The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Monday, Soviet President Gorbachev attacked a plan for a new Slavic commonwealth, White House Spokesman Fitzwater said all Soviet nuclear weapons should remain under a unified command and 10 people died in a Chicago apartment fire. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: On the NewsHour tonight, is the Soviet Union dead, and if it is, what will take its place are two questions we try to answer. After a report from Moscow, we have a NewsMaker interview with the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Robert Strauss, then the views of four experts on Soviet affairs. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Soviet President Gorbachev today attacked the new political alliance of three major Soviet republics. The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia created a Slavic Commonwealth yesterday. They make up 70 percent of the Soviet population, 80 percent of its industrial output. Russian President Boris Yeltsin briefed Gorbachev this morning on the agreement which, in effect, dissolves the present Soviet Union. We have a report on their meeting narrated by Vera Frankel of Worldwide Television News.

MS. FRANKEL: The flurry of activity at the Kremlin followed Sunday's declaration by Russian, Ukraine, and Byelorussia that they'd formed a commonwealth and that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Like Gorbachev, President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan was surprised by the accord. He that whatever structure emerged, leaders of the republic seemed united in wanting radical reforms to prevent the economy from collapsing, but he warned they must be careful not to ignite civil unrest and he asked that the new commonwealth be discussed by the Soviet legislature. Nazarbayev also said he was concerned about the nuclear arsenals owned by the three commonwealth republics, as well as his own. He urged them to join him in signing a special treaty to keep central control over the weapons until they're dismantled. In a statement read by a newscaster on national television, Gorbachev gave his first public reaction to the pact. His statement said a new commonwealth could not be formed by just a few republics. He called for the Soviet parliament to be convened to discuss the fate of the country he once ruled and said the newly created commonwealth needed to be evaluated carefully.

MR. LEHRER: Boris Yeltsin briefed President Bush about the new commonwealth in a phone call last night. White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Yeltsin assured Mr. Bush Soviet nuclear weapons were in safe hands. Fitzwater said the United States wanted the weapons stored under the control of a single body. State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the U.S. was pleased by the peaceful formation of the commonwealth, but she said this country had no immediate plans to establish formal diplomatic relations with it. First Lady Barbara Bush was asked by reporters to comment on Mikhail Gorbachev's situation. She did so at a White House Christmas event.

BARBARA BUSH: I feel sorry for anybody who has problems. I hope people remember that without Gorbachev, a lot of the good things that have happened in the world wouldn't have happened. I mean, he didn't get the peace prize for nothing.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The leaders of the European Community met today in the Netherlands to discuss their 1992 economic merger. All 12 countries, except Great Britain, showed support for adopting a single currency and central bank as early as 1997. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: A fire in a small Chicago apartment building today killed ten people, five of them children. One other woman was burned and in critical condition. Authorities said the fire started on the second floor of the three story building on Chicago's Northwest side and spread to the top floor where all the victims were found. This evening, officials said an overused electrical outlet was the likely cause of the blaze.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush expressed confidence today in the government's research effort against AIDS. He spoke as he met for the first time with the National Commission on AIDS. He said he wanted to know what the White House could do to be of more help in fighting the disease. Later, the head of the Commission, Dr. June Osborn, said she hoped the President would get involved in AIDS issues. She said the epidemic has intensified pressures on many social structures and she expected a bad decade ahead, particularly for Americans without health insurance. A federal judge in Washington today upheld the Defense Department's policy against homosexuals in the military. Judge Oliver Gash said the ban was at least partly justified because it helps prevent the spread of AIDS in the armed forces.

MS. WOODRUFF: Palestinians in Israel's occupied territories today marked the fourth anniversary of the Intifada, or uprising, with a general strike. Many young Palestinians took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations. Shops were closed and traffic was virtually non-existent. Israeli military officials sent additional troops into the territories. They also imposed curfews and banned Palestinians from entering Jerusalem. There were scattered reports of violence but no major confrontations. In Washington, Arab delegates to the Middle East peace conference attended ceremonies to commemorate the anniversary. Hanan Ashrawi, spokeswoman for the Palestinian delegation, used the occasion to criticize Israel for being preoccupied with procedural matters, such as the location where the talks are to be held.

HANAN ASHRAWI, Palestinian Delegation: We came to Washington in order to negotiate substance. Now, we don't see that the role of peacemakers should be the role of globe trotters and we do not relish the idea either of going from one place to the other, discussing the next venue, and never getting down to real substance. So let's hope that Israelis would have a similar commitment to sit down and discuss substance and to stay as long as it takes in order to achieve concrete results.

