DEC 15 '96 01:00PM

Wednesday, December 18, 1996

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Influenza A.

DR. DAVID KESSLER: In fact, the strain that we're talking about was first identified in China the last year and then proceeded to move to Guam and Japan and then come here. People use the word "flu" for a lot of conditions. What we're talking about is a very particular kind of flu-like illness. It's the flu-like illness caused by influenza virus.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: With fever and--briefly--

DR. DAVID KESSLER: It's fever and real muscle aches and cough. It's not the common cold.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Kessler.

DR. DAVID KESSLER: Thank you.

FOCUS - LETTER TO ISRAEL

JIM LEHRER: Now the story of a letter and a debate over how best to encourage peace between Israelis and Palestinians. We start with some background from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Last Saturday, eight former U.S. foreign policy officials, including three former secretaries of state, dispatched a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The letter called on Netanyahu to stop encouraging Israelis to settle in the disputed West Bank territory. Only days before, Netanyahu attended the funeral of a West Bank settler and her 12-year-old son, killed in a drive-by shooting apparently by Arab gunmen. In an emotional statement, Netanyahu promised expanded government funding for new and bigger Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Prime Minister, Israel: (speaking through interpreter) Our first answer to these murderers, to these human monsters the response of the Israeli government and the Israeli people. We're staying here, we're building here, we're living here. You will not uproot us from here. You will not achieve your aims.

KWAME HOLMAN: In addition to that promise last week, since his election in May, Netanyahu also has not been able to reach agreement with the Palestinians on withdrawing Israeli troops from the West Bank city of Hebron. In their letter to Netanyahu, the former U.S. official said, "We write because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as the expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East. We, therefore, urge you as prime minister of the state of Israel, just as we also urged all on the Arab side, not to take unilateral actions that would preclude a meaningful negotiated settlement and a comprehensive and lasting peace." Among the signers were former Secretaries of State James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Cyrus Vance, and former National Security Advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, and Brent Scowcroft. Two other former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, declined to sign the letter. On Monday, President Clinton was asked about the letter and whether new Israeli settlements would be an obstacle to the peace process.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They've had an agreement within grasp, with very little difference on Hebron for sometime now. The time has come to make that agreement, but I don't think that, that on the settlement issue that anything should be done which would, in effect, be seen as preempting the outcome of something they've already agreed to should be part of the final negotiations.

REPORTER: The West Bank settlement issue--actually an obstacle to peace, do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Absolutely.

REPORTER: It is an obstacle to peace.

KWAME HOLMAN: In Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has not responded publicly to the letter, or to President Clinton's comments.

JIM LEHRER: Now, to one of the signers of the letter, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, and to a non-signer, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. I talked with them earlier this evening.

First, Dr. Brzezinski, how did this letter come about?

Wednesday, December 18, 1996

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, Former National Security Advisor: This letter was initiated by one of my colleagues, not by me actually, although I suspect that some think viewing this program that I was the initiator. It was then circulated among people like the signers, as well as some of the non-signers. And over time, it was drafted and redrafted and eventually dispatched to the prime minister.

JIM LEHRER: Is there one single author of this letter?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I wouldn't say there's one single author perhaps. But there is one single negotiator, initiator, and that's Richard Fairbanks, who took the initiative in getting this going.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Richard Fairbanks, tell us who he is.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Richard Fairbanks is the former negotiator for the Middle East in the previous Republican administrations.

JIM LEHRER: So it was his idea. He circulated among all of you. Some of you made suggestions, et cetera. Some of you decided to sign it; some of you decided not to.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Exactly right.

JIM LEHRER: Why did you decide to sign it?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I signed it largely for the reasons that the letter states, namely that at this extremely delicate stage in the Arab-Israeli peace process, with so many issues still unresolved, even with issues resolved not being implemented, the additional burden of new settlements, of enlarging existing settlements, runs the real risk of undermining a peace process which is clearly, clearly in the interest of Israel, in the interest of the Palestinians, and very much in the U.S. interest. In fact, the notion of enlarging the settlements, or creating new ones, is something that the United States has consistently opposed for something like more than two decades.

JIM LEHRER: Through all administrations.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Through all administrations, Democratic or Republican.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Dr. Kissinger, you chose not to sign the letter. Why not?

HENRY KISSINGER, Former Secretary of State: (New York City) Well, for two reasons. First, I have just published an article which states comprehensively my views of how diplomacy in the Middle East should proceed, and I did not see any point in picking out one item, namely the issue of settlements, for special attention. Secondly, I did not think this was the ideal moment for a public statement when there are no actual negotiations going on and to single out one of the parties for special opprobrium, when, in fact, I believe that both sides have had significant shortcomings over the recent month. And so I think that the peace process should re-start. I think, in fact, it should be given a new basis, than the existing one, which is a series of small steps, and I think they should make-try to achieve a comprehensive solution, and for all of these reasons, I did not think it was wise to write such a letter, much as I respect the people who signed it and friendly as I am to all of them.

