The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, Pres. Bush said it's unlikely Saddam Hussein will remain in power. Mr. Bush also challenged Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's claim that he opposed ending the war against Iraq. Soviet security forces vowed to stop an anti-government rally planned for tomorrow. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff's in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: On the NewsHour tonight we go first to the confusion over the United States' post war policy towards Iraq. Reporters who cover the Pentagon, the White House, and the United Nations join us. Then Charles Krause reports on what the Gulf War did to the relationship between Kuwait and leadership of the PLO. And finally an update on the worsening tragedy over lack of food in Northeast Africa. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Pres. Bush said today it is unlikely that Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, would remain in control of his country. Mr. Bush made his remarks to reporters at Bethesda Naval Medical Center outside Washington.

PRES. BUSH: With this much turmoil, it seems to me unlikely that he can survive. People are fed up with him. They see him for the brutal dictator he is. They see him as one who has tortured his own people and they see him as one that took his country into a war that's devastating for them, and this turmoil is not simply just historic unrest. It's historic unrest plus great dissatisfaction with Saddam Hussein.

MR. MacNeil: The President also joined Sec. of Defense Cheney in challenging a claim by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf that he did not want to end the war with Iraq when the President did. In an interview with David Frost, to be broadcast this evening on public television, Gen. Schwarzkopf said he had recommended fighting on. He said, "We could have completely closed the door and made it, in fact, a battle of annihilation." Today Mr. Bush said there was total agreement in terms of when this war should end. Sec. of Defense Cheney released a statement saying, "The President and I spoke personally with Gen. Schwarzkopf that evening to congratulate him on the outstanding success of the campaign. He raised no objection to terminating hostilities." We'll have more on this story after the News Summary. In Iraq, Kurdish rebels made new gains in their challenge to Saddam Hussein's government. We have a report narrated by Vera Frankel of Worldwide Television News.

MS. FRANKEL: After heavy fighting, Kurdish guerrillas have taken control of towns in Northern Iraq. They also overran an Iraqi air force base near Kirkuk and captured two Soviet made warplanes. But now the town of Dahouk faces a new threat, that of starvation. Shipments of food across the Iranian and Turkish borders are not allowed and no shipments are coming in from the South. That only leaves the short length of border with Syria. Shortages of medicine and supplies could also have a devastating effect on the wounded that fill the hospitals. Dahouk, once named after Saddam Hussein and now called The Freedom Hospital, is full of young casualties. A statement released by the Kurdish Democratic Party said that more than a thousand Kurdish civilians have been killed or wounded in Iraqi attacks. Rebel forces said Iraqi troops used helicopter gunships and planes dropping bombs on Kurdish towns. But the aircraft had been driven off. Roads surrounding the towns of Dahouk and Zahko are littered with abandoned Iraqi tanks. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, some of whom are Kurds, abandoned their posts. They reportedly left in protest against the actions they were ordered to carry out against their own people. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have liberated their land and defeated Saddam. Their feelings for the Baathist dictator are evident from the sight of this poster, or what's left of it. But, of course, Saddam is still very much alive. He swore in his new cabinet, telling them they have six months to prove themselves. Tahiaseen Ramadan took his oath as the new vice president and Sadoon Hamadi was the newly appointed prime minister. The reshuffle was seen as an effort to buy off discontent in the country, but it clearly didn't work. The civil war continues unabated.

MR. MacNeil: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council completed the final details of a draft cease-fire resolution today. It would require that all Iraq's remaining weapons of mass destruction be destroyed and would leave in place an arms embargo. It demands that Iraq respect its border with Kuwait, establishing a team of UN military observers to monitorize a de-militarized zone along it. Iraq must pledge not to commit or support terrorism and Iraq would be held liable for environmental damage it caused during the war. UN diplomats said a vote by the full Security Council is likely either this weekend or early next week. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: In Moscow today, Soviet security forces hauled away a handful of pro-democracy demonstrators and vowed to stop the massive rally they had scheduled for tomorrow. Armored personnel carriers were moved to a military base in Moscow yesterday after Mikhail Gorbachev put his interior minister in charge of law enforcement in the city. Gorbachev has banned public demonstrations in Moscow for three weeks, but hundreds of thousands of people are expected to defy that ban tomorrow. Police roped off their protest site outside the Kremlin today. In Washington, State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the United States was concerned.

MS. TUTWILER: Restrictions on time, place, and manner of assemblies and demonstrations are sometimes necessary for public safety or other legitimate grounds. We would hope that in making a determination about adopting restrictions on demonstrations in Moscow or elsewhere in the Soviet Union Soviet officials will carefully balance concern about order with the need for public opinion to be heard in a public setting. Any restrictions placed on demonstrations should be as narrow as possible.

MS. WOODRUFF: The last Soviet tanks left Czechoslovakia today more than 22 years after they spearheaded the Warsaw Pact invasion of that country. Sixteen T-72 tanks were loaded on the flatbed railway car for the journey back to the Soviet Union. More than 1200 other tanks and 70,000 Soviet troops have already left. The Soviet Union has agreed to withdraw all of its forces by June 25th. In Yugoslavia's capital today more than 20,000 demonstrators gathered to press for the resignation of the Communist rulers of that country's Serbian republic. Today's peaceful rally was held in the same square where two people died in clashes between anti- Communist protesters and police earlier this month. That violence brought to a head the growing political crisis between rival republics over the future of the Yugoslav Federation.

