The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, we have a discussion about what could and should be done about the tragedy in Rwanda, a Newsmaker interview with the President of South Africa, F.W. DeKlerk, and our regular Friday night political analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: United Nations officials are describing it as the largest and fastest human exodus they've ever witnessed. Hundreds of thousands of people are this evening attempting to escape the killing ground in the African nation of Rwanda. As many as a hundred thousand people have already been slaughtered in just three weeks of ethnic fighting and there appears to be no end in sight. U.N. officials report lines of refugees stretching five miles long streaming into neighboring Tanzania. Another 50,000 people are said to be waiting at just one border crossing. Meanwhile, medical relief officials warned that rotting corpses were fouling water supplies and there was now a serious risk of cholera and other epidemics. Most foreigners and UN personnel have already fled Rwanda. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Polls closed today in the first all-race elections in South Africa. The only polling stations open today were in the six former black homelands where problems had prevented many voters from casting ballots earlier. Vote counting begins tomorrow, and the outcome is expected to make Nelson Mandela South Africa's first black president. We'll have a Charlayne Hunter-Gault interview with current President DeKlerk later in the program. Israel signed an economic agreement today with the PLO concerning Palestinian autonomy in Jericho and the Gaza Strip. We have a report narrated by David Symonds of Worldwide Television News.

DAVID SYMONDS, WTN: The signing of the Israeli economic accord was the fruit of six months of tough negotiations. Israeli Finance Minister Avraham Shochat and the PLO's Ahmed Qurei signed the document 90 minutes after the talks ended. The agreement gives the Palestinians broad trade, tax, and finance authority under self- rule, but it doesn't create a Palestinian currency and limits some imports. In Tel Aviv, U.S. Sec. of State Warren Christopher met Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. With the Israeli- PLO self-rule accord scheduled for signing next Wednesday, attention turned to reviving Israeli-Syrian talks. Israel views peace with its neighbors, especially Syria, as the next big step forward.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: With the signing ceremony in Cairo next Wednesday, it's clear that Israel and the Palestinians will be embarking on a new road, a new venture together.

YITZHAK RABIN, Prime Minister, Israel: I know that now you will go to other Arab countries, especially to Syria, in an effort to revive the peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Christopher said later he was going to Syria with some new ideas from Israel over the disputed Golan Heights.

MR. MAC NEIL: Treasury Sec. Bentsen said today the U.S. had intervened in foreign exchange markets to prop up the dollar. The action was taken as the dollar approached a record low against the yen, reflecting the continuing trade deficit with Tokyo. In other economic news, the government reported personal income of Americans rose .6 percent in march, while consumer spending group .4 percent. A separate report showed new home sales rose more than 11 percent in March. The Ford Motor Company reported it earned $904 million in the first quarter. It followed similarly strong reports from Chrysler and GM. The Teamsters Union has reached a tentative settlement with trucking companies in a three-week-old strike. The deal was reached after the companies agreed to restrict the use of lower paid, part-time workers. The union said it will temporarily suspend its strike while its members vote on the new pact.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton established a new relationship today between the federal government and the nation's 545 recognized American Indian tribes. Governors, presidents, and chairmen representing more than 200 tribes were at the White House for the signing of a presidential order. President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and other administration officials heard Indian concerns on issues from religious freedom to economic opportunity. One tribal leader said it was the first meeting of its kind since President James Monroe met with Indian leaders in 1822. President Clinton had this to say.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In every relationship between our people, our first principle must be to respect your right to remain who you are and to live the way you wish to live. And I believe the best way to do that is to acknowledge the unique government-to-government relationship we have enjoyed over time. Today I reaffirm our commitment to self-determination for tribal governments. [applause] Clinton pledged to fulfill the trust obligations of the federal government. I vow to honor and respect tribal sovereignty based upon our unique historic relationship. And I pledge to continue my efforts to protect your right to fully exercise your fate as you wish.

MR. LEHRER: The state of California filed a $2 billion lawsuit against the federal government today. The state claims that is the cost of keeping illegal immigrants in prison. A similar suit was filed recently by the state of Florida. Other states are expected to do the same. In addition to prison costs, the states say they deserve federal reimbursement for health care, education, and other services to illegals.

MR. MAC NEIL: CIA Director James Woolsey said today a review of internal agency security will move full speed ahead in the wake of yesterday's guilty pleas in the Ames spy scandal. Former CIA official Aldrich Ames and his wife pleaded "guilty" to spying for the Soviet Union and Russia from 1985 until this year. Woolsey said the CIA's inspector general can now pursue an investigation without fear of jeopardizing a trial. During a speech to the American Bar Association in Washington, he promised to heed the findings.

