The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

. . . . . I'm Jim Lehrer, an update on the Iranian earthquake, a newsmaker interview with Nelson Mandela, a profile of an AIDS activist group, and Gergen & Shields, all tonight on the MacNeil-Lehrer

NewsHour. . Good evening, leading the news this Friday, the death toll from the Iranian earthquake continued to rise. The Soviet Union proposed a United Germany in NATO after a five-year

transition period. The U.S. rejected that offer. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim. And after the news summary, we get an update on the earthquake from Iran's UN ambassador. Then comes a newsmaker interview with Nelson Mandela, a report on ACT UP, an AIDS activist group, and the Friday Night Analysis of David Gergen and Mark Shields. Funding for the news hour has been provided by AT&T. AT&T has supported the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour since 1983, because quality information and quality communications is our idea of a good connection. AT&T, the right choice. And by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a catalyst for change. And by PepsiCo. And made possible by the financial support of viewers like you and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The Iranian government estimate of the death toll from yesterday's earthquake rose to 35,000 today. There were more than 100 aftershocks causing new landslides and making it more difficult to get relief supplies to the area. Iranian news reports said several thousand people were pulled out of the rubble alive. Iran said what it needs most is medicine, tents, and blankets for the hundreds of thousands of people whose homes were destroyed. Rescue teams from Britain, France, and other countries flew to Iran today, bringing relief supplies and equipment that can help locate survivors. And Iran said it welcomes America's aid offer and asked Washington to channel it through humanitarian organizations. We'll have more on the quake after the news summary. Jim? The Soviet Union today offered a solution to the Germany and NATO problem. Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze proposed NATO membership for a United Germany after a five-year waiting period. Speaking at a meeting in East Berlin, he said Allied and Soviet troops would have to leave the country first. Secretary of State Baker said he was underwhelmed by

the proposal. Also in East Berlin today, another symbol of the cold war came down. Checkpoint Charlie, the Allied border crossing at the Berlin Wall, was removed. We have a report from Berlin by Edward Storton of Independent Television News. The last detachment of the guard at Checkpoint Charlie, soldiers without an enemy. This is a place where men and women have risked their lives to escape to the West. Where spies came in from the cold. Today, the Foreign Ministers of six nations gathered to mark its passing into history. For 29 years, Checkpoint Charlie embodied the Cold War. And now, 29 years after this barrier was built, we meet here today to dismantle it and to bury the conflict that created it. Please, close the Checkpoint Charlie control post. Whisked away by crane, it was, said the British commandant, being retired with honor.

West German Chancellor Kohl and French President Mitterand said today, western nations should give financial aid to the Soviet Union. They spoke with reporters following a meeting in a village along the Rhine River. They said the Soviet Union will need help to help itself. Nelson Mandela addressed the United Nations today. He praised South African President F. W. de Klerk and his aides as people of integrity, but he repeated his support for continued sanctions against South Africa. And he warned against the danger posed by right-wing extremists in his country. There are many amongst our white compatriots who are still committed to the maintenance of the evil system of white minority domination. Some of these are armed and are to be found within the army and the police. Outside of these state agencies, other whites are working at a feverish race to establish paramilitary groups who stated aim is the physical

liquidation of the ANC. In South Africa today there was a report of an assassination plot against Mandela, 11 members of a right-wing white group were arrested, but they were released after questioning. We have a report from Kevin Dunn of Independent Television News in Johannesburg. For white extremists, Nelson Mandela has become an object of hatred. Here they chant that he should hang. The alleged plot to assassinate Mr. Mandela was described by the journalists who broke the story as deadly serious. And they played a videotaped interview with an ex-spy who says he was once asked to carry out the shooting. The first project was to kill Nelson Mandela when he gets back out of America. That would have happened with a three by three rifle, three bullets that has been handed over to the assassinator, Captain Cornish. They will have taken him out from the top of the building of

Jan Smut's airport. Among those detained was on the right here, a former Nazi SS officer and close associate of Eugène Terre'Blanche, leader of the Africana Resistance Movement. Mr. Mandela's associates demanded action against them. We think it is absolutely vital if the peace process is to get off the ground that the government acts with urgency in order to frustrate this lunatic fringe of the right wing. Some right wingers have already gone into hiding, finding and disarming them is now President de Klerk's most pressing challenge. President de Klerk was also reported to be a target of the alleged assassination plot. The federal government today moved to protect the northern spotted owl, the Fish and Wildlife Service officially designated the owl a threatened species that makes it illegal to harm the owls or their habitat. The Interior Department said protecting them may cause the elimination of 28,000 logging jobs in the northwest over the next decade. But the Wildlife Service

said that did not have to be, and was working on ways to save both the jobs and the owls. President Bush today asked Congress for an additional $50 million in next year's budget to crack down on savings and loan fraud. He made his remarks at a meeting of U.S. attorneys at the Justice Department. He also announced his support for what he called rapid response teams of federal officials to ferret out S&L cheaters. That's why Attorney General Thornburgh and Secretary Brady have created a new approach. Rapid response teams against fraud. Teams of razor sharp prosecutors and auditors recruited from their departments and other agencies, striking city by city. Teams that will jump right into the paper chase. Teams that will hit the trail while that trail is still hot. Mr. Bush's comments were criticized by several congressional Democrats. Representative

Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the House Banking Committee, said the money request was too little and woefully late. Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio said the administration was taking action only because the political heat is up. In Baltimore today, the woman known as Robin HUD was sentenced to jail. Marilyn Harrell was given 46 months in prison in order to pay $600,000 for stealing from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. She said she was pleased to receive a stiff sentence because she deserved it. She admitted to skimming millions of dollars from the sale of government owned properties. She claimed that she diverted much of the money to the poor, but that was disputed by prosecutors. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to the Iranian earthquake, Nelson Mandela, AIDS activism and Gergen and Shields. The Iranian earthquake is first again tonight. Rescue efforts concentrated on villages in

the northwest corner of Iran near the center of the quake. We have a report from Sonya Ruseler of Independent Television News. Iran is mourning its dead today. The earthquake lasted only a minute, but 36 hours later the death toll is still rising. By midday, officially 25,000 bodies have been recovered in Gilan province and nearly 4,000 more in Zanjan. A few hours later the Foreign Ministry said 35,000 had died, but on a tragedy this scale the true figures are almost impossible to know. Rescue teams are desperately fighting to find and save the living buried under tons of rubble that used to be their homes. Each life they manage to save gives hope that more can still be rescued from the debris. Thousands are badly injured, needing urgent medical treatment and helicopters are working full time. An air bridge has been set up between the capital, Tehran, and the northern provinces to ferry supplies and rescue teams.

Hundreds are being evacuated to Tehran, dazed and in shock. Their community, as they've always known it, will never be the same again. By road, mudslides have been making the journey difficult for lorries trying to reach the region. The number of victims of course is increasing each, each hour. The roads to the area are now open for relief purposes and the assistance from all over the country is slowing to the two mostly hit provinces. The Iranian Red Crescent Society has organized a massive operation. The Central Collection Centre in Tehran is receiving donations of food, blankets, and clothes. Today at Friday prayers, the Islamic leadership

grieved at the divine test facing their country, but have kept up their fierce traditions of self-reliance. Internationally, the reigning government has appealed for help through its mission at the UN, but made it clear that doctors, technicians and other rescue personnel are not welcome. Those who've survived need help urgently. They've lost everything, families, friends, homes. This was one of the richest agricultural regions feeding the rest of the country. So despite its pride in self-reliance, Iran over the next month will need all the help it can get. Joining us now is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations Kamal Kharazi. He is in a studio at the United Nations building in New York. Mr. Ambassador, welcome. First, first on the death toll, 35,000 was the latest report that we have. Is that, does that jive with what you have too, sir?

I can tell you that now it's around 40,000 and it's increasing hour by hour and because two very important provinces, one agricultural and one industrial, has been damaged badly and even some of the rural areas are disappeared, actually. It has been swallowed by the earth and even one person is not alive in those rural areas. So the tragedy is so widespread that you cannot imagine, as much as we explore the area, we are faced with more tragedy and problems. And there are still areas that still people have not been able to get to yet to discover how many people are dead? Is that what you're saying, sir? Yes, still they are discovering, and that's why they have not been able to give the total number yet.

So 40,000 but it could go much higher, is that what you're -- I think so. Now, the, what is the major focus of the relief effort now? You heard what that report said, that you do not want doctors and technicians, you want other things. Is that right? That is true because we have doctors and experienced people that have been experienced through all the last years and the only thing that is needed badly is equipment, especially medical equipment, surgical equipment, medicine, electrical generators and construction equipment and also blood transfusion sets and first aid kids and these sort of things are badly needed. U.S. State Department said today that your country will accept U.S. assistance, is that true? We have welcomed any sort of foreign assistance because the disaster is widespread and certainly foreign assistance is needed.

