The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; El Salvador Certification II

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. President Reagan's decision to certify El Salvador's government as worthy to continue receiving U.S. aid ran into heavy criticism today. Seventy-five House members co-sponsored a resolution to declare the certification null and void, and to suspend U.S. military aid. House Speaker Tip O'Neill said the certification decision was simply "unbelievable. It sent a message to El Salvador's right wing that it was all right to revert to business as usual." The organization Oxfam-America said the land reform process in El Salvador was "moribund." Former Ambassador Robert White said on the CBS Morning News that aid should be cut off because the Salvadoran military has killed at a minimum 20,000 innocent people and not one soldier has been punished. The administration's 48-page certification report to Congress admits continued concern over the human rights situation and the course of the reform program. But it insists there has been progress that forms a firm base for the months ahead. Tonight, does the situation in El Salvador justify more U.S. aid? Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the issue is what constitutes progress? -- progress in human rights, in land reform and the other items which are part of the certification. The administration and those who support its position look at El Salvador and see progress. Some members of Congress and others look at the same facts and see a grievous lack of it. We hear from the administration first in the person of Stephen Bosworth, a career foreign service officer who is the deputy assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs. What do you see that constitutes progress in human rights?

STEPHEN BOSWORTH: Well, I think in the very important area of human rights, Jim, we see on the one hand a reduction in the levels of violence, bearing in mind that a very serious guerrilla war goes on in El Salvador. But all of the statistical information available to us shows a continuing decline in the level of political violence. Secondly, we see --

LEHRER: Well, excuse me. Where do you get the statistical information? What do you base that on?

Sec. BOSWORTH: We base ours primarily on information obtained, gathered by our embassy, which is the -- is obtained through the Salvadoran press which in turn obtains its information from the justices of the peace who are out in the rural cantons throughout El Salvador. Some of the other people gathering the same sort of information have different statistical methods; and the numbers differ, but the trend is the same. Among all of the statistical information coming in from all of the channels, the trend is downward. That's one important point. Second important point, and I think perhaps over the longer term is of greater significance in terms of progress, is that for the first time we see serious evidence of the sort of institutional change within El Salvador which is necessary to bring about a lasting situation in which human rights are fully observed.

LEHRER: What kind of change?

Sec. BOSWORTH: We see for the first time an effort by the Salvadoran government, for example, to reinvigorate the judicial system -- the appointment of a new Supreme Court composed of very well-regarded Salvadoran lawyers. We see evidence that military personnel, security-force personnel are being apprehended for the commission of abuses of authority.

LEHRER: Well, now, Robin quoted former U.S. Ambassador Robert White as saying that 20,000 civilians have been killed and not one soldier has yet to be punished for that.

Sec. BOSWORTH: Well, I think that there are a couple of things wrong with that assertion. First of all, it's clear that while a lot of civilians have been killed, an unfortunately large number, that it would not be at all accurate to attribute all of the responsibility for that to the Salvadoran armed forces. After all, the guerrillas are also very active in El Salvador.And secondly, that, as I said, we now see evidence that the system is beginning to work, that people within the armed forces and within the security forces who commit crimes are being apprehended. That's a very important change, and that's a change that's really occurred in this last six months, the period of certification. For the first time, people who commit crimes now have the prospect of being punished, and that is in our view progress.

LEHRER: How does that jell with these fresh reports of El Salvadoran police torturing civilian prisoners?

Sec. BOSWORTH: Well, I should emphasize very strongly, Jim, that we do not maintain, would not even attempt to maintain, because we don't believe it, that the human rights situation in El Salvador is at a satisfactory state. It is not. Much more needs to be done; and frankly, we would have been happier had more been accomplished. But we do think that very significant moves have been made and that progress can be certified.

LEHRER: Now let's move to land reform. What do you see that constitutes significant progress in land reform?

Sec. BOSWORTH: Well, the number of provisional titles issued has increased very substantially over the past --

LEHRER: Provisional titles. That's the land that is being turned over from the big landowners to the peasants, right?

