The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening, I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then French voters say no to a new European constitution, we look at why, and what's next; crackdown in Baghdad, as Iraqi forces try to contain the insurgency and stem new violence; a Memorial Day- inspired second look at portraits of the fallen; Jim Lehrer talks with the outgoing president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn; and a Roger Rosenblatt essay, on getting it right.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: Two suicide bombers killed as many as 30 people outside an Iraqi police station today. Dozens more were injured. The bombers blew themselves up about a minute apart in the city of Hillah, south of Baghdad. They had joined a crowd of police officers protesting the loss of their jobs. Late today an Iraqi air force plane crashed northeast of Baghdad near the Iranian border. Four Americans and one Iraqi were on board. There was no immediate word on their conditions or what caused the crash. In Baghdad U.S. forces detained but later released a prominent Sunni political leader. Mohsen Abdul-Hamid was taken by force from his home just after dawn. The U.S. Military later called the arrest a mistake. It came on the second day of a major Iraqi security sweep in Baghdad. Checkpoints placed around the city, were designed to suppress the latest wave of insurgent attacks. We'll have more on that after this news summary. An audio tape attributed to Zarqawi surfaced on the Internet today apparently addressed to Osama bin Laden. On it, a voice denies recent reports that Zarqawi was seriously wounded in fighting in Iraq. It said, quote, I assure you that these are baseless rumors and that my wounds are minor. The message is the latest in a series of Internet postings concerning Zarqawi's status. None has been authenticated. On this Memorial Day, President Bush made special mention of those Americans who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. At Arlington National Cemetery today, the president laid a wreath of red, white and blue flowers at the tomb of the unknowns. He said America will never forget those who sacrificed for their country.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines we remember today answered the call of service in their nation's hour of need. They stood to fight for America's highest ideals. And when the sun came up this morning, the flag flew at half staff in solemn gratitude and a deep respect. At our national cemetery we receive the fallen in sorrow and we take them to an honored place to rest. As we look across these acres, we begin to tally the cost of our freedom, and we count it a privilege to be citizens of the country served by so many brave men and women. ( Applause )

GWEN IFILL: The president also paid tribute to those who served in World War II. This year is the 60th anniversary of the end of that war, which took 400,000 American lives. European Union officials scrambled to regroup today, one day after the French turned down the EU Constitution. 55 percent voted against the charter in Sunday's referendum, the first such rejection by one of the EU's founding members. We have a report from Juliet Bremner of Independent Television News.

JULIET BREMNER: The French government was braced for a no. The prime minister put a brave face on what was a personal disaster. Ministers called to this crisis meeting must know it wasn't just a vote against the constitution. It was a vote for a different kind of Europe, one that offers more jobs, more protection. In Brussels, they returned to work at the commission on a dismal day, to digest what it all meant even their boss wasn't sure.

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO: Some of the messages coming tonight they are contradictory. Some are saying that they vote because they want more Europe. Some are saying they vote because they want less Europe. It's very difficult to draw a conclusion.

JULIET BREMNER: For the people trying to make Europe work as a union of 25 the outlook is grim. Holland will vote on Wednesday. There the no is even more substantial.

GWEN IFILL: All 25 EU members must ratify the constitution for it to take effect next year. Nine nations have already done so. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The son of Lebanon's slain former prime minister is in line to head his country's new government. Candidates loyal to Saad Hariri swept the first stage of parliamentary elections Sunday, winning 19 seats. It was Lebanon's first ballot free of Syrian control in nearly 30 years. Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon in April, after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in February sparked an international outcry. Syria has denied any involvement in the killing. Two Americans accused of conspiring to train and assist al-Qaida members will be arraigned in U.S. federal courts tomorrow. They were arrested on Friday during separate FBI raids in New York and Florida. One is a doctor, the other a martial arts expert. Both men allegedly tried to volunteer their services to undercover agents who were posing as al-Qaida fighters. Officials said there was no evidence that either man actually had provided support to terrorists. Police in Central Ohio are still searching for a motive for an apparent murder-suicide that killed six people. The bodies of four relatives and two family friends were found Sunday in neighboring farmhouses in Bellefontaine, 45 miles northwest of Columbus. Police now say 18-year-old Scott Moody fatally shot his mother, grandparents, and two other teenagers, and then himself. Moody and one of his victims were set to graduate from high school later that day. China today withdrew a plan to increase tariffs on textiles it sells in foreign markets. The decision came after the United States and European Union slapped their own new import restrictions on Chinese made-clothing. The action is the latest salvo in a trade war that has been brewing since the beginning of the year. That's when China began to flood U.S. and European markets with clothing and other goods, after a set of international quotas expired. That's it for the News Summary tonight, now it's on to: France says no to the EU; Baghdad violence; soldiers' stories; the World Bank president; and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

FOCUS - "NON"

GWEN IFILL: A setback for the European Union. Margaret Warner has that story. (Cheering)

MARGARET WARNER: At the Place de la Bastille in Paris where the French Revolution began, the crowd last night was jubilant. They were celebrating the resounding blow French voters had just dealt to the European Union's first proposed constitution.

