The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in Washington. After the News Summary, Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to United Nations Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali. Then a Newsmaker interview with Quebec's separatist premier, and the problems behind Intel's Pentium computer chip. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: There was another shooting outside the White House this morning. The latest incident happened on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Executive Mansion. A homeless man identified as 33- year-old Marcelino Corniel charged across the avenue toward the White House from Lafayette Park brandishing a knife. When he refused to drop the weapon, park police opened fire, shooting him in the chest and right leg. Corniel was taken to George Washington University Hospital, where he underwent surgery and is listed in critical condition. The FBI said late today that Corniel will be charged with assault on a federal officer. White House officials said President Clinton was in the Oval Office at the time but was not in danger. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: The United States officially asked North Korea to return a pilot being held by them and the remains of another. The crewmen were on a helicopter that went down over North Korea last weekend. No agreement was reached, and the North provided no information about the officers. The U.S. has asked for another meeting on the matter as soon as possible. At the State Department today, Sec. of State Christopher warned that the incident could damage relations between the two countries.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We have been very candid from the very beginning in indicating that there was a navigational error here. We have not at any moment tried to hide the fact that the helicopter crossed into North Korean territory. I think that is an unusual display of candor and openness by the United States, and we hope it'll be reciprocated by the, by the North Koreans in a prompt response in returning the pilot and the co-pilot. That would be the best response, and I would say that if they do act promptly and in a humane way on that subject, it will be conducive to good relations, but the other side of the coin, unfortunately, is true as well.

MR. MAC NEIL: Christopher has said the U.S. has not yet decided whether to delay implementing a nuclear agreement with the North. Under the $4 billion accord, the U.S. would help North Korea convert its suspected nuclear weapons program to non- military power generation.

MS. WARNER: Russian forces stepped up the pressure on the breakaway province of Chechnya today, using warplanes to bomb residential areas of the capital, and Russian ground troops continued to hold their positions about six miles outside the city of Grozny. We have more in this report narrated by Vera Frankl of Worldwide Television News.

VERA FRANKL, WTN: Russian bombs smashed into 10 houses in the center of Grozny. Many locals have fled the city, but those who remained sifted through the rubble as Russian troops tightened their grip on the Chechnyan capital. This woman dragged herself from under the ruins of her house. Up to 10 people were reportedly killed in the overnight attacks, and countless others were left injured. On the outskirts of Moscow, President Yeltsin made his first appearance since leaving hospital. The Russian government has announced it'll keep up bombing and missile attacks and conduct decisive offensive actions. But concern over Moscow's action is growing. Old Yeltsin foe, Ruslan Khasbulatov, surfaced publicly to call the operation irrational and added that the unrest could escalate into a transportation war. In Southern Russia, thousands of Chechens were joined in a human chain to protect against the attack. Chechens are solidly supported by the 20 odd other nations living in the region, and many are willing to fight for them. Chechen forces, meanwhile, remained characteristically defiant and prepared for renewed attacks by blocking the road into Grozny. Earlier, Chechen soldiers downed a Russian helicopter northeast of the capital. Two Russian military doctors and a crew member were killed. In the town center, troops sandbagged the presidential palace damaged earlier. Despite reports that the Russian onslaught is far from over, these fighters are standing firm.

MS. WARNER: Bosnia's Serbs and the country's Muslim-led government have agreed to a four-month cease-fire negotiated by former President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter met separately with leaders from both sides today in Bosnia. He said the Bosnian Serbs are also demanding a permanent cease-fire agreement by January 1st. The Bosnian government has opposed a permanent truce because it would freeze the Serbs' military gains. Mr. Carter spoke about the agreement this afternoon in Bosnia.

JIMMY CARTER: There will be a complete cease-fire in all of Bosnia-Herzegovina, including Bihac, to go into effect at noon on December 23rd.

MS. WARNER: Carter later traveled to Serbia proper to brief President Milosevic on his talks with the warring sides in Bosnia. Meanwhile, the UN resumed aid flights into Sarajevo for the first time in a month today after the Serbs guaranteed their safety. We'll talk with the UN Secretary General about Bosnia and other issues right after the News Summary.

MR. MAC NEIL: About a thousand Mexican police and troops used tanks to retake territory held by rebels in the southern state of Chiapas today. They met no resistance from members of the Zapatista Liberation Army. The mostly Indian rebels had set up road blocks and said they were sending their troops to fortify 38 towns in Chiapas. A Mexican police commander said his troops had orders to clear all blocked roads and reassert government control of towns in the region.

MS. WARNER: In economic news, the U.S. trade deficit jumped to its second highest monthly level ever in October. The Commerce Department reported that the gap between imports and exports increased by 8.4 percent to more than $10.1 billion. The trade shortfall with Japan rose nearly 24 percent, to a record $6.7 billion. The Federal Reserve Board decided to hold interest rates steady today at its final Open Market Committee meeting of the year. The central bank has already raised rates six times this year. Intel Corporation reversed itself today and announced it would replace its flawed Pentium computer chip free for all customers. The chip has been found to make errors in some division calculations. About 2 million computers carry the micro chip. We'll have more on this story later in the program.

