The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Good evening. In the news today, millions of South African Blacks staged a nationwide strike. President Reagan said Moscow is giving new military help to Nicaragua. The Supreme Court failed to issue its expected Gramm-Rudman decision. The government said the American prison population now exceeds half a million. We'll have the details of these stories in our news summary coming up. Jim? - After the news summary, State Department official Chester Crocker, Congressmen William Gray and Mark Siljander, and former diplomat Donald McHenry, debate U.S. policy towards South Africa. Lyle Denniston reports on the Supreme Court decision that didn't happen. There's an extended excerpt from the Senate's daily wrestle with tax reform. And finally, essayist Molly Ivins trumpets the return of the Goddess of Liberty to the Texas Capitol building. - Funding for the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour is provided by AT&T. Whether it's telephones, information systems, long-distance services, or computers: AT&T. Funding also is provided by this station, and other public television stations, and the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. - Millions of South African Blacks marked a key anniversary with a nationwide work stoppage instead of the demonstrations the government had banned. Eight more violent deaths were reported. There were also emotional church services commemorating the Soweto riots ten years ago in which some 600 people died. All events today and press coverage of them took place under restrictions imposed by a new state of emergency. We have a report from Michael Buerk of the BBC. - The only pictures taken today in Soweto were filmed by the state broadcasting corporation. They were taken there in a police armored vehicle and did not appear to leave it. They showed peaceful scenes, the whole area though unusually deserted, with most people apparently remaining indoors. Johannesburg supermarkets today were almost deserted. Few Blacks turned up for work, whites were afraid. Everywhere there were whites doing the more menial jobs normally done by Blacks.

In some places, 90% of Blacks reportedly stayed at home. In the white suburbs, private security agencies were busier than they'd ever been. Security guards were parked on the pavements, drawn up, ready to respond at a moment's notice to a cry for help, waiting by the side of the road for a call, fingering their shotguns. At some churches in Johannesburg, whites have been gathering flowers to give to the people of Soweto. A gesture of peace, legal advice had to be taken to be sure this was not subversive. When they left church this morning, certain actions were taken by the police that we are not allowed to film or describe. Eventually the only way they were able to deliver them to Soweto was to drop them out of an aeroplane. The security laws are now the most draconian in the western world. They have two objectives to stamp out any upheaval or protest today, and to prevent any record of what happens in the Black townships this day ten years on.

- In Luxembourg, foreign ministers of the 12 nations of the European Economic Community met to consider economic and political sanctions, including a ban on imports of South African food. Decisions were not expected until a Common Market summit next week. In Washington and several other U.S. cities, there were anti-apartheid demonstrations today. In the Senate, Kansas Republican Nancy Kassebaum, chairman of the African Subcommittee, urged President Reagan personally to intervene with South Africa's President P.W. Botha, to avert a bloodbath. - It was a day with guerrillas for President Reagan. First, he made a speech in support of his request for $100 million of aid for the Contra guerillas of Nicaragua. He said in a Washington talk, a Soviet spy plane, among other things, now being used by the Nicaraguan government gave them an edge over the Contras. - For the first time since 1984, Nikolayev delivered cargo to Nicaragua, and another significant step has been the arrival

in Nicaragua of a reconnaissance aircraft with highly sophisticated equipment as shown in this photo here to the right, which gives the Communist regime a significant advance in its military and intelligence capabilities. If democracy is to have any chance at all, we must back up those who are fighting for freedom and back them with the weapons and resources they need. - Then Mr. Reagan took up the cause of the guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan. Four Afghan rebel leaders met in the Oval Office at the White House with the President and Secretary of State Shultz, National Security Advisor John Poindexter, and White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan. Details of their discussion were not disclosed, but White House sources said it had to do with the rebels' need for anti-aircraft weapons to use against Soviet helicopters and jet fighters. - The White House said today that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has not yet replied to

a letter from President Reagan seeking to restart summit preparation talks. Such talks were called off by Moscow when the U.S. bombed Libya in April. About two weeks ago, the President sent what was described as a friendly letter, but Gorbachev has not responded. In London, the authoritative British publication Jane's Spaceflight Directory said the Soviets have taken an almost frightening 10-year lead in space. In its latest edition, the editor wrote that following the Challenger disaster, the Soviets were so far ahead of America that quote, "they are almost out of sight." - The Supreme Court today made way to end the segregation-motivated busing in the Norfolk, Virginia schools. The court turned down an emergency request to stop a school board neighborhood school proposal. Busing has been a part of Norfolk's desegregation plans since 1971. The board, with the support of the Reagan administration, Justice Department, had decided to end it. Opponents charge it will re-segregate the schools. The court did not hand down a seven-to-two decision today on the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget law.

