The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. MUDD: And I'm Roger Mudd in New York.After the News Summary, we look first at Russian President Yeltsin's decision to disband parliament, then to China's quest for the Olympic goal. We have a report and analysis, and essayist Jim Fisher on a road West. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MUDD: Another furious power struggle erupted in Russia today when President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's conservative parliament, effectively seizing dictatorial powers. Speaking on Russian television, Yeltsin announced elections in December for a new parliament, saying any attempt to stand in his way would be punished. Parliament has been frustrating Yeltsin's attempts to convert to a free market economy. The parliament's leaders today quickly denounced the move as a coup de ta and voted to impeach Yeltsin, replacing him with Vice President Alexander Rutskoi. Hardliners rallied on the streets outside the parliament building, and some began to erect barricades to protect it. However, the country's armed forces vowed to steer clear of the context. The defense ministry issued a statement saying it would remain neutral. In Washington, President Clinton tried to play down the crisis, saying the Russians were trying to come to grips with what it means to be a democracy. He later phoned Yeltsin to express his support. Vice President Gore had this reaction.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: We're going to work with the forces of democracy and Boris Yeltsin in Russia to do what we can to improve the chances of a successful, continuing transition to a democracy and a free market economy there. These are startling developments. The crisis between him and the parliament has been building for some time and we, we feel that Boris Yeltsin is the best hope for democracy in Russia.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have more on the Russian story right after the News Summary. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Elsewhere in the republic of the Former Soviet Union today, Ukraine's parliament accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Leonid Kuchma. The parliament also asked President Leonid Kravchuk to name a new government. The two men have been locked in a power struggle for months. The Prime Minister has called for faster market reforms and closer economic ties with Russia. And in the republic of Georgia, 28 people were killed when a passenger plane was shot down near the besieged city of Sekumi. Georgian officials blamed the attack on separatist rebels fighting for control of Georgia's Abkhazia region.

MR. MUDD: The Democratic floor leader of the House announced today he would actively oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement. Majority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri said he does not believe the accord is in the best interest of either the United States or Mexico. The assistant majority leader, David Bonior of Michigan, announced his opposition some time ago. Gephardt spoke at a news conference in Washington.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Majority Leader: Despite the best efforts of President Clinton and his administration to remedy the flaws in the Bush negotiated NAFTA, the agreement is not a sufficient force for progress. The issues are too important and the stakes are too great to pass a deficient NAFTA. The agreement isn't sound, and our economy isn't ready for it; in fact, the greatest failures in the agreement that exacerbate our worst economic problems, disappearing jobs and a declining standard of living.

MR. MUDD: Soon after Gephardt's speech, congressional supporters of NAFTA called a news conference to respond. They were led by the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley.

REP. THOMAS FOLEY, Speaker of the House: All the issues he's raised are valid issues. Each one of them is a valid issue. The question is: Will we be better off or worse off on those issues and problems he raises with NAFTA or without NAFTA? We believe we will be better off with NAFTA. We don't believe that environmental standards are as likely to improve without NAFTA as with NAFTA. We don't believe that the relative opportunity for our exports will be as great without NAFTA as with NAFTA. We don't believe that there will be as many jobs without NAFTA as with NAFTA. We could go down the list. We have an honest disagreement.

MR. MUDD: The Commerce Department today said housing starts jumped in August to their highest level in three and a half years. They were up 7.8 percent. Construction of new homes and apartments grew in all regions of the country except the Northeast.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton signed legislation today to let students trade public service work for college tuition funds. Mr. Clinton said the new National Service Program would strengthen the cords that bind us together. He spoke at a signing ceremony on the White House lawn.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I hope, believe, and dream that national service will remain throughout the life of America not a series of promises but a series of challenges across all the generations and all walks of life to help us to rebuild our troubled but wonderful land. I hope that some day the success of this program will make it possible for every young American who wishes to serve and earn credit against a college education or other kinds of education and training to do that, and I believe it will happen.

MS. WARNER: One hundred thousand young people will participate over the next three years at a cost of $1.5 million.

MR. MUDD: U.S. rangers in Mogadishu, Somalia, today captured a chief aide to the fugitive warlords Mohamed Farrah Aidid. It was the first major success for the elite ranger force which arrived in the country several weeks ago. A U.N. spokesman said the man arrested was the chief financier for Aidid, who is blamed for the killing of 50 peacekeepers. Three more peacekeepers were killed today in a separate ambush by Somali gunmen in the capital. All three were Pakistani soldiers.

MS. WARNER: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin asked the Israeli parliament today for a vote of confidence on the Israeli- Palestinian Peace Accord. Meanwhile, opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu demanded a public referendum on the issue. The debate was so stormy that hecklers drowned out much of what Rabin and Netanyahu said. Rabin appears to have a slim majority, but a vote isn't expected for two or three days.

MR. MUDD: The Clinton administration today proposed an overhaul of the nation's pesticide and food safety regulations. The new rules would require pesticides with unacceptable health risks to be taken off the market within seven years. There would be less emphasis on the economic impact to farmers. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner joined officials from the Agriculture Department and the Food & Drug Administration to unveil the proposal at a hearing in Washington.