MR. MAC NEIL: A federal judge in Miami today threw out Florida's lawsuit against the U.S. government over illegal immigration. Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles filed the $1 1/2 billion suit seeking reimbursement for education, health, and police expenses incurred from illegal immigrants. The judge said he didn't have the authority to order the federal government to repay the state. Gov. Chiles said he will appeal the ruling. Four other states have filed similar suits. That's our summary of the top stories. Now it's on to the United Nations Secretary General, Quebec's separatist premier, and the Pentium chip flaw. NEWSMAKER

MS. WARNER: The United Nations at the end of a difficult year is our lead story tonight. U.N. peacekeepers are busy at hot spots around the globe, but the organization faces renewed criticism for its failure to bring lasting peace to places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia, and in Washington, the new Republican Congress is threatening to cut U.S. contributions to UN operations. We take up these and other issues now in a Newsmaker interview with the U.N. Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. He's with Charlayne Hunter-Gault at the U.N. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary General, thank you for joining us. We've just listened to President Carter announce the cease-fire that's to take effect in January, and starting on the 23rd of December, I believe. Given the history of broken Serb promises, do you think that President Carter will succeed where so many others have failed?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I believe that what has been achieved by President Carter will create a new momentum and that what is important now is how to fulfill this momentum, how to continue the negotiations, how to try to find a common denominator between the two protagonists of the dispute, and a cease-fire is very important, is the first step.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Are you confident that the Serbs will hold to this, given the checkered history of 32 months of promises?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: You may have accident, but what is important is that the cease-fire will help us to begin a new set of negotiations.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you believe, as President Carter does, that the Serbs have been misunderstood in all of this conflict?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: It depends. You see, the vision of what they've done, the Serbs, there is a difference in Europe, in the states, in the Muslim countries. Each of them have his own approach concerning what had been done by the Serbs. But in the case, the last dispute, which is the dispute around the city of Bihac, maybe there was certain misinterpretation of what happened on the ground. But what is important now, forget about the past, what is important now, a new momentum has been created. The people on the ground must continue to negotiate. We must find a new formula to, first of all, to maintain the cease-fire, to provide humanitarian assistance, and to discuss the map. I agree that the map and what was decided by the contact group, I will not say must be changed, but must be the basis of a discussion.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean, the United States, France, Britain - - did I leave out anybody?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes. Yes. The contact group was composed of five members, Russia and the United States, France, Great Britain, and Germany.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: German. I had left out Germany. What happens, Mr. Secretary General, if this effort fails by January 1st? I mean, is this last chance?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No. We have to begin to negotiate again. Meanwhile, we have a meeting yesterday which was very important to reinforce the presence of the United Nations troops on the ground, to have additional arms, to have a new strategy, and this is we are discussing this.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I mean --

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: We must do two things. The cease-fire is something. The reinforcements on United Nations forces on the ground with new equipment is No. 2, and No. 3, No. 3, to negotiate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So that the crisis of last week in which a number of countries worth threatening to withdraw their troops unless the United States -- because the United States wasn't participating, is that crisis over now?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: They've decided it's better to leave than to stay -- to stay than to leave?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes. The crisis -- I believe that the crisis is over, but if after two or three months you will have no progress, then you will have, it will be again confronted by this crisis.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think about the critics of the U.N. peacekeeping presence up to this point? I mean, they range from saying that the U.N. is brave but ineffective to saying that the peacekeeping force has been hostage to the Serbs because NATO would not patrol the skies or take any other more aggressive actions out of fear that the peacekeepers would be taken hostage which in one instance they were. There was even one columnist who said that the U.N. peacekeeping mission there was helpless and contemptible. How do you respond to that?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: My response to that, we have been able to provide humanitarian assistance to 2 million refugees and displaced persons, that we have been able to provide a city like Sarajevo with thousand tons of foods and humanitarian assistance, that we have been able to maintain the dispute within the border of former Yugoslavia, that you have been able to maintain a cease-fire between the Croat and the Serb, that you have been able to maintain peace in Macedonia, where you have for the first time in the history of the United Nations prevented deployment of troops. So you must not look only at one part of the problem, which is Bosnia. We have a problem in Croatia and Serbia. We have a problem in Macedonia. We have the problem of 2 million, if not more, refugees and displaced persons. You have the problem of continuing the process of finding a solution.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But there are those who argue that if the U.N. had been more aggressive in its efforts to bring about a solution, a lot of the problems that exist now would not have happened. I mean, is that a fair assessment that the U.N. should have been more assertive in peace-making?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: If the U.N. had not received a mandate to enforce peace, to impose peace, the mandate of the U.N. is very limited. It is a force of interposition between the two protagonists of the dispute, and it is a force to protect the humanitarian assistance given to the people on the ground, the population, the kids, the women.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But one of the former negotiators, Lord Carrington, said that, you know, part of the problem is that intervening in a civil war that's already under way begs for the person, the group doing the intervening to take sides or to do something more aggressively to see that the thing is brought to an end. You don't agree with that. I mean, otherwise, that you're in the middle and impotent.