ABC News reported Sunday night such a decision holding the law to be unconstitutional was coming this morning. It is very unusual for a Supreme Court decision to leak to the press in advance. ABC News officials said they stuck with the story and suggested the court may have delayed the release of the decision because of the leak. - The government reported that the number of Americans in state and federal prisons passed the half-million mark last year, adding to existing overcrowding. In 1985, the total reached the all-time high of 503,601 with the addition of 39,000 new prisoners. The federal system is operating 23 to 54 percent above capacity, the state prisons 6 to 21 percent, depending on how overcrowding is defined. - And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now, four differing views on how the United States should respond to the troubles in South Africa. One view of how the U.S. Supreme Court reacts to news leaks, excerpts from today's Senate tax reform debate, and finally

a Molly Ivins update on the fate of the Goddess of Liberty. - South Africa is once again first and foremost for us tonight. This was the 10th anniversary of the bloody Soweto riots. It apparently passed more peacefully than expected, possibly because the government imposed strict state of emergency measures, but nobody knows for sure because those measures included strict restrictions on press coverage of the day's events. Just the approach of the Soweto anniversary produced much rioting, particularly among Black factions, with 31 deaths and hundreds of injuries counted since Thursday. It also produced a new intensity about the debate in this country. The debate over what the United States can and should do about heading off what many believe is the potential for a bloody confrontation of unprecedented proportions. We join it now from four different perspectives,

first from that of the Reagan administration, and the person of Chester Crocker, who has been the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs since the administration took office in 1981. Mr. Secretary, what is your assessment of what happened just today in South Africa? - Well, we believe that Soweto's anniversary is a very important day, and obviously many people use the day to commemorate what took place 10 years ago. We don't have much indication of what really took place for the reason that you've already indicated, but it is obviously a very important milestone in South Africa's history. We don't believe that this event, whether it passes peacefully or not, means that things are quiet over the longer term in South Africa. The state of emergency will not solve the problem in South Africa, any more than necklace burnings will solve it. There's got to be negotiation. There's got to be movement on reform away from apartheid. - Has what happened today changed the administration's view about the state of emergency? The administration strongly condemned it when it was announced. Anything change today is a result? - Not at all.

We would say that this is simply a means of postponing inevitable decisions, but it is not, in any way, something we can endorse or condone. You don't solve problems by simply muzzling the press and banning public meetings and so forth. I would point out that what today really demonstrates is the growing power and determination of Black South Africans to reject the system they're living under. That's what I think is the real significance of Soweto Day. - Meaning the massive strike around the country. - Yes indeed. - Senator Nancy Kassebaum, as Robin just reported, a Republican from Kansas, Chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Africa, said it was time for President Reagan to intervene personally with the President of South Africa and get this matter resolved. Do you agree with that? - Well, the point I would make is that we're doing precisely that. The President has been involved in high-level exchanges with the President of South Africa. We have a continuing channel there, which is vital to use. So any notion that we're not involved or we're not playing the role you would want us to play, I think it's just simply misguided. Some of that communication, of course, is in the diplomatic channel and so you don't read

about it every day. And there are those who say that we ought to be more outspoken. We've also been quite outspoken too, including the President's own statement about the state of emergency. - Did I understand you correctly that President Reagan is talking regularly, personally, to President Botha of South Africa? - There have been exchanges of correspondence. - But he hasn't been talking to him personally. - Not personally, no. - Yeah. What is he telling him? - Well, what I think is generally known, we are saying that it's vital to seize openings for dialogue and negotiation while they exist, to pursue, to test those openings, to explore them and even exploit them, to make certain that every avenue is being used. We don't think it is. We think, for example, that the recent effort of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group represented such an opportunity, both to test the views of other parties and to see to it if we can somehow stem the violence and get the violence syndrome under control. He's also making clear that we must see accelerated movement on all the reform commitments and promises that have been made, some of which go to the very heart of

apartheid, but many of which have not yet been implemented. - You're the expert, Mr. Crocker, you're the man that gives the advice to the Secretary of State who gives it to the President, etc. What are you telling them now? Are you telling them, for instance, like what William Raspberry, columnist for the Washington Post wrote this morning that the time has run out for the Botha government? - I don't think the time has run out. In fact, we believe that we must soldier on in the effort that we are continuing to try and push the goals that I've just been describing. We don't see it as an alternative. It's all very well and good to adopt certain postures if you will or to call for certain measures, but there are a bit like going to kind of a party where you wake up the next morning and you may have some problems. You may have a hangover. What do you do the next day? We've got to have a continuing ability through our presence there to influence events at the margins, which is all that we can do. - Does the United States have real power to exert on the government of South Africa? - As I said, I think we have influence at the margins. I think we do make a difference.

- Only at the margins. - That would be my judgment. We're not talking about the 51st state of the Union or a little island somewhere off the coast of Florida. We are talking about a place many thousands of miles away that in most respects is highly self-sufficient. So what we're trying to do is to get at those whose minds are open to provide ammunition to those who want to reach the middle ground rather than simply to drive the parties into a kind of intransigence in which we might in fact delay what we're trying to see. - Do you believe that things are better now because of Reagan administration policy and actions? - I'd put it this way. In the first three years or four years or so of the administration, we did see movement on incremental reform. We saw some reform commitments and some implementation of reform that was unprecedented by South African standards limited though it was. In the past 18 to 20 months, we've seen a new situation emerge in South Africa in which Blacks are making it ever more clear that they simply have had enough, that they want to see change and they want to see it now. That has produced months of unrest, months of killings, and therefore a climate of heightened polarization. This