CAROL BROWNER, EPA Administrator: Our goal was to harness the expertise, the urgent concern, the very best science, and our most passionate caring for the benefit of our children and all Americans. Today's proposal is a giant step forward, an opportunity to break the logjam of competing and invested interests to ensure a rigorous standard for food safety that all Americans can rely on.

MR. MUDD: A moderate earthquake struck last night in Southern Oregon. The quake, measuring 5.7 on the Richter Scale, was centered near Klamath Falls. It damaged several buildings as aftershocks scattered power and telephone outages in the region. There was one reported fatality, a man killed when a 14 foot boulder crashed into his pickup truck. That ends our summary of the day's top stories. Ahead on the NewsHour, hardball politics in the Kremlin, China's race for the Olympics, and a Jim Fisher essay. FOCUS - POWER PLAY

MS. WARNER: The political crisis in Russia is first tonight. At this moment there is a tense standoff between President Yeltsin and the parliament, many of whom are old-line Communists. Yeltsin dissolved the parliament this evening and said he was taking control of the Russian government. He called for new parliamentary elections in December. The response from his political opponents came quickly. The parliament impeached Yeltsin and installed conservative Vice President Alexander Rutskoi in Yeltsin's place. We start with this report filed by Geoffrey Archer for the Independent Television News program in London "News AT Ten."

MR. ARCHER: President Yeltsin did his best to look relaxed, stately sipping at a cup of tea as he told the Russian people that he was dissolving parliament. There will be elections for a new assembly in December, he said. "The functions of the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of Peoples Deputies are now terminated," he told the nation. Throughout President Yeltsin's rule, the Russian parliament has been a thorn in his side, blocking his reforms. "That made Russia ungovernable," he said. And tonight he decided he had no alternative but to confront them head on. But the parliament's chairman, Ruslan Khasbulatov, launched a counterattack, calling for workers to go on protest strike. He appealed to the army to ignore President Yeltsin's orders. "I request you should in no way obey the criminal orders coming from this presidential decree," he said. All telephones to the Russian parliament building, the White House were reported cut after President Yeltsin's speech. Keeping control of government communications will be vital if Mr. Yeltsin's to hold on to power. Vice President Alexander Rutskoi, who last month was suspended on corruption allegations, tonight said Mr. Yeltsin's action was a coup de ta and declared himself acting president, with the backing of the parliament's presidium. Mr. Rutskoi, a veteran of the Afghanistan War, has influence with the armed forces. But Mr. Yeltsin has been working on the military too, last week visiting the crucial internal security troops of the Zizhinski division. There have been allegations that these troops are on standby to seize control of parliament if ordered to do so. Outside the White House tonight, small crowds gathered in support of Mr. Khasbulatov and his suspended parliament. They broke up paving stones as makeshift barricade, an attempt to deter the tanks which they expected to see on the streets later. There are militia men about, but Mr. Yeltsin's prime minister has firmly denied there's any tightening of security in Moscow tonight. And just in the last few minutes we've seen these pictures of Vice President Rutskoi being sworn in as president to replace President Yeltsin. He has the parliament's backing, but who will run the country tomorrow is the big question tonight.

MS. WARNER: Secretary of State Warren Christopher held a briefing this evening on the situation in Moscow. Here's an excerpt.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: From the first days of our administration, President Clinton has strongly supported political and economic reform in Russia, and President Yeltsin's personal leadership of that process. In today's speech with the Russian people, President Yeltsin set forth his plan for new parliamentary elections as a means of resolving the political impasse that has blocked reform and impeded constitutional change. Just as we did at the time of the April referendum, the Clinton administration supports President Yeltsin and his program of democratic reform. We believe that the Russian people should have the right to determine the political future of their country at the ballot box. We urge Russian leaders at all levels to work together in the democratic process that maintains peace and stability, while fully respecting civil liberties and individual human rights. President Clinton has just spoken by telephone with President Yeltsin to assure him of our strong support and to seek assurances that the elections will be free and fair. I've just come from a meeting with the Speaker of the House and other members of Congress. I stress the importance of rapid congressional action to complete the enactment of the pending program of support for Russian reform. By acting decisively at this critical juncture, we can help democracy and market reform take root in Russia. Support for Russian reform at this time is an investment in the national security of the United States and the prosperity of the American people. We will be guided by that principle as we assess the events of coming days. Now I'll be glad to take a few questions.

JOHN McWETHY, ABC News: Mr. Secretary, do you feel that what Boris Yeltsin has done is, in fact, consistent with the constitution, or is it beyond, far beyond what the constitution has outlined?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I'm not going to get into a discussion of Russian constitution or legal principles today. That will be up to the Russian people at the time they have an opportunity to vote in early December.

