AUG-12-1992 11:35 FROM MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042 P.02

denied it. Clinton, himself, was the subject of unsubstantiated rumors about an extramarital affair. Today he said he felt for Mr. Bush, adding, "I didn't like it when it was done to me and I don't like it when it's done to him." Clinton was in Miami for his speech to a group of Southern state legislators. He defended his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system. He refuted President Bush's claim that the plan would require a tax increase.

BILL CLINTON: At a time we ought to be engaged with great debate about where we're going on a problem that is killing this country, it's as if the President was saying the only thing you have to fear is my opponent in new ideas. I do not favor starting a health insurance reform with a big tax increase on small business or anybody else. I think we ought to go for the savings first, reorganize the system, take the money we're saving, and put it back into the health care system, and phase in universal coverage.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Clinton plan would require employers to either provide coverage or pay into a national fund for Americans who are not covered.

MS. WOODRUFF: The productivity of American workers grew at a healthy annual rate of 2.3 percent in the second quarter of the year. That compared with a .1 percent advance for all of last year. The government also reported that labor costs so far this year have risen at their slowest pace in 17 years. Many economists said that both reports reflected a weak economy. They said widespread layoffs had put downward pressure on wages. They said productivity, which is defined as output per hour worked, improved mainly because there are fewer people working.

MR. MAC NEIL: That's our summary of the news. Now, morality versus prudence in Bosnia, Republicans debate abortion, and the role of black churches.

## FOCUS - DEFINING MOMENT?

MR. MAC NEIL: We begin tonight with the Yugoslav story and with a debate that's interrupting summer holidays in capitals on both sides of the Atlantic. Do the United States and Europe have a responsibility -- whatever the risks -- to intervene to stop the fighting, the so-called "ethnic cleansing," and the Serbian-run detention camps in Bosnia? The United Nations Security Council is moving towards passage of a resolution authorizing all means necessary to provide relief for the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The U.S. Senate adopted a non-binding resolution today, putting its support behind the U.N. effort, but a panel of Pentagon and State Department officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee to think twice before committing troops to the area.

LT. GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY, Joint Chiefs of Staff: What would happen if the U.S. was to move unilaterally in a massive way to end the violence throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina? It's obviously a question we look at and consider. It seems clear that it could be done, that perhaps with a healed army -- and you're hearing a personal judgment, not based on detailed analysis, but perhaps with a field army in a year or so, one could drop the level of violence. The question one would have to ask though is: When we withdrew, what would we have accomplished? And that outcome I'm far loss certain of. So, you know, we -- the road from Split to Sarajevo is 201 miles long, and it goes about from here to New York City.

SEN. JAMES EXON, (D) Nebraska: Just be a little bit more specific. Would this take a force as large as or larger than what we assembled in the Gulf?

LT. GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Sir, I would guess it's a field army. It's 400,000 troops, it's a coalition effort, and it would take a considerable amount of time, because what we're trying to destroy is not 4,000 tanks, but the hatred of three peoples for one another.

MR. MAC NEIL: In Western Europe, debate has intensified. While governments remained cautious, former German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher and former British Foreign Secretary David Owen have urged more vigorous European action. But the call heard most loudly in

AUG-12-1992 11:36

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042

Washington came from one of President Bush's firmest friends, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She repeated it last Sunday on ABC's "This Week With David Brinkley."

LADY MARGARET THATCHER, Former Prime Minister, Great Britain: First, this is mainly a great moral question. And if there's one country in the world which came to life on a moral basis, it was America. Secondly, some of the terrible things that we have seen are things we thought never to see again in Europe, and we thought that that should not happen. We're seeing things which are just about the worst since Stalin and Hitler. I've been in government for eleven and a half years, longer than anyone in the United States since Roosevelt. I've known much advice come to me. If you ask people what you should do, they'll give you 101 reasons why you shouldn't do anything. If you say the situation is urgent, people are being murdered, they're being invaded, now how can we deal with it, they'll give you a lot of options which are pretty effective. You really must not be as faint hearted as to say what if, what if. It's a moral case and we must help.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is Margaret Thatcher right? Is Bosnia a defining moment in shaping the new world order? To discuss these questions we have Jeane Kirkpatrick, former ambassador to the United Nations under Ronald Reagan, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Leslie Gelb is a New York Times columnist and former State Department and Pentagon official. Peter Tarnoff is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former career foreign service officer, and Henry Kissinger is the former Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations. He joins us from Hartford.