MS. WOODRUFF: The peace talks are scheduled to resume tomorrow. U.S. officials today accused Iraq of forcing up to 200,000 Kurds from their homes. State Department Spokeswoman Tutwiler said Iraq has imposed an economic blockade on the Kurds and continues to conduct military operations against them in some areas. International relief groups warn that camps, such as this one in Northern Iraq near the Iranian border, are ill-equipped to take care of the growing number of refugees. They say that many will die with the onset of winter.

MR. LEHRER: A British court today froze the worldwide assets of Kevin Maxwell, son of the late publishing tycoon, Robert Maxwell. Accountants have discovered $1.2 billion missing from pension funds in the Maxwell media empire. Some authorities believe the elder Maxwell may have used the money to cover his business debts. His body was found in the ocean near the Canary Islands November 5th, after he disappeared from his yacht. Spanish officials have said he probably died of a heart attack. The last edition of the Dallas Times Herald was published this morning. The 112-year-old newspaper was bought out yesterday by its longtime rival, the Dallas Morning News. The price was $55 million. Dallas now becomes the largest U.S. city with only one major newspaper.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead on the NewsHour, moves to turn most of the Soviet Union into a commonwealth, reaction from U.S. Ambassador Robert Strauss, and four other experts. FOCUS - SOVIET DISUNION

MR. LEHRER: The Soviet Union is no more say one, say most all today. It formally died yesterday when the leaders of three of the Union's largest republics decided to form a new commonwealth. It is our lead and sole story tonight. Our coverage begins with this report from Moscow by Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

MR. RADO: As he arrived this morning in his limousine, Mikhail Gorbachev must have wondered what power still lay in the Kremlin, especially as the capital of the new Pan Slavic commonwealth, was this weekend declared to be Minsk in Byelorussia. It appears that Boris Yeltsin put his name to the Byelorussian agreement yesterday because he saw it as the only remaining antidote to disintegration. He had backed President Gorbachev's new Union treaty, but the independence vote in the Ukraine last weekend put an insurmountable obstacle in the way of progress on the Union and, therefore, in the way of any agreement on economic reform between republics. The arrival of the Ukrainian President, Leonid Kravchuk, in Minsk was significant. It proved he was backing down from his pre-election rhetoric about the Ukraine going it alone, however, the presence of an American assistant secretary of state in Kiev showed the Ukraine was still seeking recognition as an independent state, albeit part of a commonwealth.

THOMAS NILES, Assistant Secretary of State: We're in the process of discussing that issue and other issues and I'll be reporting back to Sec. Baker and to President Bush, who, of course, will have to make that judgment, themselves.

MR. RADO: It all shows that however much Mr. Gorbachev argued for it on national TV last night, the concept of one sovereign state existing within another state is proving unacceptable. Those involved in drawing up the Pan Slav agreement today are thought to be generous about Gorbachev's future role.

SERGEIE PLEKHANOV, U.S.-Canada Institution: There is an important potential role for Mr. Gorbachev because he was initiator of this reform movement. And now with this forum, the democratization process unfolds and people vote for their independence, for their self-rule and other things. And the republics now organize exactly what he was advocating all this time.

MR. RADO: The Kazhak leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in a news conference admitted that neither he nor President Gorbachev had been consulted about the Byelorussian deal. He still saw a role for Mr. Gorbachev, but his backing was hedged with reservations.

NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV, President, Kazakhstan: [Speaking through Interpreter] You know my attitude toward Gorbachev and his shortcomings, those mistakes he made during the years of perestroika, those mistakes which could be avoided, his conservative approach, his restrictive phase, lagging behind events, but I believe that at this difficult time, Gorbachev hasn't reached the limit of his abilities. In my opinion, he is still needed.

MR. RADO: The three Slave presidents have so flagrantly seized the initiative from Gorbachev, even claiming control of the armed forces and nuclear weapons, that whatever role he accepts can only be a diminished one. What's more, Mr. Gorbachev's fate now lies not in his own hands, but in those of the republican presidents'.

MR. LEHRER: Now an official U.S. view of the commonwealth action. It comes from Robert Strauss, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, who arrived in Washington this weekend from Moscow. I spoke with him earlier this evening. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, welcome.

AMB. STRAUSS: Nice being here.

MR. LEHRER: Is there still a country for you to be an ambassador to?

AMB. STRAUSS: Well, it's quite a country. Yes, I would say so. I don't know quite what the form of it is going to be, but it's a country.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. But the Soviet Union, as what we have come to know it as, no longer exists. Is that the way you understand it?