RALPH BEGLEITER, CNN: How do you distinguish between the actions President Yeltsin has announced today -- and it's not clear whether they will actually take place -- and the actions of other world leaders who have initiated coups on their own in which democratic processes that were already existent had been cast aside in favor of a scheme set up by the leader?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, there are some important distinctions, Ralph. First, President Yeltsin is the freely elected president of Russia. Second, he proposed a referendum in April. The referendum was strongly backed by the Russian people, and I remind you that that referendum called for free elections, early elections, and I think he has now moved to carry out the promise really that was contained in that referendum.

MS. WARNER: Now to three views on the political crisis in Moscow. Dmitri Simes is chairman of the Carnegie Center for Russian and Eurasian Programs in Washington. Michael McFaul is a research associate at the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University, and Leon Aron is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He's also writing a biography of Mr. Yeltsin. Mr. Aron and Mr. Simes were born in Russia. Mr. Aron, Mr. Simes, Mr. McFaul, welcome to all of you. Let me start with you, Mr. Aron. What's the situation in Russia now? Who's in charge?

MR. ARON: Well, it's very difficult to say. It seems to me that if the armed forces stay out of it as Defense Minister Pago Grachov seems to have indicated, then I think the control in a sense of, you know, basic fulfillment oflaws and sustenance of order is probably still in the hands of the executive branch that is with Boris Yeltsin. However, we shall see what moves will be taken by the opposition, by the parliament, in order to -- this is a very dynamic situation.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Simes.

MR. SIMES: Well, I agree with Leon that probably as far as Moscow is concerned, Yeltsin is basically in charge. Outside Moscow, certainly outside the Moscow beltway, nobody's in charge as far as the central government is concerned. The regions, republics are going the only way. My prediction is that Yeltsin will easily prevail against Vice President Rutskoi and against Speaker Khasbulatov and the Russian Supreme Soviet, but what is going to happen in the provinces is much more difficult to predict. Yeltsin may win in Moscow, but whether he will win in Russia is a difficult question.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. McFaul, do you agree then that this impeachment of President Yeltsin is pretty meaningless?

MR. McFAUL: The impeachment is not meaningless. What you've created is you've created a dual sovereignty, once again, in Moscow. As you recall, the last time that happened was August of 1991, and I think that the key to the resolution will be exactly how do the regions respond. I agree with Mr. Simes that what we really need to know is how will that -- who will line up with whom in the regions. In August of 1991, they decided to ignore the center and the union dissolved. Maybe this will happen again in Russia.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Aron, explain how the regions, the regional leaders could help determine the outcome of this crisis.

MR. ARON: Yeah. I'm glad that you asked that, because we're all now going out on a limb venturing predictions. It seems to me that when push comes to shove -- and it clearly has done so -- the regions are going to support Yeltsin simply because they know the Yeltsin has already given them an incredible amount of autonomy unheard of in the entire Russian history, and probably with certain give and take will help them to solidify that autonomy and has certainly assured all breaking away from Russia. So it seems to me that when you take a situation where there is really no direct, head-to-head confrontation, then obviously regions have their gripes with Moscow, and Yeltsin has a lot of problems with Taterstan and Chichna and so on. But they know that Vice President Rutskoi, who has the map of the Soviet Union still hanging on his wall, is not going to be a great friend of the regions. So I think that little by little we will start getting news from the regions where there's not going to be an outpouring of support for Yeltsin, but there is not going to be an uprising in favor of the parliament.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Simes, you've said earlier today that you consider this a coup de ta. What's really the meaning of that term in the current situation?

MR. SIMES: I meant to say that we have to be clear in our definitions. Yeltsin went outside the constitution. According to the Russian Constitution, Yeltsin we sworn to uphold this constitution. It is the parliament, not the President, the supreme body of power. Yeltsin unilaterally decided to dissolve it. The question is then whether it was a good coup de ta, what other choices Yeltsin had, whether it was in the American interests. But we have to start with an assumption that something very profound has happened, and what it means, of course, as Leon just talked about regions, that because no longer the country ruled by law. Yeltsin went outside the law. The parliament had no rights to impeach Yeltsinby the decision of a small group, the so-called presidium. They went outside the law. It's no longer a legal argument. It's an argument of who has more power, who has more support. That is how the situation is going to be determined.

MS. WARNER: And do you think there's a way, if he can pull off these elections, to sort of bring it back to a new rule of law?

MR. SIMES: I think it is a possibility. But let me make three comments on what Leon said, and I essentially agree with his base comments. The first, regions are not just people. They are local power cliques, and some of these cliques are quite conservative, and they don't like Yeltsin's radical reforms. They may support the parliament not because they like Rutskoi and Khasbulatov, but because they don't like democracy and market. Second, some regions, most regions, I think Leon is right, will decide to support Yeltsin, but they pay a price, the price which may be very considerable, indeed, may be prohibitive in terms of Russian military. And the final argument, I think as long as Yeltsin is able to frame the choice as a choice between him and the parliament, he's a winner hands up, no question about that. But if he starts arresting people, closing papers, if there would be a perception of "Boris the Terrible" in the making, then a lot of regions would be frightened. They may ask themselves, if you can do it to the parliament today, what he will do to us tomorrow. So Yeltsin has to walk a tight rope. He has to act decisively against the parliament but he, as President Clinton reminded today, has to observe basic, political and human rights.

