The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, we have two major NewsMaker interviews: With Ken Starr, who stepped down today as the independent counsel in charge of the Clinton investigations, and with Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Then, a snapshot look at the presidential campaign of Elizabeth Dole. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: U.S. stock markets bounced around today following last week's losses. The Dow Jones Industrial Average vacillated above and below the 10,000 benchmark. It finally closed up 96 points at 10,116. The NASDAQ Index fell 42 points to 2689. The markets went down Friday when the government reported a rise in wholesale prices. Consumer prices will be reported tomorrow. Both are measures of inflation, and could influence Federal Reserve decisions on interest rates. President Clinton today invited congressional Republicans to the White House to break the budget impasse. They'll meet their tomorrow. He said he'd sign another temporary spending plan if it were short-term. The current one runs out on Thursday. Only five of thirteen bills needed to fund the government have been approved by Congress and Mr. Clinton. He vetoed another today, a $12.6 billion foreign aid package. He said it did not take into account his major initiatives. He commented at a meeting with his economic advisors.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I vetoed the foreign operations bill this morning because it seems to me to be the next big chapter in the new American isolationism, right after the comprehensive test ban treaty there. There's no money to fund the Wye Peace Accord for peace in the Middle East, no money to fund our continuing work with the Russians to reduce their nuclear threat, no money to help us with debt relief for the poorest countries in Latin America and Asia, and several other problems.

JIM LEHRER: House Majority Leader Armey accepted the White House invitation at a news conference at the Capitol.

SEN. DICK ARMEY: The President wants us to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about how we can complete this spending cycle on the budget without touching Social Security. That's music to my ears. Yesterday John Podesta, his chief of staff, made the point that the President now agrees with us that we ought not to touch Social Security, and that he's committed to working on it. So I look forward to going to the White House tomorrow and discussing this with the President.

JIM LEHRER: Ken Starr left office today. As an independent counsel, he led a five-year inquiry into President and Mrs. Clinton's dealings that eventually led to Mr. Clinton's impeachment. Starr's successor is one of his aides, Robert Ray, who was sworn in today. He will determine if further charges are warranted and draft a final report. We'll have an interview with Starr right after this News Summary. Hurricane Irene headed out to the Atlantic Ocean today, but not before dumping nearly a foot of rain on Eastern North Carolina. It's the third hurricane in two months to hit the state. Emergency management officials warned more flooding was expected in areas already saturated by Hurricane Floyd. Major rivers are expected to be above flood stage by the middle of the week. Pakistani troops began pulling back from the Indian border today. Pakistan's military ruler Sunday had promised a unilateral military de-escalation. In London, Britain and its former colonies that make up the commonwealth moved against their fellow member. We have this report from Louise Bates of Associated Press Television News.

LOUISE BATES: At his home in Islamabad, General Musharraf poses with his family for reporters. It is a rare glimpse into the life of the man who now rules the world's newest nuclear power. The general says he feels encouraged by the reaction he has received from the international community.

GENERL MUSHARRAF: I'm very confident and I'm extremely reassured over the past two days with the response of my own people, my army, my people, and the international community.

LOUISE BATES: General Musharraf has said for the time being his National Security Council will govern the country. But he's eager to prove the army's intention not to keep up military rule. But one such gesture the deposed Foreign Minister, Sag Tag Aziz, was released from house arrest. The troops are still very much in evidence on the streets of all major cities in Pakistan. The international community doesn't seem to be as firmly behind the general as he would like to believe. The commonwealth has now taken steps towards suspending Pakistan. At a meeting in London, ministers called on the regime to set an immediate time frame for democratic elections.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington, President Clinton said he was pleased with the new conciliatory tone toward India, but disappointed there was no timetable for returning Pakistan to democracy. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to interviews with Ken Starr and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, plus a Dole campaign snapshot.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: This was Ken Starr's last day on the job, after five years as an independent counsel investigating various allegations against President Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton, and othersin the Clinton administration. He joins us now for a NewsMaker interview.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Starr, welcome.

KENNETH STARR: Thank you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Do you leave today sighing in relief or in regret?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I certainly am relieved that the responsibility is now in the hands of a very able career prosecutor, Bob Ray. I certainly do have regrets. I guess anyone does with respect to a major phase of their professional life, but all in all, I'm very pleased with all that was accomplished under fairly difficult circumstances by my colleagues, the men and women of the Justice Department on detail to us, the men and women of the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies.

JIM LEHRER: So, in general, do you think you did a good job?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I don't want to be patting myself on the back. I'd rather pat on the back with a lot of enthusiasm, the men and women with whom I was privileged to serve who I think were just terrific. They were highly professional people who, again, under very challenging conditions, I think, time and again, rose to the occasion in Arkansas and then here in the Washington phase of the investigation.

JIM LEHRER: You used the word "accomplishment" a moment ago. What would you say was the major accomplishment of your five years?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I think the principal effort, and I hope it can be used as an accomplishment, was to everybody faithfully the principles of our legal system, to try zealously to find out the relevant facts, to assess the facts in a very professional way and then to make sound judgments. I think we did that throughout the investigation -- even though I fully well recognize that a number of those judgments were quite controversial.