MR. MacNeil: In this country, the Commerce Department said the U.S. economy shrank at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the final quarter of 1990, but it shrank less than previously thought. The Department originally put the size of the quarter's drop in economic activity at more than 2 percent. It was revised upwards after a better than expected performance in foreign sales of U.S. goods during the period.

MS. WOODRUFF: Pres. Bush had his annual physical today and doctors say there were no surprised and pronounced him in generally excellent health. They said his glaucoma remains stable, while x- rays of his hips and neck show mild degenerative osteoarthritis. There was an early sign of 1992 Democratic Presidential activity today. Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder authorized the formation of an exploratory fund-raising effort. The 60 year old Wilder is the nation's first elected black governor. An aide said Wilder has not decided that he will definitely run.

MR. MacNeil: In South Africa, more than 15 people were killed and 18 injured when gunmen armed with assault rifles opened fire at a funeral vigil in the black township near Johannesburg. Others escaped after pleading for their lives. It's not known whether the attack was politically motivated. The head of South Africa's police is ordering investigation into the incident.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our News Summary. Just ahead, U.S. policy towards Iraq and the fight against Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians of Kuwait, and the threat of famine in the Sudan. UPDATE - A QUESTION OF POLICY

MR. MacNeil: Our lead story tonight asks these questions. What is U.S. policy in Iraq and does President Bush want Saddam Hussein overthrown or not? The answers have not been clear from a series of statements, news conferences and briefings by anonymous officials in the past 24 hours. Correspondent Kwame Holman tracks what has been said in public since the ground war ended.

MR. HOLMAN: When the bombing stopped one month ago President Bush made it clear Saddam Hussein would not be pursued.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We are not targeting Saddam and we have no claim on Iraqi territory.

MR. HOLMAN: During his detailed hour long briefing on how the war was won General Norman Schwarzkopf noted that allied forces were in a position to move on Saddam if that was their intention.

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: If it had been our intention to take Iraq, if it had been our intention to destroy the country, if it would have been our intention to overrun the country we could have done it unopposed for all intents and purposes from this position that time. But that was not our intention. We have never said that was our intention.

MR. HOLMAN: But in the weeks since the temporary cease fire civil war has broken out in Iraq and with U.S. Forces still occupying Southern Iraq complications have emerged due in part to the temporary cease fire agreement. It forbids Iraq from flying fixed wing military aircraft but permits the use of helicopters. two weeks ago President Bush appeared to alter that agreement in response to Saddam using helicopters against rebel insurgents.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I must confess to some concern about the use of Iraqi helicopters in violation of what our understanding was and that is one that has to be resolved before we have any permanence to any cease fire. These helicopters should not be used for combat purposes inside Iraq.

MR. HOLMAN: But yesterday White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the United States would not shoot down Iraqi helicopters used against the rebels unless they threatened U.S. Forces in the region. In an interview to be aired on PBS this evening General Schwarzkopf told David Frost why the waiver on the use of helicopters was given.

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: So when they said to me, you know, we would like to fly helicopters I said not over our forces. Oh no definitely not over your forces. Just over Iraq for the transportation of Government Officials. That seemed like a reasonable request and with in my charter I felt that was something that was perfectly alright to grant. I think I was suckered because I think they intended right then when they asked that question to use those helicopters against the insurrections that were going on. I think that absolutely was their intention. Again it is personal opinion but I just as I say they suckered me.

MR. HOLMAN: Adding to the problem are Schwarzkopf's comments that despite the decision to end the war he wanted to fight on.

GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: Frankly my recommendation had been, you know, continue to march. I mean, we had them in a route and we could have continued to reap great destruction on them. We could have completely closed the door and made, in fact, a battle of inhalation. And the President, you know, made the decision that we should stop at a given time, at a given place. That did leave some escape routes open for them to get back out and I think that it was a very humane decision and a very courageous decision on his part also.

MR. HOLMAN: Defense Secretary Dick Cheney today released a statement saying Schwarzkopf was consulted and agreed it was time to stop military action. This afternoon President Bush supported Cheney saying there was total agreement on the decision to end the war.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't think there is any difference between any of us, me, Cheney, Powell, Schwarzkopf. All I know is that there was total agreement concerning when this war should end.

MR. MacNeil: Administration Officials did not wish to come and explain policy so we have three reporters who cover those officials. Dan Goodgame is White House Correspondent for Time Magazine. Melissa Healy covers the Pentagon for the Los Angeles Times. And Linda Fasulo reports on the United Nations for the National Public Radio. Melissa Healy first of all let's talk about the Schwarzkopf thing for a moment. What is the explanation around the Pentagon for the disagreement between him and Washington over stopping the fighting. He says that he recommended continuing the march. They say he didn't. What is the explanation for that difference?

MS. HEALY: Well the explanation is that General Schwarzkopf whom we have seen on many TV shows and many interviews in recent days is fairly new to this business and that he may have misspoken.

MR. MacNeil: YOu mean they are claiming that he remembers incorrectly?

MS. HEALY: One explanation is that he was speaking in a sense and he did mention that this was Norm Schwarzkopf's opinion is his own words. He said that one of the explanation is that as a soldier the impulse was finally to finish the fight and that he may have been misremembering the recommendation that he in fact gave not as a soldier but as a military strategist.