WOMAN: We can't accept a constitution that doesn't give us a chance to really live in a real democracy, and that's why the "NO' is very , very, very important.

MARGARET WARNER: With a huge turnout, and a decisive 55-to- 45 percent margin, French voters said "Non" to a draft constitution designed to make Europe a more cohesive entity. The result was a stunning political blow to French President Jacques Chirac. It also spells trouble for the constitution itself which must be ratified by all 25 EU member states to take effect. Chirac had warned before the vote that "Europe would break down" if France rejected the treaty. In a brief televised statement last night, he tried to put the best face on the defeat and insisted that France's commitment to the EU would remain strong.

PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC (Translated): France has democratically expressed itself. You have, in your great majority, rejected the European constitution, it is your sovereign decision and I take note of it. However, our interests and our ambitions are deeply linked to Europe. France, one of the union's founding countries, naturally remains within Europe and I must tell you and our European partners as well as to all the people of Europe that France will continue to keep its position, respecting its engagements.

MARGARET WARNER: So far, nine countries have endorsed the constitution by parliamentary vote or referendum: Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Austria, Slovakia, Spain and Germany. Germany's parliament voted in favor of it only last Friday. The 450-page document aims to streamline EU decision-making after the recent addition of ten new members. It creates two new posts of president and foreign minister for greater coherence in international affairs. And it defines the separation of powers between the national governments and the largely unelected EU bodies in Brussels. The draft constitution faces another hurdle Wednesday, when the Netherlands holds its referendum. The latest polls suggest a majority of Dutch voters are also inclined to vote no.

MARGARET WARNER: For more now on the French revolt against a stronger Europe, we turn to: Jacqueline Grapin, president of the European Institute in Washington, which focuses on transatlantic relations; Marc Chavannes, Washington bureau chief for the Dutch newspaper "NRC Handelsblad," he was previously stationed in Paris; and Charles Kupchan, director of Europe studies at the council on foreign relations. He was director for European affairs on the National Security Council under President Clinton. Welcome to you all. Thank you for coming in on Memorial Day.

Jacqueline Grapin, what do you think best explains yesterday's result?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: Dissatisfaction if not exasperation. I think the French people, the majority of the French people have expressed the fact that they suffer from the policies which are developed at the level of the European Union which is different from the French level, without consultation. The two most important areas of dissatisfaction are the enlargement which has been... you know, ten new countries have been added to the EU Without consultation of the populations and the introduction of a free system of movement of workers across Europe. This is hurting the working class in France. So, in the last ten years, it's been, you know, job creation has been very, very slow. Many people are jobless. And it's just an expression of the fact that people don't like the policies. It's not against Europe and it's not... you know, it would be as absurd to say it's against Europe to say it's against France. It's against the policies that are being conducted.

MARGARET WARNER: Marc Chavannes, doyou see it that way, that it was sort of economic dissatisfaction most of all?

MARC CHAVANNES: In France, I think it's fear for capitalism, what they call outre liberalism, which is raw capitalism.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean somehow having an EU constitution would bring that on?

MARC CHAVANNES: Yeah. I think it's -- as Jacqueline said -- those ten new members and especially Turkey looming at the border make Europeans that get the chance to vote because in Germany, for instance, it was the parliament that said it's fine. The anti-political class in Europe is saying yes and people are hesitating. In France they said we're not so sure that a Europe with all these new countries will be able to guarantee the sort of social safety net we've come to be trusting. It's a comparable set of fears.

MARGARET WARNER: Fear of greater integration, economic, what else, Charles Kupchan?

CHARLES KUPCHAN: I think that Jacqueline was right when she said that this is a set of concerns that motivated the "no" vote that really wasn't about what was in the constitution. It was discontent with the establishment -- 10-plus percent unemployment in France. A sense that the elite not listening to the concerns of the average Frenchman. In many respects this is as much about globalization as it is about Europe because Europeans in Western Europe are watching their industries move to low-wage economies in Poland or Hungary. They're seeing the de-industrialization to China. Rather than dealing with this, they're saying let's blame Europe but it's actually not Europe that's the problem.

MARGARET WARNER: What you're saying is there was nothing really in the constitution that would have hastened those developments, those economic developments. I heard someone refer to it as the polish plumber syndrome. Was there anything in the constitution that would have exacerbated that?

