The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MAC NEIL: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, we debate the politics of gun control following Oklahoma City. With the four-month truce ended, will there now be a wider war in Bosnia? We have four views. And Charlayne Hunter- Gault continues her conversations on rethinking affirmative action, tonight with Stephen Carter of Yale University. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Oklahoma City death toll rose to 138 today. Fifty people are still missing. Rescue workers will soon use mechanized equipment, as well as their hands, in sifting through the rubble. Yesterday, Gov. Frank Keating said it was likely no more victims will be found alive. The search for a second bombing suspect continued. The FBI released a new side view sketch of the man they called John Doe No. 2. They described him as very tan and muscular. Officials believe the bombing was a terrorist act aimed at the federal government. President Clinton today criticized militias and other groups who stockpile weapons and espouse anti-government positions. He spoke in Washington to a women's political group.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: These people, who do they think they are, saying that their government has stamped out human freedom? Do you think -- [applause] -- I don't know if there is another country in the world that would by law protect the right of a lot of these groups to say what they want to say to each other over the short wave radio or however else they want to say it, to assemble over the weekend and do whatever they want to do, and to bear arms which today means more than the right to keep and bear arms, it may mean the right to keep and bear an arsenal of artillery, is there -- who are they to say they have no freedom in this country? Other countries do not permit that! [applause]

MR. LEHRER: We'll have a debate about some alleged inflammatory speech right after this News Summary. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Iranian officials today called President Clinton's decision to impose a trade embargo on their country disgraceful. They also claimed it was designed to win Jewish votes in the 1996 election. Yesterday, the President said he was taking the action because of Iran's support for terrorism and its bid to develop nuclear weapons. American firms are currently prohibited from selling Iranian oil in the U.S. but they may buy and sell it overseas. The new restrictions will go into effect in a month. Secretary of State Christopher spoke about the embargo today at the State Department.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We view Iran's action as a major threat to United States' interest in national security, and we're determined to stop them. The President's decision underscores America's readiness to lead by example. It puts the United States in the strongest possible position to urge others to take similar steps. In addition to opposing Russian and Chinese nuclear cooperation with Iran, we'll be calling on our G-7 partners to undertake a comprehensive review of their economic ties to Iran.

MR. MAC NEIL: White House officials admitted the move may cost thousands of US jobs and raise oil prices. Fighting in the former Yugoslavia heated up today following the expiration of a four-month cease-fire in Bosnia. Both sides rejected UN pleas to extend the truce. In Sarajevo, two women were killed by sniper fire, and thousands of Croatian soldiers battled with rebel Serbs in Central Croatia. Three UN peacekeepers were seriously wounded in that fighting. We'll have more on the situation in Bosnia later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: The criminal case against the daughter of Malcolm X was settled today in Minneapolis. Quibilah Shabazz was to have gone on trial today on charges of plotting to kill Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan. Instead, she agreed to two years of probation and psychiatric and chemical abuse counseling. If she completes those successfully, the government agreed to dismiss the indictment. Shabazz's mother had accused Farrakhan of being involved in the assassination of her husband, Malcolm X.

MR. MAC NEIL: The fight over the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be surgeon general moved towards center stage today. Confirmation hearings begin in the Senate tomorrow. There were several Washington events supporting and opposing the nomination. President Clinton invited a group of teenagers to the White House. They had all participated in a program Foster created in the Nashville housing projects to build self-esteem and prevent teen pregnancies.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'm glad you came up here to fight for Henry Foster, and I'm glad you came up here to fight against people who are compelled for political reasons to label Americans and put 'em in little boxes and turn 'em into something they're not. If we can't confirm Henry Foster to be the surgeon general of the United States, what kind of person can we confirm? He deserves it, and America needs the kind of thing that you have shown us here today. [applause]

MR. MAC NEIL: Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole has suggested he may prevent the nomination from coming to a vote on the Senate floor. A coalition of anti-abortion groups held a news conference today in Washington. They are lobbying Senators to oppose the Foster nomination.

PENNY YOUNG, Concerned women for America: Unfortunately, President Clinton is so out of touch with the rest of the country that a physician that will simply work to promote good health is not good enough for him. He must select an activist in the same tradition as his predecessor, Dr. Elders. We urge the Senate Labor & Human Resources Committee to reject this nomination, and make no mistake, this vote will be remembered in November.

MR. MAC NEIL: White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said today it will be an uphill fight.

MR. LEHRER: An official U.S. investigation has concluded that eminent U.S. and European scientists did not give the Soviet Union atomic bomb information during World War II. That allegation had been made last year by former KGB official Pavel Sudaplatov in a book published in this country. The scientists he named included Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Leo Zilard, and Niels Bohr. The FBI investigated the Sudaplatov allegations at the request of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Its chairman, former Defense Secretary Les Aspin, described their findings at a news conference today in Washington.

LEE ASPIN, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board: We asked the FBI, tell us what is in your files, please, is there anything that would lead you to say that Sudaplatov is right, or is there anything to say that he's wrong, what have you got? Their answer is, No. 1, there isn't evidence on there that's conclusive either way, but the evidence that they have and the evidence that they have looked at and the evidence that they have believes -- tilts them to the belief that the charges are unfounded. That's their word in their letter. They are unfounded.

MR. LEHRER: North Korean officials announced today they are willing to resume nuclear talks with the United States. They attached no conditions. Previous talks broke down over North Korea's refusal to accept nuclear reactors from South Korea.