Is it a problem for Iran accepting aid from the United States? No, no, there is no problem and any assistance has been welcomed. But you want it, you don't want it to go government to government, it has to go through the Red Cross, is that correct? Yes, it has been announced that the channel is the Red Cross, and even more than that, we have organized a headquarters here in New York, that any organization that could coordinate with us here in New York in the mission, and then we can arrange for the transfer of their assistance. As well as an account has been opened in Bank Melli of Iran, which is in New York in Madison Avenue, the account number is 5000 and the name of the account is Iran Quake Relief Assistance and so any sort of financial aid also can be mailed by check to that account. I was told a short while ago that the State Department announced that $300,000 in aid has been, is going to be made available to your country through the Red Cross and that's

the first for it. Did you know about that? No, this is the first time I hear from you. What is the major problem for your government at this point? I mean in terms of pulling all of this together, do you feel that the rescue effort is on track and that it's all working at this point? Yes, it's working in some track but the problem is that there is also flawed because of the damage of one of the dams and also it's raining and fog and you know different things have been all got together and mixed up and so it takes time to be in control. But the problem of getting the aid to the areas and getting in there and finding out the extent of the damage is still, is still not solved, is that correct? It's under control and they're trying their best to solve all the problems. One problem that existed was that, was that it was, the weather was very bad at the beginning, but later it

was better and hopefully the rushed airport which is one of the damaged areas is open now and helicopter is already actively in the field and I don't think there are too much problems in reaching to the area but the only problem as we said is equipment and facilities and medicine. Is there a terrific pressure to get into those areas where people may still be alive so, before it's too late to help them? One problem that exists is the presence of people, you know, many people from around the country are rushing to the area to help others and probably some of them have families there and these things also has created some problems but I believe that Iranian Red Crescent is very experienced in this field since in the long years of war they have a lot of experiences and I don't think they would have any problem in organizing the situation.

Well, Mr. Ambassador, our sympathies to you and your people and thank you very much. Thank you very much for your concern, sir. A newsmaker interview with Nelson Mandela is next. At the United Nations today the anti-apartheid leader repeated his call for continued sanctions against the South African government. He also warned of possible right wing terrorism in South Africa. I talked with him this afternoon at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Mandela, thank you very much for joining us. It's my pleasure. It comes to very few people to stand at the podium of the United Nations and not only be applauded by the whole standing audience but cheered. What did you feel at that moment? Well, I felt this was a great compliment to the ANC in particular and to the struggle of the people of South Africa against racial oppression.

It is an indication of the extent that to which our struggle has made an impact throughout the world and in particular to the United Nations organization and I was happy about that. You told the United Nations, it would be better if you'd come to celebrate a victory. Is this a good time to be so long away from home for you? Well, the struggle against racial oppression is worldwide. It's not only confined to South Africa. The developments that, the significant political development that are taking place today are the result of the cumulative factors of internal mass struggle and international pressure. And therefore it is quite correct for me as part of my struggle against apartheid at home to address and thank those peoples who have supported us all along. What I meant was that some people feel that there may be a very narrow window of opportunity

to achieve the kind of constitutional change you want by negotiation in South Africa with extremists in the white community proliferating, some extremism in the black community, all opposing the idea of negotiations. Do you feel that your time may be limited in which you can achieve some kind of negotiated settlement? We do not regard that we are working within any time limits. Oh, you don't. No, we don't. This is, factions which are opposing the peace process in the country have to be expected by those who have been following political events in our country. In fact, they were expected by the government itself and they must have examined the situation very carefully knowing that there would be a backlash because this is a monster of which they themselves, the government, have created.

And therefore this reaction on the part of the right wing is something that we expected. But we are not going to be paralyzed by that and not do our work inside and outside the country. I have gone out because we have assessed the situation very carefully and felt that it is time for us when there is talk of re-examining sanctions to go out and point out that that would be a catastrophic step. And the vote by the United Nations, by the European Parliament, which voted by 177 votes to 47 is vindication of our visit to Europe and to America to appeal to the various countries to maintain sanctions. Apart from opposing sanctions, and I'll come back to that in a moment, opposing the relaxation of sanctions, and I'll come back to that in a moment,

you are also using this trip to raise the prestige and the financial resources of the African National Congress. How much do you need that? I mean, do you not have the resources and the prestige enough to carry on your struggle without this kind of international campaign? How can we carry on the programs that we have without a financial assistance from the international community? The resources of the country are monopolized by the white minority. We don't have resources. How would we be expected to rehabilitate the political exiles, which are coming back, want jobs, want accommodation, want educational facilities for their children? How do we rebuild the ANC which has been banned for 30 years? How do we mobilize the entire country for peace if we don't have the resources?

We cannot generate those resources from inside the country and it's quite natural for us to approach the international community for assistance in this regard. Who -- come back to sanctions now. Who is the chief target of your anxiety? Which country are you most worried might want to relax sanctions? We don't want to deal with the situation from that anger. We are appealing to all countries, whoever they are, not to relax let sanctions. Are you afraid Margaret Thatcher will want to relax sanctions? If I have any fears, I'll express them directly to her. And I do not consider it improper that I should be discussing here what I propose to discuss with the British Premier. Right. Well, you were also going to see President Bush, of course, on this trip. Do you have some anxiety that Mr. Bush wants to relax sanctions? No.