MS. WARNER: Mr. McFaul, you know a lot about the Russian parliament. Clearly, Yeltsin's willing to go to the wall in this power struggle. Are Rutskoi and Khasbulatov, the speaker of the parliament, and if they are, what do they have in their arsenal? How can they push this to the next stage?

MR. McFAUL: To answer your first question, definitely, they are willing to go to the line on this. This is their last stand, I think. To answer your second question, they are going to appeal to the notion of the rule of law. The assumption -- and I think -- I think certain things have to be made clear -- there was no democracy before this action. The two years between August 1991 and today didn't have any of -- the democratic institutions were not installed. So yes, Yeltsin went outside of the constitution, but that constitution, I would argue, was not democratically legitimate. The chief weapon the congress will have, however, is repeal to that constitution, as they already have done so tonight, and will argue that what needs to happen is to reinstate the rule of law under that constitution.

MS. WARNER: But to whom do they appeal?

MR. McFAUL: They appeal to the regional leaders. I think -- I don't want to make this a one-theme discussion, but I really think it's very crucial as to how regional leaders will respond. Now, I agree with Leon Aron that nobody wants to go to bat for Ruslan Khasbulatov or Vice President Rutskoi. At the same time, these regional leaders do not have an interest in a strong president. A president that is strong enough to dissolve parliament is also strong enough to dissolve the regional Soviets and the regional heads of administration.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Aron then, do you doubt, is it possible that Yeltsin can't engineer these elections, that he will be stopped before then?

MR. ARON: Well, it is possible if, if the army and the forces of internal security switch their allegiance to the parliament. I don't think it will happen, and one thing that we ought to keep in mind is that there was a referendum on April 25th; just under half of those who voted said that they need new presidential elections. Seven out of ten said they need new parliamentary elections. In essence, you have here two battles: You have a battle for the spirit of the constitution, voluntare general, the will of the people, and against the letter of the constitution. I think ultimately it will depend on how the Russian people will perceive this battle. I think it seems to me that they will probably decide that this slide towards anarchy, this deadlock that's been plaguing Russian political system for almost a year now, has to end, and if you have to go outside the constitution but hold free elections as a price of that going outside of the constitution, my feeling is that they might go ahead with that.

MS. WARNER: Well, of course, Mr. Simes, that raises the question as to whether if they held parliamentary elections, democrats and free marketeers would necessarily win. How do you think -- do you think that's assured at all?

MR. SIMES: I think it's assured. Every public opinion poll in Russia suggests that the extreme right, the Communists and super nationalists, that they are losing ground. I am positive that if we have genuinely free elections without a civil war and violence, the democrats are going to win, but what kind of democrats, how many of them will be supportive of Yeltsin is a different story. A lot of people today will go with Yeltsin as long as he doesn't become Boris the Terrible because they think that the current gridlock is unacceptable, that something has to be done, and they will go to elections. Some of them will be allied with Yeltsin's people, some will not, but my assumption is that the new parliament, provided there is going to be one, is going to be dominated by democrats but not necessarily Yeltsin's people. It is going to be a parliament, a very interesting one, one on the one hand. It will be more acceptable to Yeltsin. There will be more common ground. These people will be basically reformists. But because this parliament is going to have more legitimacy, they will be much tougher for Yeltsin to ignore.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. McFaul, do you think that this crisis could go down the other road and end up in civil war?

MR. McFAUL: I think it's too early to talk about civil war so far. This is just the first play in a long crisis that, that may end in elections, may not. I think a lot of the cards still have not been played. For instance, Yeltsin did not say that he will run conterminously for election with the congress. And so I would hesitate to say that this is going to lead to civil war yet.

MS. WARNER: So Mr. Aron, do you think the West has -- how concerned should the West be about what's happening now?

MR. ARON: Well, I think the West should tell President Yeltsin that his explanation that he had to do it in order to break the crisis of illegitimacy which swept through the entire edifice of Russian political system, if the price for that was the establishment of this special rule for only two and a half months and then free elections, and if in the meantime, as Dmitri correctly pointed out, nobody suspended, Khasbulatov and Rutskoi and their allies could run as independent candidates with their own parties, with their own media. I think that is something that West will accept, and I think that should be communicated to them.

MS. WARNER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Simes?

MR. SIMES: I completely agree with that, and I also agree that the civil war is neither imminent or inevitable. But I'm sure that while nobody wants a civil war, I have to say that Russia is on the brink. The West --

MS. WARNER: Russia is on the brink?

MR. SIMES: Russia is on the brink. The West can still be avoided, but Yeltsin is dancing on a mine field. Perhaps there was no other choice. Perhaps he made the right move, and I agree that we have to support him. But we've got to understand that if he makes one wrong move, the situation may explode.

MS. WARNER: And Mr. McFaul, do you think there's anything the West can do to help him not make the wrong move, or are we really marginal at this point?

