle that the New York Times editorial page has shown on thisissue have not been effective in opinion polls in this country and similar calls by Mrs. Thatcher or Simone Vale or others in France and Britain have not been reflected in huge majorities in favor of offensive action in France or Britain. These are issues which puzzle people. These are places -- and I hate using the phrase because of course it summons up 1938 -- which are far away -- and I really do believe that Sen. Lugar's point about the clear need for a statement by the President with that passion and conviction that we all know he can bring to things is what just not this country needs. It's what Europe needs too.

MR. MacNeil: Well, thanks Michael Elliott. Have to end it there. Jacqueline Grapin and Anthony Lewis, thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Thursday is what we have just been talking about, the objection of the peace plan by the Bosnian Serb parliament. President Clinton said new and tougher measures must now be taken by the U.S. and its allies to stop the fighting. The debate in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere over what those measures should be is now underway. The United Nations Security Council tonight declared Sarajevo and several other besieged Muslim towns as U.N. monitored-safe zones. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back tomorrow with our regular team of Gergen & Shields, among other things. I'm Robert MacNeil. Thank you. Good night.