AMB. STRAUSS: I think that's a fair statement. Yeah, I think that's a fair statement. And I don't know what it will be like exactly. They're still trying to find their way. It's certainly different from what it was, different from what I expected it to be a week ago maybe or two weeks or three weeks ago. But in a broader sense, Jim, you know, I was minding my own business when President Bush and Sec.Baker asked me to go over there and I was pretty negative, if you remember, on that. But they were right when they said to me that we were in for turbulent times over there and they didn't know what it was going to produce but it'd be turbulence. And they made the case that it was, didn't necessarily require an experienced diplomatic type to go over there, rather, someone who can deal with political issues and political leaders and was known to them, and someone with background and experience, age might come in handy, and represent them, and so they proved to be right. It's a different world every day.

MR. LEHRER: What is this world of the commonwealth? What is your understanding of what these folks, what the power of this commonwealth is, how they see it functioning? Is it a separate nation now, or what do they have in mind?

AMB. STRAUSS: Jim, I don't think they really know yet. There are certain things that came out of that. First, they speak in terms of a coordinating group, so obviously they expect to be coordinated. The three or four or more may join. And they expect some coordination between them. They spoke in terms of a unified military. They spoke in terms of foreign policy. That requires a sort of coordinated approach.

MR. LEHRER: Nation, that's what nations do.

AMB. STRAUSS: That's what nations do. So they say that on the one hand, and on the other hand, they speak of their independence, and each from the other, and from everyone else, and so they're feeling their way along. I don't think it's been thought through totally. And there are some positive and there are some negative things that come out of it.

MR. LEHRER: Did this thing come out of the blue for you and the United States? Did you know this was coming?

AMB. STRAUSS: No, I don't think anyone knew it was coming, including the players. It seems to me that probably, and I don't know this, that President Yeltsin realized with the Ukraine going the way it went and taking as strong a position about independence as they did that he ought to re-examine his position maybe, and he got together and convinced the others they ought to meet. And they went to satisfy everyone's ego, I guess, outside of Russia, and the three of them sat down and worked out this relationship of some kind. And I think they're still thinking through.

MR. LEHRER: Where's Gorbachev right now?

AMB. STRAUSS: Gorbachev right now no one really knows. He just finished this afternoon a long meeting.

MR. LEHRER: With Yeltsin.

AMB. STRAUSS: With Yeltsin. And he came out of there saying that there were some positive things. I just spoke to my office a few minutes ago in Moscow and for about the fourth time today. I started at 3 o'clock this morning talking to them. It was 10 o'clock in the morning their time. He came out of there speaking that there were some positive aspects to this and there were negative aspects. And he raised serious questions. First, he expressed some satisfaction that the Ukraine joined with these other two, that others might join, about the fact that they talked about unified command structure, about common currency, a common foreign policy. On the other hand, on the negative side, he pointed out very strongly that this was not a legal, hadn't come into being in a legal way, that there really had been no vote of anybody, there had been no parliamentary sanctions, there's been, none of those things had taken place. And he indicates he's going to call a conference of the congress and have them discuss this.

MR. LEHRER: But it doesn't sound like he's going to fight it, does it?

AMB. STRAUSS: Well, I don't know. I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that. If you look at it one side, it sounds like he's not. On the other side, it looks like he could be squaring off. And that's one of the things we have to follow, you know. And the main thing, it isn't our business how they determine they're going to govern themselves. That isn't our business. That's for the Soviet people to determine. What we know and our goal is to be sure that there is a peaceful evolution and transformation that takes place out there. We've been successful in seeing it take place so far. And if we keep doing the right things in this country, they will figure out their relationship and they will figure it out in a peaceful, democratic way. And that transformation must take place that way and it must do two or three other things. It must, while we can't determine and shouldn't determine the affairs of the Soviet people that belong correctly to them, we can see that there are certain basic principles, the five principles laid down by Sec. Baker, I might add, and dealing with human rights, respectful boundaries, and control of the nukes, and all those things that come into there. That is our business and that is my business.

MR. LEHRER: And the nuclear issue, are you satisfied up to this point that the declaration that the commonwealth, these three republics issued, they're going to take care of the nuclear problem?

AMB. STRAUSS: We have had constant and never swerving assurances to that effect. And I might add that President Yeltsin as late as yesterday reassured President Bush again that that was covered carefully by the three of them, that they're very comfortable that they've taken care of that. And I think we have to allow the fact they have, but we have to follow it every day. Again, that's my job and it's representing the President and Sec. of State in doing that.

MR. LEHRER: One of your jobs too is to follow the opposition over there and there have been predictions even before what happened yesterday, predictions from Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze, the foreign minister, that there might be another hardline coup attempt being made.

AMB. STRAUSS: Yes, yes.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think the hardliners are going to sit still for this commonwealth thing?

AMB. STRAUSS: Well, I don't know, but I know one thing. One of the things I'm doing over here and spending this week over here on, 10 days, working on some economic things that I've got as much business or more in the U.S. to take care of for the Soviet Union, such as it proves to be, as I really do over there. And one of the things that we need to do is see that we support the efforts that are being made over there and see that those people aren't so hungry and so frustrated and so homeless that they turn to a demagogue who could, who could really stir 'em up and end up with a form of government that would be contrary to those principles I've spoken of.