I have no such anxieties. But he may have views, which if they conflict with ours, then I will be able to thrash them out. What would happen if some sanctions were relaxed? You've said that you believe Mr. de Klerk is negotiating with integrity and that he has the same aim of a multiracial society that you do. Are you afraid that if sanctions were relaxed, that he would slow down, that he would reverse himself? There is that possibility. Not from the point of view of a man who can't keep his word, I am convinced that he will keep his word. But he faces problems and he just has to make a choice, the continued application of sanctions puts an obligation on all of us to try and find a solution as quickly as possible. We are just as anxious as the government for our economy to be saved from being shuttered by sanctions.

We are keen that we should have a chance as soon as possible of putting our economy on a sound basis, and therefore we are keen to reach a solution as quickly as possible. And the danger about relaxing sanctions is that you will actually undermine the rate at which we want to reach a settlement. Because Mr. de Klerk would feel that for political reasons he could go slower, is that your -- Well, that is a possibility because he faces problems. The city newspaper, a black newspaper with a big circulation in Johannesburg, this week came out for lifting of some sanctions. And they said, the writer said they didn't want blacks to inherit a wrecked economy, a wasteland. Now that is an argument that opponents of sanctions, that's the phrase that opponents of sanctions have used a lot in the West, does it disturb you that some prestigious

black opinion now inside South Africa is calling for a relaxation? We are a democratic organization movement and we are tolerant of opposing views. People are entitled to express their views. I do not know which newspaper this is, but if one talks about the city press, generally speaking, they support our struggle. And if on any particular point, we don't see eye-to-eye, we will discuss that with them. And we have a powerful case. And we think we are in a position to convince anybody, as I have convinced you. You said that for the West to try and help de Klerk, to make some gesture to help him. For instance, Mr. Bush has talked about his desire to make some gesture to reward de Klerk for the steps that he has made.

And I have heard your answer that you do not think he is due for a reward, because he's just undoing what he shouldn't have done, what the white community shouldn't have done in the first place. But are you worried about de Klerk being weakened? Are you worried about an erosion of support for de Klerk, that that could catch up with the negotiating process? That he could lose whatever mandate or moral authority he has to negotiate with you? Not if he carries out our recommendation to him. We have said to him he has another four years in terms of the election laws of the country. Within that four years he can bring about fundamental and irreversible changes in the political scenario of the country. That fundamental change would be to extend the vote to every South African. If he did that, he would take out, take out the political power from a white minority and place it squarely in the mass, in the hands of the masses of the people.

Once he has done that, the right wing would be absolutely powerless. Are you saying -- And he would be in an invincible position. Are you saying that if black voters were enfranchised across the political spectrum that enough of them would vote for Mr. de Klerk, a white man, after all that he has represented in their past? I am not talking about voting for him as a person, but the cause for which he stands. That is a negotiated settlement on the basis of a non-racial constitution. That cause would triumph, and he would benefit because he would be part of that process. How close are you to removing now the obstacles to a full negotiation, for instance, the release of political prisoners and the return of -- No, no problem about that, that we are going to agree with that. It's going to be very quick now? I will, now or next meeting I have no doubt to say we will clear that completely. Okay, you have said that the next step is to decide and how to choose the delegates who

will represent blacks in the real negotiations, and that they should be democratically elected. Are you going to look to the government to set up such an election machinery, or are you going to set one up within the ANC? Oh, it is a joint affair. We are discussing with the government already, and the structures that we are going to put up for the purpose of negotiating on a new constitution is now a joint responsibility between the ANC and the government. And it may well be that other organizations will be involved. We have not taken up the stand, the position, that we are the only organization that is entitled to negotiate. That has never been our stand, but we insist on democratic elections in order to identify the people who are going to negotiate. So in other words, just to what would amount to a constitutional Congress, to use the American phrase, the election to that would become the first democratic election across racial

lines itself. Well, I do not want to use any labels. All that I am saying is that the people who are going to be entrusted with the important work of drawing a new constitution for South Africa, acceptable to all population groups, must be undertaken by people who have been properly mandated through non-racial elections. You said to the, oh, and I just want to ask one more question on the timetable, if the question of the release of political prisoners and the return of exiles can be settled at your next meeting, what do you see as a probable timetable for electing delegates and sitting down, the earliest one could sit down and start having serious negotiations on it? I would be reluctant to say, to talk in terms of timetables. It is sufficient to say that in the first meeting that we have had with the government, the element of urgency was evident on both sides.