CHARLES KUPCHAN: There are some concerns. That is that you have the free flow of labor, goods and services within the EU. As Marc mentioned the prospect of Turkey raised the idea that you'll have thousands and thousands of Muslims flowing in. But the bottom line is that the French had a choice. You stair globalization in the face and you get ready to compete in the global economy or you stick your head in the sand. They stuck their head in the sand.

MARGARET WARNER: So Marc Chavannes, now in the Netherlands the polls are showing that I think the no voters seemed to have a 14 percent lead at least in the polls. Why is that? What's driving that?

MARC CHAVANNES: I think all the above is valid. On top of that the Dutch have had a very bad recent experience with Europe. The Dutch got the Euro and the elite said that's fine, that's great. That's wonderful. The next day we had a huge price explosion. On top of that, part of the euro system was the stability pact which means that all countries have to stick to a maximum of 3 percent deficit, et cetera. It sounds technical but the real disappointment was that the small countries were held responsible to stick to those common rules because everybody was giving in on freedom of policy. But when Germany and France couldn't stick to the rules, the rules were waived so the Dutch felt really let down by Europe and the Euro.

MARGARET WARNER: Now many observers who have gone over there to report on this also say that anti-Muslim sentiment or sentiment against Muslim immigration which has been particularly heavy in the Netherlands is a big factor. Do you agree with that?

MARC CHAVANNES: Well, I'm not so sure -- we have the Muslim murder last year of Dayo Fohuoch. But there is a very objective fact. Turkey will be the largest EU country. It will be larger than Germany. And the Dutch fear-- and that's very factual-- the Turks will have more influence on Dutch affairs than the Dutch. And they pause, I think. Do we really want that?

MARGARET WARNER: So do you think, Jacqueline Grapin, if we look at the impact this vote is going to have, do you think that it will be seen, read, as an anti-expansion vote?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: It certainly will. But in fact it's going to steer political debate in Europe. Technically it is not a disaster because the treaty of Nice which is governing European system continues to apply but the irony of the situation is that the constitutional treaty which is being rejected by the French and possibly by the Dutch and by others was supposed to improve the situation and make it easier for the governments and the elite, the European elite to govern this very large entity. Now they are going to be disturbed not to know very well what to do. Now they have committed to including Romania and Bulgaria, supposedly, in 2007. The negotiation with Turkey has been cleared to start last December without consultation of the people. There could be serious reactions to that if the governments are wise they are going to be prudent on this which means that probably it will take longer than expected to include those regions.

MARGARET WARNER: Two questions to you, Charles Kupchan. One, do you think that the no vote in France from what you hear will have an effect on the vote on Wednesday in the Netherlands; and, two, if you have two back-to- back no votes what do you think is the greatest impact of that?

CHARLES KUPCHAN: I would think that the French "no" will edge the Dutch in the direction of following suit and also voting no in part because it is a watershed event in a symbolic sense. France is really the engine of European integration since the beginning of the 1950s and it comes along and says we're not so sure we like this anymore. If there are two "no" votes, it really will raise the fundamental question, should Europe continue on and let all 25 vote? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question yet. Technically....

MARGARET WARNER: You mean whether the other 14 even go through the exercise.

CHARLES KUPCHAN: Yes, because it does take all 25 for it to pass. Do you, for example, want to have Tony Blair who faces a very strong no tide going out there pressing, pressing, pressing if it doesn't matter in the end anyway.

MARGARET WARNER: Does that mean the constitution is dead?

CHARLES KUPCHAN: There are several possibilities. One is that you play it out. You see how many said yes. Then you try again. My guess is what will happen is that some aspects of the constitution will be pulled out of the current document and then put back before the people in a more simple way and probably pass in that form.

MARGARET WARNER: Marc Chavannes, what is the potential impact how should people in the United States look at this if they're mostly concerned with U.S. interest and what affect it may have on the U.S. relationship with Europe?

MARC CHAVANNES: Most Democrats and Republicans I've talked to over this, on this subject admitted that U.S. has always had an ambivalent relationship. On the one hand, yes, post war Europe had to be rebuilt and had to be strongly united. On the other hand-- and I think Charlie would agree-- people became a bit nervous when this united Europe started talking about armed forces and being ready to fight a war somewhere around the globe.

CHARLES KUPCHAN: Especially after the rift over Iraq.