MR. MAC NEIL: In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported Americans earned more and spent more in March. Personal income was up .6 of 1 percent, and consumer spending rose 1/2 percent. Personal spending represents 2/3 of the nation's economic activity. Mobile Oil announced it will cut 4700 jobs worldwide. More than 2500 will be in the US. The country's second largest oil company says the restructuring will save more than a billion dollars a year. Most of the layoffs will involve administrative workers.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Pryor versus the NRA, what next in Bosnia, and a conversation about affirmative action. FOCUS - TAKING AIM

MR. LEHRER: We begin once again with more fallout from the Oklahoma City explosion. Tonight it comes in a debate between a United States Senator and an official of the National Rifle Association. The Senator is David Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas. The official is NRA executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. Last week, Sen. Pryor went to the floor of the Senate to accuse LaPierre of issuing a letter Pryor said was "a revolting example of hateful incendiary irresponsible speech." Sen. Pryor, what was it Mr. LaPierre said that caused that response from you?

SEN. DAVID PRYOR, [D] Arkansas: Well, I read this letter from Mr. LaPierre, and I assume it went to his membership across the country. I don't know where else it was distributed, but to me, this was the most incendiary letter I've ever read of this nature. When Mr. LaPierre talks about the gun banners simply don't like you, they don't trust you, they don't want you to own a gun, they'll stop at nothing, when he talked about this administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens. The next paragraph: Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Branch Davidians, "Not too long ago, it was unthinkable that federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms could attack law- abiding citizens." Law-abiding citizens in Waco? Let me remind Mr. LaPierre that the first agent killed or about the first agent killed in Waco was from the state of Arkansas. He was attempting, as I recall, to serve a subpoena. And Mr. LaPierre compares this to Nazi Germany. I don't think they had subpoenas in Nazi Germany, Mr. LaPierre, and I think that you owe an apology for this very shameful letter that you have written, and I hope you actually didn't sign your name to it.

MR. LEHRER: First of all, Mr. LaPierre, do you confirm that that was your letter? WAYNE LaPIERRE, National Rifle Association: We did send out a letter, and frankly, Jim, I think why is it only NRA speech people are talking about? The fact is if you look at the gun ban speech, if you look at the speech of Congressman Schumer, Senators on this issue, it's all a little bit overblown from time to time. But if you're talking about the NRA language in regard to the abuse cases, we went down to the White House in January of '94, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, along with the National Defense Attorneys Association, and delivered 25 specific examples of abuse to Gen. Reno with federal law enforcement agencies and asked for a presidential commission. We went back down again in January of '95 and asked the same thing. Yesterday she said she's never seen any of this. What the NRA is saying is let's get all this outin front of the American public. If we're wrong, we'll be shown to be wrong in front of the public, but if we're right, the country needs to know.

MR. LEHRER: We'll get to that in a minute, but what about the Senator's specific point of comparing federal law enforcement officers with Nazis, with Germany, with what happened in Nazi Germany?

MR. La PIERRE: It sounds awful strong. It may be a tiny bit overblown. It may be a little bit -- a lot overblown, okay? But if you talk to the victims that this is happening to around the country, they don't think the rhetoric is overblown. I would ask the Senator: Have you ever heard of the Catonis? Have you ever heard of the Lamploos, Monique Montgomery? Do those names ring a bell to you?

SEN. PRYOR: Let me --

MR. La PIERRE: Because I don't see how you can comment about what we're saying without knowing about the abuse cases, and that's what we're asking the country to hear.

SEN. PRYOR: You refer several times in this letter to the bureaucrats and basically you're demonizing one of the agencies of the federal government, the Bureau of Alcohol Control, ATF, and what you've got to remember, and what you are not telling the audience tonight is, is that almost every person that was killed in Oklahoma City, in that federal building in Oklahoma City, was a bureaucrat, and you are demonizing bureaucrats and demonizing the bureaucracy. The others killed were the children of bureaucrats. We've got to remember in this country that bureaucrats in America are civil servants, they work for us, and many times they do a wonderful job, most times they do a wonderful job, and still you choose them to demonize them and to spread kerosene on this fire out there that's rampaging across America, while you defend the Branch Davidians, Davidians in Waco. It's unbelievable that you could take such a position.

MR. La PIERRE: Senator, we are not against law enforcement. We are pro law enforcement. We are not against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms. They do many fine things. All we're saying is there are major federal law enforcement abuse cases that neither the administration nor the Congress has looked into. We have NRA members in Oklahoma that are both rescuers and victims. We share the same grief everyone does about that tragedy, but believe me, this fear -- Time Magazine just did a poll that hit the racks this week -- do you think the federal government has become so powerful that it poses a threat to the rights and freedoms of citizens? A majority of the American public said in that poll, yes. I think that's tragic. We're not going to allay the fears, though, unless we get these abuse cases or alleged abuse cases in front of the public and let them see them.

SEN. PRYOR: Now, Wayne, you're not trying to allay any fears, nor are you trying to do anything about bringing calm -- and I forgot what you actually said yesterday -- the healing process. If you wanted to do something about causing a healing process to start taking place, I think the first thing you would do is you would apologize for this obscene letter that you've written across America that is now being circulated to a very large extent. This is a fund-raising letter. In two or three places in this letter, Mr. LaPierre is asking for money to support his cause and to further his cause. I don't know how much more money he needs in the National Rifle Association.

