The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After the News Summary, we go first to today's agreement to hold peace talks on Northern Ireland. We'll hear from the British and Irish ambassadors. Then the Polish foreign minister looks at the result of the Russian election and his country's bid to join NATO, and an update on the sudden resignation of Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Defense Sec. Les Aspin resigned this evening. He cited unspecified personal reasons, saying it was time to undertake a new line of work. Aspin's tenure on the job followed 11 terms in Congress. He was hospitalized last March with heart problems and had a pacemaker implanted at that time. He was also at the center of controversial administration policies on gays in the military and U.S. involvement in Somalia and Bosnia. Aspin and President Clinton spoke about the resignation at the White House.

LES ASPIN, Secretary of Defense: I have been proud of the work that President Clinton and I have done over the past year to reshape our American military to deal with the new dangers of a vastly changed world. We now have a new working consensus about how much we should spend on defense. And we can work together building the right kind of military strengths that we need. As a result, this year we have been able to focus our agenda at home because we have been agreed on our military effort and what we need to remain strong.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: During a lifetime of public service in Congress with our transition and at the Pentagon, Les Aspin has made invaluable contributions to this nation's defense and security. None of them have been more significant than his service as secretary of defense. Along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he has provided solid leadership for our uniformed and civilian defense personnel during a period of transition that is historic and has at times been unsettling. He helped launch creative policy responses to the fundamental changes of this era from the dissolution of the Soviet empire to the growing challenges of ethnic conflict and weapons proliferation.

MR. MacNeil: The President said Aspin would stay on at least until January 20th to assure a smooth transition. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton said today he sees no reason to change U.S. policy toward Russia until it becomes clear what direction the newly-elected parliament will take. Mr. Clinton expressed concern over the views of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Russian nationalist whose party out-polled all others in Sunday's elections. But the President said he didn't believe that the Russians who voted for Zhirinovsky were necessarily embracing all his radical views. Vice President Gore had even harsher criticism for Mr. Zhirinovsky. Mr. Gore was in Moscow to meet with Russian President Boris Yeltsin. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

MR. VAUGHAN: Gore began his talks with Russia's leadership by meeting with Prime Minister Viktor Churnamadin. The U.S. vice president was trying to assess the impact of Russia's weekend elections without embarrassing President Yeltsin's beleaguered government. Yeltsin put on a brave face but so embarrassed was he by the poll's outcome that he began the meeting by bringing up an unrelated issue, Ukraine's refusal to give up the nuclear arms it inherited from the Soviet Union. Gore later said that Yeltsin seemed confident that he could form a pro-reform government coalition even though Vladimir Zhirinovsky's ultra-nationalist party will be the largest in parliament. At a press conference after the meeting, Gore strongly criticized Zhirinovsky.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: As I said earlier, the views with which he has associated himself are reprehensible and anathema to those who love freedom in this world.

MR. VAUGHAN: No hiding the alarm Zhirinovsky's win has triggered in government circles. Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev called on the government's longtime Communist rivals to help form an anti- fascist alliance against Zhirinovsky's party.

MS. WARNER: Many votes still remain to be counted from Sunday's election, and a report from the Interfax News Agency said Zhirinovsky's party may have received less support than first thought. Interfax said the main pro-reform party may become the biggest faction in the new 450-seat parliament.

MR. MacNeil: The leaders of Britain and Ireland agreed today on a framework for ending more than 1/4 century of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. British Prime Minister John Major and Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds announced their agreement in London. Called "a framework for peace," it assures Northern Ireland's Protestant majority that they will not be forced into a union with Ireland, however, it meets a key demand of the Catholic Irish Republican Army by stating Britain would not impose such a union if the majority approved it. It also invites the IRA to take part in negotiations three months after a permanent cease-fire is declared. Violence between Catholics and Protestants in the province has killed more than 3100 people since 1969. We'll have more on the story later in the program.

MS. WARNER: Negotiators from more than 100 nations today approved the most comprehensive trade agreement ever negotiated. Diplomats and negotiators in Geneva cheered when the announcement was made. It came after seven years of negotiations and only hours before a U.S. deadline for its completion. The 450-page accord will cut tariffs on average by 1/3 over six years, liberalizing trade over a wide range of products. President Clinton welcomed the agreement at a Washington news conference.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Not since the end of World War II has the United States pushed to completion trade agreements of such significance as NAFTA and GATT. We've shown leadership by example. We've set forth a vision for a thriving global economy. And our trading partners, to their credit, have also rallied to that cause. Today's agreement caps a year of economic renewal for our nation which should give us added reason for confidence as we enter the new year, but it should also reinforce our determination to do better in the new year.

MR. MacNeil: Congress must still ratify the trade pact before it can take effect. The Federal Reserve reported today that industrial production was up .9 percent in November. It was the sixth straight monthly gain. Industrial production measures the output of U.S. mines, factories, and utilities.

MS. WARNER: Nearly 200 Palestinian deportees were allowed to return to Israel today. They were the last remaining exiles out of a group of more than 400 Palestinians banished to Lebanon a year ago for alleged terrorist activities. Israel allowed 200 of them to return earlier and another 18 remained in Lebanon to avoid completing jail terms in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin vowed today to crack down on any returnees involved in new tariffs or guerrilla activity against the Jewish state.