MR. MacNeil: Dan Goodgame obviously the White House was concerned since not only the President but Marlin Fitzwater came out, I mean what is their concern? Is it a political concern?

MR. GOODGAME: I think that it is mainly that they don't want any appearance that the President micro managed the conflict in any way. Stopped the military people before they had done their job.

MR. MacNeil: I see. Are they worried that the glow around Schwarzkopf in terms of public admiration if there is a disagreement somehow tarnish the President?

MR. GOODGAME: Oh I don't think they are concerned about that. General Powell talked to Schwarzkopf before the Cheney statement was issued. That was at the President's request. I think that they all regret the misunderstanding including Schwarzkopf.

MR. MacNeil: Is Bush policy now towards events in Iraq as they unfold clear to reporters at the White House?

MR. GOODGAME: Clear may be stating it a little strongly. It is clearer certainly than it was a day and a half ago. I think that a part of what we are seeing here is a number of what one of the President's top advisors described as frankly somewhat conflicting goals. First of all they do want Saddam Hussein out of power and the President wants that more than some of his top advisors. Second they also want as they stated the territorial integrity of Iraq to be maintained and stability to be maintained. Those are somewhat in conflict. There is a third factor and that is that the President having encouraged the people of Iraq throughout this crisis to overthrow Saddam Hussein felt that the time he made his statement in Ottawa about the helicopters that he at least ought to be able to protect those insurgents from the worst things that Saddam Hussein could do to them mainly to drop chemical bombs on them or napalm.

MR. MacNeil: What do you mean that the President wants Saddam Hussein out of power more than some of his advisors?

MR. GOODGAME: I think that some of his advisors and we are talking on the margins here. These are small differences. But some of his advisors are a bit more conscious of the need for stability and for the idea that the Shiites and the Kurds are not going to be able to rule all of Iraq. Only the Sunis can do that at least in the short to medium term and they feel that the United States should get out of there and let the Iraqis settle it themselves.

MR. MacNeil: Melissa Healy how does the military see the option of helping the rebels over throw Saddam or not helping him?

MS. HEALY: I think that the military basically feel as the Administration does it feels somewhat ambivalent about it. I think that they are clearly concerned that there is no clear military objective in doing so and were they to resume hostilities they would want to have a very clear military objective. They would want to be told march to Baghdad or defend their borders or do whatever and I think that they feel that either of those is just not in the cards right now.

MR. MacNeil: Do they feel over at the Pentagon that the signals that are coming from the White House are clear or that there is some disagreement and confusion about the policy?

MS. HEALY: Well I think that the signals as they are receiving them are fairly clear and that is that they will defend the borders of the 15 percent of Iraq that they currently occupy and that they will defend themselves if they are attacked. But at the same time I think they are concerned about the weak undersides that exposes, the fact that for instance rebels may run in to their borders and draw fires in to the borders thus drawing the United States in to resuming hostilities and they are clearly very concerned about that.

MR. MacNeil: Back to you Dan Goodgame. Marlin Fitzwater said yesterday we want to leave a little bit murky. Where is the murk is the murk in terms of leaving it murky in public or is there some murkiness in policy?

MR. GOODGAME: Well this has become something of a method of operation for President Bush and others in his Administration. They like to send different signals to different parties around the world. Sometimes they end stepping on themselves a bit. The signal they would like to Saddam is that you will never know whether we will shoot your helicopters down. We have warned you. Actually I think it is fairly clear they never intended to shoot down helicopters. It is a very difficult business, it threatens to get them involved in the civil war. It would not be welcomed by many of our allies. At the same they didn't want Saddam to be sure about that and they wanted that to act as a deterrent to him.

MR. MacNeil: How does this compare to the clarity of policy during the actual war, the conduct of the war?

MR. GOODGAME: Well one of my sources at the White House was musing on that today the fact that President Bush was accused of not being clear about his objectives during the first third of the conflict but became quite clear about them about the time of the build up through the end of the ground war. And now we are back to sort of straddling the issue and trying to have things several ways.

MR. MacNeil: Is there any ambiguity in your mind and the mind of other White House reporters about what the U.S. is going to do right now. Is it going to totally pull back and refrain from any help to the rebels?

MR. GOODGAME: Yes. I mean, that I can only speak for myself. It is very clear to me that what the United States intends to do right now is to get this permanent cease fire resolution passed in the UN. Get the Un observer force in place, get the American Troops out of Iraq and unless Iraq takes off with some of its war planes. In that case U.S. forces will shoot them down but that is the only thing that will get the U.S. involved militarily again.

MR. MacNeil: Well speaking of the UN Observer Force lets turn to Linda Fasulo who covers the United Nations. How is all this scene there? Are there countries who are part of the coalition or outside it who would love the United States to get in there and help get rid of Saddam Hussein?

MS. FASULO: Well Robin there has been actually been very little discussion or the allies in general getting involved in the domestic affair of Iraq and of course given the basic tenant of the UN Charter which is non interference in the internal affairs of a country there would be very little support among nations for the U.S. or any other nation to get involved and try to oust Saddam Hussein.

MR. MacNeil: Even among those coalition members like the Saudis and Egypt who wanted Saddam out of there?

