The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's News Summary, our main focus is the increasingly violent situation in Somalia. We have a Newsmaker interview with the embattled United Nations commander, Adm. Jonathan Howe, and a debate on whether the U.S. should pull out. Then excerpts from President Clinton's discussion of health care reform with small businessmen, and we close with a Richard Rodriguez essay on the changing face of Los Angeles. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: The White House brought 20 people into the Rose Garden today to plea for changes to the nation's health care system. The televised event was the opening round in an extended White House sales campaign for the President's health care reform plan. The plan will be formally unveiled next week. The Republicans unveiled their own proposal yesterday, and today Mrs. Clinton, the President's point person on health care, said they could work together. She spoke at a meeting in Washington sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Once we agree on the principles we can work out the details. And I think we are as a nation and within this body of Congress moving toward agreement on the principles. I want to compliment the Senate Republicans for the proposal they put forward yesterday. They too talk about reaching universal coverage. They too talk about a benefits package. They too have a mandatory way of financing it. They choose to go through an individual mandate with a subsidy for poor people. We don't think that's the best way, but there's room for conversation back and forth. We are at least all in the same ball park.

MS. WARNER: We will have excerpts from the health care question and answer session between President Clinton and small business people later in the program. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: In economic news, the nation's merchandise trade deficit shrank in July by 14 percent, after hitting a five-year peak in June. But the Commerce Department said it was still high at 10.3 billion dollars. The Federal Reserve reported industrial production rose .2 percent in August. It was the third straight monthly increase and the output at the nation's factories, mines, and utilities. The United Auto Workers and Ford Motor Company have agreed on a new contract. It will allow workers to keep fully paid health benefits and protect job security. It also allows the company to pay new hires less than current workers to do the same job.

MS. WARNER: A new agreement was signed in Geneva today between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs. Officials said it could clear the way for a new round of peace talks, or even a peace accord by next week. But Bosnia's Muslim president said that was doubtful. The talks collapsed earlier this month over Muslim demands for more land. The new agreement defers that question. It also establishes a cease-fire to begin this weekend. Meanwhile, more than 35 Croat civilians were found massacred yesterday in a village in central Bosnia. The Croats said Muslim forces were responsible. The United Nations condemned the massacre, calling it a "cowardly atrocity." Croat forces today unleashed at least four separate attacks on Muslim areas in apparent retaliation.

MR. MacNeil: President Clinton is releasing $30 million in aid to Jordan. State Department Spokesman Mike McCurry said the administration hoped Jordan would use some of the money for joint ventures in the West Bank and Jericho. He said such ventures could be part of the economic development called for in the Israeli-PLO peace agreement. He also confirmed that the President had called Syrian President Assad to press for his cooperation in squelching opposition to the peace process.

MIKE McCURRY, State Department Spokesman: My understanding is that the President had a general discussion with President Assad about the importance of the peace process, itself, the importance of redoubling a support for the peace process, and I think he made it clear that the enemies of the peace process, itself, need to know that all the parties in the region are going to make the recent agreements work and are not going to be deterred from pursuing progress on other tracks.

MR. MacNeil: PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat flew to Cairo today fora meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. While he was there, Arafat's mainstream Fatal faction announced a deal with the fundamentalist group Hamas which opposes the peace agreement. The two sides agreed to avoid violence over their opposing stands. The violent opposition by Hamas has been considered a threat to implementation of the peace agreement.

MS. WARNER: The hijacking of a Russian airliner ended early today when three men believed to be Iranians surrendered to authorities near Oslo, Norway. The 54 passengers and crew on the Aeroflot jet were reported safe. After interviewing the hijackers, Norwegian police said the men appeared to be protesting alleged human rights abuses in Iran. They had seized the plan on a flight from Azerbaijan yesterday and forced it to fly to Norway.

MR. MacNeil: Two crew members of the space shuttle Discovery spent seven hours today walking in space. They tested tools for an upcoming mission to correct flaws in the Hubble Space Telescope. That mission is scheduled for December. NASA said today's walk was a success. Discovery is scheduled to return to Earth on Tuesday.

MS. WARNER: Two United States Senators announced today that they are calling it quits. Minnesota Republican David Durenberger and Arizona Democrat Dennis DeConcini both said they won't seek reelection. Durenberger said he wanted to spend the next 15 months working on health care reform, without the distraction of a campaign. He made no mention of his legal troubles, though he's awaiting trial on fraud charges. DeConcini said he was fed up with campaign fund-raising. He was facing a potentially tough and expensive reelection campaign. That's it for the News Summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, the increasing violence in Somalia, President Clinton hears from small business on health care, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - A QUAGMIRE?