Leslie Gelb, judging by your columns, you think this is the moral imperative that Mrs. Thatcher says it is and calls for action.

MR. GELB: Well, you talked about this being an issue of morality versus prudence. I think it's an issue of morality and prudence calling for action. And I think the whole debate so far, Robin, has been kind of silly and potentially very tragic, because it's a phony debate. The administration, Prime Minister John Major, they talk about the choice being between some humanitarian relief and a Vietnam-like quagmire. But that's not so. There are plenty of intermediate choices that allow us to put a strategic squeeze on the Serbians and give them second thoughts to think about what they're doing. None of this is being talked about or tried. Secondly, President Bush, and this is one of the great ironies of the situation, warns against a Vietnam quagmire and yet, the proposal he makes to attach military escorts to relief effort have more potential to involve us in a quagmire than any other action. Gen. McCaffrey, who testified today, said it would take somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 troops to convoy militarily the humanitarian relief effort. That's a quagmire.

MR. MAC NEIL: Henry Kissinger, is Mr. Bush and is Prime Minister Major being too faint hearted in this case, as Mrs. Thatcher argues?

DR. KISSINGER: I think there is a moral issue and I think there is a political issue. There is a danger of the -- there's a problem of Serbian intervention and there's the problem of the Serbian and Croatian and Muslim nationalities inside Bosnia fighting each other, because Bosnia unfortunately is not a coherent nation. If the United States undertakes any military action, it should define what it wishes. I can understand stopping Serbian intervention. I can understand announcing penalties for preventing relief supplies, but before we undertake any military action, we ought to define exactly what we want. What we should want is an end of Serbian outside intervention or anybody else's outside intervention. Secondly, we should put an end to the detention camps. And thirdly, we should see to it that relief supplies get through if we can do it by actions other than ground forces. And this has to -- we have to carefully define our objectives. We have to define what military measures we will take against Serbia or against local people, if they impede these efforts. But I would be very worried, and I think the administration is right, about putting ground forces into Bosnia-Herzegovina for whatever initial objective, because these things have to be judged by their ending, not by their beginning.

MR. MAC NEIL: Jeane Kirkpatrick, do you agree with Mrs. Thatcher, that bolder moves are called for?

AUG-12-1992 11:37

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042 P.04

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. I agree with Mrs. Thatcher that bolder moves are called for. I agree generally with Mrs. Thatcher's characterization of the situation. I think the U.N. resolution which seeks only to provide food and medicine to the people who are now being starved, but also murdered and raped and its country destroyed is like giving a condemned man, you know, a hearty last dinner. It's not enough and I believe that there are both moral and political reasons involving both moral and prudential issues that say we should intervene and we should intervene not just to stop Serbian intervention. We should intervene to stop the murder and mayhem which is being wrecked against the civilian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We -- you know, left to his own devices, I believe that the ruler of Serbia will not only continue this murder and mayhem and ethnic purification, this genocide really in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but is already extending it to Kosova, where he's engaged in ethnic purification driving out Albanians. And no one knows how much further beyond that immediate area he may go. It seems to me this is a vile, lawless government, and it should, in fact, be deprived of its military base. It can -- this can be done, I believe, without action by ground forces. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has proposed any ground forces, except, in fact, the President, by proposing to send in --

MR. GELB: Exactly.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: -- 60,000 or 100,000 people to escort food in. What we need, I think, is more specific targeted military action.

MR. MAC NEIL: Peter Tarnoff, you think bolder moves are called for, or the administration has calibrated it about right so far.

MR. TARNOFF: Yes. I also agree that we can do more and we should have recognized the urgency of the situation before this time. It also seems to me that some of the specific military actions that the U.N. is now pursuing going into areas where there is conflict, beginning to talk about relief supplies, are prudent and workable. And it's a strong man to raise the specter of Vietnam, or even of Desert Storm. This is not a Desert Storm type situation. What is different here, Robin, I think is that we are not going to be in a situation where four or five hundred thousand American troops are leading a charge against the single definable enemy with a specific territorial objective in mind. That is not what we're doing and we have limited objectives that we can begin to achieve much more effectively, but we're not going to resolve the several conflicts in Yugoslavia as a result of this.