MR. LEHRER: So you think that's still a possibility?

AMB. STRAUSS: I think it's a possibility. You've got millions of men still in the army and women, I might add, who are carrying weapons, who have no, who have insufficient food for their families and are worried about having sufficient, have no homes, they're homeless, and that kind of climate --

MR. LEHRER: And it's cold, right?

AMB. STRAUSS: It's cold. That's the kind of climate where demagogues do very well. And so those are things, that's the reason that I keep arguing here in this country, Jim, that when we prudently and wisely give humanitarian aid and technical assistance and see that they don't starve, that really we're taking care of our ownselves. This is not an unselfish act. This is a selfish act, because we have a tremendous stake in that. We've won, we've won after spending trillions of dollars. We have turned back Communism, and freedom and democracy in whatever form it takes out there has taken over. Now we must win the peace with that and see that it, those principles stay.

MR. LEHRER: But you are probably more than any other recent U.S. ambassador really know domestic politics in this country.

AMB. STRAUSS: Yes, I do.

MR. LEHRER: And you also know that there's a recession going on here. What are you going to say to the guy here who's unemployed or facing unemployment? Look, man, I've got a problem. You want to give money to the Soviet Union?

AMB. STRAUSS: Yes, I don't think that the kind of money we're talking about giving the Soviet Union, we're not talking about pouring cash into there willy nilly, we're talking about very careful sums of money. And after spending trillions to get this far, spending an extra billion or two or three is a good investment, and I'll tell you this. It doesn't mean that we have to neglect the issues at home. And I'll tell you something else I know, Jim. I've been dealing with the American public a long time, Democrats, Republicans, and liberals and conservatives, and all different creeds, you give the American public a decent choice, an intelligent choice, and you explain what the choices are, you can have this and it costs so much, or you can go that way and it's something else, they'll make the right choice. And I have confidence in the American people. And they will support the policy like we're pursuing out there if it's explained to them properly. And that's my job to do it and I intend to try to do it.

MR. LEHRER: Lay out the choice.

AMB. STRAUSS: Well, the choice is that we turn our back over there and say we're turning inward and we're not going to provide any technical assistance, and help you get on your feet, this struggling, this terribly confused group of governments out there that are struggling to find their way, we turn our back on them, and in frustration and despair, a climate exists that a demagogue can, a real fascist type government can come in and take over there under the leadership of any of several demagogues that I know over there that are operating. That's one choice. The other choice is that we coordinate together with our European allies and our Asian allies and jointly we provide modest kind of assistance and support, encouragement, see them through this cold winter, help them as they struggle to get on their feet and are searching for a way to go. These people for 75 years have never known freedom. They've never seen any kind of rule. It's all been command. You will go here and you will do that. And it's a new day, it's a new world, and it's very difficult, and it's going to be a turbulent several years. It isn't going to be easy. But the American people don't require something to be easy. They require value and importance and adherence to principles that they believe hold here. And that's why I say give the American people a choice, they'll make the right choice. They always have. They always will. That's what the leaders have to do.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much.

AMB. STRAUSS: Thank you.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, more reaction to the momentous changes in the Soviet Union from four experts. But first, this is Pledge Week on public television. We're taking a short break now so that your public television station can ask for your support. That support helps keep programs like this on the air. PLEDGE BREAK SEGMENT

MS. WOODRUFF: For those stations not taking a pledge break, the NewsHour continues with a look at the struggle to make the transition from Communism to capitalism in Moscow. Correspondent Brian Stewart of the CBC's "Journal Program" recently visited with some budding entrepreneurs and filed this report.

BRIAN STEWART, CBC: These are the crowds now in Moscow's Arbat Street, it's famed private enterprise, outdoor market for souvenirs and Soviet mementos. Arbat was often used before to depict the growth of private capital, but now it's an upper scale flea market, often saturated with tourists. To see a real market flourish, better to follow these long lines of Muscovites over to this grimy, industrial suburb that holds East Milava Park. On weekends, East Milava becomes an explosion of buying and selling of odds and ends. These young men selling satirical political dolls think they have it made, maybe soon will buy a Mercedes. Tough, they always shun the state jobs. These sellers grew up in the black market and fear nothing.

SOVIET CITIZEN: Such quality is not bizarre condition.

MR. STEWART: Do you enjoy it? Do you enjoy being a businessman?

SOVIET CITIZEN: Yeah, I enjoy it.

