The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; El Salvador Certification III

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The Reagan administration today certified the government of El Salvador as worthy of continued U.S. military aid. The official message to Congress, signed by Secretary of State George Shultz, said the violence-torn Central American nation still had serious problems, but declared there had been sufficient progress in correcting human rights abuses and furthering political reform to justify support. Such certification is required by law every six months, and this is the third time it's happened. Today's action will free some $26 million in U.S. military assistance for El Salvador. Some members of Congress and human rights groups dispute the administration's certification and the facts behind it. Yesterday the American Civil Liberties Union and the Americas Watch Organization said human rights abuses in El Salvador were worse than ever. In a joint report the groups charged thatSalvadoran military and paramilitary units had killed at least 5,300 civilians last year -- 2,300 of them in the last six months. Tonight, in keeping with the mandated 180-day cycle, we also look again at the debate over certification and over how to finally stop the killing and the misery in El Salvador. Robert MacNeil is off; I am here in New York, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in Washington. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, first to the certification decision. As one of the administration's chief architects of U.S. policy in Central America in general and El Salvador in particular, Thomas Enders was intimately involved in the decision. Mr. Enders is the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. Mr. Secretary, what exactly did you certify to Congress today about El Salvador?

THOMAS ENDERS: Well, what we certified to Congress was that there had been sufficient progress in the main headings specified by the Congress. That is to say, respect for human rights, improvement in the land reform, control over the various elements of the security forces, and getting on with institution-building -- building democratic institutions -- so that military assistance could go ahead. We -- of course, it's not intended as a broad seal of approval on everything that happens in the country. It is designed to achieve the goals of our policy, which is to help that country change, reform itself, get people to participate in the government while they hold off the insurgency.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, we'll talk about some of the specifics of those in a moment, but just in a general way, how did you measure that progress?

Sec. ENDERS: Well, we looked at several things. We asked ourselves under the heading of the reforms, what about the land reform? Because last time, you may recall, there were a lot of people very worried about whether the land reform had come to a halt. Well, we were able to show that in the land-to-the-tiller part of the reform, that is to say, small holders getting an opportunity to own their own land, that there are 60,000 new beneficiaries, including the family members, and over the last six months. That's a very big increase, and it makes a tremendous difference when a man can have his own plot of land and keep his family on it. We looked also at the level of political violence, and you can't attribute this all either to the government or to the opposition forces in that country. It's very hard to do. But what we saw was that the figures keep on going down. And they're at about a quarter of what they were some two years ago.There has been less improvement this time, but there has been still an ongoing decline.

HUNTER-GAULT: If I could just ask you on that point specifically, how much have they declined?

Sec. ENDERS: Well, it's declined from about 800 a month in the course of the end of 1980, when we first started to measure this, down to about 200 a month now according to press reports. You'll find different figures on this because some organizations report not only civilians that are subject to political violence, but they also include the claimed casualties on both sides. Some of the church groups have added the latter, and you get figures that are about twice the size. But all those figures show the same downward trend, and that's due to the fact that the government is emphasizing human rights more effectively now. It's got a new human rights commission; it's giving a lot of human rights training to the soldiers. The international committee for the Red Cross is very active in giving individual human rights courses to all of the soldiers in the army.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you refer to using reports from the newspapers to get your numbers on the decline in political violence --

Sec. ENDERS: Everybody does that down there. That's basically the general source.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. You mentioned the land reform program and the progress that you had seen there. Do you expect that program to continue beyond the time that -- I guess it's supposed to expire sometime early March --

Sec. ENDERS: Well, the debate is already started down there, and there will be, undoubtedly, by some, a new attempt to derail it, but we feel very strongly about this, thinking that an end to the very cruel inequities in that land-holding system are essential part of the solution in El Salvador.