JIM LEHRER: You must be terribly disappointed that President Clinton was not eventually removed from office, is that right?

KENNETH STARR: No, that really isn't right, Jim. We did have an obligation under the statute... and Congress saw fit to do this, to impose on an independent counsel to report to Congress when information reached a certain level. We reached that professional determination, and I'm pleased to say that we reached it unanimously in our office. So this was not just an individual judgment. It was a collegial and collective judgment of the men and women of the office. It was an unhappy judgment but it was one that we made. But once we referred the matter -- as we were required to do under law -- then it became a question ultimately for the American people, a political judgment, and the ultimate kind of political judgment and the American people through their representatives came to a judgment. I respect it and I don't regret that at all.

JIM LEHRER: But how do you explain the huge difference between what you thought had happened and what you wanted done and what the Congress of the United States and, as you said, the American people wanted done?

KENNETH STARR: Well, Jim, I don't agree with the premise. It was not that we were saying that the Congress should take specific action, whatever that action might be. It was here is the information that we're duty bound as law officers to give you because you've directed us in the law to provide you with this information. But, Jim, as I testified before the House Judiciary Committee back in November of last year, holding up the referral, I said you can take this and you can just jettison it. You can toss it in the trashcan. What you do with it is entirely your judgment -- and an ultimate, as I say, political judgment.

JIM LEHRER: But that piece of paper left no doubt that you felt that these were impeachable offenses that the President had committed and he should be removed from office.

KENNETH STARR: I disagree with the latter assessment, that he should be removed from office. Again --

JIM LEHRER: Aren't they the same thing?

KENNETH STARR: No, not at all, because for one thing the statute doesn't even define, and this of course was a great issue at the time, what an impeachable offense is. And I think a judgment was reached that whatever the facts were, those facts did not so affect the President's ability to carry out his weighty duties as the President of the United States so as to warrant his removal. But, at the same time, even in some of the resolutions of censure as you'll recall, some of the resolutions were rather such as Senator Dianne Feinstein's resolution, and supported by a number of people on the Democratic side -- of Senators on the Democratic side -- were very strongly worded in terms of condemnation of the actions, but viewing those actions as insufficiently related to his conduct as President.

JIM LEHRER: But you're not suggesting that you didn't think they were impeachable offenses and the President should be removed from office, are you?

KENNETH STARR: I'm suggesting only that these were clearly -- in my judgment --possible impeachable offenses, and that it was not my call. I was --

JIM LEHRER: Well, how did you feel about it? How did you feel about it? Did you think that they rose to that test?

KENNETH STARR: I thought generally that a reasonable judgment could be made either way. When in late December Senator Moynihan made a comment before the trial proceedings began in the Senate to the effect that he was concerned about the stability of the American government, I saw that as a sign and a signal from one of the most respected members of the Senate, and indeed one of the most respected people in public life, that this was a serious issue, a weighty issue that concerned people. And therefore, to determine that a particular, call it remedy, should not be invoked, the ultimate remedy in a democracy of removing the President, should not in fact be utilized or employed in these circumstances was, in my way of thinking, a reasonable judgment. Reasonable persons could come to another judgment or another conclusion as well, and I think people, men and women of good conscience in this country were deeply divided over it. It did not make either position the least bit unreasonable. That's my judgment.

JIM LEHRER: But...would you not agree that the general perception in the country, as reflected in the polls and everywhere else, was that you felt very strongly that President Clinton had committed impeachable offenses and should be removed from office?

KENNETH STARR: Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that was the perception, and I've said, Jim, that one of my regrets is that I did not do more along the way to try to provide public information, education, if you will, about what the role of the independent counsel is, the limitations of that role. But I think you're quite right, it was seen that way. And I regret that. I didn't take action, in my judgment, that should cause reasonable people to feel that way. We were simply living up to our responsibilities under the law.

JIM LEHRER: You were also perceived, according to the polls, and a lot of pundits and editorial writers as somebody... and by the President himself who said in an interview with us, in fact that Ken Starr was out to get him, that Ken Starr was out to get Bill Clinton. Is that true?

KENNETH STARR: It was untrue. What we were out to get, to gather, were all of the relevant facts. And I regret that the President came to that view. I communicated with the President's counsel in the wake of that interview that you had, and so I think that is unfortunate and that it would be far better, and we urged the President to clarify matters so that there would be no reluctance on the part of witnesses at a critical time in the investigation, to come forward and provide investigators and the grand jury sitting in Arkansas at that time with relevant information. That was not to be. But, you know, the law did have a remedy. If there was, in fact, a prosecutor who was out, on some sort of vendetta, and just taking his language, which was pretty strong language in his colloquy with you, then that prosecutor should be removed from office. And that, of course, was never done. I think that's one of the evils, Jim of what we've been through with in terms of the independent counsel statute. It's far better, as we've seen with Senator Danforth, for the attorney general to make the appointment. She will support that independent counsel or special counsel as they're called now. An independent counsel pointed under the statute, three judges just is not going to get it in terms of support from the executive branch.