JAMES WOOLSEY, CIA Director: When the inspector general's investigation is completed, I'll hold people accountable to take action where it's appropriate. I've already frozen promotions and awards for a certain number of individuals pending the outcome of our reviews. But I will not espouse the judicial philosophy of the Red Queen and Alice in Wonderland, sentenced first, verdict after. This process we undertake will be thorough but it will be fair. Our people work hard. They often risk their lives for their country. They deserve reasoned judgment, not snap calls.

MR. MAC NEIL: Woolsey added that the CIA was already planning a number of security changes involving revisions in polygraph procedures and obtaining better access to employees' financial records.

MR. LEHRER: Pope John Paul broke a thigh bone in a fall last night. Doctors today reported the 73-year-old pontiff was in excellent condition after a two-hour operation. The top portion of the bone was replaced with an artificial one. The Pope is expected to be bedridden for several weeks and undergo a long period of physical therapy. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the tragedy of Rwanda, South Africa President DeKlerk, and Shields and Gigot. FOCUS - R - INTERNAL AFFAIRS

MR. MAC NEIL: First tonight, the horrors of Rwanda, a tiny African nation caught up in a devastating civil and tribal war. As we just reported, one of the greatest mass migrations in history is going on there as hundreds of thousands try to flee warfare and the slaughter that has cost at least a hundred thousand lives in three weeks' time. What can the outside world, including the United States, do to stop the killing? We'll take up that question after this backgrounder.

MR. MAC NEIL: Until three weeks ago, most Americans probably would have had difficulty locating Rwanda on a map, but a spasm of violence erupted on April 7th in the capital Kigali propelling Rwanda into the headlines. While army soldiers clashed with rebels, much of the violence was carried out by gangs of armed thugs using clubs and machetes. Most of the victims have been civilians. Many were women and children. Nearly all lost their lives simply because they were Tutsis, members of the minority tribe in Rwanda. Foreign aid workers who escaped told horrifying tales of the carnage.

ANNE MACKINTOSH, OXFAM: They found the family of a Tutsi nurse, a male nurse, and killed seven members of that family in a matter of minutes, including a three-year-old child, a little boy, whose head was split open with a machete blow, and a pregnant woman.

MR. MAC NEIL: Of Rwanda's 8 million people, about 85 percent are Hutus. Just under 15 percent are Tutsis. Hutus dominate the government, but since the 1960s, they've clashed repeatedly with Tutsis, who have formed a large rebel force called the Rwandan Patriotic Force, or the RFF. This latest and by far worst violence between the tribes followed the downing of a plane carrying the country's president. Belgian investigators believe it was shot down by members of the army angry at the proposed inclusion of Tutsis in the government. Foreigners, including most aid workers, fled the country shortly after the violence began. Western troops arrived in the country for evacuations but did not remain afterward. The U.N. has also ordered nearly all of its 2400 peacekeepers deployed after a cease-fire last year to pull out. An estimated 1.3 million people have been displaced, including half the population of the capital. It is not just violence the refugees are fleeing now but a threat of starvation and disease from corpses fouling the water supply. U.N. and aid officials have begun to call it a campaign of genocide, a systematic attempt to rid the country of Tutsis. The U.S. and other countries have strongly condemned the killing but so far have been unable or unwilling to stop it.

CHRISTINE SHELLY, State Department Spokeswoman: [Yesterday] We are calling upon all of those in the government and military to bring these kind of savage acts to an end.

REPORTER: When you say that those savage acts will not be tolerated, what do you mean exactly? Is there a threat there?

CHRISTINE SHELLY: We are certainly intensifying efforts within the international community to assess the situation to be sure that we know as best as we can exactly what the facts are and then to try to determine what is the -- what are the best ways in which the international community can try to bring their influence to bear on those on the ground who are perpetrating these acts.

MR. LEHRER: Now, five further perspectives on what can be done to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. Lawrence Eagleburger was Secretary of State when the United States sent troops into Somalia; David Rawson, a career foreign service officer, is the current U.S. ambassador to Rwanda, he led the evacuation of Americans from there on April 10th; Herman Cohen was Assistant Secretary of State fore Africa in the Bush administration, he's now with a private Global Coalition for Africa; Congressman Donald Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Clifford Alexander, a Washington attorney, was Secretary of the Army in the Carter administration. First, Sec. Eagleburger, does the outside world have the responsibility to stop the killing in Rwanda?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: I don't know the answer to that, Jim. Well, the answer is in a general way, obviously, yes, but when you get to the serious questions of how, I think it is very difficult to come up with some answers. I hope we'll talk about it more as time goes on, but my sense of it right now is whether Bosnia or Rwanda or Abkhazia, the world simply is not organized to deal with these things, and it is more than time that we all got together and started to talk about how we can. I don't see how we can stop the killing right now in Rwanda.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Payne, do you think there's anything that the outside world could do even if it wanted to to stop it right now?

REP. PAYNE: Well, I think that we have to certainly continue to be engaged. I believe that the United Nations pulled out totally. I would hope that they would be in a surrounding country where negotiations and diplomatic talks can continue to go on. I do feel that there is a role for the world in this carnage.