That is why we appointed a working group composed of equal members of the ANC and the government and instructed them to report to us before the 21st of May. They have done so and indicated to ask the ways and means in which these obstacles could be removed. We are meeting then in order to take specific decisions as to how to remove the obstacles and we don't expect any problems about that. There is, of course, the question of removing repressive legislation because it is not only just the state of emergency, there is a battery of laws which give the government sweeping powers of suppressing political activity from their opponents. We have also insisted that this laws should be repealed but of course the question of the

repeal of the laws is not something that can be done overnight and we will look into that and we have no doubt that in a future meeting of parliament some of these laws also will be withdrawn. You said today in your United Nations speech it was strange that the victims of a crime against humanity were being told what procedures were proper to rid themselves of that crime. What did you mean by that? Well, we are told, for example, that we must lift sanctions. We must call off the armed struggle. We are now talking to the government. We must give them sufficient space to maneuver with regard to the right wing. Now we consider this approach to be totally incorrect because the methods which are used by an oppressor, the methods of political action used by an oppressed, by the oppressed are determined

by the oppressor. In South Africa, the methods which the people are using to oppose apartheid and racial discrimination are determined by the government, where the government that talks peacefully wants that to solve problems by peaceful means, talks to the oppressed, it would be very difficult for them to turn to violence. But when the government bans political organizations, bans political activities, paralyzes individuals by imposing bans on them and intensifies oppression and carries on a brutal suppression of all political activities, what do you expect us to do? We must resort to violence in order to defend ourselves. But many people, especially in the West, seem to be blinded with this reality that we ought not to have embarked on violence.

We ought not to continue with violence when we are negotiating. We know better because we are the people who are responsible for this negotiating process and we should be telling the world what methods of action should be abandoned and at what time. It is not for the international community to try to lecture us as to what methods of action we should use. You said to Ted Koppel last night, a man who changes his principles depending on with whom he is dealing is not a man who can lead a nation. The context was this, what principle are you being asked to change? You, Mr. Mandela, when Americans question your praise for the human rights under Gaddafi and Castro, where, what is the principle involved, that you're being asked to change? Mr. MacNeil. This is a matter who should not be handled lightly as many people do.

The first country which we approached in the 60s for assistance when our leaders had to leave the country in order to mobilize the support of the international community. The first country we approached was the United States of America. We could not even succeed to come close to the government and they refused assistance. But Cuba, the moment we appealed for assistance, they were ready to do so. And they did so. Why would we now listen to the Western world when they say we should have nothing to do with Cuba? It's just unreasonable. No human being acts in that particular fashion. Here is the country that was the first to assist us when the West, which had formidable resources, was actually supporting the government.

Now you expect us to change our whole approach and to start condemning Cuba for what is supposed to be happening inside the country. No man of principles could ever do that. And that is what I tried to convey to Koppel. Mr. Mandela, our time is up. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Thank you. It is a pleasure. . Still to come on the news hour tonight, AIDS activism and Gergen and Shields. Now the impact of activism on AIDS research, some 10,000 scientists and healthcare professionals are in San Francisco this week, exchanging information about AIDS, but AIDS activists have an additional agenda. John Rosak, of public station KQED San Francisco, reports on one activist group called Act Up. Its goal is to force people to come to terms with AIDS and to help get medicine for those

dying of the disease. Its tactics mix civil disobedience with radical street theater. Its targets have been drug companies, researchers and government officials. Act Up is an acronym for the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. One of its targets at the San Francisco AIDS Conference is the Immigration and Naturalization Service for policies restricting immigration and travel by those infected with the AIDS virus. After months of similar protests, the travel ban was lifted for those attending the conference. But Act Up wants the ban removed entirely. Act Up's members are mostly young and gay. Many are infected with the AIDS virus. Most have friends or lovers who've died of the disease. All share a growing frustration over what they see as the government's inadequate response to the AIDS epidemic. [chanting] AIDS care, we care, why don't they care? Jorge Cortinas helped organize the INS demonstration.

You're not going to do it by writing letters to the editor and that didn't do it because people tried that. You're going to do it by seizing a platform, by jumping in front of where the cameras are, by really finding the agenda. Act Up has picked unexpected places for its protests. They say their intent is to shock the rich and powerful who they say set AIDS policy. At St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, 40 Act Up members disrupted Holy Communion during a high mass, staging a die-in in the church aisle. [shouting] How many more have to die? Condoms save lives! Condoms save lives! Saving lives is morally right! In San Francisco, members of Act Up formed a human blockade on the Golden Gate Bridge. [shouting] Run over the son of a bitches, run them over! I have to go to work to take care of AIDS patients and I'm an hour late because this demonstration, I'm not happy. Are you a doctor? Yeah, I'm a doctor that takes care of AIDS patients. Their motto is 'silence equals death.'