MR. McFAUL: To be frank, I think we're quite marginal in this whole debate. Whether we support Yeltsin or not is not going to change the balance of forces there. I would like to reiterate though what Mr. Simes just said. This is -- Russia is on the brink. This was Yeltsin's last step, if you will. I'm only disappointed that it took so long for him to do this. Had he done this in 1991 or even two days after the referendum, it would have been a lot easier to do. If he fails this time, he'll be done.

MS. WARNER: Well, Mr. Aron, my last question goes to you as Mr. Yeltsin's biographer. Why hasn't he done this over the last two years, and why now?

MR. ARON: Well, this is the question I've been asking myself a lot of times. It would have been much more convenient to do it after the referendum, as Mike indicated. Yeltsin, I think, treasures more than anything the image of a leader who would not impose non-democratic solutions. That probably goes all the way back to his -- to the criticism of him as an authoritarian. I think he wanted to go an extra mile. I think he wanted to go through negotiations, through compromise. There is a cynical explanation as well. If he, indeed, was preparing for something like that, he needed time to prepare and may not, should have not taken from April till now, but it must have taken some time to prepare for it. So whichever explanation -- it may be both.

MS. WARNER: We'll have time to explain them all. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

MR. MUDD: Still ahead on the NewsHour, China's quest for the Olympics, and the road West. FOCUS - OLYMPIC HURDLE

MR. MUDD: Next tonight, the Summer Olympics of the year 2000. On Thursday, the International Olympic Committee will select the city where the games will be held. Five cities are in the running: Beijing; Berlin; Istanbul; Manchester, England, and Sidney, Australia. But Beijing has probably been the most aggressive in pursuing the game. The choice of Beijing, however, has been opposed by many in the United States Congress and in the European parliament because of China's human rights record. This summer, a NewsHour production team was in China to prepare a series of reports on changes the countries undergo. Our special correspondent for the series is China Scholar Robert Oxman. He's the former president of the Asia society and is now an investment adviser and teaches at Columbia University. Tonight, Oxman reports on Beijing and the Olympics.

MR. OXMAN: China's overture to host the Olympic games ended with a well orchestrated flourish. The motorcade carrying China's delegation followed the new Olympic Highway to the airport. They were off to Monte Carlo and this week's momentous vote. The country's national games concluded with the usual fanfare, but with some of China's women runners smashing world records in their events. It was a fitting end to months of hype as Beijing vowed to be a worthy and gracious host. A more open China awaits the 2000 Olympics. A bid for the Olympics quickens our march towards 2000. The signs in English were put up last spring when the International Olympic Committee surveyed Beijing's facility. To the Chinese government and many citizens, being chosen as the site of the 2000 Olympics would prove that China has gained international esteem commensurate with its size and that China's economic takeoff has finally won global respect. But losing the bid would be a signal to many that the Tiananmen Square massacre still tarnish's China's new image. 1989 left an indelible mark. After months of demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, hundreds of democracy activists were killed or injured as the People's Liberation Army crushed the protest. The world was outraged at what it saw on television and what it heard later of the imprisonment and mistreatment of some participants. The United States has remained the most vocal in its anger. For four years, the U.S. has expressed dissatisfaction with the way China continues to treat opponents of its regime.

REP. TOM LANTOS, [D] California: All of the human rights abuses that are practiced any place on this planet are practiced in China.

MR. OXMAN: This summer, the House of Representatives passed a resolution urging the International Olympic Committee to reject Beijing as a site for the games. California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was a leading sponsor of the resolution. Two years ago, her efforts to commemorate the Tiananmen Anniversary were disrupted by Beijing security officials who also chased away television crews and tried to confiscate their videotape. One of those active in the 1989 democracy movement is Dai Qing, a journalist, now a scholar at Columbia University in New York. Despite the way her government has treated her, she hopes Beijing will be selected for the 2000 Olympics.

DAI QING, Dissident Journalist: Even I was in prison for, for ten months, no reason, no reason, and even I cannot publish article nowadays in China, in my country, even when get, when I got a reward and then the official from, from my government left angrily, I still hope my country, my government can host the 2000 Olympic Games.

MR. OXMAN: During our visit in July we asked to interview Chen Xitong, mayor of Beijing in 1989, when the demonstrations were crushed. He's now the head of China's effort to get the games. By Chinese custom, questions are submitted in advance. He didn't like the question about his role in suppressing the 1989 demonstration, so he refused to be interviewed. As part of its crusade to win the Olympics, China has released some prominent political prisoners. In May, a dissident editor, Su Wan Li, was released on two hours' notice after twelve years in prison. He'd been sentenced to 15 years for his role in the democracy wall movement of the late 1970s. Last week, the most famous political prisoner of that period, We Jing Shung, was paroled six months early, having served fourteen and a half years of a fifteen year sentence. But such gestures are often clouded by acts of oppression. In May, an American reporter's sources were sentenced to prison for allegedly giving out state secrets. In August, a labor organizer who met with President Clinton was not allowed to return home. Two weeks later, a Chinese journalist drew life imprisonment, convicted of selling the Communist leader's speech. As a result, many are skeptical about recent prisoner releases, saying they are transparent overtures to the Olympic Committee. Freelance journalist Cao Changqing and his wife, Connie, are dissidents now living in New York. They oppose China's Olympic bid.