MR. STEWART: The antique stalls are a little sad. People who managed to cling to a few old objects during all the decades of turmoil are now forced to sell them off to survive inflation. But eager young dealers such as 20-year-old Alexi Babyenka are reaping rewards.

MR. BABYENKA: [Speaking through Interpreter] I go out to the villages and the rural markets and buy this from people, basically from grandfathers and grandmothers, from folks who live badly and desperately need money. And I can give them something. Our country has ruined the people and there is no currency really. So many older people don't have anything to live off and now they're forced to sell what used to be their father's or grandfather's. That's how I come by this stuff.

MR. STEWART: How do people learn to sell from scratch? What price to put on unremembered music, on so many other scattered objects of Russia's past, of peace, ended war? Most here simply watch each other, learning from example, but lost in this crowd, Alexandrova Mikarevna, now almost 90. Though her hands shake, she has sold a few small dolls and came here to try to sell them, but she is not sure how to sell and is ignored.

ALEXANDROVA MIKAREVNA: [Speaking through Interpreter] People who are articulate do well, but those who are not do poorly. And I'm not articulate, though I have worked all my life.

MR. STEWART: This old war veteran, Nikolai Vakavolovich, never sold before either. He used to make musical instruments. Now he's got nothing to sell but a few empty bottles of whiskey or coke for a few rubles. He has a pattern.

NIKOLAI VAKAVOLOVICH: [Speaking through Interpreter] It doesn't break in the car, plastic, not like glass bottles. This one is really good. You know, it's soft, like a ball. It doesn't shatter, not heavy, breakable, not like a glass bottle.

MR. STEWART: Vakavolovich says it isn't much of a life, but wild inflation forces him to do something.

NIKOLAI VAKAVOLOVICH: [Speaking through Interpreter] Some people laugh at me, but I'm not laughing and I'm getting some money to add to my pension, my war pension, my worker's pension that don't even support me half a month.

MR. STEWART: Images of the past weigh on everyone here. The young sell off their stirring Communist badges. The old sell the patriotic symbols of their day. Whatever else, those two historical figures, Czar Nikolas II and Vladimir Ilayich Lenin, may have thought about the future course of history, neither could have guessed that one day they would end up side by side in a rough Moscow flea market. Well, that's where they are today, symbols of epochs now reduced to cut rate tourist mementos. SOVIET DISUNION - PERSPECTIVES

MS. WOODRUFF: We continue with the Soviet story. By late today President Gorbachev had become increasingly critical of the move by the Slavic republics to form a commonwealth. He said such important matters should be decided by the National Congress, or perhaps even a referendum. We get four more views now on these developments. McGeorge Bundy was National Security Adviser to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, he is now a professor of history at New York University. Adm. William Crowe was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Reagan administration, he is now a counselor at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington and a professor of geopolitics at the University of Oklahoma. Adrian Karatnycky is Foreign Policy Adviser to the President of the AFL-CIO. In that capacity, he has been working with republican governments in the Soviet Union as they implement political and economic reform. And Martha Brill Olcott, a professor at Colgate University, and currently a fellow at the East West Center at Duke University, she joins us from Raleigh. McGeorge Bundy, let me begin with you. What does this, this agreement between the three Slavic republics, this commonwealth agreement mean? Is the Soviet Union, as we know it, dead once and for all, or what?

MR. BUNDY: Well, I don't think we can say it's dead while Mikhail Gorbachev is still protesting and has his own position and attitude, but I think it is a major change. I think it does at least suggest that the three most important Slavic republics have found a common ground and mean to stick to it, and I think they have the power, not necessarily the power of words, but the power holding political authority, to go their way, if I'm not wrong.

MS. WOODRUFF: Adrian Karatnycky, does that mean that they are, that this is a group that now is going to make decisions, in effect, for the Soviet Union? What do you think?

MR. KARATNYCKY: Yes, I think that they have made certain concrete decisions. One concrete decision is that they have decided that the Soviet Union doesn't exist as a subject of international law, which really means that they're saying that we ought to remove diplomatic recognition from the Soviet Union. I think they've also taken steps to set in place not a new state but a set of arrangements, a community without a set of ministries, without an elected president, without an elected parliament and a constitution, a set of treaties, arrangements, and a military pact. So this is a very far reaching reorganization which removes a transnational inter- republic state and puts in its place something resembling more like a combination of NATO and the European Community.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is this a good move, Adm. Crowe?

ADM. CROWE: I think it's premature to say so. Certainly from a military standpoint, while some of the language is encouraging and they talk in unified terms, I think it'll add another element of uncertainty to a Soviet military that's already in disarray. They'll be quite confused about it. And what their ultimate attitude or reactions will be, I don't think we can see as yet.

MS. WOODRUFF: And Martha Brill Olcott, is this a positive move, as far as the SovietUnion, or whatever is the new version of the Soviet Union is concerned?