MARC CHAVANNES: Especially then. That ambivalence was visible. On top of that, the current administration is pushing Europe to integrate all these new countries and democracy export, Turkey, come on. Why do you hesitate? And I think the U.S. will have to appreciate that the European construction over the last 50 years is a miracle -- the end of three wars in one century. But it takes a lot of people and a lot of languages and a lot of cultures and traditions. And this is the way it is.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that in terms of the impact on the U.S. and its relationship and attitudes toward Europe?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: I think that the U.S., when it considers the situation short term might say, well, this is in our best interest because we don't see this sort of this counterpart power mounting. But I think really in the long term it is in the interest of the U.S. to have a stable and unified Europe, something that the administration sees very well. That's why it is pushing towards integrating as many countries as possible. And I think this is what is going to happen but it will take more time than expected.

MARGARET WARNER: Brief final vote from you on whether this is positive or negative for the U.S..

CHARLES KUPCHAN: Negative. Two issues in the short term, Turkey. The U.S. wants Turkey in. This is going to hurt Turkey's prospects. Two, weakness from Britain to France to Germany to Italy. Very weak governments. The U.S. is looking to Europe for help around the globe. Weak governments aren't good on that front.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Charles Kupchan, Marc Chavannes, and Jacqueline Grapin, thank

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: More bombings, new efforts in Baghdad; faces of the fallen; a World Bank conversation; and a Roger Rosenblatt essay.

UPDATE - STRUGGLE FOR SECURITY

GWEN IFILL: Now our Iraq update. It comes from Jonathan Finer of the Washington Post in Baghdad. I spoke with him by telephone earlier this evening.

Jonathan Finer, welcome. What can you tell us, the latest you can tell us about that crash today in eastern Iraq?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, all that we've heard so far is that a plane went down in Diyala Province, which is north of Baghdad, and that there were four U.S. Military personnel on board and one Iraqi military personnel. The Iraqi Air Force plan they haven't... the military hasn't released what type of plane or the status of any of the people who were on board this time.

GWEN IFILL: So they're not confirmed dead but are they presumed to be dead?

JONATHAN FINER: No presumption, no confirmation at that point, although we're all chasing the story trying to find out what the status of those people is.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. Also, on another issue of violence in Iraq recently. We've heard about the suicide bombings in Hillah. What can you tell us?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, the way it's being described to us by police and eyewitnesses at the scene was that one suicide bomber managed to slip into a crowd of policemen who had gathered in a town square to protest some of the government's recent policies and detonated his bomb. When people first started to scatter and seek shelter in a nearby building, two other bombers follow them and detonated their explosives simultaneously, killing a bunch of people. The total death toll as we've had reported is about 31 with more than 100 injured.

GWEN IFILL: Was this considered to be a setback to this weekend's effort to crack down on insurgents?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, I'm sure the government would say that it's relatively unrelated. The crackdown effort is going on in Baghdad, and Baghdad itself was relatively quiet today, although there were some incidents of fighting between insurgents and the government, government security forces yesterday, as well as the suicide bombing yesterday. The government said that you would probably be able to expect the insurgents would try to respond to its effort to crackdown on militants by launching some attacks to prove that they could still operate.

GWEN IFILL: Now let's talk about that crackdown, the security sweep they called Operation Lightning. As you traveled there around this week and did reporting, what did you see that was evidence of whether this was an effective tactic?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, it's interesting. I mean, the government said there would be 40,000 troops in the street and 600-something checkpoints added to the help look for insurgents and a cordon thrown up around the city. We did find evidence of additional checkpoints and some clashes were reported in western neighborhoods of Baghdad, but as far as evidence of different life on the ground there wasn't a whole lot. It's hard to get some information out of the ministers of security and defense as to what is exactly going on in this operation, heard some bits and pieces. And we know that there are-- there's an additional troop presence. One of the things that U.S. officials have told us in Baghdad is that maybe this is an operation that's going to unfold over a period of weeks, and that it will be the combined effort of a number of small operations, raids and acting on intelligence, that sort of thing.

GWEN IFILL: The Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers was quoted this weekend as saying that he was -- this was another example of allowing the Iraqis to manage their own security. Is there any way to gauge how much of a presence U.S. forces had in this crackdown?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, they're certainly involved. In fact, there was an incident yesterday where insurgents watched an attack in a western neighborhood of Baghdad on a detention facility where some other insurgents were being held. And the U.S. Military units were called in for back-up and actually were helping Iraqi forces, we're told, on that assault. So certainly there's very much there on kind of a need-to-call basis and it has not involved in this assault even though it was being led by Iraqi security forces, police, soldiers.

GWEN IFILL: The term "Operation Lightning" seems to imply a quick and rapid strike, but you're suggesting that this is going to be something that goes on for some time?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, they said that it could for weeks, could go for two weeks and eventually it would jump from here to other regions in the country. They talked about it moving to Anbar Province in northwestern Iraq, where there's been so much activity among insurgents.