CAO CHANGQING, Dissident Journalist: Chinese government always use dissidents to make deals with western world. Some use terrorism using other country's people as the hostage to make deal. Chinese government use their own people as hostage to bargain with the West. Why Chinese government desperately want to host Olympic Games? Because government want to show the world that Communism is still alive in China.

MR. OXMAN: Another skeptic is Robin Munro of the human rights group Asia Watch. From his office in Hong Kong, he monitors Mainland China's treatment of dissidents. He says there may still be several thousand political prisoners languishing in jails, many of whom suffer brutal treatment.

ROBIN MUNRO, Asia Watch: If dissidents are arrested in China, it's very likely they will face torture, and they will almost certainly at some point in their interrogation be beaten, and they will probably be put in solitary confinement for long periods in violation of international law on these matters, not to mention Chinese law.

MR. OXMAN: A leading government spokesman on the subject of political prisoners rejects all of Munro's claims. He says only about 70 people were arrested and sentenced as a result of Tiananmen involvement, and that most of them have been released. That official is Zeng Jianhui.

ZENG JIANHUI, Government Human Rights Spokesman: [speaking through interpreter] The people we have now have been subjected to do the sanctions are all people who engaged in actions, in activities which violated the law, is not just a matter of expressing an opinion, so in this sense, we have no political prisoners. We've always been opposed to the use of torture in prisoners, and, in fact, we have laws which prohibit torture. In this area, they have rights. First of all, we respect their personal dignity. We respect their personal safety. This is all stipulated by our laws. So the question of torture does not exist.

MR. OXMAN: On the issue of human rights, China argues that first it's an internal domestic matter. It's no one else's business. And second, a nation struggling to feed 1.2 billion people must worry more about vegetables than votes. Xu Kuangdi is the Vice Mayor of Shanghai, China's largest city.

XU KUANGDI, Vice Mayor, Shanghai: We must follow the Deng Xaoping, take the economic reform first, then take up all the persons living with nice food, nice housing and nice clothing, then we take step by step to help political system reform. U.S. ambassador to China, Stapleton Roy, says food and clothing are not necessarily more important than personal freedoms.

STAPLETON ROY, U.S. Ambassador, China: Besides, the Chinese, themselves, have been making the point that their rapid economic development over the last 14 years has essentially solved the most immediate problems of feeding and clothing the Chinese population so that there is no lag effect between them.

MR. OXMAN: For several years the U.S. Congress has threatened to place human rights conditions on MFN, the Most Favored Nation trading status for China. MFN is granted to all but 12 countries in the world. In May, President Clinton renewed MFN status for China without condition but with the expectations that China would improve its record in the coming year. Even Chinese dissidents like Dai Qing may be misguided in their attempts to influence China's human rights policy.

DAI QING: We always called them naive, very kind but naive Americans, so if you -- American government give us MFN, I think it keep the Chinesegovernment still open, and if you caught, if you stop the connection, if you try that, then the Chinese government may be once again to close its door.

MR. OXMAN: On this, Dai Qing shares rare agreement with officials of the government she criticizes.

ZENG JIANHUI: [speaking through interpreter] We think that MFN is a mutually beneficial matter, not a unilaterally conferred favor, so we disagree with this. We oppose the attaching of any condition to the MFN status.

MR. OXMAN: Regardless of how the United States treats China, the Olympic Committee's final decision may hinge as much on available hotel rooms and public transportation as on human rights. No matter how the committee explains its decision, if its choice is not Beijing, many inside China and abroad will interpret it as a direct criticism of China's human rights record. If committee members vote in favor of Beijing, they will satisfy the heartfelt desires of many Chinese leaders. Not since the choice of Berlin for the 1936 Olympics has the selection of a site been so contentious in human rights terms.

MR. MUDD: To explain further how the Olympic Committee decides where the Olympics in the year 2000 will take place and perhaps why, we turn to Frank DeFord, who is a sports commentator for National Public Radio and a contributing writer for Vanity Fair Magazine. Welcome.

MR. DEFORD: Nice to be here, Roger.

MR. MUDD: The London bookies are giving the following odds: Beijing a four to five favorite, followed by Sidney at seven to four, Manchester at three to one, Berlin sixteen to one, Istanbul two hundred to one. How does that sound to you as an old tout?

MR. DEFORD: I think nobody knows, but I think that seems to be the conventional wisdom right now. It's an odd process though, and I wouldn't put my money on it.

MR. MUDD: You would not?

MR. DEFORD: No, sir, I would not.

MR. MUDD: Why would -- what is it about Beijing that makes it at least the bookie's favorite?

MR. DEFORD: I think that the block voting can, can swing more for Beijing than for any other, any other city. For example, there's the possibility that Sidney could be eliminated very early on because it doesn't have any solid votes on the first few rounds, or not sufficient number, because Beijing seems to have South America and Africa --

MR. MUDD: Third world.