creates a new situation for us to deal with. Now what we've done, for example, last fall, the President signed an executive order which put in place certain limited measures against South Africa's system of apartheid while drawing a clear line and trying not to add to the destruction already in place by targeting its economy. - So you're not contemplating any new, the administration is not, as we speak, is not contemplating any new actions. - Well, the point I would make is that you look at an evolving picture and obviously from time to time you have to take cognizance of a situation as it evolves. As we look at it right now, we have certain measures in place, we have some pressures in place, the Secretary of State, rather the President has appointed an advisory committee that will be reporting to the Secretary of State before the end of this year, and we see the situation as it develops. We're doing all we can at this stage to advance our goals. - Thank you, Mr. Crocker. Robin? - Some members of Congress have been calling for tougher measures against South Africa and a bill for stiffer economic sanctions has been introduced in the House. One of the sponsors is Pennsylvania Democrat William Gray. In January, he led a congressional delegation

to South Africa where they met President Botha and other white and Black leaders. Congressman the Secretary says we must soldier on in the effort we are making. There is no alternative. What do you say? - I'd say that that soldiering hasn't produced any results, and in fact, despite all of the claims of moving forward, we've actually seen an increase in violence in South Africa since 1981, both in terms of its internal policies, as well as external policies where in the last month we saw them attack their neighbors of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and at the same time the emergency restrictions. And of course, the death count has gone up quite substantially now in 1986 compared to last year. So even though they've had emergency restrictions, even though they've closed down the press, the reality is that the carnage continues, it is worse now than ever before, and this has to be put into the context of an administration policy that promised in 1981 that within two years there would be significant

results, such as the independence of Namibia. So I would just simply say, if soldiering on continues, there are going to be a lot of dead South Africans. - What should the administration do in your view? - I think that what we've seen is an attempt by the administration to influence events, and over the last five years they haven't been able to do that. They've offered a lot of carrots, bringing South Africa to the western alliance, and I think clearly the South Africans have rejected that. I think now is a time for us to impose economic restrictions which would limit United States' support for the political engine of apartheid. - You have a bill now, you and other co-sponsors. How many co-sponsors incidentally? We have over 150 co-sponsors bipartisanly in the House with 30 in the Senate bipartisanly. - Briefly, what would that bill do? What if enacted that is not being done now? - It would ban U.S. bank loans to the South African private sector. It would ban energy technological exchanges. It would ban all new investments by U.S. individuals and corporations.

It would prohibit South African banks from being in the United States. It would prohibit South African airlines from landing in the United States. Prohibit the importation of South African coal and steel and uranium. At the same time, it would also prohibit the sale of the shares of South African corporations on American stock exchanges. - Some American banks, leading American banks, have already been doing that banning new loans to South Africa. Bank America today joined two or three other leading banks that have already done that. Do you see that having any effect? - I see that that's a very positive move and they ought to be commended. I think what our legislation wants to do is to make what Bank America did voluntarily the permanent law because that's a very important, carefully structured restriction that would go at the very important power sources would have maximum effect upon the ruling power elite, minimal effects upon the majority. It seems to me that those kinds of restrictions are needed

by this country because if we don't, then no matter what we say with our rhetoric, the reality is that we are providing the economic fuel for apartheid through our investments and our loans. - Secretary Crocker just said this country can only influence the South African situation at the margins. - I thought that that was a very fascinating statement. I was wondering whether it was a refuting the basis of constructive engagement that tends to say that through quiet diplomacy, we're able to bring about change. So if the Secretary is saying they have only marginal influence, why should we allow that influence to be dissipated throughout the world by having us stand with the Botha government and continually take a posture of you can't rock the Botha? - Thank you, Jim. A second congressional opinion now from Mark Silljander, Republican of Michigan, a member of the African subcommittee of the House. He joins us tonight from South Bend, Indiana. Congressman, you do not support the sanctions advocated by Congressman Gray. Is that

correct? - That's correct. I feel it ill-conceived. - Ill-conceived in what way? - Well, the issue is not apartheid. All of us find apartheid an abomination. We feel it's one of the ultimate and total discrimination against a majority of people who are happen to be Black by a white oppressive government. The real issue is how to re-promote a peaceful, peaceful transition toward change. And I personally believe that this bill, so-called anti-apartheid bill, their nomenclature is ill-conceived as well, is really an embargo against South Africa. Embargo not only against our U.S. industry, but against Black industry as well. And I believe cutting and running, rather than staying and fighting, is not a preferable option. - You do not believe that these sanctions would have any effect on the South African government and its attitude toward its Black citizens? - Well, we have not allowed the President's four sanctions, his mandatory Sullivan principles

and his commission analyzing apartheid, dismantling apartheid. The ink is hardly dry on the bill as yet. It's been nine months, and we're still awaiting for the commission's report. Thus far, all we've seen in South Africa, as Mr. Gray aptly pointed out, is an increase in violence. The unfortunate caveat to this, the violence is not, as it was, prior to last July of last year, white and Black, which was about two-thirds of the deaths, but now, over half the deaths are Black on Black, ten-year-old children are being what they call necklaced, with tires around their neck and lit afire and burned alive. This sort of violence, I think, is being promoted by the signals that the United States is sending vis-a-vis the Congress of the United States. - In what way, sir? - Well, let's be clear about this. Any time the Congress of the United States speaks or moves, it sends shockwaves across the entire globe. And the far right, the neo-Nazi radical fascists, are just aching for an excuse to dig in in deeper intransigence, to try to force