MR. LEHRER: And what is that role?

REP. PAYNE: Well, I believe that pressure should be brought to bear on the leadership that's creating the problem. Now, you say, well, how do you do that when it's bands of people moving around? In every situation, regardless to how chaotic it is, there are some leaders, there are some people with influence. Even in Burundi, there should be some discussions hopefully to even contain the situation there which could be just equally as, as terrible, because the situation is the same. Once again though, it's too little that has happened too late. These situations have been brewing for decades, and the world sat by and allowed these tensions to grow to the point where we have this massive chaos today. Amb. Rawson, as a practical matter, what do you think the outside world could do if the will was there, and you said, okay, you were given the assignment for plotting the strategy for the outside world to go in there and stop what was going on, what would you tell the world to do?

AMB. RAWSON: Well, I think we've got to be engaged with the leadership that there's on the ground talking to them, telling them that the massacres must stop, that there must be a cease-fire, that the violence in Rwanda has got to stop. At the same time, we need to be talking to all the concerned leaders who are around this country and whose interests are most directly at stake in what's happening there, and to the OAU, as a regional body, which has the first call in what ought to be done there.

MR. LEHRER: But if you tell the leaders to stop the massacring, what incentive is there for them to do it once you tell 'em to stop? I assume they've already been told that by outside leaders.

AMB. RAWSON: The have, indeed. We have been talking to them on the telephone. They've been told that many times. The only incentive is to somehow convince them that their interests are better served by peace than they are by continued violence.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Cohen, do you have a practical solution to this?

SEC. COHEN: I think emotions have been so whipped up into such a frenzy of ethnic hatred and fear going on right now that it's too late for diplomacy. It just can't work. Neither side in this fighting can bear to stop fighting until the last man is dead. I think the only way to do anything now is a massive infusion of UN troops, and I think it would stop -- it would take between five and ten thousand -- and I think the only thing standing in the way of that is money. There are plenty of African governments willing to send troops, plenty of other governments and other continents. There's no need for American troops, but I think that would do it. It's the only way now.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, do you agree with that, that five to ten thousand outside troops from the United Nations could put a stop to this?

AMB. RAWSON: You'd have to ask what their mandate is. We had 2500 UN troops there in a peacekeeping role. They were not able to exercise force and to stop this thing from boiling over. So they would have to be there clearly in some other mandate. They would have to have the right to use force in this situation but an insertion of force into this area under some auspices, international auspices, might be an equation that would work. Clearly though, we would have to talk to the neighbors around who are concerned most intimately with this and to the OAU about how they see this issue. We cannot do this without them.

MR. LEHRER: Cliff Alexander, why, why has there been so little outcry in this country about -- so little protest, so little public notice given to this incredible tragedy in Rwanda?

MR. ALEXANDER: Well, I would say that -- as preparing for this show, I found out that there were 5,000 soldiers in the Rwandan army. I have no idea if that's true or not. I would guess most Americans have no idea how many there are. Rwanda in some sense is a flavor of the month for us. We do not in this country -- because we don't teach history well -- we don't think in terms of where nations fit in a world pattern or in our pattern, know a darned thing about most of subsaharan Africa, with the one exception of South Africa, and that's something of a perverted view. We have not -- when I went to school and was an American government major, they told us that we should think about the economic and security interests of the United States in setting foreign policy. There was no dimension that had to do with whether people were getting slaughtered. There was no dimension that had to do with whether people were starving to death. We've never learned that in this country. We've never seen that in our own interest. We'd like to think of ourselves as Americans, as compassionate. We'd like to think of ourselves as able to order the world, but we cannot do that. We cannot, unfortunately, sit here, as horrible as those pictures are, and give a solution that makes any darn sense, I don't think, because we have failed to train ourselves. We failed to train ourselves as we came through school; we failed to train ourselves in the media how to cover these things or what things to cover. So there is an extraordinary arbitrary nature to what we have an interest in, and it is not the number of bodies, because we certainly cover many areas where --

MR. LEHRER: It isn't the number of bodies?

MR. ALEXANDER: It has nothing to do with the number of bodies. If you look at what happened in Ireland and in the Middle East where there certainly has been carnage, it has nothing to do with a hundred thousand people that allegedly have been killed in Rwanda. When this whole situation heated up and two presidents were killed, on the evening news none of the stations knew the names of those presidents with all of their track research staffs, none of them. All of them, including in Time Magazine and many other places, refer to the struggles in Africa and African nations as tribal warfare. There are probably 120 tribes in Chicago. All of these things are the same thing. But we put a certain connotation to this, and that spin that we put on it has to do with how we think about it.

MR. LEHRER: You say that the United States doesn't do anything. We did a similar -- Somalia under Sec. Eagleburger. We went almost 30,000 troops there in a similar situation.

MR. ALEXANDER: I sit next to the expert, but I don't think it's a similar situation, and we'll see if he agrees with me.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. You don't see it as a similar situation?