MR. MAC NEIL: Les Gelb, does the present resolution as drafted with some pain by the U.S., France, Britain and I understand Belgium is now a supporter of that resolution, does that go far enough, in your point of view?

MR. GELB: Not nearly far enough, Robin, because the resolution is either silly or cynical. It's silly if they think they're going to be able to support these relief convoys militarily, without putting, as the general said, nearly a hundred thousand troops on the ground. They're the ones talking about that troop involvement. And it's cynical because they know that this whole operation amounts to feeding the victims while you're waiting for the victims to become killed or become refugees. It does nothing to stop the war. It does nothing to set up a climate for a political settlement of the war.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you feel about the current resolution that the Security Council may vote on tomorrow or Thursday, Dr. Kissinger?

DR. KISSINGER: I think as a symbol of what the world community is after I favor it. I would warn however against throwing the word "bolder moves" around. If I understand what my colleagues are saying, they seem to be advocating an unrestricted air campaign against Serbia.

MR. GELB: Absolutely not.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: No, no.

AUG-12-1992

11:37

FROM

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042

P.05

MR. MAC NEIL: Wait a moment, Les Gelb. We'll come back to you and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Let Dr. Kissinger finish.

DR. KISSINGER: What I think we'll be engaged in a military action, it should be a precise definition of what it is we want each party to do, what we want the Serbian government to do, and what we are prepared to do if they do not comply with our preferences.

MR. MAC NEIL: How do you make that declaration? I mean, does the President go to the Security Council and --

DR. KISSINGER: I believe it would be desirable for the President, if necessary, to go to the Security Council and indicate exactly what our objectives are, what he thinks the international community's objectives ought to be, and what precise measures ought to be taken. I'm not in favor of ground forces there, and I'm not in favor of general phrases like "bold steps," unless we know exactly what it is supposed to be.

MR. MAC NEIL: Jeane Kirkpatrick.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Well, I think, first of all, we're in favor of an end to murder and mayhem and ethnic purification, and an effort by Serbia to impose, you know, to conquer the area and drive out the inhabitants of the area. You know, that's what we're in favor of and that does not involve either massive contribution -- commitment of ground troops, nor massive commitment of air strike, or an unlimited air strike. Nothing, no one is advocating unlimited anything. It seems to me that what we are advocating is limited, focused military moves which can stop basically the Serbian offensive in its tracks. Serbia is not a great power and it will not take a great military move to stop the Serbian offensive.

MR. MAC NEIL: Dr. Kissinger.

DR. KISSINGER: All I want is somebody to say what he means, what she means by limited moves to stop the Serbian offensive. We have to stop two things: The Serbian offensive, plus the offensive of the local forces there. I agree with the objective that Jeane has put forward, but I would like to relate it to the measures that we are prepared to take so that we do not slide -- I don't think Vietnam is a good example, but we shouldn't slide in a Lebanese type situation. I believe we should make a significant effort to stop the blood letting there, but I think precision is important at the beginning, so before we get into something whose consequences are not understood by our people.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me ask -- we can't obviously in our time, gentlemen and Ms. Kirkpatrick, debate all the possible moves militarily. Let me ask you a broader question, starting with you, Peter Tarnoff. Margaret Thatcher suggests -- without putting it in so many words -- these are my words -- that this is a defining moment, that if the West doesn't act now, it will come back to haunt us as failures to act in the thirties came back to have haunted history since then. Is it such a moment? Is the way the United States and the leading European countries behave toward Bosnia in the next few weeks going to be a determining factor in the shape of the world and the shape of the new world order with influence on all sorts of other situations?

MR. TARNOFF: I think it's a more important moment, if not defining, than the Persian Gulf War, because we are seeing a situation which could be replicated and is likely to be replicated in many areas around the world. The problem is that we cannot resort to NATO type alliances traditionally constituted in the forties to act effectively, or even, as I said before, the Persian Gulf type alliance. And as we grope with our partners in a collective way, I think the way we deal with Yugoslavia will not only save lives on the ground and begin a process of reconciliation, but maybe send a signal to others who are contemplating these kinds of actions that there is now an international system --

MR. MAC NEIL: Moldova is a place, for instance, where --

AUG-12-1992 11:38 FROM MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042 P.06

MR. TARNOFF: That's right. Where the former Soviet Union is full of cases of this sort, and people are watching what's happening in Yugoslavia all around the world.