Act Up members say they'll use any means to be heard. Peter Staley is a member of New York Act Up. The time had come to really start screaming, yelling, making a fuss, pissing people off and only that would bring about any change. Act Up's main targets are politicians, doctors, researchers and drug companies, those most closely associated with AIDS and targeted for attack by Act Up at the AIDS conference. These tactics make headlines. They also create dissension among gay leaders and AIDS fundraisers. Dr. Mervin Silverman is president of the American Foundation for AIDS Research and raises money for AIDS nationally. There is a sense around the country among a number of people that too much money has gone into AIDS or at least enough has gone into AIDS. And I think sometimes these tactics tend to turn off people who have that sense and make them more angry that money is going into AIDS and support is going for it.

Cleve Jones is a leader in the gay community and creator of the AIDS quilt. He supports Act Up's goals, but questions its techniques. There are times I think when Act Up sort of crosses the line and engages in behavior that is designed more to inflame public opinion rather than inform it. The street activists need to view the American public as potential allies rather than automatic enemies. It amazes me that complaining that we're dying is perceived as irresponsible. Irresponsibility to me is letting 45,000 people die of a disease before you say the word AIDS on national television when you're the president of the richest and most powerful country in the world, that is irresponsible and that is murder. By their nature, attention gets focused on Act Up's public demonstrations, but they're only one aspect of Act Up's AIDS agenda. The group has also staged sit-ins at offices of drug companies, they set up letter writing campaigns, they've lobbied politicians, they've also pressured the FDA and AIDS researchers,

they've agitated hard and long. Now those tactics seem to be paying off. Even many critics say Act Up was instrumental in twice lowering the price of AZT, one of the most expensive drugs and the only one useful against the AIDS virus. Speeding up approval of the release of ganciclovir used to prevent AIDS-related blindness and gaining acceptance of parallel tracking, so AIDS patients inside and outside clinical trials may benefit from promising drugs while they're tested. The proof of Act Up's impact came last fall when Bristol Myers and AIDS researchers unveiled the new drug DDI. It was Act Up whom they credited with helping design the clinical trials. I do not believe it would be in the position of having this forum tonight or not for the perseverance and the hard work of Act Up. We owe a great deal to them and their work on behalf of those of us living with HIV disease. Dr. Paul Volberding is Chief AIDS Researcher at San Francisco General Hospital and co-chairman

of the 6th International AIDS Conference. The way clinical trials have been done, certainly the FDA involvement has changed. The willingness of the drug companies to do things in different ways has changed in large part because of the groups like Act Up. As a measure of Act Up's growing clout, Jesse Dobson of San Francisco Act Up has been invited to join the government's AIDS clinical trials group, which determines what AIDS drugs are tested and who they're tested on. But activists, seen here in Act Up's convention headquarters, say they're still excluded from the medical establishments' inner circle. They still don't really get that we want to be full partners. We're still looked at as nuisances, we're given a little bit of input on what they consider social issues, which they're starting to admit they don't know things about, but they really haven't adopted us as full partners in the process, or given us control over deciding what risks we're willing to take.

At this week's AIDS Conference, Act Up members from around the country are coordinating their protests in a media center, a few blocks from the convention hall. Do you have a place where I can dispatch you information? Despite this picture of unity, Act Up is a coalition of some 50 groups and conflicts over organization and tactics are straining the group. Playwright Larry Kramer, who's credited with founding Act Up in 1987, says the grassroots organization now must be transformed into one with stronger leadership and more disciplined street fighters. So I'm hoping that there is some way that this army can become a lean and mean fighting army rather than a bunch of kids putting on street theater, which is pretty much what we've been. In a move that made enemies within Act Up, Kramer called for violent protests at this week's AIDS Conference. We are up against a wall. There is no avenue left to us except terrorism.

Most in Act Up don't agree, remaining committed to nonviolence. Andrea Stanley is with San Francisco Act Up. And what we have to say here in San Francisco, and I think a lot of Act Ups would agree, is that we are a non-violent group. We have been a non-violent group and we will continue to be a non-violent, direct action organization. Yesterday, Act Up's protests turned more militant. While Peter Staley of New York Act Up criticized government policies on AIDS to delegates inside the hall, outside some eighty active members were arrested in a series of protests throughout downtown San Francisco. If we have to do this every day until they get it through their heads, we're going to do it. Act Up says it'll keep up the pressure at the AIDS Conference, which continues into the weekend. Finally tonight, our Friday night analysis session with Gergen and Shields, David Gergen,

editor at large of US News and World Report, Mark Shields, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. The House yesterday rejected the constitutional amendment on the flag. Did you expect that to happen, David? Well, I should confess a bias to start with. I was pleased by the House action, Jim. I thought Charlie Fried, who was the conservative solicitor general for the President Reagan said yesterday, put it well, putting this amendment in the Constitution would have been like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. So I must have, I talk about it in that context. I was more surprised by the hullabaloo that preceded the vote than by the outcome of the vote. It seemed to me that a lot of politicians in this city, while there were some who acted out of conscience, there were others who seized upon this for political opportunism. And I think the press also misjudged the mood of the country. Only when it became apparent that the country was not as intent on passing an amendment as it seemed, as people in this city assumed that the country was, did the majority sweep in, and I think it became apparent in the last 48 hours that it was going to go down.