the Botha govern to back off any potential reforms that he is initiating. And then the far left, the Marxist-Leninist element of the Black ANC, are essentially waiting for shock signals to South Africa from the United States, so they can engage in more violence and more efforts toward, eventually, a violent bloody revolution to South Africa, and then we find, incidentally, the middle, the moderate Blacks, the moderate whites, who desire peaceful change. We find them more and more isolated because of the position and posture taken by the United States. - Well, what's the answer, then, Congressman? How do we play it? - The answer is to encourage, to encourage a peaceful transition. - But how do you do that? - All right, the way not to do it, certainly, is the issue of this program. The way not to do it is the bill that's before Congress, cutting and running, as opposed to staying and fighting, is not part of the American tradition. And I believe we need to continue to promote the Botha government, as he has moved on the mixed marriages act, immorality act, the past

laws, influx control act, and black ownership of property. This isn't enough, granted. But after decades of intransigence by the Botha government, the white regime, it is a move forward. So we should encourage a peaceful move even further and more quickly, if we can. - And you think there's enough time to do that? - Well, we are a society of instantaneity. We push a button, the television goes on, we have microwave ovens and instant coffee. And we have to realize that a culture cannot change overnight. Now, I want the culture to change as quickly as humanly possible. The issue is, will it be changed by the radical left through bloody takeover? Or will intransigence continue by the far radical neo-Nazis at the right, who have rallies up to 20,000? Their power is increasing, and it's very, very alarming indeed. - Congressman, thank you. Robin? - Some feel that the sanctions legislation now before the House is too weak. Donald McHenry was US ambassador to the United Nations under President Carter and was active in that administration's diplomacy in southern Africa. He's now a professor of diplomacy at Georgetown

University and president of an international consulting company. Mr. McHenry, first of all, what Congressman Siljander just says, the way not to promote a peaceful transition is more economic sanctions. Well, I think Congressman Siljander's comments are frankly a part of the confusion. And if I may use a very harsh word, nonsense, which is passed around on the question of issues, on the question of sanctions, and on this issue in general. The discussing of the Marxist- Leninist ANC for a movement, which has historically been a very peaceful, started out democratic movement, and which now has no other alternative than to resort to arms, doesn't add any light to this question. Or confusing the American public with regard to Black-on-Black conflict in this situation. When even the State Department... - Can I just interrupt you there?

The Congressman said that Black-on-Black violence is being promoted by signals the US is sending [crosstalk] Well, I don't understand that. That's again part of the nonsense which is being discussed. The State Department itself has said that there is substantial evidence with regard to the activities of the South African government officials, government military and police, in terms of what's going on at crossroads. Bishop Tutu and Reverend Boesak have hundreds of affidavits testifying to the actions of the police in sometimes tolerating, if not promoting the activities there. We saw on television the other day the government police standing by while groups of people went on a rampage against those who were supported by the government. - To come back to the sanctions for a moment, why are the sanctions Mr. Gray is promoting too weak and what do you propose? - Well, I'm not proposing anything. I'm simply suggesting that there is need for some

analysis on both sides. I think in the first place there are those who say that sanctions are going to topple the South African government in a relatively short period of time. I don't believe it. Then there are those who make the other argument that staying in South Africa on a part of American business is going to make a great contribution and we shouldn't get out because we're going to hurt Blacks. The truth is that sanctions have not really been tried. Even the kinds of measures which Congressman Gray proposes are in some instances already in effect. There aren't very many bank loans going in there. The major bank, Citibank, is simply recirculating money which it can't get out of South Africa. With regard to new investment, I don't know of any new investment which is going into South Africa. I am suggesting to you that the political situation has created an economic reality which makes some of these measures ineffective because they're already there. Does that say that sanctions cannot

be effective? I think they can, but it has to be the kind of concerted measures which the government can take and which industry can take in cooperation with government aimed at a specific goal. And so far what we're having is the piecemeal application of sanctions in such a way that they are not effective. South Africa gets a chance to adjust to them and then we turn around and say that sanctions don't work. Sanctions don't work because we haven't applied them in an effective way. Moreover, I don't believe that there is the great concern in the administration about the effectiveness of sanctions anyway. We have sanctions against Nicaragua, Cuba, Ethiopia, any number of other countries around the world and we haven't come up with this moralizing which we hear from the administration. - Finally, is the policy of constructive engagement, what the administration has called its policy all along still useful? - It's never been useful. The administration should have buried that

term and the policy from the very beginning. I don't know of a single thing which it has accomplished. The so-called improvement measures which Secretary Crocker talks about are indeed steps forward, but they were steps that the South Africans were taking anyway and none of them are structural. The Eminent Persons Group which went there came back and said bluntly that the South African government is unwilling at this time to do anything but try and make apartheid more humane. - Thank you, Jim. - Is that how you would characterize Mr. Crocker, what the administration in South Africa has done? Just to make apartheid out more humane? - I think what we've seen over the past four or five years are some very significant elements of change. We've seen most important of all and I take issue with this statement there's been no structural change. We've seen the beginning of a fundamental split inside the Afrikaaner community which has to be the precursor to significant political

change. That took place in part, I think, because of the signals that we were trying to send back in that period of '82, '83 that in fact it would make a difference if they move forward and got serious about the issues that we're talking about. - You don't think they would have without the United States sending the right signals? - It's impossible for us to prove what percentage of a role we played. I've used the phrase influence at the margins. I think it's never been any more than that. But I do think that we can use our influence to advance things. When there is a dynamic you can build on. When there's no dynamic, I don't think we can do it all by ourselves. - Where is the structural change? The Eminent Persons Group said they saw none. You just asserted that there is structural change. Where? Cite one specific. - Well, quite clearly inside the National Party which itself has split within the Afrikaaner community which is spitting on the TV screens before our very eyes. I don't think that the Eminent Persons Group conclusions should lead us to say that we should throw up our hands in the air. Part of the atmosphere of this whole discussion is that people are outraged. They want to do something. We share that sentiment. But you just do something, you can't