MR. LEHRER: Do you regret the letter, Mr. LaPierre?

MR. La PIERRE: I think one line in it is a little overblown. If I had to do it over, I would scale it down. But if you talk to the victims around the country of these federal law enforcement abuses, they don't think we're overblown.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you about a specific point that you made in your letter.

MR. La PIERRE: Go ahead.

MR. LEHRER: It was that -- you said that the Branch Davidians and the Weaver people, those were law-abiding citizens, that federal law enforcement officers came humiliated, killed, and all of that. Do you believe that these folks were law-abiding, innocent people at Branch Davidian and Weaver were innocent people and did not deserve to be arrested or whatever?

MR. La PIERRE: I believe there were a lot of children in that compound in Texas, and I believe there are a lot of questions that still in the public's mind would like to be answered as to why it wasn't treated more like a hostage situation. I believe in, in the Weaver case -- I mean, his wife was carrying a ten-month-old baby. She was shot in the head and killed. I mean, the public would like to know why the government was giving "shoot any adult on sight" orders. I don't believe anything that Randy Weaver believes or the Branch Davidians. I mean, but the fact is just because somebody doesn't believe what we believe, we have to operate within the Constitution and within the law, and what we're alleging is -- and it's not only those -- there are all kinds of other cases -- the American Civil Liberties Union is not the National Rifle Association. They were on board in asking for federal hearings. I would like the Senator to join with us. Let's get it all out in the public.

MR. LEHRER: Senator.

SEN. PRYOR: Well, I would just like to say -- back to Waco again -- one, the President and the attorney general, Janet Reno, both have -- they accepted responsibility for their action. It may have been the wrong call, but it was a call they felt at the moment they had to take, and they made it with the best acts that were available to them. They accepted responsibility, and I think that you ought to accept responsibility for admitting that you are circulating today and try to raise money from and trying to sell fear based upon allegations that are simply not true. The people at Waco,they were not law-abiding citizens. They had amassed an enormous stockpile of weapons, of explosives. He was living with how many wives and they were holding their children out of the school system. Many many laws have been broken. They're not law- abiding citizens, and you should not quote them with a law-abiding cape around them to cloak them and give them this dignity that they did not deserve.

MR. La PIERRE: Senator, the last time the United States Congress looked into these types of abuses was '78 and '79. I have the report right here. They concluded the conduct of ATF reprehensible, and they said there were major violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, particularly search and seizure, illegal confiscation of property, and entrapment. What the NRA is saying -- and they also said the Bureau's case was totally indefensible in this report -- what we're asking is -- now there are another twenty-five, thirty, forty major cases of alleged abuse. Let's get to the bottom of it at a time when we're talking about a major expansion of federal law enforcement power. We need to know what's happening now, because federal police now comprise 10 percent of the nation's law enforcement agencies. And believe me, we are pro police. But it doesn't help anyone if you sweep this stuff under the carpet.

MR. LEHRER: What about the Senator's accusation that you all are demonizing the police and thebureaucrats and the people who work for the federal government?

MR. La PIERRE: We're not trying to do that. I mean, that's the last thing. We praise the local police throughout the country. In fact, if you've talked to local police, they have severe criticism of a lot of these federal cases. They have criticisms of the ATF, and believe me, there are a lot of good ATF agents. We're not out to abolish the agency. All we want are the abuse cases cleaned up.

SEN. PRYOR: Whatever you say, I used to chair the oversight committee for the Internal Revenue Service, and that was not an easy task, I can tell you, and back during about '86, '87, and '88, we finally got passed into law some protections for taxpayers, and the taxpayers bill of rights. We're trying to pass a taxpayers bill of rights too -- that's another story. We found abuses in the Internal Revenue Service but by law, using the proper channels, we made them clean up their act, and we put them under the scrutiny of Congress once again. Now, what you're doing is selling fear and hatred. You're trying to raise money from an incendiary issue, and I just think it is totally irresponsible that at this time you're trying to do this in this country, and I cannot -- I have so many members in the NRA who tell me that they say, well, now, he's gone too far.

MR. La PIERRE: Senator.

SEN. PRYOR: He's just gone too far.

MR. La PIERRE: Trying to blame the rhetoric is like trying to say the weather report in Florida caused the damage caused by the hurricane, as opposed to the hurricane.

SEN. PRYOR: Oh, come on.

MR. La PIERRE: It's like saying by the New York Times reporting the stock market crash that caused the stock market crash. The rhetoric is in response to the abuses that are occurring in the real world, and you're not going to stop the fear, justified or not, that's out there in the country until Congress hold hearings.

SEN. PRYOR: Well, the greatest fear I think is --

MR. La PIERRE: We're not afraid of that.

SEN. PRYOR: -- to feel unprotected today, and they feel that everybody is entitled to go out and buy an assault weapon -- you're trying to repeal that. And by the way, I see that you have not had one member of the Senate or one member of the House of Representatives go to the floor and defend this letter that you wrote to your membership, not one.

MR. La PIERRE: Well, let's hold hearings, and let's get the abuses out, and let's bring in the victims, and let's see what they say about the rhetoric based on what happened to them in real life, and I think you'll be surprised because you don't know what's happening out there in the real world. And you shouldn't criticize our rhetoric until you listen to these victims, because we're telling the truth, and the public will see it if we can get hearings or a presidential commission.

