The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner in Washington.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in New York. After our summary of the news this Friday, Charalyne Hunter-Gault talks to the ousted president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Mark Shields is here with Linda Chavez and Norman Ornstein for some Friday political analysis. Charles Krause previews Monday's elections in Canada, and essayist Paul Hoffman talks about chance. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton will meet with Russian President Yeltsin in January. The Moscow meeting will follow December elections for a new Russian parliament. Sec. of State Christopher was in Moscow today working out details. He met with Yeltsin outside the capital and afterwards spoke to reporters.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: President Clinton will come to Moscow because the Russian people have chosen democracy and market economics over the failed legacy of communism. We believe there is no better way for the United States to acknowledge the wisdom of that choice and for the President to stand personally with the people of Russia in their struggles for progress.

MS. WARNER: Texaco today became the final major gas retailer in Haiti to order its pumps shut down to comply with the U.N. oil embargo. Shell and Esso turned off their pumps yesterday at the request of the civilian government. The government and the army have been engaging in a tug of war over control of fuel supplies. The army has sent police to keep some gas stations open. The U.S. embassy warned Haiti's military leaders against seizing any foreign-owned fuel remaining in storage tanks in the country. We have more in this report narrated by David Symonds of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SYMONDS, WTN: Thousands of Haitians continued to flee Port- au-Prince on Friday. The capital remains gripped by fear and confusion as U.N. sanctions take hold. Gas stations complied with the international sanctions, shutting pumps down. On Friday, motorists had waited for hours in long lines hoping to get the last available petrol. The oil companies' decision to close their operations down has given besieged, pro-Aristide politicians a strong boost in the country.

ROBERT MALVAL, Prime Minister, Haiti: We are not a defective government. We are a constitutional government. We are to respect the laws that are there, local or international. The sanctions, we are not responsible for them. They were part of the Governors Island Accord.

MR. SYMONDS: With sanctions beginning to bite, Haitians worry about the food situation. One American ship carrying food aid has been turned back. But Haiti's military leaders remain defiant. In a sign that they're in control, the Haitian flag was raised in a ceremony outside the presidential palace.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton acknowledged for the first time today that President Aristide may not be able to return to power by October 30th. That was the date set in a U.N.-brokered agreement signed last July by Haiti's military leaders. Sanctions were imposed Monday to try to force the military to comply with that agreement. Mr. Clinton was asked at the White House this morning whether the sanctions could work quickly enough to restore Aristide by the 30th.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I've always been concerned about that, but I think the, I think that the sanctions are very tough now. And I think what, what the others have to think about is what it's going to be like for them a few months from now, you know, what it is that they're fighting so hard to hold onto if these sanctions are fully implemented. We never thought that they could have an impact on their own merits within a week, although they are having some impact already. But I think that the reason we got the Governors Island Agreement in the first place is because of the sanctions. And I think, you know, I don't know why they thought that they could ignore it and not have sanctions but I think now they, they know they can.

MS. WARNER: President Aristide said in a NewsHour interview today that he was ready to return to Haiti. He said it was still possible to return by October 30th. We'll have the full interview right after the News Summary.

MR. LEHRER: The U.N. Secretary General flew to Somalia today. Boutros Boutros-Ghali went to Baidoa, then made a quick unannounced trip to the capital, Mogadishu. That visit touched off protests but there were no reports of serious violence. Boutros-Ghali said he made the trip to show solidarity with the U.N. military and civilian staffers in the country.

MS. WARNER: In Florida today, two white men convicted of setting a black New York tourist on fire last New Years Day were sentenced to life in prison. On top of the life sentences for attempted murder, 33-year-old Charles Rourk was given an additional 40 years on kidnapping and robbery charges. Twenty-seven year old Mark Kohut was given an additional 27 years. Also in Florida today, four teenagers were indicted for first degree murder and attempted murder in a September attack on two British tourists. Gary Colley was shot and killed and his companion slightly wounded as they slept in their rental car at a highway rest stop near Tallahassee. Colley was the ninth foreign tourist to be killed in Florida this year. The teenagers, ranging in age from 13 to 16, will be tried as adults. If convicted, they could face the death penalty.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to President Aristide of Haiti, our Friday night political analysis, a Canadian election preview, and a Paul Hoffman essay. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the duly elected president of Haiti. He was forced from power and from his country two years ago by the Haitian military. He was to have returned to both on October 30th under a United Nations-arranged deal that appears now to be very much jeopardy. Charlayne Hunter- Gault interviewed him this afternoon in Washington.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Aristide, thank you for joining us. There have been some reports that your deadline of October the 30th for returning to take over the reins of the presidency has been delayed. What can you tell us about that?