MR. MacNeil: Actress Myrna Loy died yesterday in New York City following hospitalization for an undisclosed illness. She made more than 100 films but was best known for her portrayal of Nora Charles opposite William Powell in "The Thin Man" films of the 1930's and 40's. It first was released in 1934.

["THE THIN MAN" FILM SEGMENT WITH MYRNA LOY]

MYRNA LOY: [in film -- referring to dog she's walking into room with] I'm not taking him. He's taking me.

ACTOR: Are you hurt, madame?

MYRNA LOY: [in film] No. Women and children first, boys.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Hey. What is the score anyway?

MYRNA LOY: Oh, so it's you he was after.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Hello, sugar.

MYRNA LOY: He's dragged me into every gin mill on the block.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I had him out this morning.

MYRNA LOY: I thought so.

ACTOR: This is Tommy. My wife.

MYRNA LOY: How are you?

SECOND ACTOR: How do you do?

MYRNA LOY: Tommy, I don't usually look like this but I've been Christmas shopping.

THIRD ACTOR: Madame, I'm afraid we shall take the dog out.

ACTOR: Oh, it's all right, Joe. It's all right. It's my dog, and my wife.

MYRNA LOY: Well, you might have mentioned me first on the billing.

MR. MacNeil: Myrna Loy was 88 years old.

MS. WARNER: That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Ahead on the NewsHour, a framework for peace in Northern Ireland, Poland's foreign minister looks at the results of the Russian election, and Sec. of Defense Les Aspin's resignation. FOCUS - PEACE AT HAND?

MR. MacNeil: First tonight, the declaration today by Britain and Ireland about ending violence in the British province of Northern Ireland. We'll talk about what today's declaration means with the ambassadors of both countries after a report from London by Eleanor Goodman of Independent Television News.

MS. GOODMAN: Today's meeting was the culmination of two years of talks going on right until last night and involving at least twenty different drafts. The relief of both prime ministers that they have finally been able to reach agreement was evident. What they had to do today was sell the declaration and convince the two communities that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in the form of one of the best opportunities for peace since the troubles began, an opportunity which if grasped by the IRA could lead to Sinn Fein taking part in exploratory talks in three months. The essence of the declaration is a formula which the two leaders hope will square the perpetual circle of Northern Ireland politics showing that Britain isn't an enemy to the aspiration of the nationalists for Irish unity and in the same way the Irish government isn't a threat to the unionist determination to stay part of the United Kingdom. That has meant Ireland accepting the unionists' right to stay in the United Kingdom for as long as the majority want and Britain implicitly accepting the legitimacy of the aim of the united Ireland. But both leaders insisted they hadn't compromised on their principles in the declaration.

JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister, United Kingdom: It makes no compromise on strongly held principles. But it does embody our common view that there is an opportunity to end violence for good in Northern Ireland. We believe that it's now up to those who've used or supported violence to take that opportunity. The door is open to them. They won't have a better opportunity, and they don't have a better option.

ALBERT REYNOLDS, Prime Minister, Republic of Ireland: What we are offering is a framework for peace that prejudices nobody's position or predetermines nobody's future. Peace should be the starting point for our new beginning. Thank you.

JOHN MAJOR: Thank you very much.

MS. GOODMAN: But the risk of any agreement between the Irish and British governments is that it will inflame the unionists, and some fear that its very existence implies the South has a role in the North. And within minutes of the prime minister going inside to formally launch the declaration, the Rev. Ian Paisley arrived in Downing Street to protest.

REV. IAN PAISLEY, Unionist Party Leader: It is a tri-partheid agreement between Reynolds, the IRA, and you. You have sold Ulster to buy off the fiendish, Republican scum.

MS. GOODMAN: The opposition of the Democratic Unionists was perhaps predictable but the basic calculation behind the document is the two governments' belief that there is now a real mood for peace. Dublin, in particular, has argued that the IRA now want a formula which will allow them to get off the hook of violence. But in Northern Ireland, every phrase is weighed with 400 years of history and emotion. The seven page document, formally called "The Downing Street Declaration," is a balancing act. The Irish have succeeded in getting into it more of the language of Irish nationalism than had been thought the British government would accept. The phrase "united Ireland" appears four times and "self- determination" twice. In return though, the British government has managed to delete any reference to an Irish convention and got a commitment in the declaration from Dublin to change its constitutional claim to the North in the event of a settlement. Fundamentally, the Irish accept that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the freely given consent of the majority of the people there.

JOHN MAJOR: It says that reconciliation must be founded on consent. It promotes cooperation at all levels. It makes no prejudgments. The British government will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on whether they prefer the Union or to support the United Ireland.

MS. GOODMAN: Mr. Major wouldn't say whether the British government was still in touch with the IRA, but he said that if they did renounce violence, that exploratory talks could begin within three months. The IRA traditionally declares a cease-fire for Christmas, but for Sinn Fein to join any talks, the IRA will have to state publicly that it is permanently renouncing violence and then show for three months that it means it. If it doesn't, then the hope is that today's declaration will at least isolate the paramilitaries. Nobody is under any illusions though that this Christmas is anything but the possible beginning of a long road to peace.