MR. MAC NEIL: Les Gelb, how do you see this as -- how defining a moment is this for the shape of the new world order, and the role of American leadership in it?

MR. GELB: I agree with what Peter Tarnoff said. We're talking about something that will rumble throughout Central, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, for the next five years, ten years, unless we figure out how to manage these situations somewhat better. Now, we've got to deal with what Henry was talking about, Henry Kissinger. What are your objectives in this situation? You can't solve all these problems, but you can lower the temperature so that you have chances at solutions. And there are means, Robin, and it's very important to lay those out. We're not talking about all out warfare in Serbia. We're talking about the possibility of providing arms to the Bosnians. If we're not going to defend them, let them defend themselves. We're talking about a diplomatic initiative. Let's not wait till the end of this month to bring the parties together, and let's not bring them together just for three days. Let's bring them together now and keep them at the table. And let's also warn Serbia that unless they show a willingness to resolve this, that we are prepared to strike military targets in Serbia such as the bridges and roads that connect Serbia with Bosnia. There are all sorts of things you can do. And let's not pretend the debate is between doing nothing and all out war, because unless we find a middle path, we won't be able to deal with the strategic situation that Henry and Peter just outlined.

MR. MAC NEIL: Dr. Kissinger, what is your view on how defining a moment this is, and how history will judge the behavior of the West in this moment?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, the most important challenge to American and global foreign policy is to define what is meant by new world order under traditions in which the overwhelming Communist threat has disappeared, various rivalries are becoming -- are emerging. This requires for the United States to be able to define its national interest and specific situation. Now, I believe that, for example, arming Bosnia is a complicated proposal, because Bosnia, unlike the other republics in Yugoslavia, in the former Yugoslavia, is not one national state. It is three different groups that would be fighting each other even if Serbia did not so viciously intervene. Actually, in my view, and this is strictly my personal view, the best solution would be to create some kind of United Nations status for Bosnia which probably the various contending forces might agree to. I don't see how leaving these three forces to themselves even if you could stop Serbian intervention is going to stop their killing each other. In this respect, it's like Lebanon, but it is -- I agree with my colleagues - it is a moment which will be watched particularly in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere for the shape of things to come.

MR. MAC NEIL: Les Gelb, you said earlier the debate was being falsely framed in Washington. Your newspaper says today in a report on military options being considered some critics believe the administration and Western allies have allowed themselves to become paralyzed by the all or nothing school of military thinking, meaning if you can't -- limited objectives are out anymore -- if you can't go in and do it all or nothing, you won't go in at all. Is that an accurate portrayal, in your view, of what has happened since Vietnam -- in the legacy of Vietnam and in the wake of the Gulf War?

MR. GELB: Well, it wasn't the legacy at the time of the Gulf War. We took the action necessary then. This one is a more complicated situation and the Vietnam and Lebanese analogies have more weight here. But they are not decisive. And whenever you see political leadership framing choices as all or nothing, you know you're hearing a phony debate.

MR. MAC NEIL: Jeane Kirkpatrick, do you think the administration and its allies are paralyzed by this kind of thinking, to use the New York Times phrase?

AUG-12-1992 11:39 FROM MacNeil-Lehrer WX

WX

TU

12127590042 P.07

MS. KIRKPATRICK: Well, they seem to be nearly paralyzed by what I consider strictly erroneous thinking, with false alternatives and mistaken approaches. And I would just like to say on the defining moment, if I may, just one word. There's another -- there's another issue being settled here and that is the role of NATO and of peacekeeping and peacemaking forces more generally, but NATO quite specifically, if NATO cannot act in this kind of clear cut situation, when could NATO act, you know, and if the President of the United States and the members of NATO cannot find a role for NATO or for the WEU in this contest, which is a military context, then I think that they are defining its futility for the post Cold War world.