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE, Haiti: I am ready to go back on October 30th. First according to the agreement we signed in Governors Island, the coup leaders have to be removed. I hope that will be done.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: By the 30th?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: I hope so.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So your plan now, as of now is to go back to Haiti on the 30th of October?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: I am ready. I want them to be out according to this agreement we signed on July 5th.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But so far General Cedras has said that there are problems with the agreement that the -- that there's a problem with one of the main portions of the agreement providing amnesty for all of those who took part in the coup. Has that been worked out? Is there no problem with that to your mind?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: There is no problem. I granted amnesty to him and to the others. Now he's playing the lottery in a wait with time. That's what he was doing during those last two months. He has to leave according to this agreement, he has to leave.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you plan to go back? Are you going to just fly in, or what?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: We signed an agreement. We are two parties involved in with the constitutional government, and we did everything according to that agreement. The coup leaders who violated the agreement after killing four thousand people, they continued killing over one hundred since they signed this agreement, including Anton Ismari, they drug him from the church, including our minister of justice. They shot him almost in the same place. So the International Community is the third one; together with the International Community we can make it. We can plan to arrange and to do it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I mean, do you have your ticket, Mr. President? Do you have your plane standing by to fly you in on the 30th?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: Even more than that, not exactly a ticket, but more than that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: What we need to go on that day.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your bags are packed, in other words?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: My books.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your books.

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: Exactly.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your prime minister though has said that if you don't return on the 30th, and this may be academic, he doesn't plan to stay on unless you personally ask him. Have you had conversations with him about staying on?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: We spoke about that, of course. I urged him to stay, and I understand why he say that. But meanwhile, it's a question of death and life. Those thugs, they still have the same weapons in their hands trying to kill people. It's death. That's why we would like to remove them. I also know it's possible to have life and share that life with our people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how do you assess Prime Minister Malval's chances of staying alive? You just repeated the victims, recent victims of violence, including the justice minister. How do you assess his chances? He said he's a prisoner in his own house. He can't leave the house. Are you worried about his safety?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: Certainly. Of course. That's why I always try to ask for the removal of the killers. We did that in Governors Island because we knew how their presence would mean death, and we lost too many. Today, if I insist, it's because I want my prime minister and the other minister and my people to be alive. In front of those killers, who knows?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about yourself? Because even former ministers of the cabinet, opponents of yours, have said that you are fair game. What concerns do you have for your own life if you go back on the 30th?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: As the head of this, I have the responsibility to protect life of every single citizen, so I care about my responsibility asking for their removal, the removal of the coup leaders in order to have security for all the country. I spent seven months in office. During the seven months we had a political stability. We had security. We had peace. If after that we have so many Haitians dying for democracy, it's because they know what they got from those elections where sixty-seven point seven voted for me. We will move back, we will bring peace again.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But who will protect you, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: My protection will come from the result of the process in terms of restoration of democracy which means reconciliation, which means reforming the judiciary system, which means the professional position of our army, which means the creation of a new policy. All that will be the result of the process, and from that will come not only security for me, for every single citizen.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you have no fear for your life despite the threats?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: No. No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the, the United States is reportedly urging that you form a government of inclusion to include members of the military, former opponents of yours. How does that strike you?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: There is no democracy without opposition. We need that. Now it's a question of solving the problem by the removal of the coup leaders according to the government, the agreement we signed in the Governors Island. Once we have that done, then we can explore the possibilities for including democrats, not thugs, not those who kill our minister.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying that there can be no military members or members of the Junta who were involved in overthrowing you to --

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: No, no, no, no. The chief of the police, the members of the high command, they will leave. I am talking about democrats. That means people who can be in after the removal of the coup leaders, not those, not those who kill so many people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The sanctions that were imposed last week to try and force Cedras from -- into giving up the reins of power -- what's your assessment of the impact that they are having?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: We are a non-violent people. That's why we prefer to move with the sanctions instead of asking for a violent way to solve that problem. For us through the sanctio.ua%6 ns, that can be done. I request the U.N. to move under the Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which included additional measures if it's necessary.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But there have been reports that even supporters of yours have argued that they've suffered enough, that they've suffered too long, that this is just maybe too much. Are you worried that -- and even today there was closure of a Texaco -- no gas apparently is available, very little -- are you worried that this might possibly backfire?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: When we have on one side the weapons of the killers and on the other side those sanctions with the Haitian people we choose the sanctions because we don't want the weapons to kill us. After losing over 4,000, we know we can lose more than that, and once we have the sanctions we can have democracy back, and that will be better for all of us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what if the sanctions don't work? I mean, some congressmen, for example, have said that an invasion -- U.S. Congressmen have said that an invasion may be necessary to restore you back to power. What do you say about that?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: As the head of it, if I ask for military intervention, I will be impeached by my constitution, so I fully - - that if at the same time I see the folks out of the country tonight or even more today, right now, I will feel happy because all of us want life. We give our life for having life, not death.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If I could turn to a more difficult, perhaps not more difficult, but a difficult subject, your council today issued a detailed rebuttal of charges made in a CIA briefing to Congress saying that you suffered from depression, from mood swings, that you, indeed, bordered on, if not were psychotic. Why are you paying so much attention to that, and what do you think is going on because these kinds of things have been talked about, rumored about, leaked out, and now, here it is officially in the, in the U.S. Congress on the floor of the Congress, and in sessions with members of Congress?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: As you realize, I smile. I could even laugh because it's all that garbage. I respect those who say that, but I reject what they say because it's garbage. Secondly, they said worst about Martin Luther King; thirdly, as a psychologist, I know what about character assassination. As a psychologist I know what about psychological war. Fourth, people could read my books, particularly three of them, to find what they want to know. I mean, myself.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But why do you think the American CIA -- especially when you have a President, President Clinton, who's been very supportive of you and your effort to go back to Haiti -- why would he -- the Central Intelligence Agency be doing this?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: That's why I said as a psychologist I know what about character assassination. I know about psychological war.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, who would be behind it?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: Those who are saying that, or those who have money, or those who have interest in drugs trafficking. When the President was fighting against drugs trafficking, when we still continued to fight against drugs trafficking we'll know what that means, a lot of money.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Are you accusing the CIA of being complicit with drug traffickers?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: I don't say that. I say those who are involved in drugs trafficking, they can get money enough to have people defending their position using lies.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Does it worry you then that the U.S. administration seems to be going in two different directions? I mean, have you spoken to the President about this? I mean, is that hurting you?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: I support President Clinton. I support the U.S. I support the U.N. I support the U.S. and altogether we are in the right position.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But has the President spoken on this matter and assured you, given you any assurances about the CIA briefings and charges?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: The President will not believe that. We don't have time to lose by talking about this garbage. This go further with peace, with reconciliation, with justice to have what we need, democracy for all of us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Finally, Mr. President, just back to the point, you are saying as we speak tonight that you expect to be in Haiti on October 30th.