JIM LEHRER: The President's comments aside, how do you explain the public's perception that was reflected in every poll that Ken Starr was a Republican carrying out a vendetta or trying to carry out a vendetta against the Clintons?

KENNETH STARR: To aspects of that, at least, it's a rich question -- but two things occur to me: One is the intense politicalization of the process. And I don't think that we in our office were involved in that. Indeed, I think we were probably too much on the sidelines in not communicating with the people and trying to provide assurances that the work of the government in this respect was being carried out correctly. The second is that especially with respect to impeachment, the founding generation knew that it was going to be so divisive and here was an inferior your officer of the executive branch making this kind of determination and a referral to congress that then had this personalization and politicalization effect that I think is the direct result of this statute, which was unwise.

JIM LEHRER: So you're saying that you didn't personalize this; somebody else did. In other words, the people who were defending President Clinton personalized it and --attacking you?

KENNETH STARR: Jim, I'm not going to start pointing fingers, but I will simply refer to the attorney general's own testimony and that of the deputy attorney general with respect to this statute; that this statute, they weren't talking about this investigation alone - remember, the Iran-Contra investigation by Judge Walsh had its critics at the time and there were suggestions that that independent counsel had gone too far. Without making any judgments, the point that the attorney general and the deputy attorney general made is the statute lends itself to that kind of politicalization. And that's wrong; its bad policy.

JIM LEHRER: Politicalization though - but you're saying you didn't have anything do with it. You didn't politicize this. Who did then? Who did?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I wasn't out holding press conferences and the like, and I probably, as I say, should have done more. But I'm not going to, again, get into finger pointing. I would simply point rather instead of at personalities and the like, to the wisdom of the founding generation, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers wrote very thoughtfully to the effect that if there is an impeachment process, it is going to be extraordinarily divisive for the American people. He said that 210 years ago -- how prescient he was. But then the debate became a debate at the political level in which we were not anticipating at all. I think there was a perception, Jim, that we somehow were participating when, in fact, we were not. We were simply doing what the law required us to do.

JIM LEHRER: You said recently that you made a mistake in judgment when you decided to pursue the Monica Lewinsky matter. Why was that a mistake?

KENNETH STARR: I don't think it was a mistake to pursue it. I think it was a mistake for my office, and office which I headed, to take that on. It was perfectly, again, reasonable and sensible at the time. That when we brought the information to the attorney general, the attorney general made the decision this matter should be investigated; this is serious. It has nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It has everything to do with whether serious federal crimes have been and are being committed. Someone has to investigate it. I was willing to do that. I think it would have been better, in retrospect, for the Justice Department to have appointed another independent counsel so as to not give further life to this perception that there was a vendetta.

JIM LEHRER: And do you think that's what happened? In other words, just your accepting that investigation made you even more of a target of people accusing you of a vendetta?

KENNETH STARR: I don't think there's any question about it. I'm sorry.

JIM LEHRER: No. Go ahead.

KENNETH STARR: I was going to say that I think there was a sense that the Whitewater investigation had long since been concluded; that really was not so at the time. It has since been concluded. I think there was a profound misunderstanding -- I don't think I did enough to correct that misunderstanding -- of how widespread or how wide based the Arkansas investigation was that I inherited as the independent counsel. But then on top of that, to accept along the way issues like the Travel Office firings, the F.B.I. Files matter, and then ultimately the Lewinsky investigation, fostered this public perception, which is completely wrong.

JIM LEHRER: Did you have the power to say no thanks, I don't want to do that?

KENNETH STARR: I did.

JIM LEHRER: And you didn't do it?

KENNETH STARR: I did not.

JIM LEHRER: Why not?

KENNETH STARR: I felt at the time that it was the right and sensible and certainly by far the most efficient way to go about conducting the government's business. And it was. It was efficient. There is no question in terms of the efficiencies involved, the cost and the like. People talk about, gee, it's cost $47 million. The fact of the matter is, we are five independent counsel offices rolled into one by virtue of the expansions of our jurisdiction at the request of the attorney general.

JIM LEHRER: From your perspective, did you make any other mistakes?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I probably did, but those are the ones that I think are really the significant and enduring ones. I certainly think that along the way I should have, as I say, done much more to provide a public accounting beyond simply the reports to Congress and the like.

JIM LEHRER: So you -

KENNETH STARR: To provide information about what I was doing -- and then more carefully assessing what additional matters to take on because I would, in fact, be through had we simply remained with, as an office, the very wide ranging Whitewater investigation, which was a misleading misnomer to begin with. And that in itself was sufficiently complicated enough with a variety of matters involved, including Mr. Hubbell's billing practices, the then governor's activities with respect to his cable business, possible federal irregularities in crimes in connection with a 1990 Gubernatorial campaign. Those I inherited.

JIM LEHRER: But there's a whole list, as you know, Mr. Starr, of all kinds of other things that people have criticized you for; for instance, by calling the First Lady before a grand jury in a very public way, for bringing Monica Lewinsky's mother, to the grand jury the way she was brought, the whole relationship, the way the F.B.I. and your folks first talked to Monica Lewinsky -

KENNETH STARR: Right.

