LUGAR EXPLAINS COMPLEX ISSUES

Senator tells why kids should care about these bills, treaties and organizations.

Politicians seem to express their views more during the campaign year than at any other time. However, much of what they say revolves around what their opponents will do wrong rather than what they themselves hope to do in office.

Children's Express recently talked to U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., about his work before he begins his 1994 re-election campaign.

We wanted to talk to an actual player in international politics rather than just an observer. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we believed he could shed some light on current issues such as a children's bill of rights, NATO, the CIA and NAFTA.

We were curious as to why the Children's Bill of Rights has not been ratified by the United States although more than 100 countries have signed it. This document outlines international standards of children's rights and was approved by the U.N. General Assembly in 1990.

We also wanted to find out what the senator thought the role of NATO would be since the demise of the Cold War. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed after World War II and includes most European countries in addition to the United States.

Likewise, we wonder how the CIA will change with the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Who do we have to spy on?

In light of the controversy surrounding NAFTA, we thought that the senator could give a more clear view of how the treaty would affect the United States. The North American Free Trade Agreement will lower trade barriers among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Here's what he had to say.

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

"Yes, I would sign it. I think the Convention emphasizes worldwide ideals in regard to the treatment of children and the human rights of children.

"I think that George Bush felt that it was an ambiguous treaty from the terms of obligation, or maybe the president himself didn't know anything about it. But those who were advising him in the Justice Department at the time felt that they were not comfortable with some of the treaty.

"They also may have felt that this was one more controversy than they wanted to take on. They withheld from sending to the Senate a whole raft of treaties, of which this was one, and this was not a busy period, at least in terms of treaty making.

"One of the arguments (against signing) has been that many nations who have signed the Convention regularly ignore the rights of children. In everyday life, they violate the very principles that they have sworn to uphold.

"But that is not the argument for the United States' failing to adhere to the treaty.

"In my own view, the treaty abrogates the laws or conventions of the United States. That has been a conventional argument against it and against other treaties.

"We ought to be a leader with regard to human rights, throughout the world.

"The convention states a situation of ideals that we ought to provide leadership in bringing about and upholding. But I am hopeful that it will come to the floor.

"I think the new administration has a very constructive, as well as a very humanitarian view, with regard to children."

NATO

"NATO was founded after World War II on the assumption that if the United States bridged the trans-Atlantic gap with Europe, and that our forces were integrated with substantial forces from the United States and forces of European countries on the European continent, that we could preserve the democracies of Western Europe against potential distress or invasion by the Warsaw Pact (allies of the former Soviet Union). It's still the 16 nations' mutual defense agreement.

"My own view is that the threats to the security of Europe have changed markedly.

"Many of the threats now come from what might be called the East and the South. That is, the Balkan countries, countries in the Middle East, that are still unstable and have ethnic, religious violence, border disputes that could erupt into warfare.

"But, of course, there is the eminent threat - somewhat brought to the fore by the Russian election - in which there are persons in the Russian military, and likewise now in their political structure, calling for a greater Russia.

"(In the Russian Federation), there is a very large army that has not been totally dismantled, and thermonuclear weapons aimed at the United States.

"So, there is still that perspective of safety, for the democracies.

"I think NATO is important. And I think it's important because I think Europe is important to the security of the United States.

"It's still a dangerous world and people don't give these things (peace, security) away.

"It is not clear that we are meeting the actual security needs. As we clearly have not in the former Yugoslavia. And the answers do not come easily.

"I think it calls for some rethinking by everybody as to why we have NATO, and what the relationship should be.

"I think the effect upon children in this country will come from the standpoint that if peace is maintained in Europe, the need to ask young people in this country to join the armed forces and serve aboard, is likely to be substantially reduced."

CIA

"So much of our manpower and our technical authority was fastened on the Soviet Union and the allies of the Soviet Union. But now, we take a look at a world that has many potential problems as well as many potential friends, and try to gain some idea, literally, of what is happening out there.

"We have satellites that circle the globe and take pictures. These are a source of stability for the world. There is an assumption that if there are movements of military forces or strange buildings - nuclear installations, various things - that we would have some knowledge of this.

"It's not that we've targeted any one nation. We are interested wherever this might occur.

"I, for one, would like to know a lot more about what is happening in North Korea right now.

"The CIA itself and other intelligence agencies are working to redefine their missions, like we discussed about NATO.

"Yes (I do know the budget of the CIA.) But I won't tell you. We had a debate this year, as a matter of fact. Some senators felt that a total figure ought to be made available to the American people and the world.

"But ultimately the motion lost and I voted against it.

"(The money) could be spent somewhere else or it could be saved altogether and the deficit reduced.

"There's always a question as to how you allocate resources and that battle will be fought every year.

NAFTA

"If you are the low-cost producer, you get hurt if you can't get your goods and services into a country. If you can, you win, because you have new markets and new access.

"We benefit, because in most cases we are the low-cost producer.

"NAFTA, although it was a very dramatic debate in the Senate, will not have a great impact upon our economy one way or the other.

The net effect . . . probably, in my judgment, will be 1 or 2 percent less unemployment.

"To reduce the barriers, we ship more. That will be true of our pharmaceutical goods, it will be true of our automobile parts.

"We don't produce full automobile assemblies in Indiana. But it's estimated $1 billion in automobiles will be exported from the United States to Mexico in the next year. So we're gonna benefit from some of that.

"Indiana kids ought to care a lot (about NAFTA) because it will create a higher income for our state and more jobs for our state, a $100 million in new farm income, simply because the Mexicans had barriers against exports.

"NAFTA (could benefit Mexican kids, too.) Through the labor panel, NAFTA could draw the attention of the Mexican government to the fact that children or the labor unions were being exploited.

"NAFTA has the ability, not to go into Mexico and sort of coerce that firm to do something about it, but it does have the ability to fine - levy a fine against the government of Mexico, for bad labor practices, bad environmental practices, or what are called excessive dumping of goods and services.

"It doesn't solve our problems, but it's an upside potential that was very important.

"When I went to the Senate, in 1977-83, relations with Mexico were terrible. . . . We were in the midst of the Arab boycott and oil crisis of OPEC, and Mexico had natural resources. We would like to have made some arrangement with them, for our own safety, and they didn't want to make arrangements.

"Well, we have a peace now where we're involved in their oil business and their natural gas business."

EDITED BY: Sam Perry, 15