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: Of course, that can be done. Once we have the removal of the coup leaders according to the Governors Island Agreement we signed, we have another climate, the climate of reconciliation, the climate of peace, the climate which is indispensable for save life.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And you have some feeling or some concrete something that Cedras will step down?

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: We are living in the new world order. How could we imagine drug dealers, thugs, just few people could deny the will of the world, could defy the world? No, I don't think so.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. President, thank you for being with us.

PRESIDENT ARISTIDE: Thank you. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, we have our regular Friday night analysis of the week's political news. Joining syndicated columnist Mark Shields tonight are Linda Chavez, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and veteran Congress watcher Norman Ornstein, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome to all of you. The big political news this week, or one of them was the fight between President Clinton and Congress over leadership in foreign policy. Who won, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: The President. The President won in terms of the Congress backing down, but the, the problem is that it did keep that issue front and center, which is one the President is not doing well on. And it was underscored by the foreign policy and national security policy. It was underscored by the CBS poll that showed an absolutely startling answer to the question: Who do you trust more in foreign policy, the Congress or the President? And 55 percent of Americans said they trusted the Congress more. Only 23 percent said the President. As one leading Democrat in the House said to me today, he said, any time the Congress gets over 50 percent on anything, the other side is in trouble.

MS. WARNER: Linda.

MS. CHAVEZ: Well, I think Mark is exactly right. And frankly, the frightening thing about this is that you're seeing Republicans who for 12 years were very unhappy when the Congress tried to take away the foreign policy initiatives from the Executive Branch, all of a sudden jumping on this bandwagon, and it's a terrible precedent. And there are some of us Republicans who would like to see a Republican President in 1996, and they may come to rue the day that they were out there promoting this legislation that would essentially tie the President's hands and not allow him to be able to conduct the foreign policy of this country. And it's dangerous to have 535 voices trying to speak for American foreign policy; we really ought to be speakingwith one.

MS. WARNER: Do you think that's where we're headed, Norm, 535 secretaries of state?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Well, we managed to head that off a little but, but it's certainly the case that in a town where hypocrisy is one of the major byproducts it hit a peak this week. You had Republicans who for 12 years had carried around their copies of the Constitution with no Article I, and all of a sudden --

MS. WARNER: Article I being the --

MR. ORNSTEIN: Being the Legislative Branch. And it really was the flat statements during the Reagan and Bush years that said the President is commander in chief and has sole authority in foreign policy were just out the window. Of course, Democrats who had upheld the Congress were talking about executive privilege in a way that they hadn't before either. But that was an amusing byproduct of this. The fact is that Bill Clinton because a lot of Republicans in the end stepped back, recognizing that they may have another President someday, managed to escape the worst of it, and the country managed to escape the worst of it, which would have been tying the hands of the President before troops were deployed anywhere, but it was a rough week for him because it kept the focus on these issues. And it's not the last time very likely that we're going to see attempts by both parties when stumbles occur and they hear from their constituents to try and hamstring a President. What they've got to do now is to try and go ahead and maybe work out a compromise on the War Powers Act and see if we can reduce the hypocrisy level and maybe come to a bipartisan agreement on what role Congress should play.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mark, do you think though that this has, this controversy, though he won technically this week, what do you think it's done for President Clinton's flexibility to maneuver in foreign policy crises to come? Do you think he's going to be looking over his shoulder more at Congress?