JIM LEHRER: -- at the Ritz-Carlton here in Washington; the Secret Service issue; lawyer confidentiality. There were many decisions that you had to make in the course of this five-year investigation. Are you... you're saying that all of those, as a matter of process, as a matter of investigation, you're satisfied and have you no apologies to make to anybody?

KENNETH STARR: Absolutely. Absolutely. In each of those episodes that you identified, to the extent that there has been litigation, we have won that litigation. At times charges are made publicly but never taken to a court of law. We have had our position... and I don't say this in a braggadocios way - it's simply a fact -- that time after time we have won in court. With respect to the subpoenaing of the First Lady at the time, we thought very carefully about that -- the dignity of her office as the First Lady of the land - and we concluded that under the circumstances of the discovery of those billing records in the White House, it would have been irresponsible of us not to proceed that way. Not everyone agreed with that, but everyone in the office did.

JIM LEHRER: There was a story in the "New York Times" over the weekend, which laid out how names and words from the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal may go into the dictionary forever. And there is a quote in there that says "Starr's name is relentlessly invoked as an extreme example of prosecutorial over zealousness." What do you think about that?

KENNETH STARR: I think it's a totally unfair and bum rap. It is totally unfair to career prosecutors who were not reinventing the book; they were going by the book. And when these matters, again, would be brought into court, frequently they were not. Criminal defense lawyers would do what they would try to do to win the battle for public opinion, to calumny the prosecutor, to attack the motives of the prosecutor and the like. But each time that we went about our work, we did it thoughtfully, consistent with Justice Department policy and practice. And in literally every time, we were vindicated in courts of law.

JIM LEHRER: But you were losing it in terms of the public perception as being seen as overzealous?

KENNETH STARR: I think there certainly was that perception, which was contributed to by the fact that this particular independent counsel, yours truly, was still in business, and that why is he now looking into this new matter? I thought he was simply looking into Whitewater, when in fact it was essentially an efficiency determination by the Attorney General of the United States. I accept responsibility fully for taking on the responsibility. But it was her judgment that this is the sensible way to proceed; that this is the Independent Counsel Office that should investigate, in this particular matter, the Lewinsky matter.

JIM LEHRER: There was a Gallup poll earlier this year that asked similar -- exactly the same question about you and they asked it also about President Clinton. And the question was: "Do you consider him to be a winner or a loser as a result of the entire impeachment matter?" On Mr. Clinton 58 percent said he was a winner; 38 percent a loser. On you, 20 percent a winner, 73 percent a loser. Do you leave office today considering yourself a loser as a result of all of this?

KENNETH STARR: No, I don't. And if we entrusted everything to polls, we probably would not have entered World War II, or we certainly would not have - at least we would not have done what we should have done at various times in the nation's history. Law officers are sometimes given pretty unpleasant tasks to do. And we should be, as a people, I think, less guided by polls. But certainly law officers -- and heaven forbid -- that judges should start looking to polls to determine how a matter should be decided. What would happen to the First Amendment, among other things, if we started looking to polls and ran this as a plebiscite democracy? The rule of law means rules count and the law counts. And so whatever happens in public opinion, the abiding issue is: Was it a law-abiding process? It was. We've won in court in that respect. And was it done in a professional way? And we followed throughout Justice Department practice and procedure. And I think that's increasingly recognized, perhaps not by the general public. But I think it's increasingly recognized by thoughtful members of the bar, members of the criminal defense bar included, that we were not there reinventing the book. We were really following the book in terms of what we did.

JIM LEHRER: But does it not bother you that the public feels that way about you?

KENNETH STARR: Well, I think public opinion shifts. And Mr. Lincoln wasn't reading polls and the like. So I would say the comfort that I have is being honored by my professional friends, my colleagues with whom I've been privileged to serve these past five years, who are honorable and decent people who have complete integrity and who worked hard to do their job honestly and ably and I think they did.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see yourself -- sitting here now -- after this is all over as a victim of this process as much as the perpetrator of it? I mean do you feel you've been hurt? That's what I'm really trying to get at here.

KENNETH STARR: No, I feel as if I've been privileged to serve in a very difficult job. I've said on other occasions that there are two books in Washington. I was very privileged to serve in positions that are found in the plum book. The independent counsel is a job that belongs at the top of the list of the prune book. It's a terrible job; it's a terribly difficult and challenging position. I've been fortunate enough to be a judge, to be the solicitor general of the United States, to serve as a chief of staff to the Attorney General of the United States. My time had come to take on a pretty pruney assignment.

JIM LEHRER: And is this it for new terms of public service? You're going back to the private practice of law now?

KENNETH STARR: Yes. I'm actually going to take some time and do something I started on seven years ago, Jim, and try my hand at a book on the Supreme Court -- not a book about a certain subject.

JIM LEHRER: Not the one we've been talking about for the last 20 minutes.

KENNETH STARR: Exactly. But then in the fullness of time to return to private law practice and then to resume my teaching at New York University.

JIM LEHRER: This has not left such a bad taste that you would never consider public service again?

KENNETH STARR: I'm a cheerful optimist, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Starr, thank you very much.