think of anything else better to do so you say, well, let's approve this bill. That isn't the way to approach the problem. - But I'm surprised to hear... - Let's talk about the sanctions for a moment. Mr. McHenry also says that the sanctions will work if they're given a chance to work, if the administration and the Congress of the United States wants them to work. The administration disagrees with that, correct? - We don't believe that economic destruction of South Africa is the way to save South Africa. We don't believe that the way to save it is to wreck it. That is the basic point that we are making. We're not making a point in defense of American jobs or profits. We're not even saying that our companies by themselves employ vast numbers of South African Blacks because they don't. But what we're saying is that we could fuel the process of destruction and make it worse, make it inevitable. - Congressman Gray? - That's very interesting. Why did the president sign last year his executive order? Those were two sanctions and they were adopted because the Congress bipartisan overwhelmingly supported the anti-apartheid act of 1985 and what he did was essentially, in order to stop that from being passed in the Senate, he took

two of the sanctions, prohibition against Krugerrand sales, prohibition against bank loans to the South African government, signed them by executive order. Now, I call those sanctions and now we're being told that they're not sanctions. I think it's interesting double talk of this administration's foreign policy, very similar to the Botha double talk. We hear a language about reform. I have looked at every one of the Botha speeches for the last five years. The freehold ownership of land, which my colleague Mr. Siljander referred to, the pass laws, the mixed marriages act, all pointing to reform. First of all, the freehold ownership of land has not become law by statute in South Africa to this date. Secondly, the pass laws are proposed to be replaced by a universal identity card that would still carry the card holder's race. And mixed marriages, please, that's an insult to the South African majority to assume that mixed marriages is a top priority when they want to vote for their leaders, when they want to be able to live with

their families, want to be able to move throughout their country. So to continue this rhetoric about, "well, we're not for sanctions," when, in fact, the president would accept two sanctions because of the political pressure, and as a result of that political pressure, we have seen a change of the administration's policy. - But what about Congressman Siljander's point that you don't resolve, reinforced by the secretary here, that you do not solve the problems of South Africa, by as Congressman Siljander said "cutting and running," the United States... - Well, I think Ambassador McKinney made a very telling point. Right now in the world, we have 20 nations that we have sanctions on, ranging from Iran to Afghanistan, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, other countries. Does anybody say we're cutting and running from them? We don't call oppose those because we did not like the behavior. Ayatollah Khomeini... - Let's get Mr. Siljander here... - So is Fidel Castro despite the sanctions. Congressman Siljander? Well, we talk about absurdities and nonsense, of course, we can't stay and

fight in Iran or Afghanistan. Those environments are obviously not conducive to US participation in any remote stretch of the imagination. But here's the question. Is it so nonsensical to ask, will sanctions stop the killing in South Africa? Will sanctions stop the necklacing of young, young children? Will sanctions stop a ten-year-old girl whose chest was split open, gas poured in, lit a fire because they thought this ten-year-old girl is an accomplice to the white government? Will sanctions truly stop the violence? If you can convince me that they will, then I have a moral imperative to support you. But in the meantime, there is a moral imperative to use our influence, not to eliminate our influence, and you look to the radical right, and not to the radical ANC. I said the radical factions of the ANC. - I would just simply say to my colleague, Mr. Siljander, he ought to apply that same standard to the other twenty nations in the world where we have sanctions as well. Because again,

that standard ought to be applied. The reality is sanctions don't bring down a government. They state where we stand, and secondly, we provide economic fuel for that political engine, and we cut it off. - What do we have, Bill? We already have made very clear where we stand. All of us have spoken out in the floor for hours, opposing apartheid, and opposing the government of South Africa. And while I don't agree with every element of the president's policies, he has engaged four sanctions, the mandatory Sullivan principles, and made a very clear statement. So if the statements you want, statements have been made, and many thousands of words have been instigated. Now, it's time to sit down and talk peace. [crosstalk] - I don't think statements is the issue? The issue is you cannot be against lynching and then continue to sell the rope and claim that you're not doing anything. That's the main point. - Mr. Secretary, is that the main point? No, I don't think so at all. The point is to draw a line between measures that make clear where you stand. That's what we tried to do last fall with the executive order. We drew some inspiration from the widespread sentiment around this country. We shared those views. It was the right thing to do

at that time. That's why the president did it. So we're not against pressures. We have pressures in our policy. We're against pressures that are totally indiscriminate, that will simply add to the suffering, add to the destruction, and make it less and less likely that the South Africa that comes after apartheid is going to be one that has any kind of an economic base. - But this is why I was suggesting from the very beginning that you don't use the kinds of pressures or sanctions which are being used. These aren't going to be effective. The administration and the rest of the Western world is going to have to come up with some kind of strategy, which does not eliminate sanctions because of all of this nonsense, which is being passed around about who they're going to hurt and so forth, but which is aimed and targeted at trying to get change in South Africa. If it's marginal, if it is indeed marginal, then fine. We have done that little which we can to promote change. We should stop fooling ourselves about what we're doing now because what we are doing now is creating an intense dislike for the United States