MR. SHIELDS: I think, I think the President is, is in trouble, Margaret, on foreign policy. The irony is that George -- that Bill Clinton on the big questions has probably done pretty well. I mean, I think by his acting in Russia last spring he probably averted - - very well helped avert anyway -- a military coup. In the G-7 nations, he could walk in and as the first American President in 12 years to confront the deficit, to have done something about it, and, and in that sense he, he certainly handled himself well. Where he does not do well and certainly hasn't done well are these sort of, what we're seeing as minor problems, Somalia and Haiti, until 18 Americans were killed. And when Americans die in combat, all of a sudden American attention is riveted and understandably and legitimately and thank goodness. Americans didn't pay much attention to the speeches given by President Clinton at the U.N. or Sec. Christopher or, or Amb. Albright earlier outlined the policy. Now they want to know specifically. So I think, I think it does. I think it will inhibit the President's movement, but I think the President, himself, will address these issues and focus them. You can't delegate them.

MS. CHAVEZ: One of the things that was so extraordinary, Mark, about this is that when Americans are dying, that is usually a time when the American public sort of rallies around the President. I think what was so striking about this week is that they had no confidence there, that they really didn't believe that he knew what he was doing, and I think that's a marked departure from other kinds of situations.

MR. SHIELDS: It was unexpected. Their deaths were unexpected. It wasn't a mission upon which there had been a consensus embarking.

MR. ORNSTEIN: But there's also -- this is the post Cold War world that we can see now. We're ending up in places where there are no solutions to problems perhaps, where you don't have a democratic tradition, and we haven't got a well-defined notion of how we're going to maintain it, or bring it in, and you can see it with President Aristide. He is a duly elected leader who may not be the best that we could find but even if we manage to bring him back, we have no way of keeping him there without maintaining a presence that Americans don't want. The danger of all of this is that you want to have force available as a threat and a credible one so that you can change people's behavior without using it. What's happened in the last week is that Bill Clinton's been weakened enough that we may not have a credible threat of force out there, and that may force us into a position where we have to use troops when we don't want to.

MS. WARNER: Well, do you think this crisis of confidence is so great that Clinton needs a new foreign policy team, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't know. I mean, I think that Bill Clinton has to get back to where Bill Clinton is strong. I mean, Bill Clinton was elected as a domestic President. And George Bush in every measurement, all the way up to election day, 1992, was -- prevailed over Bill Clinton almost by two to one on foreign policy expertise, on national security, all those questions. But Americans cared about America, and they were concerned at the end of the Cold War about our domestic problems which had gone unaddressed by George Bush. They're almost -- they're almost mirror opposites. I mean, what Bush had in foreign policy, he is clueless domestically, and Clinton is the other side. I mean, Clinton really -- the one thing Clinton needs in foreign policy and national security are people in whom the nation could have confidence and who polls confidence and who, who suggests that even though the President, himself, is not on top of it or necessarily well versed that there are people who do. I'm not sure that the President exudes that.

MS. WARNER: Well, Linda, of course, next week he's going to try to get back to domestic policy. He's finally going to present his health care plan. This same CBS poll shows that a lot of Americans are losing confidence in that plan. I think it's gone from -- or his leadership in health reform has gone from 18 percent approval down to 3 percent. What does he have to do next week to get the momentum back for that?

MS. CHAVEZ: Well, the presidency has been sort of, he's always been hyperactive in terms of going from one issue to another. I mean, you never can really sort of keep your eye on where Bill Clinton's going to be in any given week, what the issue is going to be, and I think that's part of the problem. You had the health care plan. It's about a month now since he gave his speech to Congress, then you have the First Lady going up and she got rave reviews for her performance, but the momentum died. And essentially what happened is you didn't have a plan, so a lot of people now are out promoting what they say are going to be -- is going to be in the President's plan, and it now becomes a battle really of images rather than a battle over the actual plan, itself. And I think he has lost very valuable momentum on this and is essentially turning over the, the momentum to the Republicans.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree, Norm?

MR. ORNSTEIN: One of the real problems, maybe the biggest problem of this presidency is managing momentum. This health care issue now resembles the budget issue. He came out with a brilliant speech on the budget, a State of the Union Message, three weeks of a brilliant campaign out in the country, built momentum and then it frittered away, and he was on the defensive. The same thing has happened here. We've got a long ways to go before we actually have votes on this plan. What he's got to do is make sure that the agenda is that we have two choices: the Clinton plan, or do nothing on health care. And to do that, by leaving the field open, he's allowed other alternatives to come in. If you notice this week, he's been trying to discredit the plan of Jim Cooper, a fellow Democrat from Tennessee. To make sure that there isn't any credible alternative as a third plan out there, he's going to have find a way to manage his momentum through what's not a sprint, not even a marathon but a triathalon. The votes won't come until next fall, the crucial votes. He's got to make sure that when he gets his plan out there, that whenever he begins to flag in other areas, he can push this forward and make sure that it's the Clinton plan, even as he changes it. And in that, something Ronald Reagan is very, very good at, and Bill Clinton has shown that he can build momentum because he's brilliant at raising issues and at capturing public attention and imagination, but sustaining it, it's just not there yet.