SEN. PRYOR: Well, I don't know what victims you're talking about.

MR. La PIERRE: Well --

SEN. PRYOR: Are you talking about --

MR. La PIERRE: -- that's the issue.

SEN. PRYOR: If you're talking about --

MR. La PIERRE: And when the head of BATF went before the Congress and was asked by Sen. Shelby who was Monique Montgomery, who were the Catonis, he said, I don't know. Well, America needs to know.

SEN. PRYOR: Well, I think we know who can carry a gun, that's what I think we need to know now. We're reaching the point where we've got to keep the assault ban. I know you're trying to repeal the Brady Bill. In the first month, by the way, in Arkansas, 2300 people were screened when they went to buy a gun, 74 of those were told they couldnot buy a gun because they --

MR. La PIERRE: And out of 70,000 turndowns, you did four prosecutions nationally, and that sure --

SEN. PRYOR: And I'll tell you what. That might be the four people that bombed -- I don't know -- I'm going to retract that. That may have been the four people who are walking out there tonight, who - -

MR. La PIERRE: We could have used those resources to save thousands of other lives.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you both, gentlemen, very much.

MR. La PIERRE: Thank you, Jim.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour, what's ahead in Bosnia, and rethinking affirmative action. FOCUS - WIDER WAR?

MR. MAC NEIL: We focus next tonight on Bosnia, where a four-month truce engineered by former President Jimmy Carter formally expired today. Fighting, which had never stopped entirely during the truce period, continued today in Bosnia. It also resumed in parts of Croatia, where United Nations peacekeepers separate Serbs and Croats. We start with a report prepared by Liz Donnelly of Independent Television News.

LIZ DONNELLY, ITN: Hours before the expiry of the four-month-old cease-fire, fighting broke out on Mount Ozren in North Central Bosnia between Bosnian Croat soldiers and Bosnian Serbs. It was becoming increasingly clear that the United Nations, which has been trying to get the cease-fire extended, had failed. About 200 miles away from Mount Ozren in Western Slovenia, near the divided town of Pakrac, observers witnessed the worst of today's fighting after Croats launched a three-pronged attack shortly before dawn. Croat troops dug in rocket launchers as artillery and tanks moved forward across United Nations' cease-fire lines. It was Croatia's worst fighting for more than 18 months. They moved in three days after the Serbs shot the E-70 motorway linking Zagreb with Belgrade, killing three Croatian drivers. It crosses patches of Serb- held territory. In response, the Serbs reinforced their troops from the South and detained 115 United Nations soldiers and civilian police. There's been no will to extend the cease-fire from either side. The Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, told a UN special envoy, Yasushi Akashi, Bosnian Serbs would agree to another cease-fire only if there was an end to sanctions against them.

RADOVAN KARADZIC, Bosnian Serb Leader: It is now a question whether the international community rather has a peace here or sanctions. It seems to us that some international factors rather have sanctions maintained than peace achieved. I do think that peace will not be achieved unless we all be treated equally.

LIZ DONNELLY: The UN special envoy, who admitted he'd not made much progress, said he tried to ensure the levels of violence were minimized.

YASUSHI AKASHI, Un Special Envoy: However, I have received assurances from all sides, the Bosnian Serb side, Bosnian government side, Bosnian Croat side, that all of them will exercise maximum restraint and refrain from provocative military actions.

LIZ DONNELLY: Mr. Akashi's task has been made more difficult by the attitude of the Bosnian government, which for so long has been the underdog. As these pictures show, it spent the winter training and re-equipping its troops in preparation for a spring offensive to try to regain some of the territory it's lost. Today's fighting and the detention of the UN peacekeeping forces by Bosnian Serb troops will add to fears that the situation is set to deteriorate further.

MR. MAC NEIL: Will the end of the truce mean more savage, wider fighting in Bosnia? We get four views now. James Schear is a resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington and is a consultant to the United Nations force in Bosnia. William Zimmerman was the last US ambassador to the former Yugoslavia. He's now a visiting professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. William Hyland was former deputy national security adviser in the Ford administration, is now a professor at Georgetown University. And David Rieff is the author of a book called Slaughterhouse, Bosnia and the Failure of the West. Mr. Schear, has anything changed in these four months, or are we right back where we were before Jimmy Carter went there and arranged this truce?

JAMES SCHEAR, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Well, Robin, things have changed in several important ways. First of all, the Bosnian government is stronger than it was four months ago. It's prepared to, to renew the fight in order to make its country whole. The Bosnian Serbs, on the other hand, have lost ground during the cease-fire. They were pushed out of Bihac, the safe area that they violated last November and December, but fundamentally, both sides I think have incentives to renew the conflict. The question is: Will it be a replay of last year's war, with sporadic fighting, or will there be a major escalation? And I do fear that the Bosnian Serbs have some incentive at this point to escalate, because they do not see that time is on their side.

MR. MAC NEIL: So, Mr. Zimmerman, do you -- what do you expect? Do you expect a major escalation?

WARREN ZIMMERMAN, Former U.S. Ambassador, Yugoslavia: I think so. I think the only way you can stop a continuation of the war and probably an escalation of the war would be with the use of western air power in Bosnia. And that's not going to happen. So I think the war will continue. And now we have signs that it's spreading into Croatia. And that creates a situation where you have the strongest hostility that exists in the Balkans, the hostility between Serbs and Croats, by pitting those two nations against each other.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with this general view, Mr. Rieff, and if you do, how bad can it get? Could it get more intense, more savage, more refugees, could it spread outside the immediate areas it's in now?