HUNTER-GAULT: There have been some reports that there was disarray in the military, and one of the provisions of the certification was an attempt to get the government to try to gain more control over the military, which had reportedly engaged in indiscriminate violence and torture, and so on. You alluded to that, but are you confident that, despite the disarray, there is --

Sec. ENDERS: Well, there was a case of insubordination which occurred just before the certification, but it had nothing to do with human rights abuses. The purpose of the law is to end human rights abuses, and nobody accused the insubordinating official of doing that. That was not the issue. So those two things are really quite separate. Let me say, though, Charlayne, that in making this certification we also wanted to insist on two things. One is -- we thought were very serious weaknesses. One is that the judicial system of that country is really not functioning. We saw this when the alleged murderers of American land reform workers were brought up for indictment, intimidated judges -- or maybe bought judges -- refused to indict them even though there was a very clear case. Happily, we've made more progress on the murders of the American churchwomen down there, and that is in trial and that is proceeding, and I think it will probably go through. But generally speaking the judicial system is not functioning well, and that's a major weakness that's got to be cured. And, secondly, although military officers and men are being disciplined for human rights abuses, they are not being punished. They are not -- the courts -- they are being remanded to civilian courts; again, the civilian courts are not putting them in jail, inflicting penalties on them. And that's a major weakness that's got to be cured as they move on.

HUNTER-GAULT: Right. But the bottom line was that when you certified to Congress today, it was a certification of satisfaction with the progress in the main that's being made to date?

Sec. ENDERS: It's a certification that there have continued to be improvements in all of these areas, but not a certification that we are satisfied.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: There are members of Congress who believe Secretary Enders and the administration are wrong in certifying El Salvador for more military help. Among them is Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. The Senator returned last week from a visit to El Salvador and other Central American countries. Senator, how would you rate the progress that's been made in El Salvador in the last six months?

Sen. PATRICK LEAHY: Well, I don't think anybody can look very happily at progress there or the last six months, the year before. You might look for some improvements in some areas, and I think some of the things touched on by Secretary Enders show an improvement -- perhaps from terrible to not-so-terrible. The question of the murder of the American churchwomen. That was a matter specifically in the certification process. Now, I realize they have a different justice system, but as a former prosecutor I look at that and It's outrageous what has happened.It moves up one step and then right back to square one, and we start all over again. The land reform -- two American land reform people. The killings of them, it's been a sheer shambles what's happened. Now, the reason I mention those six murders is because in those the United States brought enormous pressure. In fact, with the churchwomen, even having the FBI help the Salvadorans with the investigation. But notwithstanding our enormous pressure on those, really nothing has happened to the people who have been accused of perpetrating those crimes. What about the other tens of thousands of Salvadorans who have been murdered, tortured, killed, and nothing's happened to them?

LEHRER: Would you agree with Secretary Enders that that shows a weakness in the judicial system, or do you think it shows a weakness that's much more prevalent than that?

Sen. LEAHY: Oh, I think it goes much more prevalent than that. It's not so much a weakness in a judicial system; it shows a virtually non-functioning judicial system. I think what we can -- you know, nobody was surprised to see the certification come. I think we all expected that was going to come, and in some ways you could almost have taken at the same time they were typing up this certification -- which is fairly lengthy -- put a carbon copy in, and do the one for six months from now. The certifications will tend to keep on going on. A lot of us do not like them, however, and I don't.

LEHRER: Well, why?

Sen. LEAHY: I think we need a different system of doing it.

LEHRER: Well, why do you believe the administration should not have certified El Salvador this time?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, I think that the -- if you're going to go strictly on the question, are there really improvements in human rights, have they really moved forward on the murders of the churchwomen, I don't think you can certify on that, except that the Congress, perhaps to aid everybody who wanted to take whatever position they wanted on it, handled the language so loosely so those who wanted to continue military aid to El Salvador could feel comfortable about it, and those who are opposed to it could feel comfortable about it, and it gives an enormous amount of wiggle room to the administration.

LEHRER: Do you think that the certification process -- or let's say the end result, in this case, certification again for the third time by the State Department and the administration -- sends the right message to the government of El Salvador?

Sen. LEAHY: I personally think not. I do think, however, the fact that we have pushed them in some of these areas does send the right message. I think that Ambassador Hinton's very strong speech to the Chamber of Commerce down there, telling them that they must face up to the murders and the killings that have gone on within their own country, that sends the right message.But if, by this continuing certification, what we're telling them is that we will continue to pour hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars down there at a time when our own economy is being wrecked; if we are telling them by that we are going to continue military aid in a country that will never reach a military solution to its problems -- it can get a temporary military respite, but it can never get a military solution. If we're telling them that, then we've accomplished nothing by it, and we've probably created greater problems. If we start telling them very soon that we are not going to look for a military solution, that we understand -- as all our top intelligence and military people have told us -- that there is no military solution, that eventually it's going to have to be a political solution, if we work toward that maybe something will come of it.