among Blacks in South Africa. I have never in 15 years of watching this situation seen so much dislike for the United States as I see now. There is a discussion, are we going to leave it in economic shatters? We are seeing the economy shattered politically and the disinvestment which is going on now is the result of the political situation. So the economic disaster, which Mr. Crocker wants to avoid, is occurring anyway. - Mr. Crocker, finally, everybody has used the word disaster, every bad word that can be used has been used correctly and looking at what the situation is. Do you share that? Do you share a sense of urgency about the situation that there is not much time left for somebody to come up with an answer to save lives? - I think the way I would put it is this that there is going to be future occasions for negotiation, but that what there are not going to be is many more occasions that have not been preceded by a great deal more

violence and bloodshed and killing. In that sense, obviously, it is late in the day, but in another sense, the negotiation has barely begun, the negotiation that must take place in South Africa. We want to be there, obviously, for the long haul. We want the bloodshed to end now and that will only happen in our view, only happen in our view, if, indeed, there is such movement on things such as the release of Nelson Mandela, the legalization of the ANC and other political parties and getting people to the table. - Well, you know, the only problem that I have with that is that we may have marginal influence, but combined with our allies, we could have more than marginal influence in terms of economic sanctions. I would simply say to Ambassador McHenry, who admittedly says that these sanctions that we are talking about in Congress are fairly moderate. In some cases, some companies are doing it voluntarily like Bank of America. What would be a much more tougher sanction that could be imposed and just think that right now, the world community is debating in Paris, the UN meeting on South African sanctions. There are three countries not even represented:

the United States, Britain and West Germany. The three of them together have over 70 percent of all the foreign investment in South Africa. If they acted, it would be more than marginal. - All right, Congressman Siljander in South Bend, from South Bend, thank you very much, and gentlemen here, thank you all very much. - We have a footnote on South Africa. Last week, we reported that George De'Ath, the cameraman for Charlayne Hunter-Gault's series on South Africa last year, was wounded while covering factional fighting in a shantytown near Cape Town. Over the weekend, George De'Ath died of his wounds. He was the first journalist to lose his life in the 21 months of violence in South Africa. [music] - One of the most widely reported stories in Washington today was about something that didn't happen. Judy Woodruff tells us about it.

Judy? - It's been one of the court's most eagerly awaited decisions this term, whether the Gramm-Rudman budget cutting law is constitutional or not. Last night, ABC News reported that it knew what the court was going to rule, and the decision would be announced this morning. - Gramm-Rudman has been found unconstitutional. The vote is seven to two. Chief Justice Berger assigned the writing of the decision to himself. It will appear under his signature. Justice Sandra O'Connor will try to put some of the unanswered questions of the decision in some sort of context. She agrees with Berger's decision, but will write a concurring decision of her own. - This morning, other news organizations picked up and repeated the ABC story and all over Washington politicians and interest groups geared up to react to the court's expected announcement. But when the court actually released its decisions today, there were only two instead of the expected three cases and no Gramm-Rudman. ABC said that it's standing by its story and said its report had noted that in the past leaks have led to delayed announcements by the court.

A spokesman for the court said, in effect, no comment. We thought that leaks from the Supreme Court were so rare, and this case was so important, that we decided to talk to Lyle Denniston of the Baltimore Sun, veteran Supreme Court reporter and a frequent guest for this program. Lyle, first of all, what happened? Has there been a Gramm-Rudman decision or hasn't there? - Well, when the Supreme Court announces its final result, there will then be a decision, but there has been clearly a preliminary vote and probably a nearly final vote. Right after the court heard the argument in the case in April, they cast a preliminary vote. Probably at that time it was determined how many would be in the majority and how many, if any, would be in dissent, and then the Chief Justice assigned the opinion to someone to write. And probably in this case, because of its importance, he assigned it to himself. So, people in the know at the court, and that's only a group of nine, plus maybe about 30 law clerks and some secretaries, have known for some time what the preliminary vote was and what

the inclination of the court was. And that's apparently part of what came out today. - So does that mean ABC was right or almost right? - It means that ABC could be right about what was in the preliminary decision. It means that ABC could be right if the court doesn't change its mind in the remaining time until the final decision emerges. - But is it your sense that the court had the decision, was ready to release it, and then withheld it because of this news report? - I was told today that the court had not planned to issue Gramm-Rudman this week at all. Not on Monday, not on Tuesday, not on Wednesday, the three days for scheduled opinions. That in fact, the opinion would not come out until next week at the earliest. So, I'm not sure whom to believe. At this point, the court may well have good reasons for not confirming the ABC report. The court's very sensitive duty about doing anything that might stimulate a stock market reaction. And this case, however it goes, will stimulate a stock market reaction. And so, if they released the opinion today, they would have confirmed it maybe within hours