Mark, do you think that did you expect the politics of it the way, the other way when it finally came down to it? Not initially, Jim. Um, certainly after the court decision, there was certainly a lot more confidence in the ranks of those pushing for an amendment, especially Senator Dole, the President in Rawlins, the Republican campaign chief, who felt very confident that they... That's what I mean. Yeah. Yeah. And the tide did turn. It turned dramatically. One -- I think, well, I think a couple of things happened. First of all, the Democrats, the House Democrats in particular, you know, we're told time and again that the Senate is the more deliberative body. The U.S. House of Representatives, I think, showed a responsibility and a maturity yesterday that is admirable. These are the people who face election every two years. And these are the ones who are supposed to be more responsive to the popular will and sometimes even bow, too often to popular will and win. And they took the long view yesterday, they gave themselves a conscience check and they voted

against it. And let me tell you what the Democrats did, which was impressive. The Democrats had an attack of the smarts. This is the Democrats who historically, when confronted with a values fight in the past, have trotted out Alan Dershowitz, or Laurence Tribe, distinguished law professors who make a narrow, legalistic argument. This time, the Democrats fought value with value. They had, as their spokesmen, Senator Bob Kerry of Nebraska, winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor in Vietnam, Dale Bumpers, a Marine veteran of World War II, Terry Sanford, former Governor of North Carolina, President of Duke University, who was a paratrooper who went behind the German lines in World War II. All of these were the people that spoke, not Howard Menson Bump, not Ted Kennedy, not the predictable lips. In the House, Dave Bonner, a veteran, a four-year veteran of the Air Force during the Vietnam War, Dave Skaggs, a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, these were the people up front. So all of a sudden, the Republicans on the other side, Newt Gingrich, and so many who had

spent the Vietnam years in graduate school, found themselves disarmed politically in a very personally and politically vulnerable position. I think that's a very good analysis, and Ted, too, it seems to me, Mark, they also erected a very good argument for one value, the value of the flag, they erected a different value of the value of the Bill of Rights. And they made it, they made a protection for themselves, which I think was very valuable. But to go back to this, Jim, there's something about the way people in this city read polls. A lot of people in the city looked at the polls initially and said, 65%, 70% of the people in the country favor an amendment to which would allow, you know, prohibit flag burning. And they said, well, there's overwhelming sentiment. Those polls traditionally just tell you the sentiment, they don't tell you the intensity of feeling. And I think, and there was very little intensity in the country. This was a storm a year ago, but it was like a summer thunderstorm. It passed. And there's, you know, while people say they're in favor of a flag amendment, there weren't the calls, calls, and letters coming into the hill. And so people weren't pushed the way they thought they might be.

We had some of our experience, frankly, on the school prayer amendment in the Reagan administration. When I was working earlier, early 80s, one of the reasons we pushed school prayers as hard as we did at one point was because the polls showed 60% to 70% of the people favored an amendment to the constitutional allowing a moment of silence in the school's first school prayer. But when it came right down to trying to get the Congress mobilized, there wasn't the real public intensity on it and you couldn't get people to do it. Well, President Bush then misread the polls again, did he not on this one? I think the White House did. I think that they felt it. They thought they had an easy one. I think they had an easy one. What about these guys? You were talking about the Democrats and how they handled this thing. But there was also, according to Roger Mudd, who covered this thing for us yesterday, covered the vote. There were a lot of Democrats who waited until they got that enough votes to make sure the thing was defeated and then they all rushed in and voted for it. So they could - in other words, they were against it and they worked against it, but they went in and voted for it to protect themselves politically at home, in other words, so they could have it in both ways. What do you think about those people, Mark? Well, I was up on the hill. There were about forty of them.

I was up on the hill and I have to confess, I mean, with all respect to Roger, I didn't see evidence of that. I mean, on any vote, you're going to get some people who hold back. The leadership invariably has some people on its side, on either side of the aisle, who said, look, I'll be with you if you need me, okay? And for domestic political reasons, people don't, I remember Jim in 1965, Senator Bill Fulbright of Arkansas, and the Voting Rights Act came before the United States Senate, went down the well of the Senate and said to Mike Mansfield, then the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate, I want to vote for the Voting Rights Act. And Mike Mansfield said, no, I don't want you to, because we need you more in the Senate. All right, and -- Feeling that that vote would seal his political fate at home in Arkansas. And that happens. I don't think that was the case yesterday. I won the pool in the House Press Gallery, okay, on predictions. I had the high prediction of 176, okay? And I don't know anybody who was, I mean, people were surprised. They were astounded. I mean, on the number of votes against the constitutional amendment. So I was, I was quite impressed by it.