MR. MacNeil: We are joined now by the ambassadors of the two countries involved in today's declaration, Sir Robin Renwick of Britain and Dermot Gallagher of Ireland. Mr. Gallagher is the former head of the Irish government's Department for Relations Between Britain and Northern Ireland. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Amb. Renwick, what is really new in what your government is saying today?

AMB. RENWICK: Well, this is a very big new step that's been taken by the British and Irish governments together. We have said very clearly in this declaration that we, the British government, have no selfish, economic, or strategic interest in Northern Ireland. We understand the aspirations of the Irish people, and at the same time, whatever is done for Northern Ireland and in Northern Ireland has to be done with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, which is fully accepted by the Irish government. In other words, we are agreed on the basic principle of self-determination and how it should be expressed. But at the same time, we are saying clearly that those who have been engaged in violence now have the opportunity of abandoning that route and taking the political route instead and joining in the political process. Now, obviously, we cannot answer for them. Peace doesn't depend only on the British and Irish governments. If it did, it would have been achieved long ago. But this statement has been given the strongest possible support by President Clinton, by Speaker Foley, by Sen. Kennedy, and the congressional leadership who prescribe it as bold, courageous, imaginative, and indeed, it is. And we hope very much that this will offer the opportunity to end the violence and change the history and politics of Northern Ireland.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Gallagher, does your government in Dublin see what Britain has said today as significantly new, this, this willingness to consider the ultimate union of Northern Ireland with Southern Ireland if a majority in Northern Ireland wanted that?

MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, it does. And I think above all what is new, is a new determination, a new passion, a new commitment on the part of both prime ministers to end the violence in Northern Ireland and not to have it passed on to another generation. Northern Ireland is the last residual problem of a long and sometimes sad history between Britain and Ireland. We have resolved every problem, every other problem between us. We are determined to resolve this one. We are determined that today will mark a new beginning, a new openness, a new reaching out, a new healing between Irishmen and womenof both traditions on the island of Ireland. And that is the significance of the statement.

MR. MacNeil: If, if it is new for Britain to say so explicitly that it could contemplate the union of the two Irelands if a majority in Northern Ireland wanted that, what is new in what your government is saying? What new element have you contributed to this?

MR. GALLAGHER: What is new in what the British government is saying, the British government have accepted in the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 that if a majority in Northern Ireland were in favor of a unified Ireland, they would introduce legislation to give effect to it. What the British government is saying today is the role of the British government will be to encourage, facilitate, and able the achievement of agreement among the people of Ireland, Northern and South. That agreement will be achieved with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and the Irish government spelled out -- the Irish prime minister spelled out very clearly that he has no intention to threaten, he has no intention to seek to impose unity against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, because, after all, what we are trying to do is bring together the people of Ireland, North and South. The barriers, the divisions, the gulf is in the minds of people. It's not pieces of ground we're trying to bring together. It's people who are Irish people and who are divided at this time in their political allegiance, some looking to Britain, some looking to Ireland. It is the role of those of us who believe in the coming together of the two traditions to convince through political dialogue and through peaceful means that that is that way forward. We all have to learn how to share the once small island together in Ireland.

MR. MacNeil: Amb. Renwick, a Catholic man in a pub in Belfast was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The only reason Major is making the statement is because of the IRA, the RA" -- as they call the IRA -- "must be doing something right.

AMB. RENWICK: Well, that is exactly the argument, of course, used by the terrorists on the other side, the so-called "loyalists," the Protestant paramilitary groups. We don't make any distinction between those two groups, between IRA terrorism or the terrorism of the so-called Ulster freedom fighters. What -- it must be obvious to all of you that the British and Irish governments are making tremendous new efforts together to find a way through this immensely difficult problem. And we have been extremely grateful for the very strong support we've had all day from the President, the White House, the congressional leadership. This does offer the IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries the chance to abandon violence and take a political road. It's a unique opportunity as Speaker Foley said. It's the best opportunity in his lifetime to enable that to happen.

MR. MacNeil: I don't mean to sound cynical, but what is in it for the IRA to cease violence now if violence has brought them this -- as I said earlier -- a much more explicit statement by Britain of willingness to contemplate the union of the two Irelands.

AMB. RENWICK: Because the violence of the IRA has taken them straight into a cul de sac. If they want to promote the cause of Irish unity, they can't possibly achieve it by that route. Some of them may realize that. We certainly hope so. Every single act of violence produces a violent reaction from the community on the other side. So every single act of violence disunites.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Gallagher, do you see the IRA trading gunsfor talks?

MR. GALLAGHER: I hope that everybody will read and analyze and parse this document because it is a very, very carefully balanced document. In it, the British government has made it clear that it is in no way the enemy of nationalism in Ireland. It is not opposed to self-determination of the people of Ireland. In fact, it quite clearly, the British government quite clearly and categorically states that the self-determination of Ireland is a matter for the people of Ireland. Those people are divided on how to exercise that self-determination at the moment. And the Irish government has made it clear that they are not the enemy of unionism, so both governments are determined that there should be a new beginning. The British government have said that if a majority of people in Northern Ireland are in favor of unity, that they will legislate for it. Moreover, they will encourage, facilitate, and enable the achievement of agreement between the peoples of Ireland. It is now up to those of us who believe in a coming together of the two parts of Ireland to convince through peaceful, political persuasion and dialogue that through the building up of trust between the two communities that this is the way forward.