JIM LEHRER: But you thought that this was putting undue pressure on one side, or essentially choosing sides. Is that one of your major problems?

HENRY KISSINGER: I think that the position of the United States as a mediator should be as evenhanded as we can possibly we. And in the absence of any actual negotiation, I would not have thought it desirable to encourage the apparent temptation of Arafat to substitute world pressure for his own negotiations. And to stigmatize what is, after all, a new government in Israel, that does not have its feet fully on the ground yet, and that was, in fairness, elected to give a slightly different emphasis than the previous government, so I did not think it was the ideal moment to put forward a letter.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Brzezinski.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, we, obviously, have a different view on the subject. Incidentally, I tend to agree with Henry's larger strategic views regarding how to handle the Arab-Israeli peace process. But on this particular issue I hold a different point of view. And incidentally, I speak for myself, not for the other cosigners, because they may put it differently. In my view, there is the real danger that Netanyahu is pursuing a policy not of peace with security, which is what he was elected to pursue, but of peace with territory, which is what the Likud has stood for, for a long time-peace with territory, which really means security with territory, and peace being sloughed off. And that, I think, is dangerous to the peace process.

DEC 19 '96 01:24AM

Wednesday, December 18, 1996

JIM LEHRER: But what about Dr. Kissinger's point that this wasn't the time to do this, that Netanyahu needed time to get his new government's feet on the ground before the U.S. and you all came in there trying to put some heat on him?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, he's been in office since May. That's a pretty long time. The peace process has been stalled since then, and the peace process is a little bit like a bicyclist. It either moves forward, or it begins to wobble, where it slows down, and finally topples. Moreover, it is a fact that the settlements issue is an extremely sensitive issue. And on this issue, the American position has been clear. The position of the world community is clear. Many people, in fact, on this issue, the majority of the Israelis are not in favor of new settlements. I was struck by the fact that when our letter appeared, both the "Washington Post" and the "New York Times" editorially approved what was stated. And as a consequence, my feeling is that this was very much the right moment to remind Netanyahu that America is not indifferent to what he does or doesn't do. And if he initiates a significant enhancement of the settlements, he is, in fact, vitiating the peace process.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, what about that, that this letter, all it did was reflect what had been U.S. policy for years and that Netanyahu should know that, that this was--that the U.S. does have a stake and does have an opinion on it?

HENRY KISSINGER: But it gave the impression that Netanyahu was uniquely responsible and was planning to expand settlements, which I do not believe he was really intending to do. What he said last week was that emotional reaction to the assassination of two Israelis and the wounding of three others and, again, in fairness, one has to point out that Arafat has called for a tentative strike, and the actions of the Palestinian police during the riots in October were also serious impediments to the peace process, and, therefore, if one gets into the business, one starts adding transgressions of both sides. What I think is needed now, it's an attempt to ask both sides to put forward their idea of what a final settlement on the West Bank would be and then to see what common points can be developed. I believe that this ad hoc approach, which at one time I not only supported but I probably originated, has run its course now, and we should reserve ourselves for that final negotiation. And, after all, Netanyahu was elected to give greater emphasis to security. Now on the point that Zbig mentioned of territory and security, leaving aside the issue of the settlements, I pointed out that I believe--in the recent article--that I believe a Palestinian state will emerge from these negotiations. But I also feel that it cannot be within the borders, that those borders which leave only a nine-mile wide corridor between the major Israeli cities is incompatible with the security of Israel, so that negotiation should be put into--should be put together, and as part of this, I would expect that in the final settlement, it would be agreed in a final agreement, it would be agreed that there would be no new settlements.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Both of you, beginning with you, Dr. Brzezinski, for those of us who don't follow the Middle East as closely as the two of you, explain why the settlements is such a hot issue for both sides.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, in effect, the settlements define who's going to own what, and one of the very major issues under dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis is how much of the West Bank the new Palestinian state eventually will control. The more the settlements are expanded, the more it becomes clear that they'll control less and that they'll have large Israeli entities within any new Palestinian state that may emerge. Just try to imagine what would be the situation today if the Palestinians--let's say with the aid of substantial foreign money--for example from Saudi Arabia--were attempting to build large settlements in East Jerusalem--and say we're just expanding what we have, and we're building more population centers. There has been enormous outcry that they're trying to determine in advance the outcome of some things to be negotiated. That is exactly what the Likud Party is trying to create on the West Bank. Now, I agree with Henry that it's important to move more rapidly towards a broader strategic outcome to the negotiating process. I'd like to see a significant American negotiator appointed. My candidate would be Richard Holbrooke for that. But we cannot be simply a mediator. We are an arbitrator in many respects. We have deep interests. We have enormous leverage. And we can't be indifferent if one party, in this particular instance, Netanyahu and Likud, take preemptive actions on as sensitive and important issue as precisely the question of territory.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, help us understand the Israeli position on the settlements.