MR. SHIELDS: Let me make a brief for Bill Clinton. Four years ago George Bush was in the first year of his presidency. At this very moment in the first year of George Bush's presidency, we were debating a flag burning constitutional amendment. In 1993, whatever one says, Bill Clinton has dared large. He is dealing with major problems. We're talking about making available and affordable national -- health care to every American. We're talking about taming the deficit beast. I mean, these are big things, and while I don't argue with the question of momentum, whatever Bill Clinton -- if Bill Clinton is to succeed, and he does succeed as President -- the example that that will leave for those who come after him is then you can really deal with big problems and succeed. I mean, instead of all the baloney, you talk about hypocrisy in Washington about who has the most town meetings, who signed the most Social Security checks, who turns back the biggest share of his pay raise to the Treasury and all the other baloney we go through, I mean, wouldn't it be great if we really did confront major problems and deal with 'em?

MS. WARNER: And so how is he going to win big on health care? I mean, because as Norm says, we're looking at a year long process.

MR. SHIELDS: The way he has to win big is by including that this is important and it deserves his attention solely, that everything else that is so interesting to him -- and so many things are -- really don't.

MS. WARNER: Of course, Linda, when a foreign policy crisis hits, the President really doesn't have control of it.

MR. SHIELDS: No.

MS. WARNER: How can he keep double focused? Can he?

MS. CHAVEZ: Well, you know, obviously he can't know that there's going to be a crisis, but, in fact, Somalia didn't just happen. I mean, there's this sense when you listen to the people in the White House talk that somehow this happened to the Clinton administration. In fact, it was because the Clinton administration changed policy in Somalia that it allowed us to get into this position, and certainly they're in control in terms of Haiti, and we are the ones who are sort of calling the shots on this. So part of it is that he does have to decide what his vision is in foreign policy and articulate a point of view that is going to be credible, and in terms of domestic policy he does have to keep his eye on the big picture. I mean, I remember, I was in the White House when the 1986 tax reform bill was being discussed, and it was a single- minded focus. There are a lot of people who used to sit around White House meetings talking about wanting to get the President out to argue for aid for Contras and other things, and the answer was always no. We have a bill to get passed. We've got to keep our attention on that, and frankly, that White House was masterful at doing it.

MS. WARNER: Before we close, I'd like to just ask about one other thing that happened this week, which is the Reginald Denny beating trial. This is sort of the end of a whole chapter, the Los Angeles riots, the Rodney King trial, and this. Do you think as this chapter's closing that -- what do you think it's done to the state of race relations in this country, Norm?

MR. ORNSTEIN: Well, certainly in the short-term, we have averted more bloodshed, but over the longer-term, I don't think you can help but be pessimistic. This has exacerbated racial relationships. It's made both sides feel that they're treated unfairly and that the deck is stacked against them in the system, and that's the last thing that we need happening here, not just both sides, all sides. I think the Korean-Americans are -- feel probably worst of all in this process.

MS. WARNER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: I disagree. I think that the -- it's tough now for blacks to argue that they always get the short end of the stick. I mean, I think the decision in Los Angeles in the Denny case, I think Reginald Denny -- I think it was a very individual case -- Reginald Denny was the rarest of all victims. He was a victim without any vengeance who, who was open and forgiving and really quite Christian in dealing with his, his tormentors and abuser. And I mean, I just, I thought in that sense, in a micro sense, it made him a lousy witness for the prosecution.

MS. WARNER: But do you think all this -- are you saying briefly that this has been good for race relations?

MR. SHIELDS: No, I don't think it's been good for race relations but I mean, I don't think, I don't think that all sides can say that they were shabbily treated. I mean, I don't, I don't think the whole experience has been good but I, I think that there's probably a better chance of getting it behind Los Angeles now.

MS. CHAVEZ: I just have to interject here because I am frustrated every time I hear this case discussed because it's talked about in racial terms. This was a criminal case. These are two career criminals. Both Mr. Watson and Mr. Williams had career criminal records that go -- they stretch the length of your arm. They were armed robbers. They were people who'd been involved in hit and runs. They've been involved in resisting arrest. They've been involved in assaults on other people, and they had been arrested for those and in some cases convicted. This was a case of violence against a human being. Most of the victims of Mr. Williams and Watson that day were either brown or black or Asian. Mr. Denny happened to be white. This is about the real failure of our criminal justice system to be able to punish criminals.

MS. WARNER: I'm going to give Norm the last word. In your polling, are you picking up that Americans feel this way, that basically our criminal justice system is failing?

MR. ORNSTEIN: You -- we've seen, of course, real misgivings about how the criminal justice system has worked and about crime. And crime is moving rapidly up to a position that it hasn't had since the 1960s in terms of the concern of Americans, and clearly, tension over these issues is increasing among people. You see it in the polls.

MS. WARNER: Thank you all very much. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Canadian elections and an essay about chance. FOCUS - CHANGING COURSE?

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of politics, there are national parliamentary elections in Canada Monday, and the result is likely to be some changes in the government, but the extent and nature of those changes is anything but certain. Charles Krause has our preview report.

MR. KRAUSE: All across Canada from the bays of New Foundland and British Columbia to Canada's industrial heartland in southern Ontario, voters are frustrated and angry, angry because of a severe recession that's wiped out whole industries, leaving thousands of Canadian workers unemployed.

SPOKESPERSON: [talking to woman in hospital emergency department] You want to see a doctor?

WOMAN: Yeah.