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Okay. This can be done if the United Nations received the mandate. The United Nations is acting according to the political will of the member states. The member states have not given mandates to participate in a peace enforcement operation. The mandates which we have received from the member states is limited.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that right? I mean, should it have been expanded, I mean, because there have been calls that U.N. should reconsider its peacekeeping role, so that similar --

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I agree -- let us be practical. Who decided? It is not the United Nations. It isthe members of the United Nations. If the members of the United Nations are not interested to participate in a military confrontation, we cannot impose this on the members of the United Nations.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But should the role and mission be reconsidered for future --

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: For future, certainly, yes, I agree, but in this case, the member states have no political will to participate in the military confrontation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me turn quickly to Haiti. U.S. forces are going to be leaving there next week, and the U.N. is going to be taking over. Is there anything that the U.S. needs to do or you wish it to do in Haiti before turning this mission over?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: First of all, the United States will continue to participate in the United Nations forces. It means we will have an important contingent of American forces in the United Nations forces after the departure of the United States forces. This is a very important element, so they will give us a participation, and plus, they will give us a kind of infrastructure which will be very important.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And, and what do you see as your mission there, just briefly?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: The mission is, first of all, to maintain the situation to avoid any kind of internal confrontation and to help them in the election which will be held in the next few months.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me turn to Somalia, where many are saying that that mission now that it's over and you're trying to withdraw was a failed mission, in fact, pointing out that even as you withdraw, you've requested the United States to bring in a carrier and troop, because the situation has deteriorated so badly they can't withdraw in peace? Do you accept that, I mean, and did Somalia yield any lessons for what not to do in situations like that?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I agree, a lesson what not to do, but I just want to, first of all, to tell you that Somalia is not the failure. The failure is again like in Yugoslavia. The failure is limited to one territory out of five or six other territories. The failure is limited to the city of Mogadishu. That's why we have been able to open schools, hospitals to provide foods, to do the vaccination of 10,000 kids.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But critics say you are leaving without any fundamental change having taken place.

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No, it is not true. We are leaving after we accomplish a drastic change. There is no more famine in the country. The schools are opened again, we are forming a police, and we are leaving on the military level, but we are staying there politically. Our special representative will be there. He will continue to negotiate. He will continue to find a peaceful solution among the different gangs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you think that even with the problem in Mogadishu still continuing and without any kind of civil authority about to --

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: -- you can call that a success?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: He will continue to be as a mediator. He was before a mediator with the backing of a military - - military troops, but now he will be there as a mediator, trying to solve the problem, trying --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And is he credible? Do you think that the U.N. mediator is a credible force to try and bring about a resolution?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes. Yes, on the contrary. He will be more credible today because he will -- they will be meeting. He will transmit message between the two parties. He will arrange meeting. The meeting can be held in Adis Ababa, can be held in Nairobi. He will provide a solution. He will --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you're optimistic?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I'm not saying that I'm optimistic, but I'm saying that this is not the end of the mission.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. What about Rwanda, where the U.N. mission appears to have changed? You're announcing that you're going to help refugees return, but most countries have rejected your call for a five thousand person force to police the refugee camp.

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Still, they have not rejected for the five thousand. We still hope to obtain them. They have asked additional study till we know what we are doing now, we are in contact with the government of Zaire and the government of Tanzania, and offering to them assistance, so that they will provide troops in their own territory to maintain security within the camps.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you want to achieve in Rwanda now?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: We want, one, to reinforce a government in Kigali, so we have created special trust funds to help him, because everything has been demolished, so we have to help him, to send expert. Secondly, we want to bring back the refugees home, to avoid that the refugee will try to create a new army and begin a new confrontation in Kiev.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you don't see this, as some do, as another symbol of the U.N. failure to prevent a genocide in the face of a determined internal group to commit genocide?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: We have failed certainly to the fact that the genocide has been committed, but the fact that there is one failure is not a reason not to continue, and to try to correct his failure, and to try to reconstruct the city, and to try to reinforce the national reconciliation among the Tutsi and the Hutu, to assist the government not only in the rehabilitation and the reconstruction of the country, but international reconciliation.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary General, we obviously, are going to have to follow that story, because it's far from over, but let's turn to the United States, where a different kind of story is starting to unfold, and that is the new Republican majority in Congress which has been very critical of U.N. peacekeeping operations and the U.S. participation in those operations, and the new soon-to-be chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, has called the U.N. a longtime nemesis of Americans. How do you respond to what you're hearing, and what do you think that augers for the future?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I think that we will send our people and the secretary dealing with different U.N. operations to explain to the members of the Congress what we have done, what are our problems, and we hope that through this dialogue and through this explanation, we will be able to overcome the difficulties of the misperceptions by the Congress, or by certain Congressmen concerning the United Nations.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There's another misperception, I alluded to it earlier, that because of the crises that have been handled the way in which they've been handled and not resolved over the past year that the U.N., its threats, and so forth have, that it hasn't been able to carry out, the U.N. is no longer viewed as, as credible, and many argue that the things that have happened over the past year have undermined your credibility. Do you see anything in the future to change those perceptions or that reality, especiallyin the coming year?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: The U.N. is dealing with 185 member states, so the crisis of credibility may be existing here in New York and in Washington, happily for the U.N. don't exist in Russia or in Germany or in Europe or in Asia or in Japan. In all those countries, the U.N. had a very important credibility, and they ask the participation of the U.N., they ask the intervention of the U.N., they believe that the U.N. is very important, and I hope that for the 50th anniversary we will begin in the next few days, we will be able to project a new image of the United Nations, and we will be able to correct misperceptions existing among certain people.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you go into this near new with optimism?