MS. FASULO: I am sure they would like to see him get out of there but I think the consequences at the UN could be great and that a good part of the coalition the consensus that has emerged there might be troubled by the U.S. playing an overt role. It is one thing to support it it is another to go out there and get involved.

MR. MacNeil: Well is there any doubt about it among the delegations that you talk to? Do they think that the U.S. is sending confusing signals and is actually helping when it says it isn't. Is there any doubt about the U.S. policy there?

MS. FASULO: I think there may be a little doubt but quite frankly the attention this week has really been focused primarily on the cease fire resolution and wondering how that will be voted on at the UN.

MR. MacNeil: I have seen some speculation that nobody has been rushing. particularly the United States, to get that ready to put in force before the civil war in Iraq has resolved itself some how. How are the two connected?

MS. FASULO: Well that seemed to be the case last week. Now in the last five or six days there seems to be a momentum on the part of the United States to get this resolution underway and get it voted on. In fact on Monday U.S. sources had said that they hoped that by tomorrow it would actually be voted on. There have since been delays and there have been a few changes but the U.S. is definitely moving forward and all indications are that by MOnday or Tuesday at the latest the resolution will indeed be accepted.

MR. MacNeil: Dan Goodgame getting the UN resolution sooner means that U.S. Forces could be pulled out once the UN Forces are in place. How urgent is that a consideration at the White House?

MR. GOODGAME: They certainly do not intend to pull their troops out of Iraq until the time the UN observer force is in place. Now they have been assured as recently as today that can take place quite quickly. In a matter of days. I believe the Norwegians specifically said look we can be there with in two days of the passage of the permanent cease fire resolution.

MR. MacNeil: And at the Pentagon Melissa Healy what is the sense of urgency in getting the troops out of there?

MS. HEALY: I think on the part of the individual soldiers and the officers that command them there is extraordinary eagerness to get out of there. It is a delicate place to be. It is still a very dangerous place to be. People have been killed walking through mind fields left there.

MR. MacNeil: Are there still American soldiers being killed there?

MS.HEALY: Well as recently as late last week certainly that was the case. Again they feel very exposed. They clearly do not like being there and again to the extent that their mission there is a little uncertain I think they are felling a bit vulnerable there.

MR. MacNeil: And finally Dan Goodgame we heard what the President said. he doesn't think that Saddam is going to survive but going to the headline in the New York Times today is he resigned to Saddam surviving for a while and beating off these rebels?

MR. GOODGAME: I don't think resigned. I think that he certainly accepts that he may last a few months but one of the reasons that you have seen an increased clarity in the last day and a half is that the argument has been made to the President. Generally the consensus of his Arab advisors is that Saddam Hussein is more likely to be over thrown after the insurgencies have been put down. The Sunis tend to rally around him as long as they are fighting.

MR. MacNeil: Okay we have to leave it there. Well Dan Goodgame, Melissa Healy, Linda Fasulo thanks all for joining us. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead Palestinians in Kuwait talk about PLO Leader Yasser Arafat and Famine in the Sudan. FOCUS - POLITICAL LOSER?

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight we look at the legacy of this war for the Palestinians and their leadership. Kuwait's government today denied charges that Palestinians there have been tortured and executed for suspected collaboration with the Iraqis. PLO support for Iraq during the war has prompted a shift in Kuwaiti public opinion as we see in this report from Charles Krause.

MR. KRAUSE: It could take 10 years and as much as $100 billion to rebuild Kuwait's war shattered economy. But no amount of time or money seems likely to ever rebuild the close ties between Kuwait and the PLO that existed before the Iraqi invasion. When Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians decided last August to back Saddam Hussein they made what now appears to have been a fatal political mistake. As a result since the liberation, there's anger and bitterness among Kuwaitis because of the Palestinians' betrayal.

SULAIMAN AL MUTAWA, government Spokesman: Arafat either willingly or unwittingly fell prey to the tricks of Saddam Hussein.

MR. KRAUSE: Sulaiman Al Mutawa is Kuwait's acting minister of planning and an official government spokesman.

SULAIMAN AL MUTAWA: Our attitude toward the present leadership is that we don't think that it is certain because, of course, it is not for us to determine the kind of leadership that those people have. I think, and I'm sure sooner or later the Palestinians will tell Mr. Yasser Arafat you are no longer the leader who will take us out of the wilderness into the safe land.

MR. KRAUSE: Ironically, Kuwait was long a safe haven for Arafat and for nearly 1/2 million Palestinians who lived here before the invasion last August. The PLO had an embassy in Kuwait City, now virtually closed. And before August, the Emir of Kuwait and his government provided the Palestinians with tens of millions of dollars a year and unswerving political support. In fact, Arafat's links to Kuwait go back decades to the 1950s. He made his original fortune here as a building contractor, and it was here again in 1962 that he founded Al Fatal, the first and still the largest armed force within the PLO. Al Anbah is one of Kuwait's leading newspapers. Like most Kuwaitis, the Al Marsook family which owns the paper supported Arafat in his cause without reservation. But now according to Bibi Al Marsook, that's changed completely.

BIBI AL MARSOOK, Newspaper Manager: I cannot donate a penny for the Palestinians. Definitely I will not do that. Definitely I will not put a small even column for the Palestinians in support of them in our newspaper, definitely. I will not reach out and touch someone. I will not do that -- as a person and as a newspaper.

MR. KRAUSE: So they really have lost a great deal of support?