MR. MAC NEIL: There is a meeting, a top level meeting of NATO, called for the end of this week, I believe, where they're going to -- I gather from the reports -- consider their role. Is -- what do you think, Peter Tarnoff, about this phrase of the New York Times that the military hangover from the most recent engagements of the United States has paralyzed thinking because it's on an all or nothing?

MR. TARNOFF: I think it is being put in all or nothing terms, but I also think we have to remember it's a political year in this country and the thought of committing Americans to actions which could result in large scale casualties anytime soon has a special resonance in 1992 which might not have been the case beforehand. Could I add that I think that there hasn't been enough attention paid to the role of President Milosevic of Serbia in this conflict. The resolution, itself, does not identify him. He is not in a position of a Saddam Hussein. There is opposition in Serbia and the single most positive event that could take place in this very complex situation would be for him to leave. And there is opposition there in the church and other political forces. And I think we should not demonize him but identify him as the person most responsible for the present situation. It might help.

MR. MAC NEIL: Dr. Kissinger, do you think the U.S. government and military are paralyzed by their thinking that if you can't go all out, you shouldn't go at all?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, there may be a tendency in the military to think in all or nothing terms, but I believe also that the administration is aware of the fact that it in the end will be held responsible for the consequences, and they may be thinking of what a 19th century statesman said even though they may not know that phrase, "Woe to the statesman whose arguments at the end of a war are not as impressive as they were at the beginning of a war." I don't disagree with much of what my colleagues here have said. All I ask them to do is if they speak of a middle road to define what it is. I am appalled by what Serbia is doing. I'm appalled by the slaughter. I want to explain - I want to define how we stop it, what the outcome is, and what precise measures we're supposed to do. That is not beyond the wit of man and that the administration should do as well, and I think they will be moving to it.

MR. MAC NEIL: Leslie Gelb, do you think they will?

MR. GELB: I hope so, because we have a real issue of morality and strategic consequences with this issue, more so than anything we've faced in years.

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah. And do you -- are you confident the administration is going to move in the direction, Jeane Kirkpatrick, that Dr. Kissinger says?

MS. KIRKPATRICK: I hope so. I hope they begin by distinguishing -- by ending this false neutrality between the victim and the victimizer and let me say in facing the nature of this conflict, which I think has been obfuscated till now really by the administration, and by our principle allies as well.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dr. Kissinger, Peter Tarnoff, and Leslie Gelb, thank you all for joining us.

TOTAL P.07

AUG-12-1992 11:35

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042

P.02

## FOCUS - DEFINING MOMENT?

LT. GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY, Joint Chiefs of Staff: What would happen if the U.S. was to move unilaterally in a massive way to end the violence throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina? It's obviously a question we look at and consider. It seems clear that it could be done, that perhaps with a healed army -- and you're hearing a personal judgment, not based on detailed analysis, but perhaps with a field army in a year or so, one could drop the level of violence. The question one would have to ask though is: When we withdrew, what would we have accomplished? And that outcome I'm far less certain of. So, you know, we -- the road from Split to Sarajevo is 201 miles long, and it goes about from here to New York City.

3

AUG-12-1992 11:36

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042 P.03

AUG-12-1992 11:37

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042

P.04

[c]

MR. GELB: Exactly.

MR. GELB: Absolutely not.

MS. KIRKPATRICK: No, no.

5

AUG-12-1992 11:37

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042

P.05

MR. MAC NEIL: Dr. Kissinger.

MR. MAC NEIL: Let me ask -- we can't obviously in our time, gentlemen and Ms. Kirkpatrick, debate all the possible moves militarily. Let me ask you a broader question, starting with you, Peter Tarnoff, Margaret Thatcher suggests -- without putting it in so many words -- these are my words -- that this is a defining moment, that if the West doesn't act now, it will come back to haunt us as failures to act in the thirties came back to have haunted history since then. Is it such a moment? Is the way the United States and the leading European countries behave toward Bosnia in the next few weeks going to be a determining factor in the shape of the world and the shape of the new world order with influence on all sorts of other situations?

6

AUG-12-1992 11:38

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042 P.06

[L.C.]

7

AUG-12-1992 11:39

MacNeil-Lehrer WX

TO

12127590042

P.07

8

TOTAL P.07