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Very optimistic.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And not sad that all of these criticisms are - -

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No. We have to accept the criticisms, on the contrary, we have to discuss, and to say, yes, you are right in this case, and we will try to correct it, or, no it is a misconception, this is the reality.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Secretary General, thank you for joining us.

SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Thank you.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead on the NewsHour, the man who wants to make Quebec a separate nation, and the impact of the Pentium chip flaw. FOCUS

MS. WARNER: Next tonight an interview with Jacques Parizeau, the controversial premier of Quebec who wants his province to become independent from the rest of Canada. Parizeau became premier in September, after his Parti Quebecois ousted the Liberal Party by less than 1 percent of the vote. Parizeau was in New York last week, and Correspondent Charles Krause interviewed him then.

MR. KRAUSE: The Parti Quebecois has long advocated that Quebec, with its predominantly French-speaking population, separate from English-speaking Canada. Last week, Parizeau presented a draft bill in the provincial legislature that called for a referendum on independence next year, with the official separation coming a year later. Parizeau then went on television to try to reassure English- speaking Quebecers.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: This will not come into force, it will not have any effect, so long as you, the citizens of Quebec, have not given your approval by means of the referendum. And the question we are proposing to you is clear and simple. Here it is: Are you in favor of the act passed by the National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec? Yes or no.

MR. KRAUSE: Quebec, which was originally colonized by the French, has been a divided society ever since it was conquered by the British in 1763, divided by language, culture, religion and political aspirations. Until 30 years ago, Quebec's largest city, Montreal, was, in fact, a divided city. English was the language of business and culture. Anglo-Quebecers lived and attended elite institutions like Magill University. French Quebecers lived in poor neighborhoods and were for the most part treated as second class citizens. That began to change in the mid 60's with the quiet revolution when French Quebecers began to improve their economic status. Then in 1967, Charles DeGaulle visited Montreal and caused a sensation when he publicly uttered the separatist slogan, "Long Live Free Quebec." Since then, there have been a number of attempts to redefine Quebec's political status within Canada. In 1980, Quebecers went to the brink but ended up voting against independence. The most important attempt came in 1987, when former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the premiers of Canada's 10 provinces agreed to what became known as the Meech Lake Accord. That agreement would have amended Canada's constitution, recognizing Quebec's status as a distinct society. But Meech was defeated in 1990, leaving many Quebecers bitterly disappointed. That disappointment, coupled with the voters' resentment over the long-ruling Liberal Party's handling of the economy, led to Mr. Parizeau's victory in September.

MR. KRAUSE: Premier Parizeau, thank you very much for joining us. Last week, you set out your proposals for a referendum and ultimately for an independent Quebec. Are you talking about a country that is completely separate from Canada?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: Oh, yes. We talk with Quebec on sovereignty, and on the definition of sovereignty all parties agree, whether they're in favor or not, our taxes we manage, all our laws applicable to Quebecers should be handled by the National Assembly, and all our treaties with the rest of the world signed and approved by us, so it's really independent.

MR. KRAUSE: Now the opinion polls show that no more than 40 to 45 percent even of Quebecers want sovereignty for Quebec. What makes you think you can win this referendum?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: Well, these percentages, these polls change from time to time. A year ago, it was way above 50 percent. Now, it's somewhat lower. In 1995, at the time of the referendum will be the important moment. But one should, you see -- the real thing is that a movement as potent as, shall we say, the taste for independence by the time it reaches 40 or 45 percent, it becomes a question of circumstances of when, at what time, is it above 50. And we said from the outset we want, we need 50 percent plus one vote. That's all.

MR. KRAUSE: Do you think that 50 percent plus one vote really is enough -- it's a very contentious issue, as you know -- and if it's only a very slight majority, one way or another, is that really going to settle this issue?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: This is a very democratic people, very democratic. Remember, our parliament, we, last year, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of that parliament in Quebec. Oh, yes. You know, the rules of the game are well understood. Look at the margins by which European countries decide these days whether they're entering the European Union or not, 1 percent, .1 of 1 percent in certain, in certain cases as to whether they'll go in or what. Now, that's how a democracy functions.