MR. MacNeil: If -- suppose the IRA said tomorrow, we declare an unconditional cease-fire, and after three months it is kept, and talks begin with the Sinn Fein, its political arm. Then what might that produce? Would that produce a referendum in Northern Ireland, something like that?

MR. GALLAGHER: It could, or it could produce a referendum -- there has been talk of a possible referendum in Northern Ireland and one in the republic. But what we are saying to the IRA is if there is the cessation of violence, then you are welcome and Sinn Fein is welcome to enter into the political process. For the first time, the British government is saying that it has no selfish economic, or security interest in remaining in Northern Ireland. In other words, the future of the island of Ireland and the structures that are established in that -- on that island are a matter for the Irish people. And I think that is something the IRA should look at very, very carefully, indeed.

MR. MacNeil: In other words, it's saying that the Protestants, the Scotts who were moved there 400 years ago, are Irish?

MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. And we have always held that they're longer in Northern Ireland than perhaps many, very many people in this country are in the United States. So they are, undoubtedly, Irish. They're Irish people who have a different political allegiance and identity to us at the moment but they are the one small island with us.

MR. MacNeil: Amb. Renwick, is that how Britain now sees these Protestant Scotts who've been there 400 years? Are they Irish?

AMB. RENWICK: Of course, they are Irish. We are -- I'd make absolutely clear that our bottom line, our fundamental principle is that we're going to be guided by the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. We're trying very hard with our friends in the Irish government to find a better future for them. Now the other principle we will stick to was that we're not going to negotiate with terrorists engaged in terrorism. If they wish to join the political process, they must stop the bombings and the shootings. This offers them a unique opportunity to do that.

MR. MacNeil: Looking at them from the point of view -- looking at this from the point of view of people who just want Britain out, some of whom have fought for it, and some who've tried legitimate political means, doesn't any assurance that a majority in Northern Ireland will decide lock in continued union with Britain because of the large Protestant majority?

AMB. RENWICK: That depends on the political evolution in Northern Ireland and on both sides of the water for that matter. The Irish government has indicated that it is going to try to do some things which may make a difference in that respect. But we have to be guided by what the people there want. That is why we're there. It's the only reason we're there. This statement makes that absolutely clearly.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Gallagher, do you think it's conceivable that a majority -- you've been involved in this problem for a long time -- that enough Protestants would opt for union with Ireland to make a majority in the North?

MR. GALLAGHER: I think what's important about this statement is it's going to transform the context in which roundtable talks between all the parties and hopefully, if the cessation of violence involving Sinn Fein will take place, those talks will now take place in a climate of compromise, in a climate of understanding. And from those talks will flow structures, and those structures in Northern Ireland and between North and South will lead to a healing process. The divided peoples of Ireland will be healed and will, I believe, come together but at their own pace. And that is what is very, very important.

MR. MacNeil: Let me --

MR. GALLAGHER: It is that -- that healing -- structures are established which will enable healing to take place.

MR. MacNeil: Let me ask you this as a representative of your government. Are more liberal social attitudes evolving in Irish politics, in Catholic Ireland, attitudes on matters like birth control and abortion, eroding Protestant resistance in Ulster?

MR. GALLAGHER: Well, the position on birth control in the republic is exactly the same as it is here or in any other modern country. The republic is a modern pluralist democracy. Unlike other countries, there is no state religion, and we have a secular constitution. But obviously there -- 50 percent of the population of Ireland is under 28. We have a president who's extremely well known throughout the world and extremely admired, and so Ireland is changing. It is a modern, pluralist society which is a part of the European Community. And, of course, the European Community is dimension to this whole process. So I think changing attitudes in Ireland, particularly, as I said, when over half the population are under 28, has sent its own strong signal to people in Northern Ireland. We are not a threat to the unionist people of Northern Ireland. And if they, as the prime minister said, if they feel that there are aspects of our legislation that in some way threaten them, then we are committed in this statement to looking at them and to looking at them very openly and very frankly and very honestly, indeed.

MR. MacNeil: Amb. Renwick, what do you think about the changes in policies in Ireland affecting the way Protestants in Northern Ireland think about them?

AMB. RENWICK: Well, in the declaration the Irish prime minster has indicated that under certain circumstances he is prepared to change -- he would prepared to change provisions of the Irish constitution which have always been a source of grievance to some people -- many people on the Protestant side. That's for him to decide about the timing and so forth. But as -- I agree very strongly with what my Irish colleague has said, political change, political process can only be made through consent, and through it an evolution and through the building of bridges between the communities, and we are very grateful for the actions that have been taken here to contribute to that through the congressional fund for Northern Ireland, through the American Ireland Fund, and a lot of other positive initiatives by friends of Ireland here.

MR. MacNeil: President Clinton said the U.S. was prepared to offer any appropriate -- help that was appropriate. What kind of help -- how could the U.S. influence this positively, in your view?