DAVID RIEFF, Author: Well, the justification for the entire policy both of the British and French and of the United Nations was to contain the crisis. The view was that it was very sad what was going on in Bosnia. In my view, this amounted to making the UN and the West an accomplice to the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. But the view was containment at any price, and I think the events you see in Croatia demonstrate that not only was that policy immoral obscenity, but it was a blunder, because we see very well, as Amb. Zimmerman says, that the oldest hostility, indeed, is rekindled, that nobody is satisfied with the Vance plan that brought a cease- fire to Croatia, and the war there is starting up again. So it's not just a question of a rekindling of the war in Bosnia. It's a question of a rekindling of the wars, plural, of succession in the former Yugoslavia.

MR. MAC NEIL: And William Hyland, do you share the view that we can expect more and maybe bigger fighting?

WILLIAM HYLAND, Georgetown University: Probably, but you can't be sure how these things develop. We've been wrong so many times about this, this war and this country, but I think the big event is the failure of another peace-making effort by the major powers. And after President Carter's negotiated cease-fire, there was some hope, I suppose, that they might be able to bring together the parties and arrange some kind of negotiated settlement, and that's what the United States tried to do, rather ineptly, I think, but that has failed, and I think that's one of the biggest turning points. What lies ahead in terms of diplomacy is certainly uncertain, and it would seem to me that there's now incentives on the part of the people on the ground to escalate the fighting, which raises the question of whether UN forces can remain.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, just before we go on, Mr. Schear, with reference to a map here of Bosnia, and reference to the amount of territory that the Muslim-led Bosnian government controls, which is the yellow, and the Serbs controlling the larger part -- the red -- about 70 percent, I believe, just recapitulate for us where it stands. The five powers who are trying to -- the so-called contact group led by the US and Russia -- were trying to get the Muslim led government and the Serbs to accept a peace plan, which the Serbs basically have turned down because it would mean them giving up some of that red-colored territory that they held, is that -- is that still the situation there?

MR. SCHEAR: Well, that's part of it. The -- the distribution of territory is important. And there may be some room for adjustment there on both sides, but I think the critical issue is not so much the territory. It is the constitutional arrangement. Are we talking about one Bosnia or two? Are we talking about the Republic of Bosnia, which is led by the government in Sarajevo, or are we talking about an independent Serb republic, which is the position of the Bosnian Serbs? They have a self-determination claim for better or worse, and that is the claim they are attempting to prosecute in this case. So until the fundamental question of the constitutional arrangement is worked out, in my view anyway, the land issues are rather secondary, although there are some significant issues there.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, let's go back to what the ambassador was talking about and Mr. Hyland. Mr. Zimmerman, what can anybody do about this situation now, any of the players outside who have been trying to limit and control the finding and bring about peace?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well, it's clear that the sides, themselves, are not going to come to peace without some kind of inducement to do it or penalty for not doing it. I think the lesson of the war in Bosnia has been you cannot achieve a peace by negotiation if you are trying to get concessions out of the Serbs who are prepared to use force. And if the West isn't prepared to use force, then the war will go on until the two sides get exhausted.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you agree with that, Mr. Rieff?

MR. RIEFF: Well, I think the war will go on because the West has demonstrated to the Serbs that every plan is actually -- that is proposed as the last possible plan -- I would remind the viewers that this contact group plan with its division of Bosnia was presented originally by the great powers as a "take it or leave it" proposition. The Serbs have learned over the course of three years that when the West gives them a "take it or leave it" proposition, they can leave it and get better, and the Bosnians are finally on to the game. They, themselves, I think it's undeniable to say, in Sarajevo are of the view that the only way to solve this is on the battlefield. The attack on Ozren is extremely significant in military terms because this is an exposed salient of Serb- controlled territory that has, if you like, been on the hit list of the Bosnian military for some time. If you combine that with a more aggressive Croat stance, you get a situation that starts to be more favorable to the Bosnian side and, therefore, one that I think makes it more likely, I agree with Mr. Hyland that nothing is sure, but more likely that the Serbs will attack preemptively now before their greatest fear, which is a Croat Muslim, Croat government military alliance really takes shape against them.

MR. MAC NEIL: What could -- let me ask you the question I just asked Mr. Zimmerman -- what can anybody do about this? What could the United States or any of the other big powers, contact group, NATO, anybody, what could anybody do to, to improve this situation?

MR. RIEFF: Well, I think the fantasy that the Serbs are not afraid of NATO power is just that, a fantasy. You could start by simply protecting the safe areas. You could start by re- establishing things that UNPROFOR, the UN force, and the West have given up in the course of the last few months. And one of the things that's not talked about, which is an astonishing event, very little publicized, is that the Serbs have, in effect, taken control of the Sarajevo Airport again. That's reversing three years.

MR. MAC NEIL: And they say which UN or other officials can come in and out.

MR. RIEFF: Yes. The American -- an American senior official of the State Department has spent 24 hours at the airport unable to get in. This is -- this is an astonishing concession, and it's these kinds of concessions, I believe, that have made the Serbs feel they can get away with anything.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Hyland, what do you see the U.S. or anybody doing now to change this situation?