MR. ALEXANDER: Not at all. I think that what the motivation there was -- was a much clearer one from the point of view of what our, what our reason for going was. We saw starvation. It was pointed out to us. We could say we should have got it earlier.

MR. LEHRER: Those pictures were on the nightly news.

MR. ALEXANDER: Those pictures were on the nightly news, and I assume his administration reacted to them as most other administrations would have as well. This is a slaughter, and we don't know. I mean, I don't think it has anything to do with starvation, but I really do not know. My only contact with that part of the world -- and I've been a few places -- was going to Uganda 25 years ago and being near Lake Victoria. I would say most Americans as the piece indicated could not find this country on the map. And then all of a sudden you say to them you have some interest in following this. As human beings, we ought to equate the horrible slaughter with something that we have an interest in, but whether having an interest means we can do something is another question.

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Eagleburger, speak to the question of interest as drawn by Cliff Alexander.

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: Well, it's tough. Do you have aninterest in preventing slaughter? Does the United States have it? Of course, we do. Then you get immediately to the question of what are the means available, what are the dangers of loss to Americans in the process? I don't think you can answer the question so easily that way anymore. My problem with this whole discussion, and we should talk to the leaders and so forth, is all of this now is being handled on an ad hoc basis, which is what we did with Somalia. I'm not blaming anybody for it. But here's my point. Nobody knows where Rwanda and Burundi are. Do they know where Abkhazia is? Most of 'em don't know where Armenia is. These kinds of problems are not unique to Africa, God knows. We do know about where Bosnia is because we had it blasted at us for the last two years, and because it's in Europe for some reason or another, it is viewed by some as more unique. My view has always been we should be very careful about getting involved at all, but my fundamental point is we are now in a world where these kinds of problems are going to arise time and time again, and it is more than time that the civilized western world through the UN or whatever way you want sat down together and said, we have got to find common ways to begin to deal with these kinds of problems. As it is now, because you're doing something on Rwanda tonight, we're discussing it. Tomorrow it will be Bosnia again, and these kinds of cases are going to go on all over the world. And the fact of the matter is that none of us are organized in the way that even if we want to deal with these problems and even if we know where they are, the means are not available. I can't tell you how we would move troops into Burundi. Maybe we can, whether the U.S. or not isn't the issue, but there are a whole host of questions that have to be answered before you can get specific about what we should do. I will say one thing. It seems to me in the case of Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, all of these cases, if, in fact, we intend to stop the slaughter in most cases it will require the use of force by somebody to do it. I don't think we could stop it in Burundi now without the use of force. If we decide we must deal with these cases, then we're going to have to be prepared to put our money where our mouth is internationally, not just the U.S., and we're not prepared even to do that at this stage.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Payne, do you agree that there are a lot of steps that have to go before the final decision is made that we haven't even taken yet?

REP. PAYNE: Well, I do think that there -- we're dealing with a whole new world order as we talk about the fact that the iron curtain came down. We were then left with the situation in the world, well, what do we do now? The U.S. is the only guy with the big club. I think we should have moved quickly into developing a new world order. I think that the President of the United States even during the Somalia situation should have had a town hall meeting like he's done on, on health care and other issues, to talk about the new world and the dangers of it. I don't think that a Rwanda -- whether you know where it is or not -- is just one of the normal problem places that we will see. When a hundred thousand people are slaughtered in less than three weeks, that's abnormal. That's a little bit special. That's really not like the 16 Zulus who were killed in downtown Johannesburg, so, therefore, I think in this situation, a special effort -- I agree with Asst. Sec. Cohen -- I think that something could be done. I think that we should mount a, a safe haven where the country could be separated. I think that there are countries in the region through the OAU, the president of Egypt, Mr. Mubarak has already offered us assistance. I think that Salem Salime from the OAU could come together. There could be brought together a force that would at least have safe haven, at least separate the country where people can come on one side as we did in Iraq, as we have done in other places. We cannot continue to have three weeks later a quarter of a million people dead.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, Amb. Rawson, let me ask you this question going back to the question of the roles of the United States and the outside world. As you were sitting there in Kigali and this world was falling apart all around you, did you see it as a problem for the United States of America, you were there as the representative of the most powerful nation in the world, did you say, hey, wait a minute, I got to figure out a solution to this, I got to help my country solve it, or what was going through your mind as the ambassador to that country?

AMB. RAWSON: Well, as the United States ambassador, my first concern has to be with the lives of American citizens. And that point when things broke down, and they broke down very quickly, this is an extraordinary event, with two presidents, that of Burundi and that of Rwanda, being shot down in the same airplane, as things fell apart so very fast, my very first concern had to be how do I get American citizens who were in Rwanda out to safety. I think we did that, but beyond that, then you begin to really be concerned about those who are being targeted, who are being assassinated, and then the communal violence had broke out, and wondering what in the world could be done, particularly since we had a U.N. peacekeeping force there that could do nothing because they didn't have the mandate that permitted them to engage in force.