MR. MacNeil: We start tonight with the Somali story and the growing debate in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere over continued American military involvement in that East African nation. In a moment, we'll hear from the top United Nations official in Somalia, the retired American Admiral John Howe, and then go on to the U.S. debate in and beyond Congress. Charlayne Hunter-Gault was in Somalia on two assignments for the NewsHour, and she now updates the story. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For nearly six months after the first landing of the U.S. Marines in Somalia, the American forces and military contingents from other nations were claiming success in their basic mission, feeding starving people and bringing some order to the country. Overall command had passed from the Americans to the United Nations, and all but 3500 of the U.S. troops had returned home. Much of the U.N. military operation was being carried out by soldiers from such countries as Pakistan, Nigeria, Italy, France, and Belgium. But on June 5th, 24 Pakistani soldiers were ambushed and killed by guerrillas loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. Those killings set off a new cycle of violence between the U.N. forces and some Somalis. The U.N. took on the mission of trying to capture Aidid, but so far without success. U.S. Ranger forces were brought in last month to bolster that new mission. Troops on the ground and helicopter gunships launched several raids against suspected Aidid headquarters. Aidid's forces responded with attacks onU.N. peacekeepers and one land mine attack that killed four American soldiers. The toll of U.N. peacekeepers, Pakistani, Nigerian, Italian, and American, is more than 50 dead. An unknown number of Somalis have also been killed, prompting a number of anti-UN protests in the streets of Mogadishu. Willet Weeks has spent months in Somalia for the private Save the Children organization.

WILLET WEEKS, Save the Children: The United Nations has been conducting a series of weapons sweeps, a series of, of searches of houses. And as a result of those, the United Nations at this point is, is seen as kind of an occupying army. Right now, you have helicopters overhead 24 hours a day in Mogadishu. People in Mogadishu feel that they are the target of the military activity.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The U.N.'s failure to bring peace to Mogadishu has also caused dissension within the U.N. alliance. The commander of Italian troops in Somalia criticized the U.N. for resorting to force, rather than negotiation. The Italian parliament even threatened to withdraw its troops. In the U.S. Congress, growing criticism led recently to a resolution saying Congress would have to authorize any future participation by American forces beyond November 15th.

SENATOR: And as we speak, American lives are in danger. And it's a great and grave disservice to those young men and women if we leave them in an exposed position for which there is no viable political and military objective, and we owe it to them to provide them with it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The latest round of violence between Somalis and U.N. forces came yesterday, after two Italian peacekeepers were killed. U.S. officials have defended the U.N. operations and the need to go after warlord Aidid.

LES ASPIN, Secretary of Defense: [Aug. 27] The danger now is that unless we return security to South Mogadishu, political chaos will follow any U.N. withdrawal. Other warlords would follow Aidid's example. Fighting between the warlords will ensue, and that, of course, is what brought the famine to massive proportions in the first place.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But veterans of Somali fame persist in their criticism and warn that the turmoil is starting to spread from Mogadishu to the countryside. They also say there is a difference between military and political objectives.

WILLET WEEKS: Right now what's going on is that the military are engaged in a war, and we want to win that war. But we know that winning a war, and winning peace aren't always the same thing. And, and winning peace in Somalia is something that has to be done by Somalis and for Somalis. NEWSMAKER

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The U.N. Special Envoy, Adm. Howe, is back in the United States for a series of meetings at the U.N. and Washington, D.C. And he joins us here in the studio now. Admiral, welcome.

ADM. HOWE: Thank you, Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me start with what the Italian defense minister said today. He said that U.N. policy in Somalia is fruitless and wrong. Is he wrong?

ADM. HOWE: Yes. I'm afraid if that's what he said, he is wrong. I think we -- our goals and objectives are clear. Our purposes are nobel, and I think we have the means to succeed in this very difficult and enormously challenging situation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how could you have such a different reading of the situation? I mean, his troops are there. They're being killed. They're under your command. I mean, how could he come out with that conclusion and you come out with such a different one?

ADM. HOWE: Well, you know we have 77 different nations on my own staff, which is about 300. And we have 30 nations contributing with troops. You can have certainly different points of view, people come at this problem from different ways. And certainly --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But isn't that --

ADM. HOWE: Certainly this kind of situation focuses the attention and certainly focuses the issue, but I disagree with that particular point of view.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How much more difficult does it make your assignment when you have that kind of comment about what you're trying to do from such a key contingent in the operation?

ADM. HOWE: Well, I think what's important is that we have good unity of purpose and unity of command, and that we all are supporting one particular policy. That doesn't mean there can't be criticism or controversy as we formulate the policy. Now, we had some very solid comments today, by the way, at a troop contributors meeting I went to from the ambassador of Italy which was very welcome and very solemn.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You heard Willet Weeks there from Save the Children, who's in and out of Mogadishu all the time, say that he felt that the UN was now confusing winning the military victory with winning the peace. He's wrong too?

ADM. HOWE: Well, those are all objectives that you can't divorce. Everything we do in Somalia is political, it is humanitarian, it is security-related, which has certainly a military component right now. And nothing can be separated or divorced. They're all integrated and woven together. And what we have to do is we have to work for peace, and we have to move ahead in the political agenda, which we are. We've now created more than 30 district councils. And we have to move in a humanitarian area. We have to restore the justice system and the police force, we have to disarm, and we have to provide enough law and order and security for the people that they can participate in this recovery.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But he argues that this de-stabilized situation in, in southern Mogadishu now is threatening the other parts of the country, making it difficult to get the humanitarian work done, to get the political work done, that all of that's basically come to a standstill, and this policy is continued of, of trying to capture Aidid with this kind of military power, military force, that the whole thing is just going to unravel.