MR. HYLAND: I don't see that we can do anything effective other than the military option, which has been mentioned, which would involve probably major use of force by Europeans and maybe the United States. I think that's to be ruled out, and I would certainly be against it. So I see nothing other than just plodding along unless you want to take out the UN troops altogether and say wash your hands of the whole affair and let them fight it out to the death.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, speaking of taking out the UN troops, Mr. Schear, Bob Dole, the Senate Majority Leader, today renewed his call in a statement for a new policy based on his idea he's been backing for a long time, lifting the arms embargo on, on the Bosnian-Muslim government even if some UN members, as they threatened, France and Britain, pull out. Do you think this is likely now that this arms embargo is going to be lifted, and if it is, what will the effect be?

MR. SCHEAR: Well, it's hard to say at this point. There are pro and con arguments surrounding the embargo, surrounding the lift of the embargo. The basic problem I have with lift is that it would imperil really the only achievement that we've seen in the area in the last year. And that is the peace which has broken out between Muslims and Croats and the federation. Bosnian Croats have made it quite clear they oppose the lifting of the arms embargo, and quite frankly, if -- if that federation fails -- and I think it is one area where we've seen some success in stitching together Bosnia back together again village by village, it would be dreadful not only for the Croats but certainly for the Bosnians.

MR. MAC NEIL: Are you in favor, Mr. Rieff, are you in favor of lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnia side?

MR. RIEFF: Well, I think Mr. Schear and I have differences on a lot of questions, particularly about the role of UNPROFOR, but I think we probably agree on the suggestion that if you're going to lift the arms embargo, you are -- you know -- taking a real risk of the war expanding. My own view, however, is much more sanguine about what the Croats will do. I think the fear, from my point of view, about lifting the arms embargo is what happens if the Serbs take the Eastern enclaves in Gorazde and Srebrenica and do we really want to be in a position of putting 140,000 refugees on the road? My view, however, about the federation is as long as the West is willing to commit itself diplomatically to pressuring the Tudjman regime, the Western Herzegovenia Croats will do what they're told. The war in Western Herzegovenia of Croat versus Bosnian government was fought with regular Croatian army forces. It is a myth to imagine that the Bosnian Croats have a serious autonomous existence from their masters in Zagreb. And so I was less worried by that, although I agree with Mr. Schear about the importance of the federation.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Hyland, do you have a view on the lifting of the embargo? I mean, this country seems to be inching towards it. The Congress voted for it, the President managed to get the implementation delayed until now when the -- when this truce expired. What do you feel?

MR. HYLAND: I think, on the one hand, it's a phony issue because weapons are going into the Bosnians. We -- State Department officials admitted that Iranian weapons of all countries were going to Bosnians in violation of the embargo, and we apparently winked at it, which is really mind boggling, given our attitude towards Iran. On the other hand, why not? It -- the embargo doesn't seem to mean anything any longer, but I think the bottom line is if the British and French, who have forces on the ground and we don't, are opposed to it, then I would defer to them. They are, after all, our allies in a far more important adventure -- venture in NATO than anything at stake in Bosnia. So I'd be prepared to let the British and French make the call. And also, as far as the United States is concerned, I think we should wash our hands of this whole affair.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Zimmerman, just on the Dole idea of getting rid of the arms embargo on the Bosnian Muslims, what's your view on that?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: I think if you're going to have a military strategy, which lifting the arms embargo effectively is, you ought to have a real military strategy which I would say would be NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb installations. They were dealing directly with an issue. You're in a much better position to control it. If you lift the arms embargo, it's got all sorts of down sides which have been already identified. It's going to tear up NATO in a way it even hasn't been torn up so far. I would agree with Mr. Hyland you let the arms come in, wink at that, that will not have the negative effect on NATO, and it won't have the necessary consequence of bringing the peacekeepers to a point where they're going to have to leave.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Rieff, Mr. Hyland just said we should wash our hands of the situation. We're discussing this 20 years after the US withdrew from Vietnam, and as we've just seen in the last couple of weeks wounds from that war are still bleeding in this country. Should Americans be glad that their government had the sense not to get involved in Bosnia or be ashamed of it?

MR. RIEFF: Well, I think the more important anniversary that we're marking this week is the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Dachau, and in my view, if you simply say that the third genocide of a small European people in one century is perfectly okay with you, and you feel absolutely warranted and justified in washing your hands of this. Then you've gone down a road toward amoral real politique that I in my Neil Wilsonian way prefer not to go down. I really believe that there are certain events -- no, we mustn't intervene everywhere -- and there are many crimes in the world -- but Bosnia was both a great crime, and it was something we could have done something about, and I think it's shameful that we sat by and watched this happen.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Hyland.

MR. HYLAND: Well, it's ridiculous to compare it to Dachau, which was the beginning of the murder of millions and millions. This is a civil war between people with whom we have very little to do and certainly no vital interest. We had a vital interest in stopping Hitler. That was the great crime, but to compare it to Dachau is really ridiculous. It's also ridiculous in my view to compare it to Vietnam, where we had real interests and for which we fought and I think fought quite honorably.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Schear, your view on this.

MR. SCHEAR: I -- I guess not so much on the comparison, but I am -- I am disturbed by the notion that we can wash our hands of the situation now. We've come too far. We made choices a few years ago that perhaps in hindsight we're not the right ones, but we're doing the best we can with an international operation in the field that is diverse, has its problems, but it is making an impact and a more positive one now than it was a few years ago. I think to uproot that, to leave Bosnia's civilians without any life line would be a grave mistake.