MR. LEHRER: They didn't have the mandate to try and stop the people from killing each other?

AMB. RAWSON: They were there as a peacekeeping force under a peace arrangement invited by both sides. And when that arrangement broke down, they did not have the authority to use the arms at their disposal in putting down the fighting that was going on.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Cohen, you said maybe five to ten thousand troops could go in there now and stop it. The UN had 2500 there and couldn't be used in that role. That is what Sec. Eagleburger is saying, that there's going to be -- there are going to be some processes that have got to start before they start killing each other, is that right?

SEC. COHEN: Well, Amb. Rawson is right, they didn't have the mandate, but you can give them the mandate. Under the good leadership of Sec. Eagleburger, and I had the privilege of working with him, they had a mandate in Iraq to use force. They had a mandate in Somalia to use force. But right now, there's no leadership calling for that. A couple of days ago, our ambassador to the U.N. said we can't agree to more troops in Rwanda because we can't afford it. That's abysmal. I can't believe she said that.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Alexander, that's the point that I want to come back to on Congressman Payne's point that no matter what is discussed, and as he picked up on your point about Rwanda, it's a country nobody's ever heard of -- his point is, so what, there are a hundred thousand people who are already dead, another quarter of a million trying to get out and thousands more could die, it's a special situation, something should be done, that is his point.

MR. ALEXANDER: Well, the fact is the reason he says that -- besides that he's a fine human being -- is that it's been pointed out by the media, and so the media gets educated, it goes out, and then covers Rwanda, never seeing Rwanda on television before three weeks ago, never, at least in my lifetime. It seems to me we do have to step back from this a little bit and decide whether it is important for this country to hold the media to a certain level of responsibility that it ought to learn about these things, to hold all of us who go to school and then serve in government to learn not just about European history but perhaps about the nations in Africa, to see if there is something beyond economic security and other security interests that should cause us to act. I think in disagreement with Sec. Cohen we -- this administration is no better, no worse, than his administration in reacting to this. Madeleine Albright is no better or no worse than whoever sat at the U.N. during the Bush administration. The level of morality is no damn different today than it was then. Perhaps it's a little better, because I'm a Democrat now than was when he was a Republican, but I think that misses the issue in time, and the issue really is what is it possible and probable for us to do, what is the precedent that we've set? Do we think about these things? Should Warren Christopher be now in the Middle East when this is going on, or should we be in Rwanda? Because those signals will cause ABC, CBS, and NBC to go there. Should Dan Rather be sitting in South Africa for three weeks now? Is it really that important, as dramatic as it all is for him to be there for two weeks? Those are all questions that I think need to be asked.

MR. LEHRER: Some -- another question that has been asked is, all the attention that black political and civil rights leaders have given to Haiti and South Africa, none of them have said anything at all about Rwanda.

MR. ALEXANDER: Well, I think the black element of this or the racial element of this is apparent on two levels. The first level and the most important for the entire country is that because of people who are black or brown, and it applies to many people in South and Central America, we fail to in our better and worse universities teach anybody about it. They don't learn a damn thing about it. Didn't know that there was history before the Greeks, but, in fact, there were. And it would have been nice if we all knew that, so we would have seen what we had in common. The second issue is how that affects the coverage and the interest in countries today where people are different than white-skinned people, and it has a difference. If we acknowledge that about ourselves, and I think we ought to acknowledge that about ourselves first and foremost, then we will say, I think, that there is a difference in interest in what goes on. And that difference then affects how we will respond to what we see on television, especially on television.

MR. LEHRER: Is he right about, Mr. Eagleburger?

SEC. EAGLEBURGER: No. This moral Republican has some problems with all of that. My point is, in the first place, I really wish this could be discussed outside the context of the racial question. I hope I'm just as concerned about dead Rwandans as dead Bosnians and -- because my point about all of this is, this is a problem of -- and again the Congressman has said it -- this is a problem of the new world we are in at least in part. The instabilities that we're going to see and are seeing all around -- around what was the Soviet Union, in the Balkans, and now in Africa, are questions that the world community is going to have to find some new way to deal with it. I think Sec. Cohen has the beginnings of an idea in terms of using African troops with the U.N. in support, and us moving them, if possible, in Burundi. But my problem again is we're doing all of this on an ad hoc basis. Any analysis of where the world is going seems to me says these are going to be problems whether it's in Africa, or, again, Abkhazia, which nobody knows about, but killing goes on there, and what we need to be doing now is sitting down with the rest of the world community and beginning to talk about structures that will begin to be able to deal with these things wherever they occur more effectively than is now the case.

MR. ALEXANDER: How can we deal with those things unless you know the history?