Sec. BOSWORTH: Well, in this case it's not land that's being turned over by the big landowners to the peasants. This is phase three of the land reform program. The original owners of that land largely come from the middle and lower-middle classes. But there has been an increase in the number of provisional titles issued. There is no question that in early April there was a concerted effort by various political forces in El Salvador to severely damage the land reform process. We recognize that. But, as a result of the reaction to that which occurred in El Salvador by the campesinos, by the government and by the army itself, we now find that in fact land reform is probably proceeding more vigorously now than it has any time in the past. The army is reinstalling campesinos on their land who had been evicted. The rate of issuance of provisional titles is up over the past six weeks. For the first time the government's beginning to pay compensation to the original owners of the land. That's very important politically, because unless people see some evidence of getting compensation for the land that they are giving up, they're going to continue to resist the land reform program.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The premise that some reforms have taken hold in El Salvador is strongly disputed in a report issued by America's Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. The two organizations charge that the Reagan administration's certification decision ignored the requirements of the law and distorted reality in El Salvador. Morton Halperin is director of the American Civil Liberties Union Center for National Security Studies. Mr. Halperin, you've heard how the administration sees it. What are the facts as your organizations see them, first on human rights?

MORTON HALPERIN: Well, we see on human rights essentially no change. You still have the same people running the military, the national guard and the police in El Salvador. These are people who are known to believe that the tactic of civilian murders -- and what we're talking about here when we're talking about the number of murders, we're talking about people who are dragged from their homes in the middle of the night, often cut in half, tortured, and then left in a ditch to be killed. Now, it is true that the number of those that have been reported and certified in the last six months has declined to something like 3,000.But what you still have is a government run by the military which engages systematically in the process of murdering people that it identifies as subversives and as opponents of its regime. And that simply has not changed in any way.

MacNEIL: And you agree, though, that the statistics show a downward trend?

Mr. HALPERIN: We agree that the numbers that are reported show a downward trend, but there are a number of reasons to think that the statistics may now be distorted. For example, for a long time the military simply killed people during the night and then dropped them in well-known places where the bodies piled up, because they saw that as a way of terrorizing the population. They now recognize that these murders get them into trouble, at least in the American Congress, and so they've begun to disperse the bodies and hide them. Also it's harder for the human rights groups to get out into the countryside, because the violence has increased.

MacNEIL: So you don't believe that the numbers have actually gone down?

Mr. HALPERIN: I think it is not possible to tell whether the number of murders by the military has actually decreased. What is clear is that their policy has not changed.

MacNEIL: What about the evidence which Mr. Bosworth just said, that some military personnel who commit crimes are being apprehended and face punishment?

Mr. HALPERIN: With the exception of a few people who were apprehended because Christian Democrats were murdered -- and I think the military suddenly began to fear that they might drive the Christian Democrats into the opposition -- with the exception of those few arrests, nothing has changed. The government's own certification document says that since the coup, over a thousand people in the military have been apprehended, and only several hundred of those in the last six months. The situation is exactly the same as it's always been. Some people in the military who engage on their own in rape or murder or robbery continue to be dismissed from the military, turned over to civilian courts where nothing happens to them. Nobody has been apprehended for the murders of people which occur as official policy.

MacNEIL: What about the evidence Mr. Bosworth cited on land reform of a significant increase in the number of provisional land titles issued?

Mr. HALPERIN: Well, I think it is clear that the very strong adverse reaction -- again, largely in the American Congress -- to the evidence that the new government was simply shutting down the land reform, has led in the past six weeks to some evidence, including the granting of these provisional titles, that the situation may be beginning to turn around again. I think the danger is that that was simply a response to the certification, and now that there's another six months 'til the next certification, that the original intention of the government of El Salvador, the new government, to ignore the land reform, will reassert itself. I think that remains to be seen.

MacNEIL: Do you say there's been no progress at all in either of these two areas, or not sufficient progress to justify certification?

Mr. HALPERIN: I think in land reform in the past six weeks there has been a little bit of progress, but it's far outweighed by the regression that occurred in the prior period. On human rights I would say there's essentially no change in the situation.

MacNEIL: Do you think the situation is from your point of view so little changed that this country should cut off aid and not certify, and just wash its hands and cut off aid?

Mr. HALPERIN: I think we ought to do what the law requires, which is to cut off all military aid to that country; and we ought to make it clear that that aid will not be resumed until and unless the human rights situation drastically and dramatically improves.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Congress is as divided over the El Salvador situation, of course, as Mr. Bosworth and Mr. Halperin are. We get the first part of that division from Congressman Robert Livingston, Republican from Louisiana. Congressman Livingston was a member of the official U.S. observer team for the March 28th El Salvador elections.Congressman, do you favor continued U.S. military aid to the El Salvador government?