MR. MAC NEIL: We have to end it there, gentlemen. I thank you all four for joining us. Thank you. SERIES - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, we continue our series of conversations on affirmative action. President Clinton has called for a complete review of the government's affirmative action policies. So have others in and out of government. Tonight we hear from Stephen Carter, a law professor at Yale University. Charlayne Hunter-Gault spoke to him recently.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Stephen Carter, thank you for joining us.

STEPHEN CARTER, Yale Law School: Thank you for inviting me. Happy to be here.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think affirmative action should continue?

STEPHEN CARTER: Absolutely. Affirmative action programs are supported, it seems to me, by a very strong, moral case that unfortunately is not being made in the current political climate. The simple fact of the matter is that the nation as a whole has an obligation to do something to make up for the centuries of oppression and deprivation that people of color have suffered in this country. Affirmative action has to be put in its proper perspective. It's a valuable tool for opening some doors that might otherwise be closed. It must never be seen as the centerpiece of the battle for racial justice. It's just one useful tool.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How long do you think affirmative action should go on?

STEPHEN CARTER: It's not a matter of trying to set a time limit. In the first place, one has to remember that for 300 years or more in this country, you had the most horrendous racial oppression. We had affirmative action programs for just about a quarter of a century, so it's a little too early now, I think, to start saying, well, they'd better show better results, or we're going to can them. I think what we have to do instead is this: to figure out when it's time for affirmative action to go, you have to look concretely at what's going on in the country. And as we move toward a society in which we share a sense that there's greater racial justice, that a lot of the wrongs in the past have been righted, and that we've found much more sensitive ways, perhaps much more clever ways to include those who would otherwise be excluded, at that point, I think we can talk about getting rid of affirmative action programs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what about critics, including even yourself at one point, who said that there was something unsettling about the advocacy of a continuation of racial consciousness in the name of eradicating discrimination?

STEPHEN CARTER: It is unsettling, i.e., no one should be delighted about affirmative action. It's just better than all the other ideas. Of course, we might be better off as a nation if we could look around saying the time has come when government and employers should no longer take account of race at all. That might be a very valuable step to reach, but we're not there yet.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But in your in book which you chronicled your own experience with affirmative action getting into college and law school and so on, you said that you have a problem with the notion that people were looked to as members of a group instead of first and foremost as individuals. Did you change your mind about that, or was that observation taken out of context?

STEPHEN CARTER: I said a lot of things in that book that perhaps today I would say in a different way, but I wouldn't agree quite with that characterization of affirmative action. I think it does help individuals. Let me just give you a concrete example. As a member of the faculty at Yale Law School, I read admission folders from people who've applied to be students in the entering class at Yale. When I look at those folders, I don't think let me get the right number of blacks or women or what have you, but when I see a folder of a student who happens to be a person of color, I do look at that folder a little harder. I look at the folder a little harder to say is there something special about this person that I might otherwise miss that others, more sensitive, might otherwise miss that says there's a reason to give this person a shot at Yale Law School. That's a benefit to that person as an individual. It is a scrutiny of that person as an individual. It is, of course, helpful, I hope, to the race in the sense that the person will go on to be a fine student, an excellent role model and will open doors for others to come behind, and it's a benefit to the nation as a whole because a person who might otherwise have been overlooked gets a shot at showing what he or she can do.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, maybe I mischaracterized your position but it goes to something that critics point out as the fundamental flaw of affirmative action, and that is that -- I mean, even those who say that affirmative action is anti-American because it goes against the notion of individual achievement and individual merit, what do you say to that?

STEPHEN CARTER: I don't agree there is an opposition between affirmative action and individual merit. It seems to me that it's all a matter of how it's done. Of course, if we become too obsessed with numbers, do we have the right number of women or African- Americans or whatever, you can run into those arguments. I still think those arguments shouldn't be made, but you can run into them. But affirmative action properly done isn't about that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A person that I talked to recently who will be a part of this series said that the problem with this is that lower standards are being used to apply to blacks, which is bad not only for the academic environment but bad for the blacks, because it is almost a certainty that they will not do well, and they resent being stigmatized because they're "affirmative action" admissions.

STEPHEN CARTER: In my book Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby I tried to answer part of the stigma argument by saying this: It seems to me that people who support affirmative action have to be prepared to say it helped me and I'm not ashamed of that fact. It certainly helped me. I wouldn't be where I am today -- a member of the Yale Law School faculty -- I wouldn't have been a student at the Yale Law School if not for affirmative action. I happen to think I did very well with the opportunities that I was given. A lot of people, when they talk about, are there double standards, they say, do you want to be treated by a doctor who got into medical school on a different standard? My answer is, I don't care how the doctor got into medical school, I care how the doctor got out of medical school. What matters to me is not what admission criteria were applied. What matters to me is: Was that student treated the same as all the other students when he or she was there, and has the same degree, worth the same thing, has done the same training? In that case, I don't really care how the person got in.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In your experience, though, have those who've been admitted under so-called affirmative action standards, lower or not lower, been successful? Because the argument is that many of them haven't in college.