after somebody was trading on it in the market and somebody could have made a killing in a couple of hours. - So, but if they released it tomorrow or next week, I mean, why wouldn't it have the same effect? Well, it still will have the same effect, but I think when had the court withheld it today, you would have to imagine the reasons why they had done so. And one of the reasons, if they did make that choice, would have been what impact would it be on the market if we confirmed the report. It's the kind of a day-to-day thing. - This sort of thing doesn't happen very often. No, I suspect over the last 10 years we probably had a total of a half a dozen leaks. Most of which have been pretty close to right, not all of which have been right in actual detail. - Why do you think this one leaked? - I have to believe, Judy, that this one, like every other leak that comes in Washington, is because somebody had a notion that they would gain something out of it. At this time of the year, I don't know Tim's source, but at this time of the year, it's likely that the law clerks who are finishing their service this month and about to leave for other jobs may well think that they can aggrandize themselves

in their new job if they do some leaking. Or it may be that they're just talking more socially because this is the time of the year when the court's most important decisions come out. I don't think that there's probably any one specific reason why somebody expected to gain something out of this. There may have been a multitude of comments among law clerks and among friends of the justices and these all came together and there have been rumors in this town, Judy, for the last 10 days that... - That this decision was going to come down this way. - Exactly. There was a lot of talk at a Congressional Democratic dinner last week that this result exactly was about to come out today. - Why is, I mean, this town is full of leaks! I mean, from the White House to Capitol Hill to the Pentagon and so on. Why is the Supreme Court so different in that respect? - Well, first of all, you don't have so many people who are in possession of this inside secret information. It is secret until they announce. You have the nine justices, each justice has a minimum of two and a maximum of five law clerks. So that's another couple of dozen people.

And you may have one or two secretaries and nobody else at the court knows about that. I mean, when, when information of this delicacy and sensitivity is controlled by so few people, it's not likely to leak. Another factor here is that at least once a year, the law clerks who serve at the court get a pretty stern lecture about not dealing with the press. And that means particularly, don't leak material to the press. The court now prints its opinions in a different way so that you're not likely to have any printers having access to it the way in 1979 the chief thought, the chief justice thought of one of the printers had been leaks before. And you don't have that kind of operation. The court, like a lot of other businesses, is using computer-directed printing processes now and it's got a very tight security control on it. So it has to be someone among about three dozen people who has a reason to be talking with someone else. - Now, when do you think this will come out? - Well, I would expect it probably next week at the earliest. The court has about 55 decisions

yet to go. They want to finish up in the next two weeks. And so they'd like to get out before the 4th of July. This year, they may not be able to do it. But I would certainly think we will have a Gramm-Rudman decision sometime by the middle of July. What was the scuttlebutt around the court from the people you talked to today about that? - Well, I think most people were inclined to think that when the court announced they would have three decisions, they only had two, that the court must have in fact ducked because of the ABC report. As I say, my own information is that they didn't do that. But we, people in the press, like to find the easiest answer and that was the most available one today. - It's never dull around this time of year. - It is indeed. - Lyle Denniston, thanks for being with us. - Thanks, Judy. [music] - The Senate continued its debate on the tax reform bill today, and once again, Ohio Democrat Howard Metzenbaum attacked tax breaks for special interests. There are 174 of them under so-called transition rules, which are intended to provide relief

for certain companies, communities, and individuals. Today's Senator Metzenbaum took aim at the Phillips Petroleum Company of Oklahoma and a provision that would allow it to pay about $100 million less in taxes. The idea was to give Phillips a way of recovering the cost of takeover fights that the company waged last year. Here's a part of today's debate. - Now, the taxpayers of the country shouldn't be asked to dig into their pockets for $106 million to subsidize takeover games. Now, I have no doubt about it. We're going to hear a plaintive cry about how difficult the oil industry is at the moment. Well, I suppose that you can make that argument out for any number of companies in this country that business isn't good, therefore the American taxpayers ought to subsidize that particular corporation or group of corporations. This is not a provision that's applicable to a lot of

companies. It's applicable to only one company, Phillips Petroleum Company. And I believe that it isn't right and it isn't fair that Phillips be given this extra special consideration. - The Senator from Oklahoma. - Phillips Petroleum did not go into debt voluntarily. Phillips Petroleum Company did not increase its debt to equity ratio because they wanted to somehow reduce their tax burdens. They were not looking for a tax benefit. They were not looking for a tax loophole. They were looking to save the jobs of thousands of dedicated and devoted employees to that company. I can tell you that if this company is hit because of a change in the rules, with another $200 million of tax burden, let's make it clear what we're talking about. We're not talking about cutting taxes for Phillips Petroleum Company. Nothing in this transition rules cuts their taxes from the current law. They're going to end up with a tax increase

from the current law. All we're saying is that for a company that's had to go into debt to save itself and to save the jobs of its employees, they shouldn't be hit with a massive tax increase. This transition rule simply cuts in half the amount of the increase. We're not asking the American people to come in here and give a tax cut to the Phillips Petroleum Company and asking for other Americans to pay for that. No. But we are saying we believe it is a principle of American fairness that you don't change the rules on people in the middle of the game. And especially you don't come in and kick people when they're down. I don't think that's fair and I don't think that's right. And I don't think that I would be worthy of serving in the United States Senate if I did not attempt to do something. It is not wrong to have transition rules in a tax bill. Senator, yield to a question? - I'll be happy to. As I understand it, your position is that it's

not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. But we've changed the rules for consumers. We've changed them for farmers or we've changed them for the elderly. So I would just ask my colleague, are all companies receiving the same treatment with respect to foreign tax credits as Phillips? - I would say to my friend from Ohio that all companies are not in the same situation as the Phillips Petroleum Company. Now let me say, I offered this transition rule and I think my colleague understands that I did this openly. It's not something that I did behind closed doors. - You did indeed. I want to congratulate you on that. You offered this amendment openly and in contrast to many of the other provisions that are in the tax bill and it was not one of those that we wound up finding out about after the fact. I give you credit for that. That doesn't mean that I think I give you enough credit that I believe that the amendment is warranted. - But Senator Metzenbaum lost, his amendment to kill a tax break for Phillips was voted down 73 to 14.