BIBI AL MARSOOK: Yes.

MR. KRAUSE: Compounding the sense of betrayal, there's evidence that during the occupation many Palestinians living in Kuwait actively collaborated with the Iraqis. Since the liberation, there have been reprisals and acts of revenges, hundreds of Palestinians detained, and at least some suspected collaborators summarily executed. Abdul Rahaman, who is himself Lebanese, says many Palestinians in Kuwait were taken in by Saddam Hussein.

ABDUL RAHAMAN: Well, they supported him first for the dream of the land, like I said, and they were misinformed in a way. And the Arabs, the Palestinians lost everything. He lost his income. He lost his, what you call it, the hope to win the land back, lost everything. This is the big problem that we're facing.

MR. KRAUSE: But, in effect, they did it because they believed in Saddam, they believed his promises, that you were saying that --

MR. RAHAMAN: Misled, as you know, media can mislead a lot of people, and he had the key to it. He was misleading everybody.

MR. KRAUSE: What was he telling them? What was Saddam Hussein telling them, trying to win them over?

MR. RAHAMAN: He was saying what did the United Nations do for Lebanon, what did they do for the Palestinian people, what did they do for the Cyprus problem? Any problem you can see, they didn't do anything, so why all of a sudden they come to Kuwait -- see, this is again -- again he used this. So a lot of people were taken by it, and all his news is not true.

WOMAN ON STREET: No, the Iraqis, we didn't work with anybody like this.

MR. KRAUSE: But in Hawalei, Kuwait City's principal Palestinian neighborhood, many Palestinians claim they never helped the Iraqis, nor did they support Saddam. Now they blame Arafat for the climate of fear which has jeopardized those of them who remain in Kuwait.

MAN ON STREET: The Palestinians didn't have a country -- they're going to push us from this country, where we're going to go?

WOMAN ON STREET: I am honorable person. I never accept that Saddam Hussein was going to return my land back, my land back to me, so what we need --

MR. KRAUSE: So why did Yasser Arafat and why did the PLO and why did they support him?

MAN ON STREET: You're talking about Arafat, you're talking about -- we didn't pick Yasser Arafat -- we didn't see even Yasser Arafat facing our problems here --

MR. KRAUSE: Did he hurt you, those of you who lived here?

MAN ON STREET: I think no relation, real relation between us and them.

MR. KRAUSE: The Al Saloom is one of Hawalei's most popular restaurants, a gathering place for Palestinians. Here too Arafat is blamed for gambling with the future and once again betting on the wrong horse.

MAN: I want to say something about Arafat and his supporting to Saddam Hussein. I believe that if you make really a real election for the Palestinians in all the world, a real election, I believe that Arafat will be in the -- believe me -- we don't say PLO -- we have to differ between Arafat and PLO. We believe in PLO. We say that he is our president, but something Arafat is something he does not represent anybody, believe me.

MR. KRAUSE: But Bibi Al Marsook says that she and many other Kuwaitis have had it with the byzantine politics and the impotence of the PLO and the Palestinians.

BIBI AL MARSOOK: The history, Palestinians -- and even the masses, the majority of the masses, Palestinian masses, they were always betting on the losing horse, always. It is the Palestinian support for the Iraqis, whether it is the PLO, the majority of the masses, was the crescendo of the Palestinian history in the sense of as losers, that was the peak, the ultimate, the summit.

MR. KRAUSE: But if it's true that Arafat and the PLO have lost, other questions still remain. Principally, will the PLO's alliance with Iraq lead Kuwait and other Arab members of the coalition toward a deal with Israel at the expense of the Palestinians?

SULAIMAN AL MUTAWA, Government Spokesman: No, no. The cause is a humanitarian Arab cause. Everybody in the world supports the Palestinian cause.

MR. KRAUSE: Al Marsook disagrees.

BIBI AL MARSOOK: We have a saying in Arabic, an old saying, "A wise enemy is much better than a foolish friend." I'll take that statement. The Israelis are not all good, but if they are not all bad for us, because of the Palestinian propaganda, because of what you believed in, they aren't all bad, Israel by not taking any measure against -- being threatened by the Scuds, for us, for me, the Israeli stand, I really appreciate their stand. And lots of Arabs and lots of Kuwaitis are appreciating that. UPDATE - FAMINE

MS. WOODRUFF: Finally tonight we focus on the continuing human crisis in the African country of the Sudan, where a severe famine threatens to kill some 9 million people, a third of its population, in this year alone. Like its neighbor, Ethiopia, the Sudan is no stranger to famine. This year a severe drought has hit hardest in the North. The conditions are also precarious in Southern Sudan, where a civil war pitting the predominantly Christian South against the Islamic North has been raging for the past eight years. Relief teams recently visited the South and the towns of Kapoeta and Pibor to assess conditions. Here is a report on their visit filed by the French news team Point Du Jours.