STEPHEN CARTER: Well, you know, it's one of those things that's very difficult to measure. There are a lot of efforts to collect data about this. It is true that in white majority colleges as a group black students have a somewhat higher dropout rate or a higher failure to finish rate, as it's called, than white students do, although the white student failure to finish rate is actually also quite high, so it's a little -- there's this illusion that you're comparing these white students who finish in four years with these black students who never finish. And the fact of the matter is neither group actually finishes colleges at as high a rate as I think admissions officers would hope.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what about the other argument that people like you who come from, as they say, bourgeois backgrounds, or middle class backgrounds, I mean, your parents were both educated, they were members of the black middle class, that, that it's people like you who don't really need affirmative action and that's -- even those who support it say that that's where it's gone off the track?

STEPHEN CARTER: That's the reason that I say affirmative action has to be viewed as only one tool in the battle for racial justice. It is true that affirmative action, especially in college and the professions, tends to help the kids of the educated middle class black parents. Those are the people who get the benefits.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you see anything wrong with that?

STEPHEN CARTER: I'm not troubled by that as such, as long as we are willing to say affirmative action is one piece of a larger puzzle. Our commitment to racial justice as a nation has to be measured ultimately by how we help those who are worst off. Sometimes people call affirmative action racial justice on the cheap, and the reason they say that is it's almost all we're willing to do. It seems to me that a true strategy for racial justice says how are we going to help those who suffered the most from our nation's history of racialoppression, the people suffering in the inner cities and in rural poverty, are we going to do what we usually do, which is to say, well, we've done affirmative action, we don't have to do anything else, or are we going as a nation to reach out to them, even if it costs money?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Shelby Steele, an academic on the West Coast who is opposed to affirmative action, argues that affirmative action was disingenuous because he said in the first instance white women benefited far more than blacks and that 46 percent of black children are still in poverty. Do you accept that analysis?

STEPHEN CARTER: His data are correct. I don't think that means that affirmative action is therefore disingenuous. It is true that white women have benefited hugely from anti-discrimination laws over the last three years much more than black Americans have. It is also true that the poverty rate among black American children is extremely high, and there's a lot of debate about why that is. But that's not affirmative action's fault. It can't be the case that because we have affirmative action there are more black children in poverty; that doesn't make any sense.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: He also argues that for those who say that affirmative action has helped to promote diversity that now diversity exists in major institutions and maybe insignificant amounts not to be preoccupied with that anymore. What's your sense of that?

STEPHEN CARTER: Well, I should say first that I'm less concerned with affirmative action as promoting diversity as I am with affirmative action promoting opportunity. I'm much more concerned about seeking out these kids, these young black kids, and giving them a chance that they might not otherwise have to see what they could do. I do think it's true that affirmative action has clearly changed the face of the American work place and the American universities. And that's a good thing. And there may come a time when we can look at those changes and say this is a permanent thing. I feel nervous about saying that just now, given the climate in this country, which unfortunately is increasingly a climate of racial division and racial discord.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But white males who are your age and younger say, wait a minute, I didn't have anything to do with that oppression, I didn't have anything to do with that discrimination, why do I have to pay the price?

STEPHEN CARTER: That's right. They didn't, and it's not a punishment. Let me give you an analogy, because we have this anti- affirmative action initiative that may be on the ballot in California. Suppose that out in California there is a mudslide and houses are destroyed. Now, I didn't cause that mudslide, but if they get federal disaster relief, it's coming out of my tax dollars. Why? Because it's part of the nation's obligation to try to help the people who are suffering. And so if a white male says, affirmative action is harming me, which by the way I might dispute, but if he says that and feels that deeply, my answer is, it's part of your obligation as a citizen. We all in times of national crisis have to be willing to sacrifice, and in terms of the situation, the concrete situation of black people in America today, you can't look at the numbers and miss the fact that there is a genuine crisis. We just are failing to admit it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What happens if we do away with affirmative action?

STEPHEN CARTER: Well, if we do away with affirmative action, I think that black people survive, you know, I think our progress is slowed a bit. I think you have a smaller number of black lawyers or doctors or schoolteachers, but you still have a lot. Moreover, when you say do away with affirmative action, part of it is impossible, something you can't do away with it. It will never again be the case, I think, that any university in America will be content to sit and say, gee, our history department is all white, and we like it that way. It's just not going to happen. There's a mind set that we've changed in a lot of important respects.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think about the debate that's now happening in the country and the impact that it's going to have on affirmative action?

STEPHEN CARTER: I worry that a lot of white Americans when they hear the term affirmative action, what they think about is some black person getting their job and them getting fired, that's what they think about. In a time where many Americans fear for their economic futures, I guess I can understand that perception, but that's not what affirmative action is about. Affirmative action is first and foremost a method of the nations saying there are a lot of people out there who because of race or other reasons have been excluded, perhaps are being excluded, who really need to be brought inside, and we are going to do what it takes in order to do that. We're not doing that because we're punishing white males, we're not doing that because we think these people we bring inside are less qualified or not as good, we're doing it to be fair. We're doing it because we recognize our history and want to do something about that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Stephen Carter, thank you for joining us.

STEPHEN CARTER: Well, thank you for inviting me. I've enjoyed it. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again the major stories of this Monday, the death toll from the bombing in Oklahoma City rose to 139. Rescuers said it's unlikely any of the 50 people still missing are alive. And prosecutors agreed to drop the murder for hire case against the daughter of Malcolm X if she undergoes therapy and drug counseling. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with full coverage of the confirmation hearings for surgeon general nominee Henry Foster. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.