MR. KRAUSE: Is there any question in your mind since you obviously, your party controls the National Assembly, is there any question at all that this proposal, this draft proposal would not be passed by the National Assembly, or is that a given?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: But in steps. First we tabled it. We tabled a draft bill. Now we're going to have commissions roaming around the country asking people that draft, that draft bill will be distributed at every door, we're going to have commissions that will go all over the place asking people, well, what do you think? I mean, everything in that draft bill is not necessarily cut in stone. Things could be changed. We're going to consult, then come back to the National Assembly, table a bill, not a draft bill, but a bill.

MR. KRAUSE: Introduce.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: Introduce in the House. And then it will be adopted by the National Assembly. Yes, indeed, we have a 30-seat majority in that assembly, and however, it will not be promulgated until accepted by a referendum, and then we'll move to the next stage, a referendum, sometime in 1995, and on the basis of the result of that referendum, that law will come into force.

MR. KRAUSE: What makes you so sure that English Canada is going to allow you with 51 or 50 percent plus one of the vote to simply walk away from Canada?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: They're democrats as much as we are. This has been discussed throughout Canada, and by all political leaders for a long time, for several years, and we all agree, whether we like sovereignty or not, that the issue will be determined by Quebecers, it will be determined by a vote. I am not saying that English Canadians are going to like it. I'm not saying that there won't be some of them who will try to provoke some sort of backlash. I know that. But fundamentally, we all agreed for a long time that these things are decided by vote, and that Quebecers will determine their own fate by their vote. That fundamentally -- someone as, shall we say, Canadian as Mr. Chretien has said so much.

MR. KRAUSE: The prime minister of Canada.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: The prime minister of Canada.

MR. KRAUSE: But you say that, and it's all well and good to talk about votes and democracy and all the rest, but there has been violence in the past in Quebec many years ago.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: Yes.

MR. KRAUSE: And there was a poll recently in Alberta, one of the western provinces. A third of the people think there's going to be a civil war before Quebec is able to separate from Canada.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: But you don't find anywhere either threats or traces of that thinking. What you get are remarkable discussion for the democratic point of view. Look, the last election in Quebec was very hotly disputed essentially on that issue. The federalists tried to make of that the only issue of the campaign. It was -- it developed, it unfolded in a very democratic way. Yes, indeed, one can say a quarter of a century ago there was at one point violence in Quebec, yes, a quarter of a century ago, these things happen, but on the whole you're faced with societies that believe that votes count and then votes determine the fights.

MR. KRAUSE: At the same time, we've called today various constitutional experts in Canada trying to find out exactly what the mechanism would be in the federal scheme of things for a province to secede, and what we're told anyway is that there is no mechanism, that there's no provision for this sort of thing.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: And what is not prohibited is therefore allowed. Yes, you're quite right. There is no mechanism. In fact, the Canadian constitution is mute on this. Do you realize that the Canadian constitution, the new constitution passed 12 years ago, was never accepted by Quebec -- by any of the four premiers that have been in succession for the last 12 years, not one dared accept the Canadian constitution. It's a very abrupt sort of thing, you know, when you think of it. Quebec is in a country that has a constitution, and that constitution, neither the federalists in Quebec nor the separatists, or the sovereignists want to accept it.

MR. KRAUSE: Why are Anglo Quebecers so terrified? I had a call today from someone in Montreal who, who read in the newspaper that we would be talking, and he said that he had sold his home, that his children were preparing to leave the province. Why are people - - if it's all going to be so peaceful and everything is going to work out so well, why are Anglo Quebecers so afraid?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: It's not only because of the issues, themselves. There's no doubt, for instance, that some Anglo medias have been, shall we say, raising all kinds of apprehension for quite a while, for quite a while. However, a number of Anglos left after the Parti Quebecois took power for the first time in 1976, quite a few. I think those who remain, a lot -- not necessarily all of them, but a lot of those who remain in Quebec will remain in Quebec, no matter what happens. I think that they, a lot of them now feel at home. It doesn't mean that they're sovereignists. They're still staunch federalists. They still believe in Canada, but I think they'll remain. And, in fact, we've been in power for three months. Has anyone seen any major excitement? No. It's not - - it's not the context of 18 years ago at all.

MR. KRAUSE: A last question. Is there any room at all for compromise? Is there any room to politically or otherwise to stop this referendum for Quebec and Canada, to somehow remain together?