GWEN IFILL: Is there any other evidence-- I don't know whether the attack in Hillah could be considered that-- but is there any other evidence of resistance to this crackdown?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, there's, as I mentioned, the resistance in Baghdad yesterday, but it's been such a bloody, violent month that it's hard to say whether any of the incidents that we've seen in the last couple of days were related to the crackdown or not. There's been a persistent wave of violence since the new government was announced at the end of April.

GWEN IFILL: Because there has been such a persistent wave of violence, are people in Baghdad... do they seem more fearful? Are they staying home? Are their lives being affected at all by this crackdown?

JONATHAN FINER: Well, if you talk to the people in the streets, for the most part they say life goes on and I don't modify too-of my daily routine just because of this stuff. Although there have been some reports of people keeping their children home from school towards the end of the school year, which is was a couple of weeks ago, that sort of thing. But in general, you know, Baghdadis are fairly used to the violence that they've seen. It's been a rough two years since the invasion.

GWEN IFILL: Jonathan Finer, stay safe. Thank you so much.

FOCUS - FACES OF THE FALLEN

GWEN IFILL: Now on this Memorial Day a second look at a piece about the faces, names and stories of some of those lost to war. Arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports.

JEFFREY BROWN: (March 23, 2005 report) Faces of men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 1,300 portraits done by nearly 200 artists who worked from photographs in an unusual exhibition that opened today at Arlington National Cemetery. Sgt. Pamela Osbourne, age 38. Lance Corporal Jeffrey Lam, 22. Lance Corporal Elias Torrez, 21. A number of news organizations, including the NewsHour, have displayed photographs of the war's dead. Artists here had a further goal.

ANNETTE POLAN: I'm going to give these people something more permanent than a fleeting image in a newspaper.

JEFFREY BROWN: Portrait artist Annette Polan, who conceived the idea, says the exhibition is also about one role of art in our society.

ANNETTE POLAN: Each artist was told that we have a mission through the power of art to honor the fallen and offer some sort of comfort to their families.

WOMAN: It had a scripture that said Joshua...

JEFFREY BROWN: That public display of caring was what led Jacqueline and Alexander Dixon to travel from their home in New Jersey to Washington yesterday. Their son, Anthony, was killed in Iraq when his vehicle came under fire.

JACQUELINE DIXON: I wanted to make sure it looked good when I saw it. I prayed to God that it would be special, very special. And that's exactly what it is, special. It's like he's right there looking at you with his eyes, it's just beautiful.

ALEXANDER DIXON: I believe Miss Carr caught the essence of his spirit. He was a really an intense young man, and a lovely young man, and she got both qualities.

JEFFREY BROWN: Kathleen Carr worked from nine different photos of Dixon, and read about him on the Internet.

KATHLEEN CARR: My vision was to approach them as an old master would. I thought that would give a dignified look. So darkening the background, having the faces emerge into the light, Anthony was one of five children and that he was quite a spirited person and that he was very much loved in the military. I really just wanted to do my best to faithfully paint and capture a likeness.

JEFFREY BROWN: The artists, who in full disclosure include this correspondent's wife, were told the portraits must be eight inches tall and six inches wide. But the results were quite diverse, says Annette Polan.

ANNETTE POLAN: I have works in clay, works in glass, wood carvings, works on fiber, drawings and paintings, collage, montage. Some of the work is three dimensional.

JEFFREY BROWN: Private First Class Jeffrey Braun, age 19. Karina Lao, 20. And Chance Phelps, age 19, who was painted by his own father.

WOMAN: His eyes and the emotion in his eyes.

JEFFREY BROWN: 31-year old Marine Captain Andrew Lamont of Pilot was the youngest of nine children. His sister Kathleen remembers taking thephoto that would become the basis for his portrait.

KATHLEEN ROBERTS: The picture of Andrew right after he became a marine officer, and he dressed up in his dress blues, and wanted a picture of him, so he was on my front porch steps and I just remember standing through the front door and having the trees and the outside surrounding him and just taking the picture, never knowing where it was going to go from there.

JEFFREY BROWN: Washington artist Mary Challinor did 12 portraits for the exhibit, including Andrew Lamont's.

MARY CHALLINOR: There was something about the photograph that was able to capture both a dignity and a wistfulness -- I think because it was taken by his sister, as opposed to some of the other photographs I worked from, which were official military photographs. So when I painted the portrait, I tried to capture the emotion that I saw in that photograph.

JEFFREY BROWN: During yesterday's preview for family members and artists, there was much talk of the art and the fallen; less about the war and the controversy it stirred. Annette Polan says the intent to unify and not divide people.

ANNETTE POLAN: Most of the artists are opposed to the war; many of the family members support it. All of the artists are sympathetic to the families, and all of the families appreciate what these artists have given. That is success for me.