CORRESPONDENT: Always the same images for the same reality. Year after year throughout the Sahara, drought and war, or both at the same time, have left millions of victims. The worst hit are Ethiopia and Sudan. In spite of occasional humanitarian aid, these peoples throughout entire regions can no longer bear the weight of these afflictions. Sudan alone has nearly 2 million displaced persons on its territory, a further million refugees abroad and hundreds of millions who are wounded, and figures related to those dead from famine reached the million mark after eight years of civil war. In 1981, despite an alliance between certain Muslim parties and the guerrillas in the South, the war has intensified again. And according to the United Nations, drought has now once more hit Sudan and the rest of the Sahara. In the regions under its control, the Sudanese government limits the action of aid organizations to the extent that the International Red Cross present in the North and South until recently -- pulled out totally in January. There are very few organizations which still keep a team on the ground. From the Lokie Post at the Kenyan frontier, the only convoy that regularly risks the journey across the battlefield is organized by World Vision and a Norwegian aid organization.

ABDI HASSAN MOHAMED, Relief Worker: The others are completely out because you can see we are here, you can see yourself. The Red Cross is sitting in Lokie, they are sitting in Lokie, and we are the only people who are doing the relief work.

CORRESPONDENT: Laden down with corn and tools, the 46 trucks of the convoy reach Kapoeta, close to the border, where one of the Southern Sudanese guerrilla headquarters is located. But in the largest country in Africa, no truck will go further than 200 kilometers. The UN plane flies the 500 kilometers from Kapoeta to Pibor in the North. No one has been there for the past six months. The 120,000 inhabitants of the Pibor area are mostly from the Morali tribe, one of the 500 ethnic groups in the Sudan. They're pastoral farmers and their livestock has an almost sacred value. The only water source is the Pibor River used by both men and beasts, but it is gradually drying up. Once you leave the river, the land is completely arid and sterile. As you go further into the villages, you discover those who can no longer move around. At Pibor, the weakest among the inhabitants are scattered around, each near a hut and their family. For two months now Kusha feeds on lalibs, a bitter fruit found in the forest, but Kusha depends on what others give her to eat.

KUSHA: (Speaking through Interpreter) I'm alone. I've gotten old and I can't walk anymore. I told my children to leave me, to go to the refugee camps. They left two months ago. There is nothing left to eat here. Let me die if I have to.

WOMAN: (Speaking through Interpreter) Children are dying because there is nothing good to eat. My friend, Sconian, died in front of me. If we had food, we could resist sickness. You must help us. I hope God will help us. We have nothing left. All I've got is these beat up clothes.

CORRESPONDENT: The routine of life at Pibor is always the same, going deeper into the forest to seek out lalabs and feed everybody by preparing it in different ways, as a last resort, kill the livestock, and then go and find some water in the river.

MAN: It seems very dirty, but we just, we continuing drinking.

CORRESPONDENT: Why?

MAN: There is no good water.

CORRESPONDENT: Cut off from everything today, Pibor once had a working water pump, vehicles, a hospital, church, and two schools. At the hospital, the patients die without really being taken care of. The medicine brought in the day before allow a few people to be vaccinated against diphtheria, measles, and polio. There is no electricity and no way of keeping cool. With temperatures of 45 degrees in the shade, the medicines cannot last long. After four days on the spot, the mission took off again in the UN plane which had come back to pick them up. No one knows when the next flight will take place. The plane flies away bearing aboard the great hope of Pibor's inhabitants, the town water pump to be repaired.

MARIO RODRIGUEZ, Relief Worker: Well, as we all of us together went and saw about all the places and we do really see the need for food to come into this place to avoid any kind of old situation that came in a few years ago and to reduce the casualties of people die or more are displaced because of food.

CORRESPONDENT: When it takes place, the rainy season comes in May in Sudan and most of the regions become inaccessible. Aid convoys will no longer get through and planes will have difficulty in landing. Yet, with the prolongation of the civil war and with nothing to sow, the coming of the rains will not be enough to bring Sudan and much of the whole of Africa back to life again.

MS. WOODRUFF: Late this afternoon we discussed the food crisis in the Sudan with Abdalla Ahmed Abdalla, Sudan's ambassador to the United States, Scott Spangler, director of the Africa Bureau for the United States Agency For International Development, and Willet Weeks, director of Africa for the relief agency Save the Children. Mr. Ambassador, you were on this program in November. You said at the time that the estimates of lives at risk and the number being quoted then was seven, eight, nine million, that those numbers were greatly exaggerated, and you said it was wrong to say that your country was facing a famine. Is that still your view?

AMB. ABDALLA: Yes, that's still my view. I still hold view that there is a food gap, there has been a drought for two successive years. There has been a reduced harvest. There has been an assessment of the situation jointly by the FAO and the Sudan government, and the request of the Sudan government, and the food gap has been assessed as 1.2 million tons short of the required supply for food for the people.

MS. WOODRUFF: And how many people's lives do you believe are at risk?

AMB. ABDALLA: It's very difficult to give an estimation. I can tell you that the failure of rain in Northern Kordefan and in Northern Dafor --

MS. WOODRUFF: These are regions of your country.

AMB. ABDALLA: These are regions where they are usually subject to drought. The environment there is very fragile and the rain is very variable from year to year, and within the year also, and therefore, it is very difficult to give precise figures as to the number of the people affected by that reduced harvest.

MS. WOODRUFF: But why don't you call it a famine or a potential famine?

AMB. ABDALLA: I don't call it a famine because famine to me means a complete denial of access to food by people, whether it is by per case or whether by just giving it or it's just complete denial of access, resulting into large numbers of people dying and large numbers of people leaving their places and dying on the route where they seek food.

MS. WOODRUFF: And you're saying that's not happening?