MR. DEFORD: Yes -- the third world pretty much locked up. It's an odd process. I guess the closest thing is voting for a Pope, particularly since it's done pretty much in private, and in each round the lowest city is eliminated. For example, Atlanta didn't move ahead until the third or fourth ballot, and then when Toronto fell out, those votes went to Atlanta, and that eliminated Athens. That's the kind of monkey business that can make it difficult to gather what's going to happen.

MR. MUDD: So you need then a simple majority to win. As soon as you get one of those you --

MR. DEFORD: You're in. But I would be very suspicious if they would get that before several ballots. There's a lot of hanky panky that goes on. And the other thing, Roger, is nobody really knows who you vote for. You see, that's why it's so hard to gauge this, because so many people are told, oh, I'm going to vote for you, and they'll tell that to several people, and of course, there's a lot of talk that there's a lot of bribery that goes on.

MR. MUDD: What does it mean -- we got some indication from the piece we just saw, but what does it mean for Beijing if it gets the Olympics?

MR. DEFORD: I think it legitimizes the regime which means a lot more to Beijingthan it would to any other cities involve. I mean, Sidney doesn't need this to give credence to Australia, or Manchester doesn't need it to provide that for Great Britain, but this would sort of put the stamp of approval on China in many ways. The analogue that people use is Berlin, and you heard that in the piece. That's not quite accurate though, because at the time the Olympics were awarded to Berlin. The Nazis hadn't come to power, or at least they hadn't shown their true face. The better analog is Japan, which people didn't forget was awarded the 1940 Olympics, and they were awarded them with that militaristic regime in place. It's very similar to what we have right now. Now those Olympics never took place, but oddly enough, I wrote a novel on Japan about in that period, and it's fascinating, just as an aside, to read how proud the Japanese were that the world was going to come to Tokyo in 1940, and we have moved on to the same level as the western nations.

MR. MUDD: Tell me a little about who the members of the IOC, the International Committee are. I've sort of never heard -- I mean, a couple of princes and princesses, isn't it, that's all?

MR. DEFORD: Yes, including Monaco, Princess Anne, who is always viewed in dark circles as the one who's going to come in and take over from Juan Antonio Samaranch. He is the Spaniard who is the head of the IOC right now, and he by putting together a neat coalition largely of, of the Communist Bloc at that time ten or twelve years ago threw out the Americans and the Anglos who had run the Olympics for a long time, notably Avery Brundich, and so it was the, the -- not the third world but the non-English speaking world, the Latin world has taken over the Olympics.

MR. MUDD: How did you get on the Committee?

MR. DEFORD: That's a good question. It's -- nobody really knows. For example, let's take a case of an Italian named Primo Nebiola, who is the head of the International Track Federation, a man who could teach Don King a thing or two, and Samaranch wanted him in the tent on his side, and so he changed all sorts of rules to get an extra Italian on the committee. So there's an awful lot of chicanery, and basically if Samaranch wants you, he'll get you on.

MR. MUDD: Can these various cities that are in contention --

MR. DEFORD: Yes.

MR. MUDD: -- can they bribe, in effect, the members of the IOC?

MR. DEFORD: Well, there's a book out now called The Lord of the Reigns, a British exposer.

MR. MUDD: The Olympic Reigns.

MR. DEFORD: That was a play on words, and the IOC is suing, as a matter of fact, in England for libel because this book claimed that there was a little bit more than gladhanding. The Europeans called the '96 games, not the Atlantic Games but Coca Cola Games. Now some of that is sour grapes for losing, but most people think that a little bit more goes on than a free hotel room.

MR. MUDD: Tell me now about the economic pressures that have come to bear. Coca-Cola, of course, is Atlanta, but Coca-Cola, I gather, also would like very much to get its stuff into China, would it not?

MR. DEFORD: It is -- most people seem to think that there are more parched throats potentially in China than there are say in Australia, so that to, to get that springboard to advertising in China would be very welcome not only for Coca-Cola but for any of those --

MR. MUDD: NIKE shoes and everything else.

MR. DEFORD: -- national spots. Yeah, everybody. There's always a film company and so forth. It was Los Angeles and Peter Uberroth in particular who taught the Olympics how to make money, and --

MR. MUDD: They turned a profit then.

MR. DEFORD: -- they turned a profit and totally surprised everybody. The American Olympic Committee then came hat in hand to Uberroth and said, hey, what are you going to do with all that money, we want ours too. What had happened before that, Roger, is that as recently as 1976 the Montreal Games were an utter disaster and the Canadian people and Quebec is still paying off that terrible price, so it was Los Angeles turned it around.

MR. MUDD: So it's really not so much the, the athletic spirit as it is the commercial spirit?

MR. DEFORD: I think that the Olympic flame burns very, very low these days, and particularly, particularly at times like this when these kind of choices are being made, or when television contracts are being sold, the Olympics very commercial, and the International Olympic Committee is very colorful, at least in symbolic terms. It reminds one of say the Vatican in medieval times. Samaranch refers to himself and prefers to be called "Your Excellency."