MR. KRAUSE: Frustrated because huge government deficits threaten Canada's generous social welfare system, and seemingly irreconcilable, reachable differences threaten to tear Quebec and English-speaking Canada apart. On the campaign trail, the anger and bitterness are palpable, and if the polls are right, next Monday, Canada's voters will take their revenge, crossing out the progressive Conservative Party that's governed Canada for the past nine years. For most of that time, the conservatives were led by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Mulroney retired last June, but even usually dispassionate Canadians grow passionate when they talk about his legacy, recession, taxes, high unemployment, and a widely unpopular free trade agreement with the United States. The desire for political revenge extends across the country. Ontario Farmer Alex Sanderson.

ALEX SANDERSON, Ontario Farmer: That past conservative government, every one of those members, cabinet minister, Mulroney, and everybody else should be charged with treason and shot.

MR. KRAUSE: Why do you say that?

ALEX SANDERSON: They've ruined this country. They've given the country away.

MR. KRAUSE: Tamra Mann, a Conservative Party candidate running for parliament, says out campaigning the mood is nasty.

TAMRA MANN, Conservative Party Candidate: I've been called words that begin with "c" that don't rhyme with conservative. I have been spit on. I have been ordered off people's properties. I've had doors slammed in my face. And I think what's happened is that the apathy that Canadians traditionally feel has turned into anger.

MR. KRAUSE: With Mulroney out of the picture, much of the anger now is directed toward his successor, progressive Conservative Party leader Kim Campbell. At 46, she's Canada's first female prime minister and initially at least was popular. Throughout the campaign her principal issues have been the need to cut Canada's massive deficit and bring government spending under control.

KIM CAMPBELL, Prime Minister, Canada: The government operations budget will be cut by a further 5 percent, a saving of $1 billion over five years. Now we've already instituted some quite significant cuts there. I'm proposing to institute more.

MR. KRAUSE: But many voters think Campbell chose the wrong issue, and without a plan to create jobs, pollster Michael Adams says the prime minister appears to be headed toward a massive defeat.

MICHAEL ADAMS, Political Pollster: Trust me is not enough in Canada anymore, and so the conservatives who started out the campaign at about 35 percent support when, you know, they'd gone way up after they chose a new leader in June have eroded because they just don't have a plan and people are starting to think that, indeed, this is the party that's been in power during the period when our expectations of our standard of living, of our quality of life, and of what government can deliver to the people have been dashed. And the conservatives are suffering. They're now back in the 20 percent, 25 percent territory, and they are going to go from a large majority, they could slip into fourth place in next Monday's election.

MR. KRAUSE: Campbell's principal opponent is Liberal Party leader Jean Chretien, an old-fashioned politician from French Quebec. If the polls are right, the liberals will win enough seats in the new parliament to form a government. Chretien is likely to emerge as Canada's next prime minister. But complicating the picture are three other political parties: the socialist New Democrats led by Audrey McLaughlin; the Bloc Quebecois, the secessionist party in Quebec, led by Lucien DuChard; and the Reform Party based in oil rich western Canada led by Preston Manning, whose conservative views are often compared to those of Ross Perot in the United States. Essentially, the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are regional parties formed to protest Mulroney's policy, and in this election they'll take votes from Campbell and the conservatives. But according to many observers, the protest vote is most significant because it reflects a growing feeling among many Canadians that their federal government in Ottawa has failed, that it might be better for each province or each region of the country to go it alone.

[PEOPLE SINGING O CANADA]

MR. KRAUSE: According to the polls, the liberals will almost certainly win this time, but if the economy doesn't turn around quickly, Canada will almost certainly have to begin dismantling the regional subsidies and the generous welfare programs that have held the country together. Adams says that possibility explains the liberals' appeal.

MICHAEL ADAMS: The Liberal Party, which has governed Canada for 3/4 of this century, it was in power when we put together the social safety net, the Canadians are kind of hoping that they can deliver on the politics of hope, hope that we can have jobs in, in a recovery that we're hoping will come down the, down the pike in a year or two, the hope that we can maintain the social safety net, and it's a sense then that this is our last chance to maybe see if we can keep the old Canada.

MR. KRAUSE: The economic and political cross-currents underlying support for the liberals, especially in old Canada, are best seen in Ontario, Canada's richest and most populous province. Cities like Hamilton, Canada's steel capital, have been hard hit by Mulroney's attempt to make Canadian industry more efficient to compete in the global economy. A decade ago, there were some 30,000 blue collar jobs in Hamilton Steel Mill. Today, with automation, the same amount of steel is produced by less than half the former number of workers. Meanwhile, other large companies in Hamilton have shuttered their factories altogether, moving operations South to non-union areas of the United States or Mexico. Despite computerized job banks and retraining programs, unemployment in the city is now estimated to be more than 14 percent. Clearly, global competition has severely hurt the local economy. There's growing despair and McMaster University political science professor Henry Jacek says Hamilton's voters blame the conservatives.

HENRY JACEK, Political Science Professor: They want somebody who's going to create jobs, give a future for the younger generation by trying to restore some jobs for people in the middle age who've lost them. That is what they're looking for and, and that's most likely to be put forth by the Liberal Party. That's what they're hearing from Jean Chretien. He's credible as a future government, government leader, as a future prime minister. He's got the right issue. It's what the people of Hamilton want to hear.