JACQUES PARIZEAU: All the attempts of federalists in Quebec, of federalist premiers, political parties, for years now have always failed. In some cases it's a tragedy for Quebec federalists. You know, a few years ago, the liberal government, federalist government of Quebec, came forward with five proposal changes to the Canadian constitution, minimal said the premier -- minimal, we've never asked so little. And even that, won with the recognition of Quebecers as a distinct society, for God's sakes, even that was refused. Then there was another attempt. It was supposed to be the last attempt to refurbish Canadian federalism, the so-called Charlottetown Accord. All 17 leaders of the provinces, of the federal government, of the native groups, altogether came to an agreement. They went in a referendum, Quebecers voted against it in the majority. Canadians voted against it in other provinces in a majority. And even the natives voted against it in a majority. The electors said to their political leaders, no, it won't work, we refuse that. It's a tragedy in a certain sense because it's -- nothing seems to be working. And, therefore, after all that has been attempted, we say now, all right, the attempts to reorganize Canadian federalism have failed, now it's our goal, here is our project, our draft bill on a sovereign Quebec.

MR. KRAUSE: Premier Parizeau, thank you very much for joining us.

JACQUES PARIZEAU: Thank you.

MS. WARNER: Portions of that interview were published earlier in Canada. Today, Canada's prime minister, Jean Chretien responded in an interview on the Canadian network, CTV. He spoke with reporters Lloyd Robertson and Craig Oliver.

REPORTER ONE: Suppose 50 percent .1 person do say yes, who do they negotiate with? Can you negotiate independence with the Quebec government?

JEAN CHRETIEN, Prime Minister, Canada: It's not in the constitution. That's one of the questions that we will have to answer, with whom they negotiate, but the problem is I don't want to -- I don't want to speculate on that. We will win it. The question is that the people of Quebec want to stay in Canada. They are trying to find a way to get them vote yes when they know very well that they don't want to.

REPORTER TWO: But in the situation, Mr. Chretien, we can't avoid -- we can't avoid the hypothetical here in case it does happen, and if it does happen, you suggested it is not in the constitution. Is it illegal?

JEAN CHRETIEN: There is nothing in the constitution.

REPORTER TWO: But is it illegal if the people of Quebec --

JEAN CHRETIEN: If you want to talk legality and constitutionality, there is nobody that will argue that it is legal and constitutional. It is completely illegal and non- constitutional. It's what Mr. Rock said last weekend. There were five or six experts who commented on the legality or the constitutionality last weekend, because there is no such provision in the constitution, so it has to be non-constitutional.

REPORTER TWO: But would you honor a vote of Quebecers who said we want out? Would you honor that as prime minister, if, in fact, it is illegal?

JEAN CHRETIEN: There is in your question so many "ifs." To say that, yes, if we keep the citizenship, if we have the economic union, if we have the Canadian dollar, if we belong -- members of this and that -- that's their problem --

REPORTER TWO: But would you honor it?

JEAN CHRETIEN: That's their problem. They have the burden of the proof.

REPORTER TWO: But I'm asking: Would you honor it if they vote in favor of separating? Would you honor that vote?

JEAN CHRETIEN: I would like to ask them a question. They lost the last time. They did not honor the vote. They said we'll have the referendum until we win, so again, you know, they said, they don't win, they were having a third one, so they don't respect, they don't respect the will of the people. For me, I'm telling you that I'm not spending a minute on the hypothetical question of losing it. We will win it, and they have the burden of the proof to tell the people of Quebec, you know, how they will do it. It's not for me, it's for them. For me, I know that they have a hell of a hill to overcome, and we'll not make it easy for them.

MS. WARNER: If Quebec votes for independence, a major issue to be decided is what kind of currency it would use. In his interview with the NewsHour, Premier Parizeau said Quebec could continue using the Canadian dollar and still be a sovereign nation. FOCUS - CHIPPING AWAY

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, the flaw in a computer giant. Today the Intel Corporation announced it would offer free replacement of a flawed computer chip to all who ask. It was the latest development in an unusual story that has consumers and businesses wondering about the technology that now sits in millions of homes and offices. Chips are the brains that allow computers to work, and though this is an increasingly competitive field, Intel is by far the world's leading maker of chips. In the race to continue that dominance, the company has banked on its new Pentium chip.

COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: One that responds instantly to whatever you ask of it, one that breathes new life, a new spark into older software. That's the power of the Pentium processor. From Intel, the computer inside.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Pentium offers the power and speed required for many of the applications today's computer software programs offer, from video games to highly technical calculating, and it's here in its mathematical calculating ability that the problem arose. In late October, word spread on the worldwide Internet that a Virginia math professor had found flawed answers to some division problems. As such stories spread, Intel said it had discovered the problem last summer and corrected it, and that, in any case, the flaw would cause an error only once in every twenty-seven thousand years for the average user.

MR. MAC NEIL: That figure was challenged by, among others, IBM, which is one of Intel's largest customers. As for replacing the flawed chips, Intel first said it would set limits on those who qualify for a replacement, but today the company apologized for its initial response and offered to replace chips for all who asked. For more on this story, we're joined now by Geoff Lewis, a senior editor with Business Week Magazine. Mr. Lewis, obviously, this is apublic relations disaster for Intel but in hard cash, what's it going to cost them?