ADM. HOWE: Well, I think he's wrong there. We are making good progress in the rest of the country, and we have support of the people of Somalia, the vast majority of them. And they welcome the UNOSOM or the United Nations efforts throughout the country, in Kismayu, a very difficult area. We've had a peace accord for 10 months to hammer out, and it's still very fragile, but I think we'll succeed there. In the Northeast, they want to disarm, and they welcome the help that the United Nations agencies and NGOs can bring them. So I think that we are making progress in the vast majority of the country. It is true that in south Mogadishu we have a small group of people shooting at us and trying to obstruct us in every way in what we're trying to accomplish. We have a lot of good friends in south Mogadishu as well.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I guess his argument was that the longer this effort to capture Aidid goes on, particularly with the kind of fire power that's going on, with the injury and death to civilians, women, and children, he was arguing that the goodwill that the UN still continues to enjoy is, is starting to fade. Is the object of the UN still to capture Aidid?

ADM. HOWE: Well, the object of the UN mission is to recover the country, therebirth of Somalia in the hands of Somalis. But it is true that I think if Aidid were captured and brought into the legal process one way or another that this would be a short circuit, a short cut to the recovery in south Mogadishu, itself, and certainly would reduce the animosity that it's caused. For example, when we're attacked and we respond, and the Somalis are hurt or injured, that's, we don't like that at all. But our people have to defend themselves from attacks, and these attacks are being conducted.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But why is this amount of fire power needed? I mean, is it, is it absolutely -- are you absolutely unable to carry out this mission in any other way? Because that's where a lot of negative press and negative reaction seems to stem from, the fact that women, children, people who are not the object of your search, and that Aidid continues to allude you. At what price is this pursuit of him?

ADM. HOWE: Well, actually, the operations specifically that might or might not pick up Aidid have been done very surgically or very carefully, with people not being injured. I think what people focused on most recently is last Thursday when there was a strong roadblock put on one of our vital arteries. And more than a hundred gunmen with machine guns and recoilless rifles that knocked out a tank assaulted behind walls and houses the Pakistani guard force and the Americans who were operating bull dozers to try to break through that barrier that had been implanted then. And fire power had to be used because our people had to get out of the trap. The intent was to kill the Pakistanis and kill the Americans. And so a modest amount of fire was used in order to break them free from this trap that occurred. And because Aidid mixes women in with his militia men, then they can be hit by stray bullets or by fire. It's very regrettable but this is a tactic he uses to try to get public embarrassment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Can this mission succeed if Aidid is not captured?

ADM. HOWE: Well, I think it will be, be difficult if he is not brought to answer. If he continues to persist in attacks against the United Nations, I think that we have to deal with it one way or another. Those attacks need to stop.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you mean one way or another? I mean, the efforts with seals and with special forces and with all this fire power that we've been talking about have been not successful. What other alternatives do you have, and aren't you running up against a time clock here?

ADM. HOWE: Well, there are many ways to accomplish Resolution 837, which is our objective. The objective of 837 is to bring into a legal process those who are responsible for the crimes of 5 June and beyond. And there are many ways that can be done. Arrest is one.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you can't arrest them if you can't find them.

ADM. HOWE: I think that we will find them. It's, it's -- I think our statistical probabilities have increased, but nobody can put a fine time line on it, and say this is the time when we'll do it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You called for an additional -- today -- for an additional, I guess, brigade, some three to five thousand troops. What do you need them for?

ADM. HOWE: The secretary general actually asked for that in this report on 814 and the progress that we had made. We need more troops in the city to stabilize it, to provide law and order, and to reduce the attacks that are occurring in the city.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When you go down, part of your mission here, as I understand it, is to go down and talk to members of Congress and give them a report. How are you going to assuage their fears of [a] being dragged into a quagmire -- well, that question first.

ADM. HOWE: Well, I will try to tell them what's really going on, what our concerns are, what we're up against. It is enormously challenging, but it is a mission that can succeed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what would be -- I mean, can you give them an end point?

ADM. HOWE: Well, we've picked two years as the time when we think that we, the process can be done. And, in fact, the Somali leaders at Addis Ababa picked two years for the period of transition.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Yeah, but that was before Aidid started his - -

ADM. HOWE: Yes. But I think if the Aidid problem is handled satisfactorily, it will actually help us accelerate along this path. If it drags on, then surely we're going to lose time on the time line.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And your guess is that it won't drag on?

ADM. HOWE: I'm hopeful that it won't. I think that the two-year goal is, is still optimistic but achievable. And it's both political and humanitarian, as well as security recovery in the sense that the police force and the justice system will be established.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about those other members of Congress who argue that we have no national interest in there, we've achieved what we went in there to do, the people aren't starving and dying anymore from famine and even from war for the most part, and it's time to leave, time for the U.S. to get out?

ADM. HOWE: Well, there, there are two aspects really of this. We're, we're involved in looking in this new post Cold War period at perhaps a different way of -- additional way that people encourage national interest. There's no strategic interest vis-a- vis the Russians, for example, in Somalia. But there is a concern about people. There is concern about them sinking back into the abyss of chaos and anarchy that caused last year 300,000 people in Somalia to die. This situation is so fragile right now that they could quickly degenerate back into that situation if we de- stabilize it, or if we don't persist and show determination and resolve in this situation. So that's what we have to lose, and that's what we have to ask ourselves.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And if the US pulls out, what happens?