JEFFREY BROWN: Family member Kathleen Roberts agreed.

KATHLEEN ROBERTS: That is what is so beautiful about this, is the way America has really come and supported these people. Even if you don't support the war, that they have supported the families and the soldiers who have died by doing this, and the soldiers who are still out there.

SINGING: Oh, say can you see --

JEFFREY BROWN: Last night, relatives, military officials and artists gathered outside the Women's Military Memorial to celebrate the lives of the fallen. The exhibit will continue inside the Memorial Building through the fall, and organizers hope to bring it to other cities. Eventually, all the portraits will be given to the families.

CONVERSATION

GWEN IFILL: Now, a conversation with World Bank President James Wolfensohn, who ends his decade- long term as head of that institution tomorrow. He is being succeeded by former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The bank lends roughly $20 billion a year to countries worldwide. Last month, President Bush appointed Wolfensohn as a special envoy to help coordinate Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and assist the Palestinians in rebuilding the area. Jim Lehrer spoke with him last week.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Wolfensohn, welcome. You said the other day that one of your major disappointments as you leave the World Bank was you were unable to get the world interested in Africa. Why not? What's the problem?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: It wasn't that they're not interested. They're interested, but in terms of actions in relation to Africa, it's very hard to move the world with the force that is required. We have in that continent 47 countries, 750 million people. We have wars. We have AIDS; we have tremendous poverty; lack of education, and it is just that the resources are not flowing the way they should, and by that the Millennial Summit, which is coming up, it will be brought to the attention of the world, and even before that at the G-8 meetings to be held in Gleneagles. Tony Blair is going to give a special push for that because that's my hope, is that this will happen.

JIM LEHRER: Well, what's your analysis of why it's so difficult?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: I think it's difficult because most of the rich countries tend to be Eurocentric. If you look at our reaction to wars in Africa, it's pretty thin. If something happens in the Balkans or if something happens in a country nearer the Middle East where we are concerned because of whatever political or resource reason, we spend fortunes. You see what's happening in Darfur, you see what's happening in Congo, it's very hard to get attention.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Darfur is the thing that -- is the place that immediately jumps to mind. Here we have thousands of people dying, millions displaced, and it's still going on and is being reported on a - we've certainly reported it regularly on this program but nobody seems to be able to stop it.

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, that's what troubles me because on a program as influential as yours when you come to putting forward the issues of Darfur -- before it I remember Rwanda -- you could not get the sort of interest. So it is just one of the sad things about the reaction of the world that they've never fully warmed up to the fact that African lives and African development is important as developments in other parts of the word. I hope it's changing, and I think President Bush, himself, is showing a greater interest in Africa. And it's my belief that if he and Tony Blair and others come together and if you have good African leadership, which is important, then we've got a chance of moving it forward.

JIM LEHRER: Does the World Bank have a role to play in situations like Darfur?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Not unfortunately or fortunately, the way you look at it, not

in actually solving the conflict; we have a huge role in post conflict, in trying to make sure that when a conflict is over, you get the military demobilized and you build economic and social programs that will stop the next war, and so our work is mainly in the reconstruction. After all, the bank was called the International Bank for Reconstruction & Development. We're not a peacekeeping agency, our origins for that.

JIM LEHRER: So there has to be peace first before you all can do anything.

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: You know, I was looking at some material and surveys and stories about the attitudes of the American people about the World Bank and it's hard to escape the conclusion that most Americans have no idea what the World Bank actually is. Do you agree with that?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Unfortunately I do; and it's sad because the United States has been a huge factor in the World Bank, really helped its creation as one of the Breton Woods institutions after World War II and more than $300 billion worth of lending has come out of the World Bank, and significantly in support of things with which the United States is very much in sympathy. So the relationship between the U.S. and the World Bank is considerable.

JIM LEHRER: What is it? What's the single most important thing that the average American -- I'm not talking about think tankers and people that already know about the World Bank - but the average person -- what's the most important thing they should know about the World Bank?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: They should know that the World Bank is dealing with 5 billion people in the world out of 6 billion, 5 billion in developing countries, and that that 5 billion will grow to 7 billion in another 25 years, and that the same billion roughly will be in our rich countries. And what they should hope is that the World Bank can reach out and help the development of those countries so that all of us on this planet can benefit, benefit in terms of trade, benefit in terms of peace, benefit in terms of a better environment, because there are no longer two worlds; there is one world. And we, if you like, are both the window on that developing world and the active force to bring the developing world and the rich world together.