LEHRER: Senator, do you believe that we should stop all aid to El Salvador or all military aid, all economic aid? What do you think should be our policy as we speak?

Sen. LEAHY: I think that we should stop all military aid. I think that there has been a very heavy arming down there. We should work with the other countries of the region to stop all arms going into El Salvador, either to the government or to the guerrillas. As a practical matter, I think former Secretary Haig once said that after having drawn the line against international Communism in El Salvador, a country smaller geographically than the state of Vermont, we might "go to the source" to get those weapons. Well, the source is very obvious right now. Most of the guerrillas are getting their weapons from Salvadoran forces. They, in turn, have been getting them from us. They capture them.

LEHRER: Well, thank you, Senator.Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, what about that -- stopping all aid?

Sec. ENDERS: Stopping all aid to El Salvador?

HUNTER-GAULT: Yes, military aid.

Sec. ENDERS: All military aid to El Salvador? Well, I think what would happen if you did that is you'd get chaos in that country.It wouldn't stop the killing. Killing might get worse, as a matter of fact. There'd still be the same groups of people there -- the left, the right and the center -- but then, you know, it'd be every man against every man on this, and you would have sacrificed the chance of getting a true political solution out of this, which are legitimate democratic institutions with people participating in them. That's after all, what we're going at. Senator, we're not trying to get a military victory down there; that's never been the aim of the policy. We're trying to give the people of that country enough military aid -- you say millions. We're talking about $25 million, $26 million with the training. By the way, about --

Sen. LEAHY: Well, last year it was over -- last year it --

Sec. ENDERS: About half of it --

Sen. LEAHY: -- the total of aid was about $240 million.

Sec. ENDERS: Yes, but the military aid was much less. The military aid was only a third of that, and this year the military aid is going to be only a quarter of a fifth of it. It's mostly economic aid. But my point is this, is that you would lose the opportunity for them to move on towards a true political solution, which is new institutions for wider participation.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you foresee that kind of chaos in effect?

Sen. LEAHY: I wonder what you're going to see if we continue on just more of the same. The killings have not stopped -- killings, incidentally, by both the left and the right down there. The political killings continue --

HUNTER-GAULT: But the Secretary said they had declined.

Sen. LEAHY: How many people -- you can't kill the same person twice. A number of the targets over the past years have either been killed or they have fled. You're not going to kill those people twice.In a small country like that at some point it's got to decline unless you want to totally wipe out the whole country.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you're saying in effect they're not declining, the political killings?

Sen. LEAHY: I don't think anybody knows the exact numbers, but I think that a lot of the people who were political leaders have been killed, people who were educational leaders, the intellectuals and so on, they have been killed. You're not going to kill them twice. Those numbers don't come up again. But the killings continue. The killings continue; the torture continues; the murders continue.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary?

Sec. ENDERS: Well, there was -- you've got to have a little sense of history on this. There was a very repressive regime -- military regime. It was overthrown by a reformist group three years ago, and they started the land reform, and they started the democratic reforms. And they've come a long ways in this period because 20% of the arable land of that country used to belong to 2% of the farm families there -- big estate.That's now been moved away so that that 20% has been redistributed. Big land reform. You've got democratic institutions; you had 80% of the people participate in the last constituent assembly election, and they're going on to national elections. And you've got the killing down to one quarter of what it was right after this. What happened when that group came in was there was an explosion of violence from the left and the right. The country went into anarchy, and how you rebuild a country out of anarchy is what we're trying to do now. And if you stopped the assistance now, you're going to go back to anarchy.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you don't agree with that?