Rep. ROBERT LIVINGSTON: Not only military aid, but economic aid. Certainly.

LEHRER: Why?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: Basically, I think that it would be a tragic consequence if we were to withdraw any aid from the El Salvadoran people at this time. As you mentioned, I was fortunate enough to be down there on March 28th, and I saw the outpouring of support of the Salvadoran people for hope for democracy and peace in their lives. I also saw an overt demonstration against all sorts of threats against their lives, their liberty, their personal safety; against the Marxist guerrillas, the people who are trying to take over that government by force and impose their own totalitarian way of life. There was a demonstration by the people that they wanted to participate in democracy. They went to the polls, they cast their ballots -- 80% of the people cast their ballots; roughly 1.5 million people trooped to the polls, and essentially what they were saying is that they rejected the alternatives offered them by these guerrillas who if we don't support El Salvador will possibly end up in control of El Salvador, much as they have in Nicaragua and other places.

LEHRER: Is that the disastrous consequence you mentioned, that ifwe pull away from our support of El Salvador, that the country will be taken over by the leftist guerrillas?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: I don't know that that's going to happen overnight.I think it's very possible that the arch-right wing that Mr. Halperin seems to dread might take over for awhile. But certainly -- you have to understand the context of El Salvador. It's been a very hectic place in which to live for the last 140 years, if you had been privileged to live that long. It's a pioneer society. It's a place where people settle their disputes with machete or gun or what have you. And gradually they're being dragged -- kicking and screaming, if you will, but with the inducement of American policy, U.S. policy -- to the 20th century. I think --

LEHRER: And you think there is progress along those lines, right?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: Well, first of all, I was there March 28th, I haven't been back. But taking the assertions of the State Department that the numbers of incidents have declined -- incidents responsible at the hands of the government -- have declined over the last few months, and also that there is progress in land reform. Yes, I think that there's steady progress. But there's a hope, there's a hope for these people. And what are we going to do in the alternative? We going to just simply say that their expressions in the elections are for naught and that we're automatically going to withdraw our support and let them go the will of the people who are trying to take them over by force?

LEHRER: Congressman, you know, there are some of your congressional colleagues who believe that this is an improper thing for the United States to be even doing in the first place. In other words, a certification process holding a foreign country to our standards and then say up or down on funds. What's your view of that?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: Well, I looked into the faces of those people in El Salvador on the day of the elections and I talked with many, many of them; I saw the hundreds and actually thousands of them in the streets protesting their hope for a better life for themselves and their families. And I have to tell you that quite frankly I think it would be a tragic thing if we denied them that right. And I really believe that they would be denied that right if we withdraw our support.

LEHRER: You really believe the United States' support is what's holding the country together now and moving it however slowly or however quickly down a path?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: The Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador have done the same thing that they've done in other countries: they're attacking the economic base. The crops have been destroyed, the infrastructure has been destroyed, the utility company has been bombed, and major small businesses and large businesses have been bombed out. People have been killed. If the United States withdraws its support, the country simply won't be able to defend against that kind of guerrilla activity and, yes, ultimately they'll fall.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now to one of the leading congressional critics of the administration's El Salvador policy, Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. Senator Dodd was the author of the certification requirement for aid to El Salvador and has sponsored an amendment to reduce the 1983 U.S. aid package to El Salvador. He serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee. Senator, do you agree with the 75 congressmen who co-sponsored a resolution today that military aid should be cut off?

Sen. CHRISTOPHER DODD: I think it should be. I don't think the administration was correct in certifying that the human rights conditions of the land reform, economic reforms, have been met. And the law of the land, passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President in the end of December of last year requires that the President certify that there is significant progress in those areas, or military aid should be cut off. I don't believe that the administration was correct in making that certification. Therefore, I think it would be proper at this juncture to terminate military assistance to El Salvador until there is a change in those policies.

MacNEIL: What will happen in El Salvador if such aid is cut off?

Sen. DODD: Well, I would suggest that the better question is what would happen, what's going to happen if we continue pouring military assistance in and virtually give a green light to the present government to continue the policies that they've been following for the past year or so. And I would suggest that what you're going to get is a further military involvement, deeper military involvement; little likelihood for a political resolution, which everyone agrees is the only proper answer to the civil war in El Salvador. And unless we can move towards that political resolution and away from the military solution, then I don't see any likelihood of peace in that land.