KENNETH STARR: Thank you.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and a Dole campaign snapshot. Gwen Ifill has the interview with the U.N. Secretary-General.

JIM LEHRER: Gwen Ifill has the interview with the U.N. Secretary-General.

GWEN IFILL: Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened this year's U.N. General Assembly session by calling on the international community to prepare for expanded intervention in the world, especially in countries where human rights are being violated. His speech coincided with the arrival of a U.N.-mandated force in East Timor. Mr. Annan is in Washington for meetings and speeches.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Annan, your speech to the U.N. two weeks ago, three weeks ago, you spoke of humanitarian intervention, which sounded almost like a new doctrine. Could you explain it to us, please.

KOFI ANNAN: Basically what I tried to discuss with the member states was the fact that we live in a new era. The U.N. was set up after World War II, and at that point we were more concerned about interstate warfare. Today most of the wars we are concerned about are intrastate. On how we deal with interstate warfare there was a consensus and the consensus had been maintained until now, but we are living in a new era where the conflicts are internal, and yet, we have not come up with a new consensus as to what -- how we define the common interest, who defines the common interest, how we defend the common interest, when we intervene, and when we do not. I also have to point out that in my statement I defined intervention as a broad spectrum from the least coercive to the most coercive. It could be just -- I mean, a diplomat -- you get in touch with the people in conflict and basically saying that unless we come across with some consensus, we are going to have difficulties in the Council. The Security Council on some occasions have had difficulty reaching consensus. They have had difficulty reaching consensus because different people have different understanding of what constitutes national interest or common interest, because the Council exists to protect the common interest, but what is that common interest? And if we don't have a common understanding, a broad understanding of what we are talking about, we are not going to be able to move very quickly.

GWEN IFILL: It sounds like that common understanding or the definition of that common understanding is always going to be a roadblock to the kind of broad interventionism that you advocate.

KOFI ANNAN: I think one has to be careful. I wasn't advocating a broad intervention. What I was saying is if we have situations where there are gross violations and systematic violations of human rights, we cannot stand back and do nothing. And if we are going to intervene, we must have some criteria or some understanding of when we intervene and when we do not. Already we are accused of selectivity; we are accused of being more sensitive to crisis in some regions than the other. I don't think the U.N. can open itself to that sort of accusations and criticism. And I believe that if the member states were to discuss this issue simply, sincerely, and honestly, we may come to some understanding that will help us as we move forward into the future.

GWEN IFILL: Now, as you know, the United States and Britainapplauded your comments; other countries, China, Russia, India, said that this smacked of imperialism. How do you answer those critics?

KOFI ANNAN: I was not surprised that some countries accepted it and others disagreed with it. But I think what is important is in today's world, when we have the kinds of abuses that we are talking about, we need to take measures to deter them. It does not necessarily mean military intervention. In fact, the establishment of the two tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia is a deterrent. The attempts by the international community to establish an international criminal court will be a deterrent, and really sending a message out to those who would commit these heinous crimes that you have nowhere to hide, you will be made accountable.

GWEN IFILL: But how do you balance out a nation's desire for its own sovereignty to protect that, its own sovereignty against an international need to intervene in the case of human rights abuses?

KOFI ANNAN: I can understand a nation's right to intervene -- I mean, to protect its sovereignty. On the other hand, let's look at the world as it exists today, I argued that the traditional concept of sovereignty is being changed by the developments in the world today, from globalization -- there are lots of areas governments do not control They do not control the external factors that affect their economy. They do not control financial flows. They do not control some of the environmental issues. Why should abuse of human rights should be the only area that they should insist they should be allowed to control without any interference? I think this is something that happened -- and also, let me put it this way, if the citizens' rights are respected, there will be no need for anyone to want to intervene either through diplomatic means or coercive means. And it's also - I think the governments should see it not as a license for people to come in and intervene. We are talking about those situations where there are serious and gross and systematic violations of human rights. I think that governments who protect their citizens and their rights and do not create that kind of situation have no reason to worry that anyone would intervene.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about the United Nations' role as a peacekeeper. Can the United Nations exert its role as a peacekeeper if there is not first a peace to be kept?

KOFI ANNAN: If you send in traditional peacekeepers, they cannot do it. They only can go in where there's peace to be kept, because let's not forget -- traditional peacekeepers go in lightly armed and often they go in to help implement and maintain agreements which have already been signed by the warring factions; where the will to settle and to respect the agreements exists, the peacekeepers can do a lot.

GWEN IFILL: I'm sorry, go ahead.

KOFI ANNAN: Where the will does not exist, it's extremely difficult for traditional peacekeepers. Of course, we've also had peace enforcement, the kind of action you saw in Kosovo, which was handled by a multinational force in the form of NATO.

GWEN IFILL: When you talk about will, that's really the essential role. When you talk about handing over the rights to enforce people's -- violations of human rights concerns -- to say a regional force, rather than a U.N. force, or American-led force, don't you then perhaps put power in the hands of a regional bully, perhaps, to decide what a country should be doing?