- It was two weeks and five days ago that Molly Ivins of the Dallas Times Herald came here and did an essay on the state of what she called "Ort" in Texas. Tonight she is back with an update. But if you did not see the original, the update will make no sense. So here first is the first. - Many people will tell you Texas is beautiful. Mostly Texans will tell you that. Well it's true in parts. But there is a lot of Texas that's not much to write home about. Parts of it are just plain homely and then, here and there, ugly barely covers it. But what does mankind do when faced with the challenge of ugliness? Man creates art (pronounced "ort" throughout) is what he does. Builds his own beauty. And that's what we do down here in Texas too. And I'm about to show you some of it. So don't say you weren't warned. A lot of our art is found in front of courthouses so as to let folks know it's

official. Now this here is a statue of a peanut bound in the courthouse square in Floresville. And here's a statue of a shrimp right here in downtown Aransas Pass. In Seguin we have a statue of a pecan. Not everybody likes it. Crystal City, Texas happens to be the spinach capital of the universe. You may not have known that. It's hard to make a good statue of spinach so they built one of this guy instead. Now out here in Odessa which is way to hell and gone on the other side of the state, and I hope you all appreciate the trouble we went to getting here, is this piece of art. Now we are in Paris, Texas. Just like Paris France, this Paris is famous for art. Here for example is the statue of a Brahma Bull on the roof of the Pena Filling Station. This is a fine example of a genre of Texas art. The cow-on-building genre. I don't know why we like to put cows on the roof but I kind of like it. Now here in the Paris cemetery we find the stone of the late Willet Babcock which as you can see says love never dies. Mr. Babcock passed on to the big ranch in the

sky back in 1881. And you see here on his stone a statue of Jesus leaning on the cross, looks a little tired to me. Come around to the back side of Jesus you'll notice he's wearing cowboy boobs the wind just lift his robe a little so we can see him. I thought you'd like that. Actually the best statue of Jesus I ever heard about was one made out of tuna fish for the center piece of an Easter buffet. It had a little pimento stigmata in it's outstretched little tuna fishy hands but I can't show it to you because it's already been ate. Some or it does not do a thing in the way of overcoming ugliness. In fact it just compounds the problem. This is probably the ugliest statue in the whole state. It's the Goddess of Liberty which normally resides on top of the state capital, which houses the state legislature which is bad enough without having this thing up there. Now it's down here being fixed because it started to come apart but instead of taking advantage of this great opportunity to improve the statue's looks all

they're doing is restoring it to its original state of ugliness. The made this new unimproved statue of the Goddess of Liberty at a recycled aluminum, specifically out of old beer cans. Now you know that it's true on account of this is the MacNeil/Lehrer show and they wouldn't let me make anything up. What else would the state of Texas make a statue of liberty out of except old beer cans? It's legal to drink while driving in Texas which many Texans believe is an art in itself. Now here's the statue I think would look good on the state capital. It's our state bug, the roach. Can we see how it would look on top of the capital? You all want to hear an old roach joke? Know how come all Texans wear pointy-toed boots? So's we can stop the roaches that hug in the corners? Well it sure has been a pleasure visiting with y'all about art in Texas. Sincerely yours. Now to the update recorded also by Molly Ivins in person, Saturday in Austin. The Texas National Guard went to put the Goddess of Liberty back up there a few weeks ago but

as you can see here they had problems. Now this is the sight that touched off the worst round of dirty jokes in the entire history of the state which I will not repeat any on account of they're all terrible but you can believe that newspaper copy editors have not been so busy with their blue pencils since Nelson Rockefeller died. - It was so close it wasn't even funny but we just, it just wasn't meant to be. - On top of the embarrassment of having the Texas National Guard not being able to get it up our governor had to call in the Mississippi National Guard on this deal because they have a better chopper than we do. The gov said Texas is called on Mississippi in the past but most Texans are humiliated by this. The proper role of Mississippi in relation to Texas is to be worse than we are. It's practically the only function Mississippi has. Whenever someone issues one of those comparative lists counting up who has the most venereal disease or the fewest oboe players, Texas is always 49th among the states but Mississippi is always 50th. Now naturally all us Texans do want to thank the state of Mississippi for coming

over here to help out. To tell the truth it's sort of a mortification that they had to be called in. I think maybe we should have left that longe star they had stuck up there as a temporary measure. It might have attracted some wise men. - Once again the main stories of the day, millions of South African Blacks staged a nationwide strike. President Reagan said Moscow is giving new military help to Nicaragua. The Supreme Court failed to issue its expected Gramm-Rudman decision. The government said the American prison population now exceeds half a million. Good night, Jim. - Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. Funding for the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour is provided by AT&T. Whether it's telephones, information systems, long-distance services, or computers: AT&T. Funding also is provided by this station and other public television stations.

And the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. For a transcript send two dollars to box three four five New York New York one oh one oh one.