JIM LEHRER: The United States Government contributes how much to the World Bank on an average, of its total budget, or any terms you want to put it in?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, to the bank itself it doesn't contribute anything because the bank had an initial capital of $10 billion and we borrow in the market and we lend. But there is a very important affiliate of ours called IDAA, which is the International Development Assistance Agency, which makes loans to the poorest countries and to that the United States puts in several hundred million dollars a year and gives roughly 18 percent I think it is of the moneys which flow to that.

JIM LEHRER: What would you say to the American taxpayer? Are we getting our money's worth for that money?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, I think -- I can say this perhaps more easily now that I'm leaving -

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: -- and I don't need it to pay my salary, but I can say with total assurance that the American taxpayer is extraordinarily well served, because we deal with the question of governance, the question of corruption, questions of environment, questions of health, questions of education. And ultimately those things are at the core of peace, so I think it's a trivial amount relative to what we and the rest of the world spend on defense, for example; the total amount of money spent on development annually by the world is 50 to 60 billion dollars a year The total amount of money spent on military expenditure is a thousand billion dollars a year, twenty times that amount. And so the American public should hope that we can build peace because that makes less war.

JIM LEHRER: Based on your ten years at the World Bank, do you have any opinion about whether or not there is a connection between poverty and the problems of poverty and terrorism and the other problems that we're having to deal with throughout the world?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: I do have a view. It's not by any means clear and indeed it's not true that every poor person is a terrorist; that is clearly not the case. But what is true is that if you have people without hope who really have nothing to look forward to, then malevolent forces can come into those groups and both find a haven there and find recruits there. If you remember Sept. 11, Afghanistan was seen as the epicenter of the terror. There were no Afghans who came to the United States in terms of the terrorist acts, in fact, there were quite a number of people who are quite wealthy who came --

JIM LEHRER: Most of them were Saudi Arabians, yes.

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: They found their haven in that country. And the haven was made possible because these people had nothing to hope for. If you look now at Gaza and the West Bank, part of the problems in Gaza are that you have a group of people who feel that they have no economic hope, that they have no social hope, and so if you have forces that come in, extremist forces, to play on these young people who have no hope, they become very vulnerable. I was just in Pakistan; President Musharraf told me the same thing in Pakistan.

JIM LEHRER: Isn't that a hard case to make, I mean, to the average person who says, hey, wait a minute, we've got problems right here in the United States of America, why don't we deal with them first before we start worrying about folks in, whether it's Africa or Pakistan or Afghanistan or what else --

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: It might have been a tough case before Sept. 11, but Sept. 11 showed that there is no wall around the United States. And in fact our reaction has been that we're waging a war against terror not only in the United States but outside the United States. So at least the American public understands that there is no wall around the United States and that as a leader - as "the" leader of the free world -- the United States must be interested in the questions not just of terror and not just of military expenditure, but the issues of equity and social justice and of hope our country understands that.

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe we've got the equation right in the United States of America? Are we giving enough on the development side, on the assistance side?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: I think President Bush has done much more than perhaps all of his predecessors in increasing the level of aid, in increasing the support, for example, for AIDS, so I give him full credit for that, but as president of the bank I think the world's got it wrong. I think if the world is only putting fifty to sixty billion dollars into development and a thousand billion into defense, that we've just got to balance out - and in that context I would say the same is true of the United States - as admirative as I am of what this administration has done.

JIM LEHRER: Do you - what's your state of mind as you leave the World Bank now? Do you leave with a feeling of satisfaction, of frustration of things undone that you wish you had done?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, I think it has been the most remarkable ten years of my life, being able to make a difference in the planet, if you like, so I leave with a sense of gratitude for that opportunity and a sense of confidence that I have ten thousand colleagues there who have worked with me and who are deeply committed to the same things that I work for, which is to try and deal with the question of poverty, to try and deal with the question of the environment, and I feel very proud to have been with them. If I were 20 years younger, I'd like to go on for another 20 years but I have another challenge now. So I'm leaving of course with some sadness, with a lot of pride, and with hope that I can still do some useful things.

JIM LEHRER: Well, the next thing you're doing is - you mentioned Gaza a moment ago. Tell us what that assignment is, whom you answer to, and what you're going to be doing?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, I have been appointed by the United States, by Russia, by the European Union, and by the United Nations, the so-called "quartet," to intermediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians on the economic, social and to a degree political matters -- in the first instance on the withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank. I report to the quartet and essentially what I will be doing is working in the region with the two parties to try and help them reach an agreement which is peaceful and will lead to a furtherance of I think everybody's desire to see security for Israel and hope for the Palestinians. It's not the easiest job in the world, as I'm sure you might imagine, but it is a remarkable opportunity to be trusted by this administration and the others to do this.