KOFI ANNAN: I think that is something that the Security Council takes into consideration. It assesses the situation. It assesses the capacity of the region and also, more or less, gives an indication of what the mandate should be. In each of these instances, the recent -- take the one in East Timor, the Australian-led peacekeeping forces went in with a mandate from the Security Council, and they're reporting periodically to the Council. And I think the Council is in agreement as to the broad role that force is to play. The peace -- the force that went into Kosovo was different because it did go in without express consent of the Security Council, and so one cannot say that the Council gave them a mandate to undertake what they did.

GWEN IFILL: I want to return to East Timor in just a moment, but I want to ask also about this whole notion of intervention and civil wars. How do we know when intervention is called for, and when we're just getting ourselves involved in every civil war -- say Sierra Leone might fall into that category.

KOFI ANNAN: I think this is where my opening statement comes into focus. This is precisely some of the issues that I would want the membership at large to discuss. It's an issue for the membership to decide -- when do you intervene and why.

GWEN IFILL: Case by case?

KOFI ANNAN: And what is the rationale? Why? And this is where, in fact, I set a threshold -- you know, gross and systematic violations of human rights. In Sierra Leone, the U.N. did not go in directly, but we supported the work of the regional organization, the West African troops which went in -- Nigeria led. And now we're going to take over for them; we are putting in 6,000 troops from the U.N. who will work to ensure that the peace agreement signed in Sierra Leone would work.

GWEN IFILL: How do you -- in East Timor or Sierra Leone or wherever you go -- how does one govern intervention once you are there? In East Timor, the United Nations, in effect, takes over for the next two years. But when can you declare your work done and leave?

KOFI ANNAN: I think each crisis is different; it has its own peculiarities and has to be tackled on its own basis and merit. In Sierra Leone there is an existing government, elected government, that was thrown out by the military and reinstated, so we will work with the government in place, obviously. We will also work to strengthen the government to help them to develop their economic and social services. In East Timor, we will be building from scratch. And we will work with the East Timorese. In time, we will organize elections for the East Timorese to elect their own leaders, and once the leaders have been installed and they've taken over the administration of the country, then our work will be done; we did that in Namibia, for example, where we organized the elections, a new government was installed, and we withdrew, and Namibia has done rather well, actually, after that; I'm not saying it happens that way in all the cases, but --

GWEN IFILL: Does the United Nations have the resources, the tools for this expanded role?

KOFI ANNAN: Resources is always a problem, but I think where there is a will we almost always find resources. And quite frankly, the amounts of money we are talking about in the scheme of things are really not huge amounts, considering what is at stake and what we are trying to do, whether in terms of resuscitating failed states, or protecting lives or ensuring that innocent women and children are protected and given a chance to live their lives to the fullest. We are not talking big amounts. In fact, I had to speak when we had 17 operations and 80,000 people deployed around the world, it was -- the annual budget was $3.8 billion. $3.8 billion when you compare with the resources we are ready to put into defense expenditure in wars is really minor.

GWEN IFILL: The Indonesian parliament is expected to vote perhaps as soon as tomorrow on whether to accept East Timor's vote of independence. Do you care to hazard a guess on how that will turn out?

KOFI ANNAN: I think they will vote yes. They will vote to confirm the results of the ballot.

GWEN IFILL: Are you confident now that you're going to be getting Indonesia's cooperation on the refugee crisis, getting people who've been driven from their homes in East Timor back from West Timor, or even Australia?

KOFI ANNAN: Our humanitarian coordinator has had very good discussions with them and the High Commissioner for Refugees has also worked out an arrangement with them where we are beginning to prepare to fly some of the people -- ship them -- put them on ships - and eventually by road to get them back to West -- East Timor. So far, they are cooperating. Obviously, given the conditions on the ground, there may be some difficulty, but it's gone well. It's gone well so far, and I am hopeful that they will cooperate fully.

GWEN IFILL: But the U.N. took a credibility blow in East Timor; the rebel leader -- or I should say the independence leader, Jose Ramos-Horta said, "I don't know how we're ever going to trust the U.N. again." Can they?

KOFI ANNAN: Well, I think if one says the U.N. took a credibility blow -- I don't know whether we took a credibility blow or the Indonesians also took a -- perhaps a much more serious blow -- what happened was we signed an agreement between Portugal and Indonesia -- what the U.N. witnessed. Indonesia insisted that it would assure security and there was no need for international forces to come in; and it had the capacity to do it, and it demonstrated it had the capacity and the wherewithal; on the day of the election we had a peaceful election, with the Indonesian army and police playing their role. If they could play that role effectively on 30 August, why couldn't they continue with the same seriousness and determination to maintain law and order? That did not happen, and we did have violence and nobody could have imagined what had occurred after the elections. And when that happened, the U.N. did not throw up its arms and said, "What do we do?" We moved very quickly to get in a force that will help bring law and order into the situation and try and get the innocent victims back to their homes from the hills and from West Timor.

GWEN IFILL: I can't let you go without asking you briefly about the U.S. role in the U.N. Last week, obviously, the Senate voted against the nuclear test ban treaty, and the U.S. continues to be of two minds about whether it will pay its back dues. What was your reaction to that vote?