MR. LEWIS: We don't know yet. The estimates are all over the place. One of the estimates is if they replace all the chips, there are something like 4 million out there and 5.5 million should be shipped by the end of the year, it'll cost upwards of $800 million to replace the chips. Intel announced today that they will be taking a charge against earnings, an unspecified charge against earnings as a result of this. Analysts responded, Wall Street analysts responded by cutting their earnings estimates, in some cases quite severely, for the fourth quarter.

MR. MAC NEIL: But the stock went back up today, didn't it, after having gone down quite sharply?

MR. LEWIS: Yeah. It was up 3 1/2 points today. I think the general consensus was that this was the beginning of the good news and all bad news about the Pentium is finally over.

MR. MAC NEIL: What brands of computers have this chip in them?

MR. LEWIS: Well, pretty much any IBM-compatible, or so-called IBM compatible PC on the market, any maker of IBM-compatible PC's has Pentium models.

MR. MAC NEIL: This is the chip that is sort of higher than the 486 chip?

MR. LEWIS: Right. It's the latest, the most advanced Intel chip. It's also the only Intel chip that doesn't have a clone. In other words, there is not an alternate brand, so the computer makers all use the Pentium from Intel.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, IBM said and partly provoked, I guess, Intel's response today by saying it wasn't going to ship any more computers and its brand with that flawed chip inside it, but others are still shipping?

MR. LEWIS: Yes. And I think they'll continue to ship. They're now getting behind the, the recall -- well, I shouldn't call it recall. If only it were.

MR. MAC NEIL: It's kind of like a recall, isn't it?

MR. LEWIS: Right. Yeah. I think it's an interesting thing. IBM really sort of upped the stakes last week, because they went out there, and they sort of perhaps had more than one agenda, but they said, we are going to make sure our customers are not exposed to this problem, whereas, other computer makers who face the same sort of liability among their consumers were happy to sort of downplay it and let Intel take care of it. And IBM raised the stakes enormously and forced what's happening this week.

MR. MAC NEIL: This is, obviously, a very heavy buying season for personal computers just before Christmas. Aren't consumers backing away from computers with these chips in them?

MR. LEWIS: We really don't know yet. It depends on who's reporting, we believe. There are stories going both ways. I think the thing to remember and I think the message that the computer makers are trying to get across, which I do think is a valid one, is that for most home computer users the error which occurs in some fairly arcane math is never going to affect their multimedia program, it's not going to hurt their word processing program.

MR. MAC NEIL: It's only if they're doing heavy mathematical calculations, or I read some of the more advanced spreadsheet kind of calculations and some business applications.

MR. LEWIS: That's the gray area. The absolutely clear area, you're very safe with home computer operations, multimedia. You're probably in a danger zone if you're doing very advanced engineering calculations which use a so-called floating point mathematics. The gray area is the business applications, and this is where I think there's a lot of vulnerability where Intel may face a bigger problem perhaps than even with the consumers.

MR. MAC NEIL: A problem of potential lawsuits from flaws?

MR. LEWIS: There are potential lawsuits. The bigger problem -- I don't know, but I don't think lawsuits are going to be the big issue. I think the issue is the slowdown in buying, because the corporate buyers were sort of slow moving to Pentium anyhow. Now they'll just say, or many of them have the opportunity to just say, I can wait six months. The other piece of news that came out today is that Microsoft is delaying the upgrade of Windows in '95. Windows '95 will not be out by mid-year, it will be out maybe in August.

MR. MAC NEIL: How is that connected with Pentium?

MR. LEWIS: The way that connects is the new operating system, this new version of windows is very power hungry, will drive demand for the most powerful computers, and especially in the business market, and if there's a delay in moving to the more powerful software, then business buyers can easily wait and continue to use their 486 machines well into next year.

MR. MAC NEIL: They wouldn't have to leap to a machine with a Pentium in it now? They could wait.

MR. LEWIS: Right.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do people get their flawed chips replaced, to people who have them now or maybe for Christmas even, buying a computer with a flawed Pentium in it, if they want it replaced, how do they get it replaced?

MR. LEWIS: I don't think all the details have been worked out yet. Intel says they will replace them, and that's sort of -- that's the good news. Today that's the policy. I think what we're looking for now is sort of the fine print. Does someone come to your house and do it, do you take it to the dealer, will the dealer do it, will the dealer send it back to the manufacturer? There are a lot of logistics there. Basically, for a non-technical person you don't want them to go in and try to perform literally brain surgery on their computers.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let's go back to the -- to the attitude of the company, which apologized today for having seemed to be to its consumers unfeeling and arrogant. In their first reaction, is that in any way typical of computer makers, that flawed performance is good enough for average users, that you need special qualifications to deserve, as a customer, to deserve higher accuracy?

MR. LEWIS: Well, it raises an interesting question, because I think that the response indicates a lack of understanding of their new customer. The customer for these products are consumers. They're people doing multimedia and yes, they're not sophisticated customers, yes, they may not run into this, but it's sort of an arrogant attitude saying, well, you're, you know, you're just a home user, and I think that's where there's a danger of backfiring in the market and eroding confidence in personal computers in general.