MR. KRAUSE: So you're saying the liberals will probably take Hamilton?

HENRY JACEK: They'll sweep Hamilton I think very definitely.

MR. KRAUSE: Just last week, Chretien held one of the biggest rallies of his campaign at the Hamilton Convention Center. There he promised a $6 billion jobs program if he's elected and to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA is unpopular in Canada, especially in depressed cities like Hamilton.

JEAN CHRETIEN, Liberal Party Leader: We'll get out of our difficulties if people work, if they have the dignity of work, if they can come back home every night, putting the bread and the butter on the table and telling the children I've earned it, not that they have received an employment insurance check or a welfare check, that they have earned it.

MR. KRAUSE: Clearly, the response to Chretien was enthusiastic. Still, Campbell refused to concede southern Ontario. She visited Hamilton twice, most recently this week. Although she campaigned throughout the city, much of her effort was directed toward trying to hold one election district in particular. Called the Hamilton- Wentworth Widing, it's been in conservative hands for more than 20 years. Unlike the United States, Canadians do not vote directly for their national leader. Instead, they vote for members of parliament, then the leader of whichever party gets the most seats traditionally becomes prime minister. So in Hamilton Wentworth, Campbell appeared several times with the local conservative candidate Dr. Ray Johnson.

DR. RAY JOHNSON, Conservative Party Candidate: [on phone] This is Ray Johnson calling. Not too bad. How are you?

MR. KRAUSE: But not even Johnson was sure whether the prime minister's presence would help or hurt him given the unpopularity here of some of the things she said.

DR. RAY JOHNSON: She made a statement early on in the campaign about there wouldn't be any change in the unemployment rate till the year 2000. I think even though people believe that that may be true, they don't want to hear that. I think people like a little bit of sugar on their pill, and she didn't give them any, and I think that's done a lot to reduce her popularity.

MR. KRAUSE: And hurt you?

DR. RAY JOHNSON: That's right. Yes, of course.

MR. KRAUSE: Located largely outside the city proper, Hamilton Wentworth contains some of Ontario's richest farmland, quaint towns, and lovely, residential neighborhoods. Most of its 85,000 registered voters are prosperous but even here there's concern about jobs, crime, free trade, and the future of Canada's national health care system.

[CANDIDATE JOHN BRYDEN TALKING TO PEOPLE DOOR-TO-DOOR]

MR. KRAUSE: These are the issues that are helping the liberal candidate, John Bridon, a former financial editor at the Toronto Star.

JOHN BRYDEN, Liberal Party Candidate: [talking to people in neighborhoods] You've got to run in this game. Bye. Bye.

MR. KRAUSE: Like the other candidates, Bridon can spend only 50,000 U.S. dollars on the election, so much of his campaigning is door to door.

JOHN BRYDEN: [talking to woman at her door] John Chretien is not offering any miracles. He's simply saying that we will, we will try to get Canada back to work first, and then we'll worry about the deficit later on the theory that if people aren't working and earning money, you're not going to be able to pay off your debts.

WOMAN: I can appreciate that. I just worked for a company that just went bankrupt.

JOHN BRYDEN: Just went bankrupt, yeah.

WOMAN: So I know. I understand that.

JOHN BRYDEN: We have a lot of those.

WOMAN: I just, I just, I just don't know who's got the answers.

MR. KRAUSE: Have you changed anyone's mind so far today?

JOHN BRYDEN: Oh, yes, I think so. I try not to press them too hard but I really do believe again in an election like this when there's a credibility problem, when people aren't sure that the politicians care anymore, just going up to the door and saying, look, here I am, ask me a question, I think it shows that I care, and I think that swings probably 2/3 of the people I actually talk to. I think it's key to this campaign.

MR. KRAUSE: Bryden's chances will be helped because the Socialist New Democrats here have collapsed. The party's national leader, Audrey McLaughlin, hasn't been able to overcome the unpopularity of three NDP provincial governments, including the one in Ontario. So Rick McCall, the New Democrat running in Hamilton-Wentworth, won't be much of a factor this year. But to everyone's surprise, it's the Reform Party that's captured the angry mood and that's coming on strong even in Hamilton-Wentworth. Reform's national leader, Preston Manning, has campaigned in Ontario, and if the polls are right may get 15 to 20 percent of the provincial vote. Manning appeals to Canadians fed up with high taxes, deficit spending, professional politicians, and government red tape.

SPOKESMAN: Can you honestly look for leadership from the current inmates of the asylum?

MR. KRAUSE: There's also a streak of Christian fundamentalism and anti-Quebec feeling in the Reform Party.

MAN ON PHONE: You asked about a press conference on Tuesday?