JIM LEHRER: How long do you think this is going to take? Do you anticipate a time line here for you?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, I've been working in the field there for ten years, and we've put --

JIM LEHRER: Because the World Bank has been continuing --

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: The World Bank has been tremendously active, which is why I think the president and others thought it might be useful if I did it. But we've put a six-month time line on this till the end of the year because the actual withdrawal from Gaza is now slated to start on Aug. 15. But I guess we'll take a look at the end of the year and see whether I've made a contribution or not, and if I haven't, it'll probably be six months.

JIM LEHRER: But is it physically negotiating with these folks, having them sit down in rooms and say, okay, let's work this out, let's work this out, or is it a different kind of job?

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Frankly, there will only be peace if the Israelis and the Palestinians agree between themselves. It's not what I say or even what the United States says. And so what you have to do is to try and be supportive of each side and bring them together in whatever way I can, without intruding either my ego or my personal assessment of it, because I think that's counterproductive. I think one should try to be as invisible as possible because there are remarkable people on both sides, but I think it would be fair to say that there are quite a lot of misunderstandings and there's not a lot of trust. So maybe what I can do is to help bring about better understanding and help produce greater trust. If I can do that, then I think you'll find that the people of the Palestinian territories and of Israel all want peace and though one has to find a way to make this happen in an environment which, as you know, is fraught with danger and with some people who on either side don't want to see this happen. So I wish I could look at this with certainty. But I think it is a moment in time when there's a real possibility for peace.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, good luck to you and congratulations on the end of your ten years and the beginning of your new venture.

JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well, thank you so much, Mr. Lehrer.

ESSAY - HOW IT'S DONE

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt considers a new book on covering the Civil Rights Movement.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Karl Fleming's "Son of the Rough South," a book he calls an "uncivil memoir," is dedicated to all the reporters who did the right thing. Before doing the wrong thing myself, I should report that Karl is the husband of my colleague Anne Taylor Fleming, but that's as far as the connection goes. His memoir begins with his nearly being beaten nearly to death by blacks in the Watts riots of 1966. Then it goes back to the time of whites beating blacks in the South which he covered for Newsweek. He makes a kind of sense of the two seemingly irreconcilable events with a thought: What he was covering in both instances was the story of hatred, of the strong who held down and beat up the weak. In a word: Bullies. So, on the face of it, "Son of the Rough South" is about a moral conclusion. But in fact, it achieves its power -- after a moving mid-section about his growing up in an orphanage -- by suggesting how a moral conclusion is reached, for essentially, it is a book about reporting, about the art of reporting, which is both an expansive and minimalist art. The good reporter concentrates on what is happening. That's all he does. And that practice is anti-moral conclusion, which is to say, it fends off reaching conclusions too readily. Fleming covered the Civil Rights Movement, which was a story ready-built for moral conclusions. The wrong was out there, in your face: Hoses, clubs, epithets, mobs. Any reporter would be tempted to ride his high horse to a moral conclusion, and thus miss the details in which the devil resides. What made Fleming a good reporter was his attention to the detail. An old Lu Klux Klan member complains to him that the young ones used iron pipes for the crosses instead of pine wood, which burns so much brighter. The young Klan members had no respect, he said, for tradition. Reporters are well advised to glom onto details for two main reasons: One obviously is that until you have gathered in all the details of a story, you don't know how the story adds up. The second reason is more mysterious. Among all the details of a story, one almost always rises to the mind's surface. And that is where the story begins and ends. In that one small detail mysteriously settled upon, such as the difference between wood crosses and pipe crosses, lives a cosmos. The better reporters have always known this. Tony Lewis, Frankie Fitzgerald, Nick Van Hoffman, David Halberstam, Gay Talese, Jack Nelson, Walter Pincus, and on and on. Bill Safire, recently retired columnist for the New York Times, based his columns on reporting as does Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. And John Leo of U.S. News and World Report and syndicated columnist Molly Ivins. Reporting is art of noticing what is there, everything that is there.

SPOKESMAN: Don't you have some fear about being here.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Thence comes the story, hence the moral conclusion. Fleming reported what he saw in those civil rights years, everything he saw, and not what he thought about what he saw. And because of that, everyone would talk to him. Justice department lawyers, southern sheriffs, young SNCC volunteers, Ku Klux Klan traditionalists. In a lifetime of watching, he noted how people stomp on one another, go wild and cause great harm. What he saw, he told, until the moral conclusion reached was as evident as any detail. That's how it's done. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: In Iraq, two suicide bombers killed as many as 30 people outside a police station. An Iraqi Air Force plane crashed northeast of Baghdad near the Iranian border. Four Americans and one Iraqi were on board. And European Union officials scrambled to regroup, after the French turned down the EU constitution. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and good night.