MR. GALLAGHER: The United States has already been very helpful. President Clinton has had very successful meetings with our prime minister and our foreign minister this year, and has encouraged both governments to go the extra mile. His statement today is the very, very strong show of solidarity. We've had similar statements from Speaker Foley, Sen. Kennedy, the chairman of the Friends of Ireland, Frank McLufsky, et cetera. Anytime there has been a breakthrough in Northern Ireland, the support and solidarity and encouragement of our friends in the United States has been critical. And when the roundtable talks get underway and when we do reach agreement and have agreed structures, then at that stage, we may well come back to the United States, as we did, as both governments did in 1985, and ask the United States to establish the International Fund for Ireland to help areas of deprivation and disadvantage in Northern Ireland.

MR. MacNeil: Sorry to --

MR. GALLAGHER: If I could say one thing --

MR. MacNeil: I'm awfully sorry, Mr. Ambassador, but I really overstretched our time already. Thank you both for joining us. Thank you. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Poland's foreign minister, and Les Aspin's resignation. SERIES - AFTERSHOCK

MS. WARNER: Next, we focus again on the fallout from Sunday's elections in Russia, which produced a strong showing for the country's ultra-nationalist party. Today we'll get a view from central Europe. The positions of the election winner, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, including his calls for reclaiming former Russian territory, including much of Poland, have raised special concern there. We start our coverage of the Russia story with President Clinton's White House news conference today. He was asked if he was concerned by the rise of ultra-nationalism in Russia.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am concerned by some of the comments that have been made by the leader of the so-called Liberal Democratic Party in Russia. I think no American, indeed, no citizen of the world who read such comments could fail to be concerned. On the other hand, I think it's important to recognize that, that we don't have any evidence at this time that the people who voted for that party were embracing all of those comments, or, indeed, may have known about them. And we don't yet know what direction the new parliament will try to take. Am I concerned about that? Yes, I am. Do I think that this means there'll be a big, new dangerous direction in Russian policy? I don't think there's any evidence to support that.

REPORTER: How about your policy?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, because I don't know that there will be any change in Russian policy. I don't see any basis for a change in our policy at this time. On the other hand, it's something that we'll have to watch and work with. I think it, it calls on all of us to redouble our efforts to support the process of reform in Russia in a way that, that ordinary citizens can understand will redound to their benefit. I believe this was clearly a protest vote fueled by people who have been in -- many of them in virtual economic freefall and who have also suffered the kind of psychological damage that comes to people when they work harder for less money or when they lose their jobs, or when they don't see any better day at the end of all the change. It is a more extreme example of what you have seen in our nation and in other nations throughout the world. Thankfully, you know, in the West, where you've seen protest votes, they've been -- are votes against the established order of things -- they've been within much more normal channels of debate. But I think plainly we have to assume that this is primarily a protest vote. We have to watch it. We have to stand up for what we believe in, but I think we should continue to support reform in Russia.

MS. WARNER: Now to the foreign minister of Poland, Andrzej Olechowski. He's been in Washington meeting with Sec. of State Christopher and other administration officials. Welcome, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being with us. Tell me from where you sit or where you sit in Warsaw how do you view the income of the Russian election to your country.

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: The news is bad, simply bad. And, of course, we are worried. We're worried by the fact that the large segment of Russian electorate seems to favor totalitarian state and imperial foreign policy. This is the message that we're getting. We -- we hope that the segment is smaller than initially was announced. But I cannot agree with the President that the public didn't know what he was voting for. We also hear that the vote was mostly concentrated in military circles and in people whom you would have expected to some extent that they would vote that way. It's that we didn't think that it was -- that there were so many voters who would like Russia to go that way.

MS. WARNER: But you heard, of course, that President Yeltsin assured President -- Vice President Gore that he thought he could withstand pressures to roll back reform and, of course, the new constitution gives, doesn't it, President Yeltsin a lot of power?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: I said I worried that the feeling in Russia, that the support in Russia for such, as I said, authoritarian was so widespread. I am not certain that it will -- I hope it will not affect the Russian policy, and I certainly agree with President Clinton and all the statements which say we should support democratic thinking and, and people who want to lead Russia the way that we know and the way that we like even more than until now. It's, it's that we also have to make sure that those people do not want to find accommodation with, with those who think authoritarian policies and imperial ways. And, and, therefore, we should be -- we should make sure that President Yeltsin and his democrats stay where they were before. We shouldn't support the man, if you want, regardless of what he says but the man who stands for certain values.

MS. WARNER: What could be the threat to Poland from a resurgent Russian nationalism?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: Well, Mr. Zhirinovsky has said he would like to claim half of Poland where he says -- one day he says he would like to claim it, the next day he says he wouldn't like to claim it. In fact, at yesterday's conference he said he would like to Poland in NATO, or maybe he's our ally and we are misinterpreting him, what he says. No, but seriously, you see, I am, for example, an economist. I don't -- I don't think in historical terms. I don't -- I don't think -- I don't think that my country is determined by history. I would like to develop my country as most of my compatriots, as a democratic state, as a state which cares for individuals, for individuals' well-being. If you, however, follow history and you feel determined by history you'd like to maintain large, powerful imperial Russia with its sphere of interest because this is your heritage, and you should pass it to the next generation, and you believe that the value and the real, the real importance is in the power of your state and not in the well-being of your citizens, you are dangerous to your neighbors.