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, we have to go. Thank you all five very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, South African President DeKlerk and Shields and Gigot. NEWSMAKER

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, a Newsmaker interview with South African President F.W. DeKlerk. He does not expect to win his country's historic multiracial election, but he does expect to be a power in the new government. He spoke with Charlayne Hunter-Gault in his campaign office in Pretoria.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President DeKlerk, thank you for joining us.

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK, South Africa: Good evening.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We're at the point where the election is over, and I listened to you in your news conference a few moments ago, and you talked about irregularities and some problems, but I didn't get the impression from your tone of voice that these represented major or serious problems that would lead you to say that the election has not been free and fair.

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: We need this election to achieve what it is meant to achieve and that is to constitute a government of national unity, to get a fully representative parliament chosen by all the people and a technical approach which might result in non- certification of the election carries with it serious negative consequences. We dare not cover up widespread and very serious irregularities. I don't think that that has occurred.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well then, if all goes according to the prediction in just a matter of days now you will soon relinquish the power of the presidency of South Africa to Nelson Mandela. Do you do so with confidence? Do you do so with regret? Do you do so with a sense of fatalism, or what?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: Well, let me first be a bit technical. The new president won't have the same powers that I have. The new president will be leading a government of national unity. If Mr. Mandela is the new president and if his party achieves the highest percentage of the votes, I will be there as the leader of the second biggest party not because he likes me to be there but because I have a constitutional right to be there. I will be representing millions of South Africans who voted for my principles and my program of action.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you won't be No. 1, so let me --

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I won't be No. 1.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How does that set with you?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I won't be No. 2 either. I will be the executive deputy president. I will be playing a decisive and a fundamental and an important role in that government of national unity, but I don't have a sense of fatalism. I worked for this. It is my policy, Mr. Mandela's policy three, four years ago, that we should have a "winner take all" election," we should have the Westminster system, the British system, where with a majority all the power rests just with one party. It was our policy to say let's have power sharing, let's have a partnership. And I'm very glad that we moved them to accept this, because this is what this country needs at the moment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you will not be leading the nation. Have you made the psychological leap to a secondary, albeit possibly powerful position, but have you made that leap?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I don't look a wink of sleep about that. I'm enthusiastic about the future, whatever my role might be.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you see your role as being?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I see my role as bringing to this government of national unity my weaknesses and my strengths, my talents and my faults, but very particularly my experience in government, my knowledge, having served in cabinets since 1978, but more important than that, a commitment to work with leaders of other parties to achieve a five-year period in this nation's history where we rise above typical party political differences, where we take hands, where we say, let us develop joint programs, let us address the needs of our people, but most of all, let us work for reconciliation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What kind of president do you think Nelson Mandela will be?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: He still has to prove himself?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what do you think?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I think he has many of the attributes which a president needs, but he must still be put to the test. It's one thing to be a charismatic leader of a party. It is another thing to also be the chief executive of a country. He will have - - if he becomes president -- all my support as a partner in the government of national unity to ensure that he succeeds also as the chief executive officer.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You want him to succeed?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I want South Africa to succeed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And he must.

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: And for South Africa to succeed, both he and me must continue to succeed.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Have you learned anything from each other? Have you learned anything from him?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: Oh, yes. I think, I think we have achieved firstly a working relationship, a constructive, working relationship. We've achieved mutual respect, and I think we've learned from each other, yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Anything specific that you can think of?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: No. But let me say, yes, he -- what we represent is a reality, an important reality in South Africa. What I represent in public life, which is not white South Africa, which is a specific value system, I will get more votes from non-white South Africans than from white South Africans. I'm the leader of millions of moderate South Africans, but what I represent is another reality. And none of the two realities -- the masses and let's call it a certain extent the establishment -- can survive without each other.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. President, throughout this campaign, you've traveled the length and breadth of the country, been in places you were well received. You've been to places you weren't so well received. You've been to black squatters' camps, homeland areas. Did you see anything in the course of this campaign that causes you to see that world in a different way?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: Yes. That sharpened my sensitivity --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did it make you --

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: -- for their problems. It brought me much near to them. It gave me a true finger on the pulse. I understand the need of our people after this campaign better than I did before.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did you wake up one day and realize that apartheid was wrong? Was there an epiphany or --