ADM. HOWE: I think the US right now is a very essential component. Even though the numbers of Americans are small, they're very effective and very important right now. They're about an eighth of the total force.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about your own future there? I mean, you had, I thought it was some six months when I left there in April. Put to rest this rumor that you were called back by Sec. Gen. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, because he wasn't happy with the way the mission was being carried out. What did he -- is that true?

ADM. HOWE: I don't think that's true. We had planned for me to come back in August or September. This is a good time before the General Assembly for me to come back and also to go to Washington and perhaps talk to some congressmen and the executive. That's the whole purpose. I needed to come back. The last time I was here was in late April, just before the decision about the United Nations taking over from Unitaf. And so I've had good meetings today with the firm five of the Security Council, with the two contributing nations, and others.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did you see Boutros-Ghali?

ADM. HOWE: Yes, I saw him yesterday. In fact, we were meeting until 9 o'clock last night.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And did he tell you he was happy with the way things were going?

ADM. HOWE: Well, we have lots to discuss, and it's a challenging mission.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But did he give you any of his own views about how he felt? I mean, is he pleased with what you're doing?

ADM. HOWE: I think -- well, he'll have to say that, himself. I think that there are lots of issues we need to discuss. None of us are satisfied with the resources we've had for the police, the resources for humanitarian recovery. There are additional troops that we need. We have lots of challenges. This is the first chapter seven operation for the United Nations.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

ADM. HOWE: And so there's a lot to discuss.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But do you go to Washington --

ADM. HOWE: But we're determined to do the job.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: -- feeling that you have his vote of confidence?

ADM. HOWE: Well, certainly. And any time that I don't, or any time that someone thinks I'm a liability, I'm history immediately and happily. But in the interim while I can serve and be of use, then I'm determined to do that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Adm. Howe, thank you.

ADM. HOWE: Thanks a lot, Charlayne.

MS. WARNER: To discuss whether US troops should stay in Somalia, we are joined by Sen. Hank Brown, a Republican from Colorado and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's in Chicago. With us here in Washington is Sen. Paul Simon, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs. Ted Galen Carpenter is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. And Randall Robinson is executive director of TransAfrica, a lobbying group that monitors US policy in Africa. Sen. Brown, let me start with you. You've heard Adm. Howe just say that our objectives are clear, our purposes are noble, and it's a mission that can succeed. Is that the way it looks to you in the Senate, or to your constituents?

SEN. BROWN: Well, the admiral's right in terms of saying our purposes are nobel, but our objectives are anything but clear. The troops were first sent there. They said they'd be out in 30 days. Now, nine months later, they're saying it might be two years, and there's no commitment on that. And as a matter of fact, Sec. Aspin's guidelines are not clear at all. Of the six of them, three of them are open-ended. And the problem here is that we still don't have clear objectives and clear guidelines, and it's part of the tragedy that's unfolding in Somalia, where US troops are firing on civilians. What we need here are clear guidelines and some way to extract our troops when those jobs are done.

MS. WARNER: Sen. Simon, you've been a support of maintaining the US effort in Somalia. Is there something to what Sen. Brown is saying?

SEN. SIMON: Well, I think our general objective is very clear if we want to establish a government there. That does not mean that we can't improve things. I think it would be just disastrous for us to -- and I'm not suggesting that he is suggesting this -- just to pull out. I think it would be de-stabilizing in the rest of the world. But I do believe there is some validity to the Italian criticism. One of the lessons that we got out of World War II, unfortunately, was you demolish an enemy. That traditionally is not how you achieve peace in an area. You negotiate with the enemy. It is how the peace -- if we can call it that -- in the Middle East was achieved Monday on the White House lawn. Two sides negotiate it. I think that we ought to maintain a firm military posture to protect the roads and protect the Mogadishu airport, but I also think that we ought to be negotiating with Aidid. He represents - - whether we like it or not -- represents about one-quarter of the population there in Mogadishu. We have to recognize that political reality.

MS. WARNER: Well, Randall Robinson, if you were advising the President on foreign policy on this problem, what would you tell him to do now, now that he's faced with a Senate resolution calling on him to set these goals and objectives? What would be your advice to him?

MR. ROBINSON: We have to stay in. I think we have to behave differently, but we have to stay in. We have in the world 14 United Nations peacekeeping operations, with 80,000 troops from 74 countries. If we pull out, the UN peacekeeping effort in Somalia fails, and it affects the entire region, not just Somalia. There are 500,000 Somali refugees in Ethiopia. It will affect Eritrea. It will affect Kenya. It will de-stabilize the entire region and will demoralize peacekeeping efforts all across the globe. If we don't want to police the world in the post Cold War era, we will have to cooperate with the United Nations. Now, I think we've made a good many mistakes here. I think Adm. Howe and Amb. Glaspie, his political adviser, indicated a preference for Mr. Aidid's political opponents before June 5th, and the killing of the Pakistanis, and indicated their hostility to Mr. Aidid at the same time, refused to go to meet with him, as Amb. Oakley had done, and Mr. Aidid began to feel that he was going to be unilaterally disarmed. Disarmament has to be across-the-board. Like it or not, Mr. Aidid is a hero to many Somalis because he came back from being ambassador to India to fight against the Siad Bari regime that we had propped up for some years with 887 million dollars in American assistance, 200 million dollars in arms. So we have a responsibility, and we have to negotiate with Mr. Aidid. We have to bring him back into the process. If we don't, disaster is ahead.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Carpenter, Adm. Howe said in his speech today he wasn't interested in negotiating with Aidid. Do you think that's the problem, how to handle Aidid, that that's the difficulty here?