MS. WARNER: But do you think it's feasible even in ultra- nationalist dreams in Russia that Russia would ever reclaim the former -- its former satellite states in Central Europe?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: You know, people thought after the Second World War that Russia was so devastated by the war and so weakened by the war and, and at its knees that it would never go into imperial politics again and it went. I think that nations when they're driven by, by ideology, when they're driven by nationalism, they can do a lot of -- they can hurt their neighbors, they can hurt the world. I -- you've asked me the question. I've answered. I don't think, I don't, myself, that Russia will go this way. I think that Russian people have learned because of the glasnost, because they have satellite antenna dishes, because they can watch BBC on the television screens, they've learned that the power of state, that the might of the country is built at the expense of individuals, that they were kept poor to ensure strength of the nation. So I don't think that they will follow politicians -- eventually -- but in the short term we may have, we may have, indeed, some, some strengthening of that ideology. And I hope it will not show up in the foreign policy.

MS. WARNER: Now, you've been here in Washington, of course, pressing your case for Poland's ultimate admission into NATO. What kind of response have you had from Sec. of State Christopher or the national security adviser whom you've met with in the last couple of days?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: You see, perhaps it's worth to tell you a little bit worries of our case. Our case is that since four years we are building democracy, we are building market economy, and we think we've done, we've done quite a lot in this way. We think we have a solid consensus at home. We have already democratic system which was mature enough to handle transfer of government responsibilities after the recent elections in a very civilized, smooth way, and so on. And we think that since we are -- we are believing -- we believe in the same principles of the Western world, we would like to join the Western world and its institutions. That's why we have, we have associated ourselves with European Union, and we want to join also in security dimension of the West, if you want, that is NATO, and that plea and that request was on the table for quite some time. It is, it just today, and today when events got a little bit, a little bit hot that gained small prominence. NATO was, was reluctant to talk about it initially. Then eventually, right now, I think the consensus is that it, indeed, should open up in future, but since it's difficult to select among number of countries that would like to join NATO, a concept of partnership for peace was offered. It is --

MS. WARNER: This is the American Compromise idea?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: That's right. This is an evolutionary way of bringing in new members. You, you offer cooperation and through that cooperation you eventually introduce some of the states. Somebody used a nice parallel, he said, you know, you invite those, thosepartners, those who want to get to NATO, to look like a duck, and they, they start working on, on looking like a duck, walking like a duck, and talking like a duck. Once they are doing that, they are ducks, and you have to recognize it.

MS. WARNER: But, of course, the Yeltsin government even before these elections, while saying the partnership for peace idea was fine, has vigorously opposed the idea that any of you, Poland or the Czech republic, or Hungary, would ever be in NATO. What about the argument that some in the Clinton administration make that to go ahead over Russian opposition would only strengthen the ultra- nationalists in Russia, bring about what you want to avoid?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: I think that saying that in the past and saying that you shouldn't step on Russian sensitivities because it's not, it's not real interest, but, you know, sensitivities, in fact, strengthened Russia ultra-nationalists because they, they somehow could claim that there is, that there is a, that what they say, that they should maintain imperial policies, and that they should maintain such an influence on neighboring countries that this, that this view is recognized by the West. So I think that that was, that was a contribution, I'm afraid, to what we've seen in Russia and not, not countering it.

MS. WARNER: Do you think it amounts to appeasement of Russia?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: I think it does in a sense. You see, Poland, Czech, Slovaks, Hungarians, and other countries in Central Europe in NATO, I, I can't see any reason why that should adversely affect Russian interest, not, not Russia meant as a democratic country and a country that cares for its citizens. It adversely affects Russian imperial interest. But, as we said, we don't want to have, to have such a Russia. We still see some of that thinking, I believe, in the, in the partnership program because while it contains now the - - it outlines the way that -- that can be used to -- to introduce new members into NATO, it contains no commitment yet that once they've done that way, once they, once they, once they became ducks, that they will be admitted by that, because then the ducks may change the, their commitment and they say, no, we need chickens now.

MS. WARNER: So that's what you're looking for at the NATO summit in January?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: Very much so, very much.

MS. WARNER: Well, now speaking of commitment, of course, taking in any new NATO member represents a huge commitment to the American public which is to come to your defense if you were threatened.

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: Right.

MS. WARNER: What would you tell American voters about why they should want to extend their commitments in Europe to include you?

MINISTER OLECHOWSKI: Well, it, it involves a commitment on our part as well, and I think that Polish commitment in this respect perhaps will gain a lot of sympathy in the world. We've proven historically that, if you want, when the push comes to shove, we come and fight and show solidarity with other people, with other people and helping them. But it is perhaps -- it's perhaps we will never have to demonstrate again, you or us. What I would tell American people is that if we want to make sure that we will not have to die in Dansk or in any other place in Europe, the best way would be now to join in an alliance and join in, in solidarity, and that will tell people who like to make trouble that, you know, they'll face very many countries around. If Poland was left as a - - you know, as an unattended object, then if you believe in history, more than once in the past, true our mighty neighbors were tempted to, to be, try to become rebels or, or pollute in this territory, and that is what we would like to avoid.