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Was this a gradual thing, and do you have any regrets?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I didn't have a Damascus experience. It was a process of me individually and collectively for my party. And it was step by step, and it was a fast process as well. In '86, we adopted the policies which I'm implementing today. It was my privilege in 1989 when I became president to really take up the reins and to start managing this policy of saying one South Africa, one man, one vote, an equal vote for all South Africans, every form of discrimination to be totally removed, nation building, all that. I have no regrets.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: To what extent do you feel that that vision of a new South Africa has filtered down into the ranks of the army, the police, and the largely Afrikaner civil service and to what extent do you think they are going to be really served, this black majority government?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: Well, let me firstly say in my party, it has filtered down right down to the grassroots. There is no tension in the national party. Reconciliation works in the national party. People from all population groups have faith in it, and that gives me a lot of courage. I see the same happening in the South African police, in the defense force, in the civil service. There is, there is an adaptability which augers well for the future.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what do you think then of the white right wing warnings even today that unless they get volkstaat, a separate state of their own, there's going to be war and revolution? I mean, how serious should the new government, should you, South Africans, take those threats?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: Well, firstly, they're the minority of the white minority. They've had -- they had four opportunities to win amongst the white electorate a majority for their viewpoint, and on all four occasions, '87, '89, the referendum of 1992, and an earlier referendum of 1983, they were defeated. Democratically, they don't have a leg to stand on. They're serious but not unmanageable, really a manageable threat, and the government of national unity will be in a position to act very firmly against them.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Finally, Mr. President, do you plan, at the end of this five-year period of government of national unity, to run for president again?

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: I -- if my party comes second in this election, I'm convinced that my party will be the biggest party at the end of the 1999 election, and I want to lead my party into that victory, because the majority of all South Africans who support the value systems for which I stand are moderate people. The ANC -- I will work together with them -- but they're not a party as yet. They, they are still a movement in transition. They don't have cohesion. There are Communists and anti-Communists in the ANC. There's going to be a new political dispensation in South Africa. There's going to be a realignment within South Africa. It's going to be a tremendously interesting political period the next five years, and I'm convinced that that which I stand for has the support of the majority. If that fact is not proven in this election, it will be because it was also regarded by many millions as a liberation election, as an uhuru election. But 1999 will be about the economy. It will be about the nitty-gritty, will be about the real issues affecting the life of everyone. And then what I stand for is in step with what I succeeded throughout the world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. President, it will be interesting to watch what happens in your country. Thank you so much for sharing this with us today.

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: Thank you. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Finally, some end-of-the-week political analysis from Shields and Gigot. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Mark, you heard our discussion on Rwanda. We've been talking about Africa this whole program. What are the domestic politics in this country of Rwanda and the massacre there compared with the domestic politics on Haiti?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think in Haiti there is a, a persuasive case to be made that there is a case to be made that there is a direct domestic political implication and reality to it. I mean, there are Haitians daily trying to find asylum in the state of Florida. The governor of Florida is burdened with that. It is in our hemisphere. The United States has been actively involved. We have a long and direct involvement in Haiti. I think the case to direct United States involvement can be made in the case of Haiti, and it's more remote, obviously, in the case of Rwanda.

MR. MAC NEIL: What do you feel about that, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: I think Mark makes the right point about Haiti and our sphere of influence, but also I think Rwanda suffers from, from kind of the Somalia after effect. Because the Somalia effort didn't go that well in the end. It went well at first but in the end ended up badly with American casualties. And we pulled back rather precipitously in Bosnia, and Rwanda, and as Sec. Eagleburger said Abkhazia, where else if most Americans even know where that is. There's a real reluctance I think to engage in the same way, and you would have to have political leadership here at home from the President or members of Congress saying, look, this is in our national interest before we'd really get in.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's turn back, more obviously, to this country. Mark, I'm still hearing from a lot of people who were amazed to hear so much glowing coverage of Richard Nixon this past week. What are your thoughts on that?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, so much for the dominant liberal press conspiracy. Richard Nixon got a lot better send-off than I think he, himself, would have bet on, and certainly than his family expected, which is I was told contributed to their decision to not go to Washington, D.C., but, in fact, to go to California for fear that there would be negative reprisals or demonstrations or whatever else. I think we had this week conclusive proof of the fairness, of the compassion, and the forgiving nature of the American people. We admire an underdog. We admire somebody who leaves the White House discredited, disgraced, rejected, however you want to put it, or a failed president, and devotes a long period of time to rehabilitation. I think Jimmy Carter has done the same thing after his failed term, or his rejection certainly after one term. Herbert Hoover was a very useful public citizen, whereas, presidents who leave with sort of a good feeling about their presidencies don't feel that compulsion or that urgency to do it, Ronald Reagan spending time doing other things, obviously.

MR. MAC NEIL: I saw you smiling there, Paul, when Mark was eulogizing the fairness of the American press.

MR. GIGOT: Well, it was nice to see Richard Nixon get some good coverage finally, because he didn't get any while he was alive, or didn't get very much. And I think that it's really understandable that this would have happened, because what you had was a, was a man taken off the stage, a person in public life for 50 years, and it was a chance not to look at him through the lens merely of Watergate or merely of him as a foreign policy spokesman later in life but to have the whole career, size it all up. And what I think we got this week, and I was delighted to see it, was a kind of a week-long history lesson. We got to look back at our own lives in a sense in recent American history and size up what we all made of it. And it was, I thought, a very useful thing, certainly better than the latest Tonya versus Nancy disputes on television. Television did a terrific job this week.

MR. MAC NEIL: What did you think, Paul, about President Clinton's remarks at the funeral?