Sen. LEAHY: I don't agree with that, but I don't think that that's our only choice. I don't think the only choice is to say we'll either give aid or we won't give aid.I think there's a lot more that we could be doing down there. We could be working with the other countries trying to develop a consensus of a Central American policy. We've been hurt by the fact that we started off by saying, "This is the number-one priority of the United States. We draw the line against international Communism in El Salvador." That ignores Europe; that ignores the Middle East; that ignores areas of the Far East as major areas of American influence and interest. If we work together with the other countries, if we work on a very steady basis with the government of El Salvador to bring about some kind of a political solution, then we might accomplish something. If it's solely, though, a question of military aid or no military aid, we're never going to reach the answer in either area.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. I think we have another solution to consider. We have to move on. Jim?

LEHRER: Right. As we've already seen, the debate over how to finally resolve the conflict in El Salvador and restore peace and stability is just as fierce as the more immediate one on certification. Some do believe a negotiated settlement between the government and the leftist guerrillas is the only way out, while others believe it must first be decided on the battlefield. Among those who opt for a military resolution is Congressman Phil Crane, Republican of Illinois, a strong supporter of the El Salvador government who returned this week from a visit there. Congressman, you do believe that the government could win this militarily, correct?

Rep. PHILIP CRANE: Well, I think, Jim, that it's essential that the government win it militarily unless the Communist guerrillas are willing to lay down their arms and work within the democratic process. And that's the ideal solution.I think the important thing to keep in mind is that, in spite of the kinds of tragedy that have already been inflicted on peasants who have been denied the economic opportunity to improve their condition -- and I'm talking about such things as blowing up the electrical power generation plants or destroying bridges, attempting to cripple the economic infrastructure of that country, and have already managed successfully to produce 250,000 refugees trying to flee from that sort of thing -- these people are being denied an opportunity to improve their condition, and yet for all of that there is no evidence that the guerrillas have won the hearts and minds of the people. And in the face of specific death threats if they went to the polls last year, they shamed American voters by turning out in numbers that we never match, even in popular presidential election years.

LEHRER: Well, I would take it, then, that you believe the United States should not only give $26 million in military assistance, but a lot more than that.

Rep. CRANE: Well, I think it should be restored to the figures the administration requested, and which were originally, I mean, until the continuing resolution, we were providing, which as I recall, was about $61 million. We've reduced it to about $26 million. I think that's clearly inadequate. One of the problems that they're contending with in their military, for example, is training -- just providing uniforms for the troops, shoes and clothing.In addition to that they have about a dozen helicopters, but they have difficulty with spare parts.

LEHRER: What do you think it would take for the government to win a military victory over the guerrillas?

Rep. CRANE: I can't tell you what, in dollar figures, it would take, but I'll tell you one thing. I don't think it is nearly as much as some people are trying to suggest. Talking to our military advisers there, one of the points they tried to stress is that if the tactics of the military operation were changed -- in other words, if the Salvadoran military forces would change from fighting semiconventional battles to fighting irregular warfare as the guerrillas are doing, and if we could train their people to do that, that you could do it at a fraction of the cost in terms of manpower, a fraction of the cost in money --

LEHRER: You think it could be done --

Rep. CRANE: -- than the military operation is costing today.

LEHRER: Do you think it could be done fairly quickly?

Rep. CRANE: They estimated that if you had trained people in irregular warfare out working in the mountains on a continuous basis that it could be done relatively quickly. And by that I don't mean that you're going to see the end of all hostilities. That probably is unlikely, but at least you could create a kind of a climate where the guerrillas would be sufficiently on the run covering themselves against that kind of irregular warfare attack, that you could get the peasants, then, back out in the countryside to earn a livelihood.

LEHRER: Is it your feeling, Congressman, that that is the only way there is going to be an ultimate solution in El Salvador? The government's going to have to do that first?

Rep. CRANE: Well, I think that, one, they should develop a more effective -- and I anticipate this is in the offing, and sooner rather than later -- amnesty program. I talked to aguerrilla in a refugee camp -- former guerrilla -- and he said that it is not easy right now, or it wasn't when he defected -- and that was two years ago -- for a guerrilla to get reconciled with the government, to participate in the democratic process. So I would hope that that's an area where we would attempt to exert considerable pressure, but once more, you're talking dollars because to have an effective amnesty program, you've got to offer that man money for relinquishing his weapon. I mean, the best amnesty program is one where you offer them money for turning in their weapons when they get reintegrated into the country and work within the democratic process. And right now, frankly, we just don't have the money for it.