MR. CARPENTER: No. I think that's one of the main fantasies of US policy in Somalia, that Gen. Aidid is the devil figure, and if we just get rid of him, everything will work well. What we're finding out in Somalia is much the same lesson that we should have found out in Vietnam and Lebanon, and that is that nation building cannot be achieved at the point of the US bayonets. We went into Somalia supposedly for a very limited, humanitarian mission. Those of us who opposed that initial intervention were warned that we would get caught up in the underlying, very complex, political struggle of that country. That is precisely what has happened. Now we hear calls that we can't withdraw, our credibility is at stake. We're setting a precedent here for our policy in the post Cold War era. This is, again, the same kind of mentality, the inability to cut our losses while the losses are still relatively small. Instead, we are going to get sucked into a larger and larger quagmire and probably be forced to withdraw months or years down the road when American casualties have risen significantly.

MS. WARNER: Well, Sen. Brown, do you agree that -- to cut our losses now, they're relatively small losses, as Mr. Carpenter says?

SEN. BROWN: Well, they are small losses, but they're important. The big lesson here though is, is not that. The suggestion that we ought to occupy every country in the world that has problems maintaining civil order is a tragedy. We don't have the resources. We don't have the personnel, and most important, we don't have the temperament to be an occupying power. The fact is we've never spelled out clearly what our mission is. Our purposes are noble, but we ought to spell out what it is, and then we ought to get out of the country as quickly as we can. We are not designed, nor equipped, nor are we able to be an occupying power. And that's really a tragedy because without clear leadership from the President, you could well see the United States repeat the tragedy of Vietnam or of Lebanon or of other areas, where we both antagonized the people in Somalia, and as you've seen of recent, as well as not achieve a goal that's very humane in our purpose.

MS. WARNER: If we turn to this -- go ahead, Sen. Simon. I was going to ask, what do you think it'll take from the President in the way of stating goals that will be enough to get key congressional support for this?

SEN. SIMON: Well, I think we can clarify goals but that's really not the problem. The reality is we have to be part of the community of nations. George Bush's finest hour was when he said, let's go in and see that two million plus people don't starve to death. And then we recognized there would have to be a residual United States force, along with the community of nations, to build some stability there. For us just to hightail it out would be wrong but the President of the United States and I think Adm. Howe and Gen. Powell and others have to recognize this is not going to be solved militarily.

MS. WARNER: If I can ask you about the politics of this, what do you think are really the President's options now?

SEN. SIMON: Oh, I think the President just has to say, we're going to do what's right. And I think that is always the best option. And I think the best option is to say we're going to stick with the other nations that came to Somalia. The admiral said 30 - - my knowledge 24 -- whatever number -- for us -- after asking these other nations to come in -- for us to hightail it out would send the wrong message and not only in that region but a few months ago I was in Armenia and Azerbaijan, talking to the leaders in both sides, trying to say, well, maybe have a UN force or bring some stability. This would send precisely the wrong message. But we can't solve it solely militarily. Randall Robinson is absolutely right. We have to sit down and negotiate.

SEN. BROWN: I think what you see here is a tragedy unfolding. We went into Somalia originally to relieve the hunger. When that mission was finished or at least started, then we took on other missions and now more. And now we're talking about capturing the warlord. We're talking about destroying civil order. We're not even talking about limiting our exposure to two years. What you're really looking it is --

SEN. SIMON: We need to put --

SEN. BROWN: -- the US becoming an occupying power. That will be a tragedy.

MS. WARNER: But let me just ask you one other thing, Senator. You haven't told me yet whether you think if the President wants to stay that the Congress will really withdraw the funds or refuse to let American troops stay. I mean, if it comes to that, where do you think Congress would be?

SEN. BROWN: I think initially Congress is going to try and back the President. But I think Congress is going to insist on some limit, some clearly definable goal that sets a limit as to how long we'll be there without that. If you go into an open-ended area, it will be a tragedy in the making, as it's already started to do.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Robinson, let me ask you, it seems to me that the US goal right now is clearly to get Aidid, as Adm. Howe has said. If the US UN force were to get Aidid, would the situation calm down there --

MR. ROBINSON: No.

MS. WARNER: -- from what you know?

MR. ROBINSON: No, I think it'd worsen. You'd have a conflagration. First of all, his people would fight on without him. Secondly, there's every indication to Somalis that there never was any public investigation. There never has been described the tribunal before which he would be brought. There never has been indicated the law, the body of law pursuant to which he would be, be tried. If were apprehended and killed, it would exacerbate matters greatly in that country. He was elected by his sub-clan, more or less, democratically. And he represents, like him or not, a lot of people. And he was not beyond the pale until shortly before the June 5th incident about which we're talking. It would be a major mistake to do that. We need to use diplomacy, not military might, in this instance.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Carpenter, do you think that if Aidid was captured, the US can declare victory and get out?