MacNEIL: If the World Bank sees El Salvador's possibilities as stable enough to give it a major loan, which it did -- I believe it was $81 million -- why shouldn't the United States also invest in the future of that country?

Sen. DODD: Because we have set for ourselves -- and I think a very important point here is that we're not telling the government of El Salvador what to do; the government of El Salvador can make any decision they wish. If they decide that they're going to destroy the land reform program or the economic reforms, that's their business. What we were saying with certification, and what we're saying now, is that for our purposes, you can do what you desire to do. But the question of whether or not we're going to finance you and support you financially is our separate decision. We have spent over the last three years, either authorized or in the pipeline, some $789 million, approaching almost a billion dollars in a nation of five million people. There's got to be some determination as to whether or not those funds are actually achieving the purposes that we would hope they would achieve. I don't think they are; therefore, I think the question of military assistance ought to be cut off.

MacNEIL: The Carter administration as it left office was recommending an increase in military assistance, and then the Reagan administration strengthened that and saw this as the place to draw the line in Central America against a possible spread of Marxism or communism there. Your colleague has just said, Mr. Livingston has just said, that if you pull away the military support, ultimately the guerrillas are going to take over.

Sen. DODD: I think you've got to understand, or people should, anyway, a fundamental problem I think the administration and people who want to pursue the present policy have.Castro and the Sandinistas and any other source they may identify didn't create the situation in El Salvador. They take advantage of it, to be sure. But they didn't create the problem. The problem was created because of social and economic injustice for far too many decades. There's a fundamental problem in not being able to distinguish between cause and effect. If we don't deal with the basic, fundamental social and economic problems in El Salvador, then I don't care how much money we send to El Salvador, it's not going to achieve the stated purposes of those of us who want to see peace in that land.

MacNEIL: Can the United States still influence the government of El Salvador and bend it to our wishes by manipulating the aid?

Sen. DODD: Well, again I want to emphasize, bending it to our wishes is something I would question. But certainly we proved, I think, with the vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, a 12-to-nothing vote, after they began to rip apart the land reform program, that we were able to see some changes there. But I think Mr. Halperin's point is the proper one. And that is, what is the governmental policy? What has -- for instance, in the Soviet Union, there's been a reduction in the imprisonment of those people involved in Helsinki Watch. Does that mean, then, that there's progress on human rights in the Soviet Union? If a person who was arrested last year for mugging 500 people and this year only 350 people, is he a better mugger, in effect? We're not asking the proper question: what is the policy?And I think the point that there have only been a dozen or more arrests with at least 20 to 30 thousand civilian deaths, which by everyone's admission, at least 50% were caused by the security forces, or the death squads with the acquiescence of the military, without any prosecutions at all -- then governmental policy, there's something wrong there. And I believe at this hour, an historic moment, if we were to say "I'm sorry, but we cannot continue to support military assistance to your country until those policies change." Not a numbers game, back and forth, fighting over whose numbers are right, but fundamental policy -- then I think we're going to encourage a continuation of that behavior, and I think we are going to give the ultra-left a victory in the end if we pursue that policy. This is the hour to speak up, and we're missing that opportunity.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Secretary Bosworth, what do you think would happen if the United States did what Senator Dodd has suggested?

Sec. BOSWORTH: Well, I think the consequences would be very adverse. I obviously have a difference of view with Senator Dodd over whether or not progress has been achieved. I agree with him very strongly that what is important are the policies of the Salvadoran government, and in that regard I think it is clear that the policies of the Salvadoran government as they are evclving, and particularly in the period since this election, since this first step toward the establishment of a democratic system, that those policies are very consistent with the objectives of the certification process -- in the area of human rights, and in the area of land reform. Now, I agree, we should not play a numbers game, particularly in the human rights area, but I think that the policies as articulated by this government and in their implementation of those policies, I think there is real progress. Much more needs to be done, and we need to continue to encourage that. But to stop American aid now I think would not be the best way to encourage further progress.

LEHRER: Is our influence on the government of El Salvador contingent on our continuing aid?I mean, if we pulled out aid, would our influence go at the same time?

Sec. BOSWORTH: Well, I think that's a difficult question to answer, but I think that from the other side, the assumption has been that the existence of U.S. aid gave us influence over the developments in that country.Therefore, it would seem to be logical that if we pulled out U.S. aid, that the extent of our influence would be seriously diminished.