MS. WARNER: Well, thank you, Mr. Minister very much. FOCUS - RESIGNED

MR. MacNeil: Now to the resignation of Defense Sec. Les Aspin. The timing, if not the fact of the resignation, caught Washington by surprise. President Clinton and the Defense Secretary appeared together at the White House late this afternoon to make the announcement. Aspin said he was proud of what the administration accomplished.

LES ASPIN, Secretary of Defense: This year we have been able to focus our agenda at home because we have been agreed on our military effort and what we need to remain strong. We have also worked together with our uniformed military to find common ground on some very, very difficult social issues that could have distracted us from maintaining a ready-to-fight force. Dealing with all of these changes have made a challenging, made for a very challenging and interesting year. I am extremely proud of the work that we have done together. I have been working continually for over 20 years to help build a strong American military. It's time for me to take a break and to undertake a new kind of work. So I've asked the President to relieve me of this duty as secretary of defense as of January 20th. I know that while Bill Clinton is our commander in chief, our country will continue to grow in all of its strengths, our men in women in uniform will always be honored, and we will be true to our best values as a people.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: He's provide steady leadership for the entire defense community as it has confronted the inevitable downsizing that accompanied the end of the Cold War. His leadership has also been invaluable in helping our country to adapt to our military social changes. He led the way in our efforts to open the doors for women to serve our nation in combat roles and help to ensure more equitable roles toward homosexuals in our military. He's provided creative leadership as he's mobilized the Pentagon to develop new and stronger responses to the many security challenges of this new era, such as his new counter-proliferation initiative. And on a range of tough decisions and tough challenges abroad from Bosnia to Korea, he has called them as he saw them, bringing to bear a lifetime of experience and dedication and a razor sharp mind to our nation's security interests. Above all, Sec. Aspin has provided deep strategic thinking and leadership at a time of profound change in this world. As a result, when our citizens go to bed tonight, we can do so secure in the knowledge that our nation is building the right forces and acquiring the right capabilities for this new era. I will always appreciate the thoughtful and dedicated and ultimately selfless service that Les Aspin provided to me and to this nation over this last year. I asked a lot of him, tough times and tough problems. He gave even more to me, to our military, and to our country than was asked. And I will always be very, very grateful.

MR. MacNeil: For more, we go to Bruce Van Voorst, senior correspondent for national security affairs at Time Magazine and a frequent contributor to this program. Joining him is David Silverberg of the Armed Forces Journal. Bruce, what led up to this?

MR. VAN VOORST: About six months of living hell is what some of the people describe it as in the Pentagon there. If this resignation had come some weeks back, we might have had a fairly good idea of what the reasons were. The irony isthat I was stunned and everybody around me was stunned because it looked very much as if in recent weeks he had been doing better. Sec. Aspin had briefed very effectively last week on guards and reserves. He made a very rigorous trip to Europe, came back, looked fit. On the weekend shows and Sunday he looked fine and did one of his finest performances that we've seen. So, therefore, there was no real indication that this thing that we'd heard wolf about so long and so often before was actually going to happen. The only person that wasn't stunned apparently is Sec. Aspin, himself, who we're told has actually been talking to the White House about this in several conversations this week. He let on to nobody though, and I was in conversations with senior aides as late as 1 and 2 o'clock this afternoon, and there was nothing there. So the aides will say Les Aspin is just tired, he wanted to move, he didn't want to do this for another year. I think that the critics will say that he bowed to a considerable amount of pressure.

MR. MacNeil: Which of those two would you say, David?

MR. SILVERBERG: Well, I don't believe the man was properly cast in the role to begin with. This man is an academic. He's a legislator. He wasn't an executive, and he wasn't a manager, and that's what they needed most of all at the Pentagon. At the White House, remember, the President is a manager too, and what no manager wants are bumps, gaffs, grinds, problems, and mis- statements, and he got a lot of that with Les Aspin. The most important thing -- and it's very interesting that the President didn't mention it in his statement -- was that Les Aspin gave us a bottom up review. He gave us a structure to the post Cold War era. And I think that's going to stand as his greatest legacy when he's gone.

MR. MacNeil: And yet, apparently, he's still been arguing up to the last moment with the White House budget makers about, about demanding more money for, for the Pentagon, and not getting his way.

MR. SILVERBERG: We were getting ready for a battle royal in 1994 over that budget, and to implement his strategy he was saying he needed $50 billion more, and the White House Budget Office is not in a very giving mood these days.

MR. MacNeil: Bruce, had the criticism of Sec. Aspin for the decision he made when the commanders in Somalia asked for some armor after the battles in which so many Americans were killed, and he refused and later said he regretted the decision, has the criticism, had the criticism of him from Congress stopped, had they sort of let bygones be bygones or were they continuing behind the scenes to go for him?