HENRY KISSINGER: I'm not defending the Israeli position on the settlements. I'm simply saying the Israeli--what--the Israeli sacrifice that may have to be made with respect to settlements ought to be part of a comprehensive negotiation in which the Arabs make also some concrete concessions. The Israeli position on the settlements, at least some of the Israeli position on the settlements, is that they are necessary strategically and also that probably the whole West Bank has been given by the Bible to the Jews, and this is not a position I necessarily agree with. And one has to make a distinction between when America should appear as a mediator and whether, and my major concern is whether the United States at this moment should stigmatize one of the parties in a very complicated issue in which the settlements will in the long-term have to be discussed as part of the final settlement.

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Kissinger, do you believe that what Dr. Brzezinski and his colleagues did actually "hurt" the peace process?

HENRY KISSINGER: These are all close of friends of mine, and I, after all, also published an article in which I expressed my views. I would have thought that there was a better time to do this, but these are serious people who have had major responsibilities, and one

Wednesday, December 18, 1996

has to take it seriously. I would not have chosen the interim between two administrations in the United States, and the moment when the Israeli government is trying to feel its way in a very complex domestic situation, having over-promised what they could do in the campaign, I would not have chosen that, and, therefore, I didn't sign the letter.

JIM LEHRER: No second thoughts, Dr. Brzezinski?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: We have had reactions from Israel, favorable ones. I'm certain that the Israeli public opinion is divided on the subject, so is our public opinion. Henry and I look at this issue somewhat differently, but we have had positive reactions from a significant segment of the Israeli public opinion, from major American papers, and I dare say most of the countries in the world agree with us. It is not us doing something during a sensitive interim period. It is our concern that Mr. Netanyahu is doing something during that sensitive period which could prejudice negotiations.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.

ESSAY - NATURALLY GOOD

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming has some thoughts about California food.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Like many kids growing up in the 1950's, I went off to school with squishy things in my lunch pail. That was the predominant texture--peanut butter or tuna on squishy bread, a squishy twinkle or snowball for dessert. A similar texture characterized dinner--casseroles and overcooked vegetables. It wasn't bad. It just wasn't much of anything. It's hard to remember now that obdurate blandness, now that every city corner sports a trendy coffee bar of one stripe or another, while homespun bakeries yield of loaves of rich, chewy breads. Even the supermarkets offer shelves of olive oil and cool the cases of smelly, imported cheeses. Food magazines and newsletters abound. There is even a 24-hour food channel on cable, and chefs, from the venerable Julia Child to the portly Paul Prudhomme, are the celebrities de jour. In short, there's been an eating revolution in this country over the past 25 years, a revolution, some would argue, that began right here at this restaurant, Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California, which opened its doors a quarter of a century ago this year. In its tie-dyed anti-war days, while Berkeley was awash in counterculturites of all stripes, anti-warriors, and free lovers, the first foodies were doing their thing on this now revered ground.

MAN: How did you do 'em?

ALICE WATERS: I just cut 'em in quarters, and I just really gently sauteed them in olive oil--

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Their Pied Piper was a shy, soft-spoken woman named Alice Waters, who believed passionately that food ought to taste like something and ought to be fresh--no frozen food, no food out of cans and ziplock bags. She wanted food from the earth, organic tomatoes that tasted like tomatoes, chickens that roamed the range.

ALICE WATERS: It's also very easy to make simple food when you have good ingredients. So when I have lovely tomatoes, all you do is slice them. They don't need salt. Fruit doesn't need sugar. You don't have to make something out of it. It's just what it is.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Ad hoc growers began to do her bidding, raising goats and growing lettuces all over the countryside of Northern California. Her unpretentious, wood-paneled restaurant became a mecca for the equally impassioned. At one point a hundred people worked at Chez Panisse doing the labor-intensive kitchen chores for which many were seriously over-qualified. The restaurant had become, as things can do in California, a community of worshipers. It took on a sensual, spiritual edge, this obsession with food and eating. Sometimes, it seems we can't do it any other way out here. And, indeed, Alice Waters, herself, famous from coast to coast, having twice cooked for the President, is now on a full-tilt, evangelical crusade. Food, she insists, healthy, homegrown food, should be available to all, not just those who can afford to eat at Chez Panisse.

ALICE WATERS: I think it's a kind of food that needs to be available to everybody. Certainly, growing it yourself is the least expensive way and "most" pleasurable way to eat.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: In keeping with her new outspokenness, Waters is helping a local public school get into the gardening business, with hopes that the students will eat in the cafeteria what they grow in their garden. Ex-prisoners too are now in the food business. The San Francisco County Jail has a garden project where former inmates and homeless people raise food destined for restaurants like Chez Panisse and for farmers markets all around the area. Alice Waters has gotten the Department of Agriculture to look at the project as a prototype for other cities. She's on a tear. She's even gotten American Airlines to use organic carrots. Is this too much ado about food, too much sybaritic California nonsense? I don't think so. I think Alice Waters is on to something. The family meal has disappeared--the nighttime ritual that used to bind us altogether. We've become microwaved and McDonaldized, a nation of fast food junkies who don't think they have the time to prepare or sit down together to a hot, freshly prepared meal. Alice Waters is out