MS. OLCOTT: I think potentially this could be a very positive move. I think that what we see now for the first time is these three republics projecting themselves as a nation state. And they're saying that we have to recognize that there are fundamentally new political arrangements in the country that we used to call the Soviet Union. This may be sufficient to instill the degree of public confidence that's necessary to help the Soviet people over the very difficult transitional economic period that they're counting on. If this agreement can help assure, reassure people, then I think that it really could well be a key positive step. But I think we all have to be very, very cautious today about talking in positive terms about what's going on in the Soviet Union.

MS. WOODRUFF: But if that's the case, McGeorge Bundy, what about the other 12 republics and the people who live there? This is, after all, only three of the fifteen.

MR. BUNDY: Well, I think it's fairly clear that the calculation of those three is that they constitute a decisive force of gravity; if they hold together and proceed in their new commonwealth, they will attract some at least of the other republics. The most interest question I think would be the choice of Kazakhstan, which is the most important of the non-Slavic republics.

MS. WOODRUFF: Whether it chooses to join.

MR. BUNDY: Whether it chooses to join. It will surely be pressed to join. There will be advantages to us in such a joining because that is fourth and final republic which holds strategic weapons.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, what about Gorbachev's statement? He put out this statement today saying it's illegal, dangerous. He said it can only worsen the chaos in the Soviet Union.

MR. BUNDY: Mr. Gorbachev has many skills, one of which is his readiness with verbal argument for the position that he finds himself sustaining politically. I don't think there's a world of difference between his picture of sovereign republics in a sovereign state and the picture we have now of sovereign republics in a commonwealth. It's a matter of who's going to make decisions within those arrangements.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Adrian Karatnycky, what is the difference between the Union that Gorbachev was talking about and this Union?

MR. KARATNYCKY: Well, I think there's a fundamental difference. The fundamental difference is that they're not talking about a state arrangement. They are talking about a series of coordinated relationships in the spirit of the economy, in the spirit of national defense, in the spirit of foreign policy, but they are not saying that there is a super structure of a state the exists above it and has a command relationship to the other republics. They are pretty much free to go it alone, but they can voluntarily choose through the agency of this new confederation or this new commonwealth to coordinate a certain limited number of their activities.

MS. WOODRUFF: Can you compare it with anything else that exists in the world today, or in recent history?

MR. KARATNYCKY: I think that there is a kind of an odd parallel because I think Europe is moving towards greater coordination and they're moving towards lesser coordination and I think they're going to somehow meet midway and I think we may find a lot of parallels in say 10 years in what is occurring say East of the Elb or say East of the Soviet, former Soviet border, and in Western Europe, so I think that this process is actually a similar one.

MS. WOODRUFF: Adm. Crowe, you mentioned the army a minute ago, and I want to get to that in a moment, but what about the population of the Soviet Union? We heard Amb. Strauss say earlier this is the time when a lot of people are hungry and soldiers and others, not just those who are in the military, are without adequate housing, we're moving into the winter. What do you think the potential is for a public reaction to this chaotic situation, which Mr. Gorbachev talked about today?

ADM. CROWE: I know that the military is in a deprived state, as you mentioned, Judy. About 200,000 of their troops that have returned from Eastern Europe are under tents in Western Soviet Union with no prospect whatsoever for barracks or permanent housing. The 100,000 officers that they mustered out of the Soviet army, they were not able to provide them jobs. In general, they returned to their native villages. This was very unsatisfying. The military in general was very dissatisfied with this. They are in disarray in many respects. You asked if there's a parallel. And in certain respects, it's too early to say with specificity, but in a certain respect, they're proposing for their own country a NATO type of command, where you have a number of countries coordinating their efforts, with one, presumably, supreme commander who will be subject to the orders of all these nations. Whether the Soviet military can make that transition at least smoothly is a very very serious question in my mind.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, do you think that's a potential stable situation or not?

ADM. CROWE: Well, not necessarily. It depends on -- of course, the key in the Soviet Union is economic. If they can overcome some of their economic problems and keep dissatisfaction down, a lot of these transitional problems will disappear. But if they don't, no, this will not be necessarily a stable solution. And the military, while it's not a factor today, could at any time become a factor if these problems escalate.

MS. WOODRUFF: Martha Olcott, what's your reading on that, on the potential for unrest in the military and also the acceptance of the population overall for this, or does the political structure of the Soviet Union matter to the average Soviet citizen?