MR. KRAUSE: In Hamilton-Wentworth, polls indicate Reform Party Candidate Mark Mullens will be a factor. It appears he'll take enough conservative votes to ensure a liberal victory. The one major political trend that's not evident in Hamilton-Wentworth is the rise of the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party in French- speaking Quebec. It too is a protest movement but one that appeals to Quebecers' resentment of English-speaking Canada. If the polls are right, the Bloc will take support from the conservative, help elect the liberals, but add yet one more party to Canada's already fragmented political system. In its last national poll, the Toronto Globe & Mail projected that DuChard and the Bloc will take over 50 percent of the vote in Quebec, enough to give it fifty to sixty seats in the new parliament. So it's possible the Bloc could come in second to the liberals, which would mean the official opposition party in the new Canadian parliament will be dedicated to breaking up the country, or the Reform Party could come in second, which would be the equivalent of Ross Perot holding more seats in Congress than the Republicans. Either way, Monday's vote will be a watershed election, the first since Canada began feeling the brunt of competing in the global economy. Adams calls it the politics of de-consumption.

MICHAEL ADAMS: We're not going through this phase where we're moving to, to something different, and the Canadian people know this is not just a cyclical recession. The governments can no longer deliver the goods, and, therefore, the effectiveness of government, which Canadians have relied on much more than the United States, much more than Americans have done, the effectiveness of government is being questioned, and, therefore, the legitimacy of government is being questioned. The pie is getting smaller. So we are seeing the unraveling of the ties that held this country together for a hundred and twenty-five years.

MR. KRAUSE: It's a bleak assessment, perhaps too bleak, but in Hamilton-Wentworth and all across Canada, there's a sense that Canadians will be voting next week not just for political candidates but also to salvage what was once their secure and prosperous way of life. ESSAY - ROLL OF THE DICE

MS. WARNER: Finally, we welcome a new essayist to the NewsHour. He's Paul Hoffman, editor in chief of Discover Magazine. Tonight his thoughts are about chance and evolution.

PAUL HOFFMAN, Discover Magazine: The meeting of minds of Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin was a bolt from the blue, a singular, unexpected event that will change history. The same week the two antagonists shook hands, the scientific community also faced a bolt from the blue, a literal bolt. The evidence became overwhelming that a gigantic asteroid crashed into the Earth 65 million years ago, killing off the dinosaurs and more than half of all other forms of life. We owe our very existence to this asteroid. Only after the dinosaurs were wiped out could our early mammal cousins grow larger than rats and branch out along the many evolutionary paths, including the path that led to our glorious selves. Political observers have long known that history is a crap shoot. We would not have peace in the Mideast if Arafat had been assassinated on his way to Washington. Scientists used to think that the natural world unfolds with clocklike precision. The killer asteroid, however, shows that the evolution of life is also a crap shoot. In the 19th century, when Darwin knocked our species down a peg by showing that monkeys were our cousins, people took comfort in the fact that at least they have larger brains. It was suggested then that dinosaurs died out because they all became dumb like Barney. But that can't be true. The giant reptiles reigned for a soberingly long time, more than 160 million years. That's testimony not to pea-brained senility but to vitality. Our human-like ancestors go back only four million years, a more fortieth the time the dinosaurs were around. Another romantic idea, stemming from the same obsession with brain size, is that our ancient rat-like relatives outsmarted the dinosaurs. They paved the way for our existence by scurrying from one dinosaur nest to another, sucking and devouring the eggs. But that's fantasy. For a hundred million years, the numerous dinosaurs and the few early mammals lived together without incident. Clearly, the huge lumbering reptiles managed to suppress the rise of the small, active mammals, not the other way around. And if that's not humbling enough, consider that some of the last of the meat eating dinosaurs were at least as smart as the first mammals, although not as clever as the velociraptors that terrorized the kids in the kitchen in "Jurassic Park." We now must accept that we triumphed over the dinosaurs by chance. This September, scientists released their measurements of the smoking gun, the impact site of the killer asteroid, a 185-mile diameter crater below the Gulf of Mexico and the northern tip of the Yucatan Peninsula. The catastrophic collision pulverized billions of tons of rock and propelled it into the atmosphere, creating a cloud of dust that surrounded the Earth, and prevented sunlight from reaching its surface. Day became night, and photosynthetic plants started to death. Left without a food supply, the plant eating dinosaurs died, and then the meat eaters. Our rat-like ancestors hid, devoured the odd food scrap, and waited for the dust to settle, literally. 99.9 percent of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. The latest thinking is that most of these species died out because of bad luck, not bad genes. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The asteroid extinction theory is being taken seriously at a time when our own lives seem increasingly to be a crap shoot. Our jobs are at the whim of corporate cost cutters. Our health is at the mercy of strange, new disease, and we feel random violence. We could have been buying postage stamps, or eating at McDonald's or getting gas at the highway rest stop when the gunman opened fire. Now science shows that we can't escape this randomness by seeking solace in the stars, for those very stars not only give life but snuff it out. I'm Paul Hoffman. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, President Clinton and Russian President Yeltsin scheduled a January summit meeting in Moscow. U.N. sanctions began to bite in Haiti as international oil companies closed nearly all gas stations. The move sparked a struggle between the civilian government and the military over control of the country's fuel supply. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Jim. That's it for the NewsHour tonight. We'll be back on Monday with an interview with Attorney General Janet Reno. I'm Margaret Warner. Good night.