AMB. ABDALLA: I think that is not happening in the Sudan, but I do say that there is a food gap, that food that has been produced in the country is not enough to carry the Sudan population through the year until the end of the year, until the second harvest.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Spangler, do you see it the same way?

MR. SPANGLER: No, we do not. To us a famine means whenever women, children, and the weaker members of society are not getting enough food, and we think that is the situation now and it will get worse than that in Sudan.

MS. WOODRUFF: Why is it so bad? We have known about this for some months. We talked about it on this program. It was discussed on other news programs in this country months ago. Has anything been done to improve the situation since then?

MR. SPANGLER: Oh, yes, a lot has been done. In fact, we started, as you say, talking about this situation last summer. We've had consultations with the government of Sudan, and I will say with the help of the ambassador, I think we've begun to convince the government of the Sudan that they do need to react. We can get the food to the ports, but we must have their cooperation to get the food from the ports to the people.

MS. WOODRUFF: Are you getting that cooperation now?

MR. SPANGLER: We just in the last couple of weeks have seen an enormous change in attitude in Sudan. I will give credit to Amb. Abdalla. I think he made a trip out there, expressed our points of view very, very eloquently, and we're beginning to see a change now.

MS. WOODRUFF: So are you encouraged, or --

MR. SPANGLER: I'm encouraged, but I'm not satisfied. The risk is still there. The terrible disaster will happen starting in June through October. We really aren't seeing the worst part of it now. It will come as they exhaust all of their supplies from last year's harvest and they have nothing until they get to the next harvest.

MS. WOODRUFF: From the perspective of Save the Children, Mr. Weeks, why has it gotten this serious?

MR. WEEKS: Well, I think that a lot has been done, as Mr. Spangler said, but a lot more could have been done in the last few months.

MS. WOODRUFF: Such as --

MR. WEEKS: Moving much more food into place in Sudan and reaching the kinds of agreements between the donor governments, such as US and the Sudanese government, and private organizations like Save the Children and others. We could have moved a lot more food in a lot more quickly if there had been better relations between the two governments, but what we had --

MS. WOODRUFF: Between --

MR. WEEKS: The U.S. government for example, and the other Western donors, on the one hand, and the Sudanese government on the other.

MS. WOODRUFF: The war -- of course, Sudan supported Iraq in the war in the Persian Gulf.

MR. WEEKS: Exactly.

MS. WOODRUFF: How much of an impact did that have?

MR. WEEKS: The fact, I believe, that the Sudanese government did not agree with the sending of Western troops into Kuwait and into the Gulf led to a period in which it was very difficult for these kinds of agreements to be reached, and whether we're talking about a famine or a food gap, I don't think that arguing about the semantics is that useful an exercise. The problem is very serious.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, was it a matter of the Sudanese government saying we don't want your help because the position you hold, or a matter of the Western government saying we won't give you help because of the position you hold?

MR. WEEKS: I think they just had a very hard time talking to each other. The U.S. side and the other donors, I have to say, made a very strong effort to keep the doors open, the communication channels open, and to make sure that they were there with offers of help, if it would be taken, but I think it was just very hard during this period of the war for the two governments to talk to each other. Now, as Mr. Spangler has said, with the war over, it - - a lot of doors have been opened, and we're seeing movement where we have not seen that before.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Ambassador, what's your view of why things didn't move more during the period of the war?

AMB. ABDALLA: Well, I don't really think that we should attribute it to the war or the position of the Sudan on the war, because the position of the Sudan on the war, on the Gulf War, was never understood anyway, or it will not allow it to be understood -- I'll put it this way.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, you don't disagree that Sudan opposed the sending of Western troops into Saudi Arabia and --

AMB. ABDALLA: Well, the Sudan did oppose, the Sudan did openly oppose the sending of the troops, but the Sudan did not support Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. The Sudan condemned the invasion of Kuwait. The Sudan condemned the aggression. The Sudan voted, carried out all the sanctions of the United Nations.

MS. WOODRUFF: But without getting into that, there was a disagreement over --

AMB. ABDALLA: The Sudan wanted to see the problem solved within an Arab frame work, a diplomatic Arab frame work, and did not want to see the mobilization of foreign troops into the Gulf.

MS. WOODRUFF: But in any event, you're saying --

AMB. ABDALLA: But in any event, I'm saying that much of -- I agree very much with what Scott and Willet said. There was a lack of understanding, I think, between the government and the donor governments. There was an emphasis on the donor governments and on the West, on declaring the tragic part of the whole thing, saying that this is a famine, it is affecting 11 million people, it is killing the people, rather than emphasizing the positive and productive part of getting the government and the donors get to understand each other and to commit each other to that situation and advance positively. I think this happened in the last months, and I very much agree with Scott and Willet that there has been increasing understanding between the Sudan government and the United States and other governments, and now --

MS. WOODRUFF: But in the meantime, as I understand it, precious time has been lost, is that not true, Mr. Spangler? I mean, relief organizations were just lost to the country.

MR. SPANGLER: They lost the country, that's correct. We've lost time in several ways. One is that all of the private voluntary organizations, most of them, had to leave the country. All of the Americans left the country. Many of the Europeans --

MS. WOODRUFF: Is this because they were asked to leave, or because they felt they should leave --

MR. SPANGLER: Because we felt there was a terrorist threat, an actual terrorist threat within the Sudan at the time, and that's why we left. I should point out that the commitment of the U.S. government to the Sudanese people has never varied, even through the war. There's no question though that the war affected our capability to respond to their need right now.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right.