MS. OLCOTT: I think that the political structure is not nearly as important to the Soviet citizen as their economic structure. And one thing that really makes me nervous is how rapidly the economy is deteriorating. Even when we talk about introducing massive aid in the Soviet Union, we have to remember the time lag in shipping over food aid and especially in technical assistance. And I worry that we're going to be losing control of the sequencing of political events, that we're not going to be able to introduce assistance quickly enough to help change political attitudes. As far as what Adm. Crowe said, I really agree completely, I think the military is a very, very critical part of this solution working. And I think especially as long as President Gorbachev is disapproving of the solution the actions of the military become very, very difficult to predict.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean by that?

MS. OLCOTT: Well, I think we're in a situation where there can be a potential stalemate between Gorbachev saying that the republics don't have the right to secede, in his words, in their words that they don't have the right to act as a commonwealth. As long as that's, that trade-off exists, then the military, in effect, is being asked to decide who they're going to listen to.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, in other words, as long as there's a big question mark hanging over where the real authority lies, McGeorge Bundy, how is it going to be decided?

MR. BUNDY: Well, I don't think we know. We'd have to wait and see. But I would hold a view that the balance of political power is now the presidents of the three republics. They are elected officers and they have direct political authorization. And I think it's true that the Soviet people want economic problems attended to, and I'd like to come back to that in a minute, but I think they also have and have strongly expressed this sense of national identity in the Ukraine, also in Byelorussia, and in other republics. And what the problem is to reconcile that necessary because so strong, necessary nationalism with the level of economic effort which hasn't yet been undertaken in the new Russia. It's not the area in which Gorbachev, himself, was successful. It is the challenge that is urgent for them now. And the question of our own response, as Amb. Strauss said, is unfinished business because we aren't doing very much, in part because it's not been clear what to do or who to do it with. And I think the hope we have to have now is that this new political process may produce a readiness to move with the kind of economic change and the kind of determination that we and others could support.

MS. WOODRUFF: That they've been talking about. But just in terms of the political viability of what they have agreed to do here, I hear you saying that the three leaders of these Slavic republics hold the balance of power, that it matters less and less what Gorbachev says.

MR. BUNDY: Well, I think events will tell that better than any of around this gathering, but my own guess is that that's the way it'll turn out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Back to you, Adrian Karatnycky. Is it fair to say then that for all of Gorbachev's ranting and raving and questioning and saying that there ought to be a meeting of the Soviet parliament and maybe even a referendum that that really doesn't matter so much now as what these three leaders have decided they want done?

MR. KARATNYCKY: Well, it matters in only one sense, that Gorbachev, on whom the United States policy has put all its cards or most of its cards, is now an impediment to an orderly transition to this new arrangement. This is a new arrangement which could be considerably more stable than the current ambiguity. It is an arrangement which, in my judgment, meets with the approval of the defense minister. Minister Marshal Shaposhnikov enunciated a new line in mid November where he indicated that republic parliaments have the right to create their own armies. He simply asked for a five year transitional period in which to effect a change from the current arrangements into a new arrangement or an arrangement of the future. So I think that what we are seeing now in this confederation of independent states is an attempt to take a leap into working out these kinds of ambiguities. The last thing the United States should want and the last thing that U.S. policy should encourage would be several ambiguous claims to primacy and control over the military. You currently already have this kind of confusion because according to laws under, enacted by the Congress of People's Deputies, it is the president and the state council to whom the defense ministry and the chain of command is now accountable. So I think that the sooner they move towards these new arrangements, the better it is for stability and security. And Gorbachev is now the impediment.

MS. WOODRUFF: And the Asian republics will just come along in due time.

MR. KARATNYCKY: Well, I think it's very significant that the way this was done that a deal was cut between these three republics. And I think that the motivation is less military and more economic. They want to set the terms. They don't want to have a relationship where they essentially have to woo these other states into participating because these other states will negotiate cash transfers to deal with their rather high rates of poverty. And I think that each of these more prosperous republics have made a calculated decision that it is dangerous for them to siphon off additional aid to deal with those economic problems. Having set up their own union and having set up their own terms, they can now bargain with more or less a fait de complit.

MS. WOODRUFF: Martha Olcott, what should the United States do? You heard Amb. Strauss say a moment ago the United States is in a position to give a billion or two or three billion dollars to put that much money into the Soviet Union, it would make a big difference, and we ought to do it. How much difference would that make, assuming it were done? And of course, there are great political questions about whether it would be done.

MS. OLCOTT: I think that even if we were to commit ourselves to provide several billion dollars of aid, we couldn't get over there fast enough to affect the events as they're going to unfold in the next week or two. And I think that it's really the next week or two whether the central Asian republics come in, whether the central Asian republics come in as a transitional phase to full independence, how Nursaltan Nasarbayev decides the question of Kazakhstan, which is a spit republic between Russians and Kazhaks, half central Asian, half European. These are the kind of questions I think that are going to shape the next several months of the Soviet Union. They're going to shape and maybe they won't even forestall food riots. But certainly these kinds of decisions I think will occur before any sort of massive U.S. aid could be in play.