Mr. HALPERIN: That move to cut off the aid can have the influence, and what we're doing now is saying the government can continue the policy of abusing the rights of its citizens and we're going to just give them a blank check with military aid. Cutting off the aid, not certifying, doesn't mean that the President can't certify a month from now or two months from now. What I think we have to do is say there isn't enough progress; and the administration had said, "We would have preferred to see more, so we're going to suspend the aid for a month or two, and we'll take another look at the situation."

Sen. DODD: All right, let me make a suggestion. I think, and it's too late now, unfortunately, but had the administration come to us yesterday and said, "Look. There may be some progress in some areas. We don't want to play a numbers game; we've still got serious problems here. We can't certify today with the kind of assurance we'd like to. Now, the Foreign Assistance Bill isn't going to come up until September, October, and we're going to do everything possible, we're going to ask your support, to bring as much influence to bear in the government of El Salvador to make some changes." In fact we've been told by our ambassador that in fact the certification process was a great assistance to the administration in exercising some leverage in El Salvador. This is a perfect opportunity. As a practical matter, it could have been done. We still have several months before that bill's going to come to the floor. At that time I think we might have been able to make a difference, in effect. But what we've done instead is gone ahead and certified; we're still not going to deal with the legislation, as a practical matter, at least until September, probably October. So I think we've missed an opportunity here to really bring some leverage and some pressure to bear so that we could see some changes. Otherwise I think we're going to see more of the same.

LEHRER: What about Mr. Bosworth's point, though, Senator, that while there might be disagreement on the specifics in terms of progress, that he believes that the policies of this government are consistent with the intentions of your certification amendment?

Sen. DODD: Well, that's where we have a fundamental disagreement, I think. There wasn't any question, for instance, on land reform. The campesinos, the labor unions there that were actively behind the election, supported the electoral process, have felt, since Mr. D'Aubuisson, in effect -- and I call it the D'Aubuisson government because virtually he's running it; he has the key ministerial post and so forth -- that there is a perception that Mr. D'Aubuisson, the Arena Party, those people in control today, those people supporting the various ministries of agriculture and land distribution -- they have virtually cut off all funding, for instance, for the cooperatives, eliminated the technical assistance for a lot of these agencies so that they can't implement the program. The feeling is, is that the government really isn't committed to land reform. Jose Napoleon Duarte had a program that didn't work very well, a lot of problems with it. But the perception in El Salvador among these very same groups was that his government did care about land reform and was committed to it, albeit it wasn't working very well. And that's a fundamental difference.

LEHRER: Congressman, what's your view of this? Of what the basic philosophy, to use a rather general word, of this new government is. Do you think they're committed to doing these things that the U.S. government wants it to do, as Senator Dodd and Mr. Halperin want them to do?

Rep. LIVINGSTON: Yes, and I think that the leverage that Senator Dodd talked about is in fact being exerted by this certification process.

LEHRER: You think it would be worse if there wasn't a certification --

Rep. LIVINGSTON: If there wasn't a certification process? Surely. There'd be no incentive for them to go ahead and comply with the prerequisites that we're setting on them. And furthermore, I'd like to point out that the AFL-CIO has done an outstanding job in going down there and attempting to work with the government and also with the campesinos, the peasants down there, trying to upgrade their existence and improve or exert influence on the government to upgrade their existence. The AFL-CIO now, I understand, is supporting the certification process. The Washington Post and a number of other news agencies are supporting the certification process after looking at it very carefully. So I think these congressmen and senators who are going off on a tangent, saying "Well, we have to close down. We have to terminate all assistance to El Salvador," are playing a very dangerous game. First of all, they're not in agreement with people who philosophically identify with them. But more importantly, if they're wrong, and if in fact that short period of termination of aid to El Salvador does indeed cause the collapse of the El Salvadoran government, we've played ourselves a dangerous consequence.

LEHRER: Five seconds, Senator, to respond to the fact that you're on a tangent.

Sen. DODD: I don't think so at all. We're talking about a future of a country that's in desperate shape. If we don't speak up now, if we don't insist upon a better performance record, then we're going to see more of the same. Frankly, the lack of any prosecutions at all is the best piece of evidence that there is not a public policy to make change.

LEHRER: We have to go. Robin?

MacNEIL: Senator Dodd, Congressman Livingston, Mr. Halperin, Mr. Bosworth, thank you very much. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.