MR. CARPENTER: Well, I wish the United States would get out in any case. What worries me the most is precisely what Sen. Simon says. He sees this has a precedent for US foreign policy in the post Cold War era. And, indeed, one can ask if we intervene in Somalia, where won't we intervene? One can make just as good a case for an intervention in Sudan, in Angola, in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, and many other places where human tragedies are taking place. This is a blueprint for squandering American lives and resources around the world and conflicts that have absolutely nothing to do with the security interests of the United States. And I find it appalling that a United States Senator would wish to risk the lives of American military personnel in such a grandiose and pretentious mission.

MS. WARNER: Grandiose and pretentious?

SEN. SIMON: Grandiose and pretentious. To say that we do not have a security interest when more than two people -- two million people may starve to death and here we are the only leading power in the world and we would just sit by and twiddle our thumbs, if you don't think that would cause some problems in the world, and send all the wrong messages, obviously it would. We have to work with the community of nations, and that means from time to time we're going to have to deal in a world that is not risk free, and we're going to have to do some things that sometimes are tough. But we ought to be careful and not think because we have a lot of military might that military answers alone are going to provide the answers. I think that is a mistake that's being made. There is too much emphasis on capturing Aidid. I think Randall Robinson may be correct -- I'm not sure -- that if you capture Aidid, that it won't make any difference. I think the, the changes are reasonably good that he is correct because you have the clan and sub-clan structure there, and if he were to disappear, if he were to go to Eritrea tomorrow, someone else would emerge as a leader.

MS. WARNER: Now, what about --

MR. ROBINSON: I think it's useful to add, if I can add --

MS. WARNER: Well, I hate to cut you off, but before we close, I have to ask what President Carter's involvement in this, former President Carter -- he got a letter from Mr. Aidid offering to go to a third country while a fact finding mission came in and look at the situation -- does that sound like a reasonable, something the US Government should be pursuing?

MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think it is. I think the Ethiopians and the Eritreans have indicated that's a real possibility, to persuade Mr. Aidid to leave the country and to accept some tribunal. In response to what Mr. Carpenter said, I think it's important to add that Somalia was a working society for thousands of years until we turned it into a Cold War proxy fight. We loaded Somalia up with weapons, the very weapons that are there today now used by these militia leaders. And so we have a responsibility because those weapons weren't there before the Soviets brought them, and we brought them.

MR. CARPENTER: Randall, you've made the perfect case for US intervention in Afghanistan, Angola, and a number of other places, just as readily as Somalia.

MR. ROBINSON: We simply cannot retreat from the world.

MR. CARPENTER: Nobody's suggesting we do that.

MS. WARNER: There's one other place that the President may, may want to send troops, peacekeeping troops, and that, of course, is Bosnia. And in an interview in the Post this weekend, he sort of mused that it might be hard to get that authorization through Congress if he's still in Somalia. Do you agree, Sen. Simon?

SEN. SIMON: It's a very, very different situation in Bosnia.

MS. WARNER: But I mean, can he get it -- politically, can he get both? Can he have both?

SEN. SIMON: Well, if you're talking about ground troops being authorized in Bosnia, I think the answer is no, unless you have peace established. And I would oppose that, myself. But Somalia, you have a very different situation. In response to your earlier question, I think it would be great if we get President Carter involved. He is respected by all factions. He has done just absolutely magnificent work all over the world, Central America, Africa, and Asia. I think his involvement will be a great place.

MS. WARNER: So you think that it's all right to, I mean, indirectly deal with Aidid in that sense?

SEN. SIMON: I think you have to. I think you have to recognize there will not be a military solution. We ought to keep the military there, absolutely, but you're going to have to negotiate your way out of this thing.

SEN. BROWN: I think one thing that we've got to look at is it clearly complicates Yugoslavia if we have occupying forces in Somalia. Ultimately the question of whether we're a humane country or not, I think Americans are going to decide we want to help others. But there's another question here, and that's after we've had people, after we've met the emergency, should the US leave its troops in another country as an occupying force to administer another country? If we've learned anything in Lebanon and perhaps Vietnam, it's that our forces are not well used that way. Americans don't respond well to this kind guerrilla warfare, and to have the US assume the burden of managing other countries I think as a step beyond simply humanitarian politics will be a dire mistake for this nation to accept that burden.

SEN. SIMON: We didn't do too badly in Germany and Japan, and let's face it, there will have to be a two or three-year period until things are set up. There is a little bit of talk about a UN trusteeship for this period. But we ought to be working with the community of nations to stabilize the world. The great threat is no longer world communism. The great threat to the world is instability.