MR. GIGOT: I thought he did extremely well, and it wasn't easy, not an easy situation to be in, given the fact that he was, of course, on the opposite side of the barricades back in the sixties from where Richard Nixon was. But I thought he handled himself graciously. He made the right point when he said from now on consider the man, Richard Nixon, throughout his whole career. And he did it with grace, and he acted as a ceremonial head. I think this president could be helped by more of these situations where he acts like a head of state sometimes, rather than as a partisan or as somebody who's trying to sell you a health care plan.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mark. I'm sorry. Mark, what did you think of Clinton at the funeral?

MR. SHIELDS: Robin, let me just -- I smiled while Paul was speaking, and so I'd like to just -- I'd like to put my two cents worth. Richard Nixon wouldn't have believed this past week. I mean, Richard Nixon saw himself more clearly than the misty lens of this past week on television. John Sears, who worked -- was executive director of the citizens campaign, the campaign for Richard Nixon in 1968, his political aide who traveled with him hundreds of thousands of miles, just the two of them, tells the story as they're going out in 1968 up the steps of the Mormon Cathedral in Salt Lake City there to meet the elders of the Mormon Church, Richard Nixon turns to him and says, "John," halfway of the steps, says, "Yes." He says, "Whatever I say in here, don't you believe a word of it." I mean, that, that was Richard Nixon. I mean, there was a -- there was a cynicism about him, and when his own historian and his own biographer, Steven Ambrose, can say at the core there was no character, there was no moral compass, so I think he got an extraordinarily positive, positive week. As far as Bill Clinton, it worked for him. It worked for him because any time Bill Clinton could be seen as presidential, as he was at the Arafat-Rabin ceremony at the White House lawn, as he was when he had the former presidents there for the NAFTA signing at the White House, it works. It's part of the ceremonial aspect. It's more -- it's almost the civic community leader of the nation. So he -- it did -- it did work for him. It showed a certain largeness of spirit. I thought every one of the eulogists spoke more about himself than he did about Richard Nixon. Clinton's talked about forgiveness. Let's not look at the missteps and the mishaps. Let's look at the whole life. Henry Kissinger does the -- this man is wonderful for foreign policy. Bob Dole does the -- Bob Dole as Richard Nixon, I come from a small town, he overcame obstacles, he got up off the floor, ran 15 times for national office. I mean, I was waiting for somebody to talk about Richard Nixon, and they all kind of did it with their own angle on it. So in that sense, it was a fascinating political drama.

MR. MAC NEIL: Paul, some people were making comparisons this week between Clinton and Nixon. Is that a silly comparison?

MR. GIGOT: I don't think so at all. I think the similarities are actually quite fascinating. The -- Irving Kristol, the political scientist, talks about two kinds of presidents, hedge hogs and foxes. Hedge hogs are the type that believe in one or two big things and really spend all their time working on those, the Reagan, FDR. Then you have the foxes, people who believe in many little things or maybe not very many things but pursue an awful lot of them. And I think that Nixon and Bill Clinton are both foxes. They're reactive. It's hard to pin down. It's hard to find a real core there, and because of that, there is a large element of, of mistrust about them often. They don't -- they aren't beloved by majorities, but they do -- but they are able to maneuver politically, and that similarity is very striking.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mark, similarities between Clinton and Nixon?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, at first blush, they're quite dissimilar, that Bill Clinton is a natural politician. He's gregarious. He's easy with people. He's a master of the small talk. He's a charmer. Richard Nixon was none of the above. Richard Nixon once confided to John Sears, he said that politics would be a hell of a business if it weren't for the god damned people. He loved the scheming and the art of it, but he wasn't good at the other part. But both of them do have similarities, small town, humble origins, overcoming enormous obstacles, doing well academically, going to Eastern prestigious schools, and I think, I think Paul has put his finger on it about doubts even among their admirers as well as their critics about core convictions, just what, you know, what is it that really motivates these fellahs. The irony is Richard Nixon in 19 -- in his term as president, as a conservative Republican elected, proposed national health with 65 percent employer premium mandated, going to 75 percent in three years with a national health card. He had a family assistance plan for welfare reform that Bill Clinton would happily swap today for what Nixon had offered in 1969, so there are similarities domestically in the programs.

MR. GIGOT: Well, I remember the line that was at the time a conservative journalist by the name of Stan Evans was very popular among conservatives, that he didn't like Richard Nixon until Watergate because he governed as a liberal, and it was very hard to --

MR. MAC NEIL: We -- sorry -- just finish your sentence.

MR. GIGOT: It was very hard to pin down his core convictions.

MR. MAC NEIL: I have to leave it there. Paul and Mark, thank you both. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Friday, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans are fleeing their country as fighting and killing continue. U.N. officials said it was the largest and fastest human exodus they had ever witnessed. Good night, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. On Monday night, we'll have Charlayne's interview with Nelson Mandela among other things. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.