MR. WEEKS: I should just point out to you that while American staff and Western staff did have to be evacuated for the reason that Mr. Spangler mentioned, our Sudanese staffs, and I think for most the organizations that's true, were able to do some ground work. We've had 5,000 tons of food which we've actually been distributing in North Kordafan, but when that runs out, we won't have any more.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you need a million plus, is that right?

MR. WEEKS: A great deal more.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what is happening now? What is happening to break the road block, the log jam, and to ge this food where it needs to go?

MR. SPANGLER: We've been working on really two levels, Judy, and on the first level we have tried to keep the pipeline, as we call it, full. We are ordering food in the United States. We are getting it on ships and the ships are departing for the Sudan. In fact, they were departing for the Sudan when we had nobody there to receive them, but going on faith that we would work this out, that the government of Sudan would see the light. On that level we have the pipeline full. There was a ship that arrived last week. Twenty- two thousand tons have been off loaded. On the second level, we've been working through the diplomatic channels with the government of Sudan and with the voluntary organizations to try to get them organized because --

MS. WOODRUFF: On the ground.

MR. SPANGLER: The hardest part, the hardest part is from the port to the people.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. What is happening on the ground? Because again when we talked about this in November, there were accusations that the government of Sudan had bombed a barge, barges of food, there was a train that had been sitting in one spot for months, are these sorts of problems resolved now?

MR. SPANGLER: There's good news and bad news. Some of them have been resolved. We now have an agreement with the UnitedNations and they have agreed with the government of Sudan to transport the food from the port to regional distribution points. We're working with Save the Children and other volunteer organizations to reset up their distribution points, however, in the Southern Sudan, we still have some problems with the government.

MS. WOODRUFF: Specifically what?

MR. SPANGLER: The famous train --

MS. WOODRUFF: The train --

MR. SPANGLER: -- has gone away -- no, the train never moved -- the train has gone away. That food has been used elsewhere. We never did -- were successful in --

MS. WOODRUFF: So it never reached the people that it was supposed to?

MR. SPANGLER: The famous train never reached the people.

MS. WOODRUFF: What, what is it that the government, Mr. Weeks, what is it that the government of Sudan needs to do at this point to open the way, or is it just the government? Are there other factors at work here that need to be in our camp, supporting what the West is trying to do for this to take place?

MR. WEEKS: I think there are a lot of different levels which the Sudanese authorities have to work these problems through. At the level of the technical ministries that we deal with on the ground, cooperation is generally very good, and for example, I can speak about North Kordafan, the local government is excellent, but when you get into making policy decisions, it, I think, becomes much more difficult, because the government has a political base that reaches out into the community, and particularly the religious community, and I think a lot of discussions have to take place at that level before they can come through and say okay, we will do this, here are the agreements, here are the arrangements, and until we get a little more clarity on some of those issues, it's difficult for us to do the planning and to get the pieces in place that we need to have.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Ambassador, how much of an obstacle is that? We just have a moment or so left? How much of an obstacle is that?

AMB. ABDALLA: I think there has been a lot of clarity recently on the policy level of the government. There has been created a national coordinating steering committee headed by one of the ministers, the minister of trade and supply, and he has got jurisdictional power sweeping all over across so that he can deal the customs with the finance, with the Sudan railways, with the transport. There has been major steps have been taken by the government recently which were very well received by the donors.

MS. WOODRUFF: But what Mr. Weeks has suggested is that there are religious leaders who play an important role in these decisions. Are they part of the decision making process? Is the government working closely with them to get these decisions made?

AMB. ABDALLA: I think the government, the policy making level is at the ministerial level. That's now very much clarified, and there is a very clear focus on this, on the policy level, and also at the mechanism and operational level, and the operation at the distribution level at the local level is going I think very well.

MS. WOODRUFF: So --

AMB. ABDALLA: I wanted to say one thing, that it's not -- relief in itself does not solve the problem of, of poor people. There is another side to this. There is the side of poverty and long-term solutions that are required to deal with the root problems of poverty, and to enable the people at times of drought and at times of -- to cope better, to have a better coping mechanism with the drought. So I think it is important that we have a coalition, a global coalition, to address the problem of poverty, not only in the Sudan, in Ethiopia, and in Africa, you have to go there and - -

MS. WOODRUFF: Yes, but in the meantime, just quickly, Mr. Spangler, are we optimistic, are you optimistic that we're going to get through this immediate period of crisis?

MR. SPANGLER: We will get through this. Some people will die, however. It just is impossible at this late date to get food to all the remote valleys and areas, so we are going to see reports of people dying in the Sudan. Could I make one last point? It's not drought that causes -- drought causes a crop failure -- a famine is caused by government policies, and that's what really at fault we think.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Spangler, Mr. Weeks, Ambassador, we appreciate your being with us. Thank you. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again the main stories of this Wednesday, Pres. Bush said the turmoil in Iraq made it unlikely that Saddam Hussein would remain in power. The President also disputed Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's claim to have recommended continuing the war against Iraq at the time of the cease-fire. Soviet security forces in Moscow vowed to stop a massive anti-government rally planned for tomorrow. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with analysis of what may be a day of protest and violence in Moscow. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.