MS. WARNER: Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. I'm afraid that's all the time we have for now.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, health care reform for small businesses, and a Richard Rodriguez essay. FOCUS - SALES PITCH

MR. MacNeil: Health care reform is next. President Clinton met with small business owners today to discuss his health care reform plan. One of the most controversial proposals would require all businesses to pay 80 percent of their employees' health insurance premiums. Here's an excerpt from the meeting held in a Washington hardware store.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What we tried to do was to come up with a plan that would require every employer and employee to contribute something, would give, would have a cap of 7.9 percent of payroll as a maximum that anyone could be required to pay, would provide some subsidies for employers with under 50 full-time employees, which means you could have more if some of them were part-time, all the way down to 3 1/2 percent of payroll, depending on the wage rates, and would lower the cost increases of health insurance to all Americans. The most controversial aspect of this is requiring all employers and employees to contribute some portion of the cost of health care. The problem is if you don't do that, it's going to be very hard to get costs under control, because unless everybody contributes, there will always be a lot of cost shifting in the system. That adds a lot of administrative costs. It also means that the people who are paying for health insurance are paying more than they would otherwise pay because they alone pay for the infrastructure of health care. And they -- you know -- the hospitals, the clinics, the people there -- and they alone pay for the emergency rooms and the uncompensated care in that regard. So we're trying to work this out in a fair way that's bearable, but I believe it will aid the American economy, will help small business growth, if we do it properly.

ROBERT WALLACE: Bob Wallace, Arizona Sun from Scottsdale, Arizona. My employees, in particular, and employees I've talked with other companies are mainly concerned for themselves that if they have to pay 20 percent out of their pocket, where are they going to get the money to pay this 20 percent out of their pocket, when they're just barely making it as it is?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Most employees with modest wages will not be paying a great deal for their health care. If they get sick and have to get health care without any insurance, they may face a much bigger bill. Meanwhile, all the people who are paying something for their health care are, in effect, paying to keep the infrastructure of health care there for them. If I were to propose to you, for example, the following proposition, that it is unfair to make some people pay the gas tax because it's tough on them, there would be a riot in this country because people think that we should all pay for the infrastructure of the highways, but there is an infrastructure of health care. And those of you who pay something for your health care pay for it. You have paid just to have the hospitals there and the emergency room there, and the doctors there when someone else needs it.

PEDRO ALFONSO, Computer Consultant: As you speak, it seems like the numbers don't really add up. As all these new people come on board and come on line with health care, small business are going to have to take the weight on, on much of that. Many small businesses now, you talk about premiums coming down, but certainly as the health care program is mandated on small businesses, their level of coverage will come up, families would have to be covered, and many small businesses in this particular economy that hasn't totally rebounded we're asking to be more competitive in a global economy, and we're looking at really adding on 30 to 50 percent more in health care costs to many of the small businesses in this country, and that's going to be difficult.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, I think the numbers do add up. Some small businesses will pay more, plainly. Those who aren't paying anything, and those who are paying less than they would otherwise pay under the initial premium set, unless we're able to -- this is our estimate -- unless in the bargaining power they'll even be able to bargain for lower prices which is conceivable. Keep in mind, we proposed for the government to cover the uninsured who are unemployed. We believe you can't get costs under control and stop cost shifting unless you have some means of insuring everybody else. We believe employers should do something, that there are those who may have to pay more because their premiums are quite low, and we're going to increase the coverage substantially. But, but all of our surveys show that is a distinct minority of the people who provide insurance now, that many people who provide insurance now will actually get unbelievably lower premiums and more coverage. But some will pay more. I don't want to minimize that. Some will. What I think all of you are going to have to do, is two things: You're going to have to read the plan when you get the details, when we finally produce it, and say, how's this going to affect me, and can I live with it, and then you're going to have to say, how will it affect the small business sector of the economy as a whole, and are we net better off? And more importantly, I would argue to you, that even those of you -- let's suppose there's an employer here in this group who will go from 6 percent of payroll to 7.9 percent of payroll. If you look at where you've come in the last five years, if we don't do something to bring these costs under control, you're facing one of two decisions. You're either going to have to drop your coverage altogether, with all the attendant insecurities and anxieties and problems that presents for your employees, or you're going to have to go, or your costs are going to go through the roof. My argument is that in five years from now even the people who pay slightly more now will be better because the overall system's cost will be controlled for the first time, and we're not going to be strangled with it. That's why we try to at least do a phase-in for the smaller employers.

ALLAN DARYL ROUTZAHN, Retailer: I support your efforts to control health care costs and believe that market-based reforms are needed. However, we cannot finance your proposed 7.9 percent payroll cap on the backs of small business without job loss. A mandate will hurt our struggling economy. Being in a family business for over 39 years and offering health benefits to our employees 35 years -- 35 of those 39 years, in the past 18 months, my company has gone from 300 employees with fifteen stores, to 95 employees with five stores today. My health care cost under your current plan will triple. Mr. President, small business cannot afford this plan. Eliminating jobs and tripling my cost will not work in today's economy.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: How can it possibly triple your health care costs?

ALLAN DARYL ROUTZAHN: We're paying currently about 2.9.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: To do what?

ALLAN DARYL ROUTZAHN: For a major medical benefit of payroll.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: What does it cover?

ALLAN DARYL ROUTZAHN: What are they covering?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Hmm Mmm.