On your point about the president, in 1990, nobody politically is going to be able to yell fire in a crowded flag, flag factory. I mean, that's the rule, that's the rule that came out of this. Because, David, is there any, is there going to be any, the people who were scared about this politically? Is it going to turn out to be a legitimate fear? I don't think so. I would imagine in most districts, it's going to be a very minor issue. Newt Gingrich has one point, which I think is worth paying attention to on this. And that is, if you have a candidate who has voted against the flag amendment, has voted against the crime bill, for instance, is against the death penalty, is against, is against the any, the National Rifle Association, the NRA. Then you may have a complex of cultural value issues as he calls them that may hurt a candidate. I think that is true. I think that, I think it would be possible to campaign very successfully against the candidate in that situation. What about a backlash the other way? I was reading today that Senator Dole, you know, may have gone too far in saying, oh, this was a big political thing, and we're going to go after you guys.

I think they're, I think the Democrats handled it well and the Republicans and Rawlins in particular and Bob Dole, the Senate Republican leader, came right out of the box, and even Newt Gingrich himself was quoted in New York Times saying, a mythical Republican strategist said Newt Gingrich would like to lose this by one vote, so it would be an issue. So all of a sudden it took on, as Dole talked about a 30-second television spot in the fall. And Gingrich and Rawlins talked about going against these guys who voted the wrong way. It didn't sound like something that really came from the heart. It came from the Iwo Jima Monument, and we had to preserve Mount Surabachi and the Battle of Saratoga and Yorktown. And I really think that it took on a very political coloration, as far as the campaign in 1990. It's already cropped up in the Iowa Senate race, where Tom Harkin, the Democratic incumbent senator, who's in trouble, one of the targeted races, is against the constitutional amendment. Tom Tauke, his Republican challenger, a moderate, very able fella, has taken him on on this. And Harkin has come back and put Tauke on the defensive by saying, I was a naval pilot in

Vietnam. Why weren't you there, if you'll ever like some? Yeah. But that works for the veteran. That's right. But for the non-veteran, if you're seeing as too liberal on this whole issue, then I think you can have a problem. I know there's still a vote to come in the Senate next week, even though the thing is dead. I think we need to explain that. The House essentially kill it, because it takes both houses in order for constitutional amendment to go down the route, and yet the Senate is bound by a resolution they passed to go ahead and have a vote. What do you think is going to come with that, David? Well, my expectation is now that it will go down in the Senate. I think had it passed the House there'd be a lot more pressure on the Senators to vote for the amendment. I think it'll divert a little pressure now. Obviously, Republicans have wanted this vote, because they would like to have people on record. There are a few races where they think it might be helpful. There are a couple of Senators who have been wavering on both sides of the issue, a couple of Democrats. But I don't think it's going to lead anywhere, it is a moot issue, because as you say, it does, before any amendment proposal, has to go to the state's, has to pass both houses. What do you think about that, Martin?

Senate ought to be ashamed of itself. There's a lot of important things they could be doing. This is posturing. The worst sort. I mean, it's not going to happen. It's not going anywhere. What are they doing? I mean, they really ought to be ashamed of them. They're getting ready for some 30 second spots. But that's right. That's right. But that could be said generally about the whole controversy, but the whole vote will be -- But the House, the House took it on.The House took the issue -- I think that, I don't disagree with you about the House, but I think that the whole hullabaloo, I just happened to be in Eastern Europe the last 10 days and coming back, you know, from the Eastern European perspective, where people are dealing with such fundamental issues, it seems so bizarre for this country to be caught up in this and not dealing with its own issues at all the time and whatever. And we spent some time on it ourselves tonight. I didn't do it. But it was good time. Thank you. Quality time. Thank you. Thank you both very much. . Once again, Friday's main stories on the news hour this evening, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations said the death toll from yesterday's earthquake was now 40,000. A massive international relief effort got underway to help the hundreds of thousands

left injured and homeless. The Soviet Union proposed that a United Germany could join NATO after a five-year transition period. The offer was rejected by the U.S. Good night, Jim. Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. Funding for the news hour has been provided by PepsiCo. Every day, we enjoy people being cold to us, cutting us up, getting fresh with us, tearing into us, and calling us chicken. In fact, the more people do it, the happier we are, PepsiCo. And by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a catalyst for change. And by AT&T. And made possible by the financial support of viewers like you and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Schools, public libraries, other organizations, and home viewers may purchase NewsHour

video cassettes by calling toll-free 800-424-7963. This is PBS. Thank you.