LEHRER: Thank you, Congressman. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Secretary, what do you think about Congressman Crane's suggestion that it's essential that they win militarily, unless of course, the guerrillas lay down their arms?

Sec. ENDERS: Well, I think it's essential that you make gains against the guerrillas militarily, but I don't think there's going to be a military solution to this. Look what happened in Venezuela. It reminds you very much of this. We think of Venezuela as a very democratic country now and it is, profoundly democratic. Twenty years ago it was a corrupt and repressive dictatorship. And there it was challenged by a guerrilla led by Cuban-trained soldiers and supported by Cuban arms -- more or less the same thing you're getting in the present circumstances. And what happened then? Well, the Venezuelans fought it, that's true. They had a civic action program and a land reform program to try to win back some of the people that had been lost. But also, they had free elections. They converted their country into a democracy. And what happened over time was that sooner or later the guerrillas began to be marginal. They were outside of society; they were out there, off in the hills shooting against people, but they were not the way the society was going. And that's basically the solution there. Now, Congressman Crane is absolutely right, what you've got to have is a serious amnesty program, and you've got to have more than that -- an effort at reconciliation. You've got to be able to reach out to people and say, "All right, if you're going to renounce violence, you've got to also have protection as you enter the political system. You've got to have an opportunity to have access to the media and the universities so you can participate as everybody else has."

HUNTER-GAULT: But basically you're rejecting a military solution there?

Sec. ENDERS: We're not going for a military solution. We think that you need enough to keep pressing on the guerrillas, but in the end they're going to become marginal.

Rep. CRANE: Well, that's my point, too. As I said, I mean, a military solution, you're always going to find gangsters in any society that will live outside the law. The objective is to get those people -- that tiny minority in El Salvador, and it is a small minority --

Sec. ENDERS: Four or five thousand.

Rep. CRANE: -- outside the law. And to the degree there are Salvadoran citizens involved in this, because in no way have they made inroads in winning the hearts and minds of the campesinos down there or other representatives of the labor force down there. They have not won those people over.

HUNTER-GAULT: Senator, what do you think of that?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, I think when we talk about the gangsters living outside the law, of course there are among the guerrillas, and I don't think anybody questions that they have committed some atrocities. There are an awful lot of the gangsters living within the law. A number of the killings -- a very large number, thousands of the killings have been committed by people who have been carefully protected by the military. They have done it within the military. There is no military solution to the problem in El Salvador.

HUNTER-GAULT: But what, then, do you see as the solution?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, first, let's understand on the military solution.

HUNTER-GAULT: And we have a very limited amount of time.

Sen. LEAHY: Even people like General Nutting, our commander in chief of the southern command, says there's no military solution. It has got to be a negotiated system. I agree with Congressman Crane and the Secretary that we've got to have an amnesty system. We've got to have a number of other things that I don't see them moving very rapidly on.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you see more money being applied, as Congressman Crane suggested, to put these things --

Sen. LEAHY: Well, I wonder how much the Congress is going to go along with. They are already the third- or fourth-largest recipient of American aid of all the countries in the world. The question is, how much, with our own problems at home, are we going to continue.

Rep. CRANE: Senator, may I ask just one question, and that is, what has been your historic position on foreign aid?

HUNTER-GAULT: We don't have time for it.

Sen. LEAHY: I voted against the last foreign aid bill because it was too much money at this time.

Rep. CRANE: Well, the only reason I ask that is, frankly, you voted in '79 to lift the sanctions on U.S. aid to Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola.

Sen. LEAHY: That's not true.

Rep. CRANE: In '79 you cast that vote to lift the sanctions --

Sen. LEAHY: That's not so.

Rep. CRANE: -- about giving U.S. aid. Now --

HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman, we have five seconds, and I'm sorry to cut you off, but I just want to ask the Secretary: a negotiated solution. Is that anywhere within the light of day?

Sec. ENDERS: I don't think you can expect people to be able to take up the guns and shoot at that society and shoot their way into power via negotiations. But you can provide them an opportunity to participate in the system.

HUNTER-GAULT: We have to leave it there. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, Secretary Enders, Senator Leahy and Congressman Crane, thank you for being with us. And good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: And we'll see you on Monday. Have a good weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.