ALLAN DARYL ROUTZAHN: Major medical 80/20, catastrophic care.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, we tried to have a catastrophic package remember a few years ago, and the whole country rose up against us. All I can say to you, sir, is that if we don't do something like this, then everybody's going to be going in the same direction you are. I mean, we are looking at a situation now where we're going to give the pay raises of American workers to the health care lobbies. And that's where we are now. If we keep on doing what we're doing, more small businesses will go bankrupt, more people will do without health insurance, we will go down the, you know, we are basically going to give our economic growth to health care for the next seven years if we keep on doing what we're doing. And if we don't require everybody some uniformity of coverage, then everybody will want the lowest common denominator and the government will wind up picking up the bill for all the other health care costs. There is no way we can -- I don't think -- solve every problem. But if there is something we can do for people like between fifty and a hundred employees, if there's something else we need to look at, we ought to do it. But I still believe -- I will say to you -- every study shows -- the National Small Business United Study shows that the vast majority of small business people will come out way ahead economically on this. So the question is: Are we going to lose more jobs doing what we're doing, or are we going to lose more jobs with the alternative? I argue to you that we have killed this economy unconscionably for the last 12 years by letting health care costs go up as they have.

MR. MacNeil: The President will officially unveil his health care reform plan in a speech to Congress next Monday. The Republican alternative does not require businesses to pay for employees' health coverage. It would require companies to offer coverage at the employee's expense. ESSAY - CHANGING FACES

MS. WARNER: Finally tonight, essayist Richard Rodriguez at the Pacific News Service has some thoughts on why racism is not just a black and white issue.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: America's a complicated place, not a black and white country anymore. It's hard for me to resist that conclusion as I walk these streets of Watts south of downtown Los Angeles. Before Americans started talking about south central, Watts was the most famous district of LA, synonymous with black discontent, the fires of 1967. Burn, baby, burn. Today Watts is roughly 47 percent Hispanic. For that matter, south central a few miles away, is 45 percent Hispanic. The black city is turning brown. Demographers predict that within the next 10 years Hispanics will outnumber blacks nationally. Already, the black and white city of Miami has become an Hispanic city. Hispanics now outnumber black in Los Angeles and Houston. In Chicago, Dallas, New York, Hispanic members are growing and growing. It is, admittedly, nonsensical to compare Hispanics to blacks, or to compare Hispanics to whites, for that matter. Hispanics are an ethnic group. Hispanics are not a racial group. There are black Hispanics, as there are blond Hispanics. There are Asian Hispanics. All nationalities and races of the world have settled in Latin America. The majority of Hispanics in the United States are descendants of Mexico, where the majority of our ancestors are Mestizo, a mix of Indian and European. The United States is a country that has formed a sense of race and racism on a black and white checkerboard. The wound of slavery is so deep, the memory of Civil War, the emancipation and struggle for desegregation are central in American memory. Growing up in this country I found it hard to place myself within the conventional black and white dialectic. When blacks and whites argued about racism, it seemed to me they were engaged in a family quarrel to which those of us who were Chinese or East Indians or Mexicans have no part. The other day, driving through this extraordinary new city, I heard a discussion about racism on National Public Radio. Outside my window were billboards and neon signs and faces of Latin America and Asia. On the radio, the moderator blithely assumed racism to mean white against black. And Cornell West, one of the most important black intellectuals in America, insisted on the exclusively black and white debate. If blacks are wary of Hispanic numbers, it is not hard to guess why. Think of Miami. In the 1960s, the black civil rights movie forced white Miami to acknowledge the claims of blacks to a share of political power. But before blacks could advance, Miami had turned spanish-speaking. Look again at the news clips of the Rodney King riots here in LA. Many of the faces in the crowd of looters are Hispanic. In fact, the majority of those arrested were Hispanic. In a way, what happened last year was that Hispanics stole the riot from the city's blacks. For the last three decades, various civil rights groups have copied the black civil rights movement. White middle class families compared their oppression to that of blacks. Homosexuals made the same analogy because racism is the clearest way Americans have of understanding social division. Hispanics in the 1960s insisted we too are victims of racism. In the era of affirmative action, Brown became a third race in America. There are signs of political tensions between blacks and Hispanics today. Jesse Jackson celebrates the new American rainbow. But privately, I hear Hispanics complain that they are closed out of city hall politics when the mayor is black. In New York City, Herman Badillo, the city's most important Puerto Rican politician, has allied himself with the white candidate for mayor against the black incumbent. Here in Los Angeles, we found out last year that there is racism between Koreans and blacks, nothing to do with whites. After the fires died down, black activists pulled Hispanic construction workers off of building sites in south central, their demand, black neighborhoods will be rebuilt with black hands. For decades, what brought tourists to Watts were these beautiful, enigmatic towers constructed by an Italian immigrant named Sebastiano Rodeo. These sculptures were his gift to America. City bureaucrats wanted to tear them down. Neighborhood thugs vandalized them. Finally, the old man moved away, abandoned his sculptures. The white neighborhood turned black, now brown. America's a complicated place. I'm Richard Rodriguez. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories this Thursday, President Clinton began a campaign to sell his soon-to-be-announced health care reform plan. He said some Americans will have to pay more for insurance so that everyone can be covered. And Bosnians, Serbs, and Muslims signed an agreement that could clear the way for a settlement in the country's civil war. Good night, Robin.

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