MR. VAN VOORST: I think the answer to that is to some extent the congressional criticism had abated. There were calls, there were letters signed by congressmen calling for his resignation, and then he seemed to survive that. On top of that, there was a second letter from supporters arguing just as forcefully that he should stay. So, again, I mentioned earlier the wolf. Five, six weeks ago, we heard wolf, and he was in trouble. But that criticism seemed to have really abated, however, I think that in Les Aspin's own mind this particular incident weighed very heavily. He, of course, was absolved of it really. Congressman Mertha has sent a letter saying it wasn't his fault. But nevertheless, as seen from Les Aspin's standpoint, he could blame himself for having been possibly responsible for the deaths of some 18 servicemen.

MR. SILVERBERG: Another thing.

MR. MacNeil: Yes, David.

MR. SILVERBERG: Is it showed up the strengths and weaknesses of his management. He was very good at putting together political coalitions, and, for example, he did this very well when he reduced the guards and reserves. They got everybody together. They all agreed. They came out together and said the same thing. But when it came to contingencies, and it came to quick decisions, he didn't seem able to deal as well with that. And he left a lot of confusion in the Pentagon.

MR. MacNeil: Well, do you think he's the -- he's the sort of sacrificial lamb to some defense barons in the Congress up on Capitol Hill? How do you -- what's your instinct about that?

MR. VAN VOORST: He's --

MR. MacNeil: David, or Bruce.

MR. VAN VOORST: He's a sacrificial lamb. He's a sacrificial lamb to the difficulties of this job. The reason I didn't -- you know, there were rumors about the national security team had to go, Mr. Christopher had to go, and Mr. Tony Lake has to go. I always thought that Les Aspin would be the most invulnerable because he runs such a big organization out there. He's got this tremendous budget of two hundred and sixty, seventy billion dollars. He's got more than four million people working for him. It takes a year to get that job -- to get on top of the job -- and so I'd judge that he was -- he would be able to survive because of that reason alone.

MR. SILVERBERG: I always thought with this administration that there would be essentially two sittings; there would be the political appointees who would come in right after the campaign, people who were politically correct and so forth, and then they would go, the ones who couldn't cut it would leave, and we'd get a fair number of familiar faces who had been in the Washington loop that had done these kinds of jobs before, and I think Les Aspin, along with a lot of the other people in the White House and George Stephanopolous were seeing the changing of the sittings. So we're going to see some familiar faces, and we're going to see some people who have done these kinds of jobs before coming in.

MR. MacNeil: Well, although he and the President say they want to keep this quiet, I mean, a White House official is quoted by Reuters saying the causes were something that's between them and will stay between them, Bruce, is your hunch that what it really added to was his sensitivity about continued criticism of his, of his leadership?

MR. VAN VOORST: I think that that certainly played a major role. It's been very difficult for the Secretary who was a very sensitive guy to begin with, and to be lambasted as he was for, for the Mogadishu thing, and then after the Mogadishu firefighters of October 3rd, then he went to the capital and gave a briefing which was universally condemned, it was one of his worst hours. Les Aspin can be very effective, as he has been on some recent briefings, and he can be very ineffective sometimes when he rambles and doesn't get to the subject. And so it's difficult to judge just exactly which of these factors was the motivating factor but it does seem to be the straw that broke the back of this particular elephant, was the psychological burden he's been carrying from that Mogadishu fight.

MR. MacNeil: David, the White House has promised to name a successor quickly, perhaps even before Christmas, and Aspin's going to stay on till the 20th of January. Who would your guess be about a successor?

MR. SILVERBERG: Well, there have been a lot of rumors circulating recently, and James Woolsey, the head of the CIA, is at the top of the list, but everybody -- No. 2, I'm sure, is Colin Powell. We are now going to play the --

MR. VAN VOORST: Oh, I disagree with that.

MR. SILVERBERG: We're now going to play the Washington name game. Now we're going to all fight, and we're going to sit around our cocktail parties and coffee tables and throw around names. There's the possibility that --

MR. MacNeil: Is that what you serious, political analysts do, is --

MR. SILVERBERG: You bet, and not only do they do it, but the people who make the actual appointments do it.

MR. MacNeil: Now, another name I've seen again on the Reuters - - on Reuters here is the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Crowe. Bruce, does that make sense to you?

MR. VAN VOORST: That would make sense in terms of competence and ability and, and experience. The problem with Adm. Crowe is I think that he is -- his physical condition and his health is not quite up to the demands of that job. He has gotten a new knee recently, and he's got other things. I think, you know, he's been appointed as the ambassador to London -- I think that that's probably what he'd be most interested in. I would -- you can't rule it out. It depends what the President wants in that slot now. There are a couple of people on the Hill that you might see. I mean, David McCurdy, after all, was a big name at the time when Aspin was named. The interesting question, if you really want to guess, would Sam Nunn be interested in this? I don't think so. But who knows?

MR. MacNeil: Well, Bruce and David, thank you both.

MR. SILVERBERG: Thank you. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, as we just reported, Defense Sec. Les Aspin resigned this afternoon. He cited unspecified personal reasons for his decision. President Clinton accepted the resignation with regret. The leaders of Britain and Ireland agreed to a framework for ending more than a quarter century of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. And negotiators from 116 nations reached final agreement on the GATT Trade Accord. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Margaret. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll see you again tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.