KOFI ANNAN: I think it was unfortunate. My sense is that it sends the wrong message across the world. The U.S. has a leadership role and countries around the world look up to it, particularly in the area of disarmament because it is a major power. And I think the President was right when he said the vote will send the wrong message around the world. And it does undermine U.S.'s ability to lead in this essential area of disarmament. On your second question regarding the U.S. dues, I often speak about this more out of sadness and disappointment than even out of anger, because the U.S. has such a natural leadership position in the U.N.. People look up to the U.S. The U.S. played a key role in establishing the U.N., previous generations and U.S. Presidents have played a major role in making sure that the U.N. is strengthened. And today we have a situation where the U.S. refuses to pay its bill, and that refusal to honor the commitments which we believe is legal and binding between us and the United States -- among its friends and its foes. In fact, it was a British foreign secretary, where Malcolm Rifkin, the former foreign secretary, who stood up in the General Assembly from the rostrum and said there should be no representation without taxation. He turned the tables, but it shows the feeling among the membership, even among friends. And so I hope the dues will be paid. Ambassador Holbrooke is working very hard. The President has also assured me that he wants it paid and is working hard. And I hope with all the effort and the energy that Ambassador Holbrooke and others have brought to bear that this year, finally, in the last year of the millennium, we can put this problem behind us and bring U.S. back to its natural leadership role in the organization.

GWEN IFILL: Secretary-General Kofi Annan, thank you very much.

KOFI ANNAN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another in our series of snapshots from the various presidential campaigns. Tonight's is Elizabeth Dole's, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Iowa holds the nation's first presidential nominating caucuses next year, and it's drawing plenty of candidates now. Republican contender Elizabeth Dole returned late last week, her 13th visit this year. On Thursday morning, she was in Council Bluffs to speak at Iowa Western Community College.

ELIZABETH DOLE: I really appreciate the fact that we have so many young people involved in this campaign, and that's what makes it very worthwhile to me. That's what helps to drive me, because I'm inspired when I see this.

MARGARET WARNER: Dole criticized the Clinton administration for overemphasizing the economy at the expense of values.

ELIZABETH DOLE: I think that people yearn for leaders who will call America to her better nature, who will use that bully pulpit. You need to use the bully pulpit to promote what is right and as a nation to provide the leadership to change what is wrong.

MARGARET WARNER: She spoke about education and drugs and cutting government waste, and she spent a lot of time stressing her past experience in a string of appointive jobs, including two stints in the cabinet.

ELIZABETH DOLE: This is the job of a C.E.O., Serving as President of the United States. And I'm happy to say that most of my 30 years of experience in service to the public has been in chief executive officer positions. Let's take the Department of Transportation. We had 100,000 employees there, and you're overseeing material resources like shipbuilding, air traffic control, highway construction. And my record is full of examples of seeing my initiatives through to completion in every job that I've held.

MARGARET WARNER: After Dole's 30-minute speech, one woman asked her how she'd cut unnecessary defense spending.

ELIZABETH DOLE: I will go after waste anywhere that it exists. Believe me. That's a promise. Thank you.

MARGARET WARNER: She didn't give any examples, however, ending this way.

ELIZABETH DOLE: As I say, in every job I've ever had, I've set eight or ten goals, and I go after it with the best team of people that I could put together, and we work with the Congress to get it done, and we get it done.

MARGARET WARNER: The next stop was a high school farther South, in Shenandoah. There, as before, a major focus of Dole's speech was education.

ELIZABETH DOLE: We used to have the best school system in the world. Now one in four high school seniors is considered functionally illiterate in this great country.

MARGARET WARNER: Her prescription? The three R's: Return control to states and local school districts, reinforce parents' roles, and restore discipline.

ELIZABETH DOLE: Let's check backpacks and lockers and have drug testing, if that's a parent-approved initiative and the school district wants to do it. But we must return discipline and certainly respect for our teachers.

MARGARET WARNER: At the end of her remarks, she spoke about the importance of women in her campaign and fund-raising.

ELIZABETH DOLE: I'm happy to say that in my campaign, it's 50 percent giving by women, and I think that's getting our women more involved in this process as well.

MARGARET WARNER: The first question came from a veteran.

VETERAN: What will you do in the way of expanding the VA funding and also long-term health care for the veterans?

ELIZABETH DOLE: Obviously I am a strong supporter of our veterans. My husband served in World War II in Italy, spent three years in a hospital following World War II has a disability because of that period of time. It's incredible what these men and women have done for our country and for each one of us, and they deserve our full support for their benefits. Don't you agree?

PERSON IN AUDIENCE: If you were to become President, what would your husband's title be?

ELIZABETH DOLE: What should we call bob dole? Any ideas? I welcome ideas. Is he the first man, the first gentleman, the first spouse? Being from the state of Kansas and having grown up with the details of agriculture in his head, I think he would be a great ag advisor, don't you?

MARGARET WARNER: Afterwards, some students sought pictures with Dole, but others asked some pointed questions.

WOMAN: What do you think of gay marriages?

ELIZABETH DOLE: I'm against gay marriages. I'm against discrimination, but not for gay marriages.