MS. WOODRUFF: Adm. Crowe, what should the United States do at this point, just sit back and wait, what?

ADM. CROWE: Well, I agree with everything I've heard here this evening but Amb. Strauss made it rather clear that it's not our obligation, not our responsibility to decide these questions for the Soviet or the Russian people. I think we must always keep that in mind. There are limits on how we can influence these events, these momentous events. We should, of course, try to act wisely, prudently, and conduct ourselves accordingly, but to discuss it as if we are the ones that are going to determine these things, that's just simply not true, and we are going to have to have the patience to see it out and to sit back and watch events develop many times.

MS. WOODRUFF: There's been a lot of discussion, of course, about the control of the nuclear weapons, particularly strategic nuclear weapons over there, which are placed mostly in these three republics that came together. How much, how concerned should the United States be about the control?

ADM. CROWE: I think it's a very legitimate concern and, of course, one of rather high priority this government which we made clear all along, and particularly today, the spokesman for the U.S. government consistently mentioned this problem. We are assured, the ambassador mentioned this, that we have firm assurances from the leadership that control is centralized and that they feel they have a handle on it. I have no reason to quarrel with that. I don't know. I'm not privy to many of the details. We will not ever have assurance, of course, that in a crisis or in actual hostilities, at least with what we know now, that the people that have the stewardship of these weapons are going to be responsive to political control. But that's a luxury we just simply won't have.

MS. WOODRUFF: McGeorge Bundy, what about that? We had Sec. of State Baker saying, again, saying just yesterday civil war can't be ruled out and this time, as in Yugoslavia, and this time there are nuclear weapons involved.

MR. BUNDY: Well, I think I agree with Adm. Crowe. I think that we have a concern here and they have been at least verbally responsive to that concern. And I get the impression that these three republics and also Kazakhstan have leadership that recognizes that we have a deep interest and they have a deep interest in maintaining control over those strategic nuclear weapons, which are in those four republics. We have helped. I think we should note that the American administration led by the President, himself, has been very energetic in pressing for reductions on both sides, has led the way back in September in unilateral reductions on our side, which Gorbachev then very substantially matched.

MS. WOODRUFF: So when they say --

MR. BUNDY: There is recognition on both sides that the nuclear danger is a special case. And we even have money going into that. There's an appropriation of $400 million in the defense budget for the assistance in Soviet control or Russian control or whatever kind of control you want to call it of their weapons.

MS. WOODRUFF: So Adrian Karatnycky, when the topic of nuclear weapons comes up, the United States should be concerned or in what posture?

MR. KARATNYCKY: Well, I think that it should be concerned within the context of a broader policy. It seems that we have a relationship with a leader who has no power, Mikhail Gorbachev, and with a state that no longer exists, the Soviet Union or the former Soviet Union. It's about time for us to get with the program and to have more than two people covering the entire Ukraine, have no people on the ground in Kazakhstan, have no people on the ground in Byelorussia. I think all these kind of things.

MS. WOODRUFF: Wait a minute. What do you mean when you say no people on the ground?

MR. KARATNYCKY: There are no U.S. consular or embassy full-time personnel on the ground in these very large, very important, new emerging nation states.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what are you saying we should do?

MR. KARATNYCKY: We ought to increase our presence there and we ought to do it immediately. You know, people have been talking about power going to the republics for well over a year and yet, the policy and the implementation of an outreach to these people is lagging very far behind.

MS. WOODRUFF: Because today the spokeswoman at the State Department, Margaret Tutwiler, said there were some elements of, positive elements in all this, but that the United States was not ready to establish any sort of diplomatic relations with this new entity, whatever it is.

MR. KARATNYCKY: Well, I think that there is a problem in all of this. I mean, are we really saying that Gorbachev -- not Gorbachev -- Yeltsin and Kravchuk, these two leaders who have just received a strong mandate from their people are not really speaking and don't have a real kind of an authority? We have a policy that sort of implies that these people don't exist. They're asking for diplomatic recognition. They're asking for us to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Soviet Union. That is exactly what this declaration says. We ought to be fashioning a policy to respond to those demands from these legitimate democratically- elected and democratically-accountable leaders.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen and Ms. Olcott, we thank you all for being with us. Adm. Crowe, Mr. Karatnycky, Mr. Bundy, thank you all. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Soviet President Gorbachev challenged the right of the three Slavic Soviet republics to create a new commonwealth. U.S. officials praised the peaceful way the commonwealth move was handled and said all Soviet nuclear weapons should remain under a unified command. And 10 people were killed in an apartment house fire in Chicago. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with coverage of the Middle East peace talks as they reconvene in Washington. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.