MR. MAC NEIL: How does such a flawed chip or a flawed chip, granted that the flaw is a very minor part of a chip that does many, many things, how does a chip with such a flaw get on the market? Aren't they extensively tested?

MR. LEWIS: Well, we ran a story a couple of weeks ago, sort of detailing this. The fact is that on the Pentium chip they have 3.1 million transistors, transistor circuits, etched in a piece of silicon the size of your fingernail. It is literally impossible to simulate on a larger computer, which is how they do it, all those circuits and test them under a variety of conditions. They ran these tests for a year before they came across the flaw last June.

MR. MAC NEIL: So, so advanced computer chips go on the market without all of their circuits tested, is that what you're saying?

MR. LEWIS: Absolutely.

MR. MAC NEIL: Because it's impossible to test them?

MR. LEWIS: Absolutely. And the error that occurred, they had very tried and true software to create the circuits that they needed. They just dropped a few lines of code, and the rest is history, of course.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is that true of other chips less advanced than this one, that they go on the market --

MR. LEWIS: Oh, yeah.

MR. MAC NEIL: -- not completely tested?

MR. LEWIS: Well, two generations ago, it was true with Intel -- it had a math error in the 386 chip which is circa mid 80's.

MR. MAC NEIL: If you can't test all the circuits on these amazing little things, how do you know they're reliable?

MR. LEWIS: You don't completely, although they have very sophisticated methods for developing the chips now. It's all computer-aided design, and the chances of creating a lot of bad circuits on a chip are not that good, but then again, with 3 billion chips -- I mean, 3 million circuits on a chip, it's very difficult to know for sure.

MR. MAC NEIL: And they're going to get smaller and smaller, we're told, and they'll have more and more circuits on these smaller ones?

MR. LEWIS: Right. Towards the end of the decade especially.

MR. MAC NEIL: Should we change our attitude about -- or what attitude should we have about infallible computers are?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I think to put it in perspective, these chips by and large do not have large problems, and if one of the things that's come up -- one of the assertions that I think is true -- is that had this math problem really been as serious as say IBM is claiming in its numbers, and I have no way of vouching for it, I can't test these things, it would have -- there would have been a lot of problems that people would have noticed. The fact that the problems weren't noticed doesn't mean that the problems didn't occur but that maybe they weren't serious. What I would say is, yeah, as a society, we should be concerned about relying on this technology. The technology I would be questioning more than the chips, themselves, is the software that runs on them, because the methods for creating software are cave man methods compared with how we create chips.

MR. MAC NEIL: Spell that out a little bit more. You mean, we're dragging far behind in the ability to develop ways of using these miraculous little instruments?

MR. LEWIS: Right. Well, what I'm really referring to is the methods for writing software. It's not automated, generally not automated to the extent that it is in manufacturing the hardware, therefore, there's a lot more human error, there's a lot more sort of black magic involved. Programming is still more of a craft and an art than a science. And that I think is where we're going to run into more and more trouble in making systems that are really going to work for us.

MR. MAC NEIL: And we depend on chip-based technology more and more, including a lot of things on which our lives depend. I mean, our automobiles are partly run with these right now, certainly airplanes are, and --

MR. LEWIS: I don't want to alarm people, and I don't think -- you know, planes aren't going to start falling out of the sky, because of a division error in Pentium chips. But it is a concern, you know, for all of us, that we should not -- I think the warning here is that we should not assume that the machine is infallible. We should continue to always ask and demand proof that they will work as advertised.

MR. MAC NEIL: How would you describe this moment in the onward march of the computer -- of the computer industry, and at the very core of our new industrial revolution? Is this just a public relations glitch, or is this symbolic of something else?

MR. LEWIS: Well, it's interesting, because it's generated so much reaction, and it, obviously, struck a chord somewhere. I think that if you look at the computer as sort of a vehicle that's going to bring us onto the information superhighway and you have millions of consumers buying home computers this year, all of a sudden they're looking at this box, and they're going, I can't trust this thing that's in my house, there's something wrong, there's something weird about this. I think it -- it raises a lot of certain primal fears about the technology.

MR. MAC NEIL: Which may be irrational, given the minuteness --

MR. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely.

MR. MAC NEIL: -- of the flaw compared with the --

MR. LEWIS: And I think, overall, my guess is, my best guess is it's a glitch. People are going to buy these computers. They get a value out of them, they love to use them. They're not going to have a problem.

MR. MAC NEIL: Geoff Lewis, thank you very much.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you. RECAP

MS. WARNER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, a homeless man brandishing a knife was shot and wounded by police outside the White House. Officials said President Clinton was working in the Oval Office at the time and was never in any danger. And the Federal Reserve Board decided to hold the line on interest rates. The Fed has already pushed up rates six times this year. Good night, Robin.

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