MARGARET WARNER: Another student challenged her call for tighter security measures at schools.

MAN: Don't you think some things violate students' rights?

ELIZABETH DOLE: No, not if the parents approve backpack searches and they approve locker searches, and the school district thinks it's important, I think it's okay, because we can't have guns in school. Does that make sense to you, bringing a gun to school?

MAN: Not to actually bring a gun to school.

ELIZABETH DOLE: That's a violation.

MARGARET WARNER: Dole returns to Iowa later this week for more campaigning. She'll formally announce her candidacy on November 7 in Des Moines.

And for more, we are joined by David Von Drehle of the "Washington Post." The NewsHour is working with the "Post" in covering the 2000 presidential race. And David was with Dole in Iowa last week.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, David, you've spent a lot of time traveling with Elizabeth Dole. Was what we just showed, was that fairly typical of the way she's campaigning?

DAVID VON DREHLE: It was typical. You saw the huge crowds that she was drawing. People are very interested to see her. She's a sort of living legend figure. You saw they were respectful crowds. And you also got a sense for her manner, her walking around instead of speaking in front of a podium. That's all typical of her.

MARGARET WARNER: And how would you say she's trying to distinguish herself from this crowded Republican field? I mean is it on issues? Is it on philosophy? What is it?

DAVID VON DREHLE: It's on experience primarily. She is selling herself to her audiences asthe person who knows where the levers of government are, how to pull them to get the results she wants. She talks about her experience, her mastery of the process. Of course the subtext under all of that is that she's the woman in the race, and she's the icon in the race. She talks about being on the list of the three most respected women in the world last year. And she talks about having the highest favorability rating, Republicans or Democrats.

MARGARET WARNER: How else does she play this issue of being a woman? For instance, is she addressing what one might call women issues whatever those are?

DAVID VON DREHLE: She's steering away from women's issues. When you follow her around, you get a sense almost that perhaps because she is a woman, that she feels she needs to show how tough she is. She's tough on drugs. She's tough on crime. She's tough on discipline problems in schools. She's tough on foreign policy. She wants a stronger defense. She wants a stronger defense. She wants a missile defense. She's tough on illegal aliens. And so it's all experienced toughness, no heart, no women's issues at all.

MARGARET WARNER: You said no heart. I mean, is there is much of, I don't though know, what George Bush Sr. used to call the vision thing?

DAVID VON DREHLE: I was really struck because at the end of the day of these town meetings like the ones we saw in the piece, she did an appearance at a banquet to honor women of achievement where she gave what's more traditionally an Elizabeth Dole speech. If you had her come address her group when she was at the Red Cross, for example, and it had a long passage of poetry of vision, what America used to be, what it could be again in the future. But the next morning we were back to town meetings. We didn't hear a word of that.

MARGARET WARNER: And how do the audiences, these big crowds she draws, how do they respond to her? I mean you've probably talked to them afterwards. Are they fired up, are they ready to join up?

DAVID VON DREHLE: People who are inclined to vote for her when they come out are not likely to hear anything to turn them off. But by the same token I didn't get the impression she was firing people up unless they were already deeply moved by the symbolism of the first woman. I mean at one event, some...hundreds of college kids waited all morning for her to get there. The event was half an hour late. They were still there. They were all keyed up. She came in and started talking about her experience as an FTC commissioner in the 70's. That's not the kind of thing that gets hearts racing.

MARGARET WARNER: So, what do advisors say...what is the game plan for breaking out of the pack and becoming the alternative to George W. Bush?

DAVID VON DREHLE: You know, I think more than maybe any other campaign, Elizabeth Dole was really surprised by the speed of this campaign season. She makes a point at most stops of saying that when she left the Red Cross, she had not been able to do any preparation. And so at the beginning of February, she was building a presidential campaign. She was caught really getting off to a slow start. That said, their plan, I think, is to do well in Iowa where she is very well known. Her husband is practically the third Senator for Iowa during his long career as an agriculture specialist, and then hope that a bounce out of Iowa would somehow get her some momentum.

MARGARET WARNER: Quickly before we go, her fund-raising has been somewhat disappointing. The new reports last Friday showed her fifth in the fund-raising race, even after her third place showing in the Iowa Straw Poll. How do her strategists explain that?

DAVID VON DREHLE: Well, they don't like to talk about it at all. But what they do say is that, yes, money's tight for everyone except for George Bush, but that Elizabeth Dole, because of her fame, can campaign cheaper than anyone else. She gets the crowds and the TV cameras on her name.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, David, thanks very much.

DAVID VON DREHLE: Thank you.

MARGARET WARNER: A reminder: you can get more information on this story on the "Washington Post" web site, and on ours.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday: Kenneth Starr resigned as independent counsel after a five-year probe of President and Mrs. Clinton. On the NewsHour tonight Starr said he has no regrets that Mr. Clinton remained in office after his Senate impeachment trial. Also, in another NewsHour interview tonight, U.S. Secretary-General Annan said U.S. rejection of the test ban treaty and failure to pay U.N. dues undercut American leadership in world affairs. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.