MR. MUDD: You're kidding.

MR. DEFORD: Oh, yes! And you know where they're meeting right now to decide this matter of, of sport, Monte Carlo. They do not meet at the Frankfurt Airport. They always meet in places like Monte Carlo, and they always go first, first class, and they spend a great deal of money enjoying themselves.

MR. MUDD: Well, thank -- I won't wind up by calling you Your Excellency, but I will thank you, Frank. Frank DeFord. ESSAY - ON THE MOVE

MS. WARNER: Finally tonight, essayist Jim Fisher of the Kansas City Star with some thoughts about an historic road West.

JIM FISHER: The land in Western Wyoming is surreal, gullies and washes, even the rare creek glinting silver in the morning light, and trails such as the one down there that splits into a distinct wind, the branch on the right heading West, the other angling off South. Yet, come closer. What's here is more than two tracks dividing amidst what some would call a God forsaken land. This is what's called the parting of the ways on the Oregon Trail. It was aptly named. Immigrants who'd traveled a thousand miles from the Missouri River made a decision here, left and Southwest, with constant water and grass, work and supplies. Left with the new Zions or the Mormons trekking West, also left with death and cannibalism amidst the Sierra Nevada snows, the group forever known as the Donner Party. Yet, it was the trail to the right, leading into the Little Colorado Desert that was palpably feared. Known as Sublette's Cutoff, it would eventually rejoin the main Oregon Trail over near the Wyoming-Idaho Border. The Sublette Cutoff promised little, no grass, no water, the sure realization that some livestock would die, maybe even an immigrant or two. Its one overriding promise was time. Ten days and eighty miles cut off the long trip to the fertile valleys of Oregon and the gold fields of California. Its one legacy is still obvious, impatience as an American characteristic. Even today, be it the deficit, flood relief, or illegal immigration, Americans want things over and done with. A century and a half ago they were no different. The desert part of the cutoff used by roughly a third of the half a million immigrants who came up the trail between 1843 and 1866 was 60 miles long. Its crossing, to have any chance of success, had to be made non-stop and at night. The immigrants would wait for late afternoon near a sliver of water called the Big Sandy River, feeling the heat of a 90-degree afternoon, looking West toward what's called "Haystack Butte," one of their first points to guide by. As the sun sank, the wagons, side by side, would head into the flats, no need to eat dust. Far ahead was water and their destination and Green River. What those hurrying immigrants did a hundred and fifty years ago took a courage that's now hard to understand. Who among them knew that they were part of that convulsive lung westward that still stands alone in human distance? Who among them knew they would win and hold the West? Not the cowboys, the cattle barons or the politicians. There was no big picture then as they trudged towards the reddening sky, just dust and sagebrush as far as the eye can see and now and then what they'd call desert goats, antelopes. They followed tracks left by others and wore them even deeper. Beside the ruts, now a permanent part of the land, those travelers left diaries and journals describing the flats and canyons, the perfect aridity of the land, the strange sandstone formations, and more. This is from Brian McKinstry's 1846 diary. "The road from Sandy to Green River is well lined with dead cattle and horses. And we passed many live ones which must soon die as they can get no water. Nothing but bare hills with the most savage and desolate aspect imaginable." Now, 150 years later, nothing. No bones. They have dissolved amidst the alkali soil. No more wagons, not even their few iron parts. Mormons came up from Utah and scavenged most everything a century ago. There is one thing. The resting place of Lucinda B. Wright, who died on the Sublette Cutoff in 1853. It is the only known grave on the harsh, brutal road.

KAREN REYNOLDS: Well, it looks good. It looks like not anybody's bothered it this time.

JIM FISHER: The unofficial keepers of the grave, situated on a ridge above a deep canyon, are Karen and Bob Reynolds, who live on the Green River south of LeBark. They often visit the plot. Who was Lucinda B. Wright, whose grave must be the loneliest one in America?

KAREN REYNOLDS: All we really know about her is that she died out on the desert about seven miles out from here. We have no idea who she was, if she was a woman, a grown woman, a young woman, a child, or what. We don't know why she died. We don't know who left her there. All we know is that there's a grave out there that's -- that has Lucinda B. Wright's headstone on it.

BOB REYNOLDS: No idea where she was from.

KAREN REYNOLDS: No idea where she was from.

JIM FISHER: A grave, in a desolate land that has remained unchanged as America as formed itself all around it. The loneliest grave in America? Well, maybe. But come out here at dusk when the sky is clear and there's a full moon rising, and that American trait of impatience is pushed into the background for a time. Then imagine an America that once was and if there's any other place you can get closer to the heavens. I'm Jim Fisher. RECAP

MR. MUDD: Again, the main stories of this Tuesday was in Russia. President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament and scheduled new elections for December. The parliament then voted to impeach Yeltsin and replace him with his hard-line Vice President. Russia's constitutional court has sided with the parliament, but the military has vowed to remain neutral in the dispute. In Washington, President Clinton said Yeltsin has his full support. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Roger. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with full coverage of the President's health care plan. I'm Margaret Warner. Good night.