The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; El Salvador Reforms

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Meanwhile, the struggle in El Salvador also goes on, overshadowed by the Falklands crisis. These have been several recent developments concerning Latin America's other trouble spot -- developments in El Salvador as well as here in the United States. Tuesday, The New York Times reported an upsurge in violence since those widely reported elections in March, elections which resulted in a right-wing coalition taking control of the interim government from a more moderate, U.S.-backed junta. The Times said at least 12 members of the old junta's Christian Democratic Party have been murdered, and scores of peasants known to be sympathetic to the junta or the leftist guerrillas have also been killed. In the last two and a half years a reported 34,000 civilians have been killed in El Salvador. Indiscriminate killings and other human rights issues are locked into U.S. policy on El Salvador. President Reagan must certify progress in those areas as well as others by July 28th in order for U.S. aid to continue. The most crucial of the others is land reform. Two weeks ago the new government changed the reform plan, which led to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's voting to reduce aid to El Salvador, and yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Clement Zablocki said he would attempt to do the same if land reform was halted. Tonight, El Salvador, the debate here over what's been happening there. Robert MacNeil is off; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York.Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, the controversial land reform program is a three-part plan that got started two years ago. At that time large holdings of more than 1,235 acres were converted into peasant cooperatives. Many former owners were compensated. Phase II was designed to distribute land holdings of between 247 and 1,235 acres to as many as 50,000 peasants. This phase, initially put off, is in doubt since on May 18th the Salvadoran Assembly repealed the law which had made expropriation of lands legal. Phase III, widely known as the land-to-the-tiller program, would give titles to peasants for up to 17 acres of the land they work either as tenant farmers or as permanent hacienda laborers. Also known as Decree 207, this phase was suspended on May 18th for one crop year, a move that stirred protest in Congress as well as other protests in El Salvador. Jim?

LEHRER: There is probably no American watching more carefully the land reform situation, as well as all others concerning El Salvador, than the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Deane Hinton, a 36-year veteran of the U.S. foreign service. Mr. Ambassador, is the Constituent Assembly trying to kill land reform? Is that what's going on?

Amb DEANE HINTON: No, sir, it's not. And land reform has not been halted, and Phase III -- 207 -- has not been suspended.

LEHRER: Well, how do you interpret then what the Constituent Assembly did?

Amb. HINTON: May I put things in a little bit of context? There was a stunning election in El Salvador on the 28th of March. Democracy doesn't always work the way we would like it to work, and the right won 60% of the votes. They tried to form a right-wing government, and they ended up with a government of national unity with the reform element still in, a reform-minded president who has stated his dedication, and with Mr. D'Aubuisson, who had brought a new political party out of nowhere -- the 29% of the vote -- as the president of the Constituent Assembly.

LEHRER: Let me make sure everybody understands who D'Aubuisson is. He is the leader of the very, very right part.

Amb. HINTON: He is the leader of the Arena Party, nationalistic.

LEHRER: All right, sir. Go ahead.

Amb. HINTON: All of the political leaders have said that they want reforms to continue; they're not going to put the clock back. And they've also said that there is lots of room for improvement in the reform program. Now, no one has touched -- there has been no discussion about Phase I, which has been mentioned here, which is the largest part of the reform. And that is the largest land area, the largest number of campesinos, and that land was taken away from 300 of the leading so-called oligarch families. Phase II was suspended in reality by President Duarte last year. And why? Because he didn't have the resources to provide technical assistance to more campesinos, and he didn't have the resources to pay compensation. He is committed to Phase I and Phase III, as is the new government. That part of the program remains in suspense, like it has been for well over a year. Phase III, the problem as seen by the new administration, was that for two years the rental of land has been prohibited by law by Decree 207. That has had an adverse effect on production. It has had an adverse effect on land usage by campesinos. The President proposed to change that; the Assembly added a couple of categories -- important categories: grains and cattle lands -- to his proposal that the rental should be permitted now for sugar cane and cotton. Now, can we think of an economy that can work where you can't rent agricultural land? That was the correction, and it has led to all kinds of misunderstanding.In fairness, I have to add that in the country there was a perception that things were moving against the reformers, and in the countryside a lot of individual landowners, unfortunately, have taken action to evict campesinos who are legally there on that land under Decree 207.

LEHRER: Five thousand --

Amb. HINTON: Well, the number is in dispute.

LEHRER: Well, how many do you think were evicted?

Amb. HINTON: I have no idea.

LEHRER: Was it at least 5,000? Would you say --

Amb. HINTON: I'm not sure. The official number is 3,000. There had been a thousand or so before, during Duarte's period. It is a problem, as law enforcement is a basic problem in El Salvador. The new government is moving now to reestablish those campesinos on the lands, and the Assembly has reconfirmed by action that campesinos continue to have the rights they had under 207. If they've been given a provisional title, they will continue to be processed for a definitive time. If they have applied for a title, they'll continue to be processed. If for any reason they have not yet applied, but they still have a legal right under 207, they will continue to be processed. That is reconfirmed in a presidential clarification submitted to the Assembly by the minister of agriculture, and overwhelmingly adopted by the Assembly. Now, we still have problems in the countryside, but that will be taken care of. They have not turned their back on agrarian reform. Thank goodness.

LEHRER: I take it then that when the time comes, assuming there is no change, for President Reagan to certify to Congress that there is progress on land reform that your recommendation would be, "Yes, sir, go right ahead. There is progress."

Amb. HINTON: Well, we have another five weeks to go, and we'll be looking at the facts and the evidence, but on the assumption that the titling program goes forward, that the wave of evictions is slowed, stopped, and somewhat reversed, the answer is yes, of course.

LEHRER: Do you agree with the New York Times story which says that violence has increased dramatically since the elections?

Amb. HINTON: I think dramatically would be the wrong word. There has been a small surge in violence. It is much lower levels than at this time last year. The New York Times story about the 12 Christian Democratic Party leaders -- and two of them were mayors of small towns -- is a sad reflection on that society. But let me make two points. Last year and the year before, when the Christian Democrats had the presidency, there were 600 of their party members who were killed by the extreme left or the extreme right or by we don't know whom. The thing in that story that was most remarkable was that in these cases, at least two of the three, there had been arrests made. That is new. That is a change in what happens in El Salvador. And a change for the better.

LEHRER: I take it, Mr. Ambassador, not only from the specifics of what you've said, but the tone in which you have said them, that you feel that United States support for this new government, this new interim government, is warranted. Is that correct?

Amb. HINTON: I certainly do. I believe in democracy. This government is there at the will of the people. In fact, if the people's will had been fully respected, the right wing will tell you, there wouldn't have been any Christian Democrats in that government. They've kept them in to have a government of national unity in a national crisis with widespread violence, insurgent attacks, all kinds of difficult problems involving the breakdown of law and order. And one reason why I'm in Washington, is my impression is that maybe the situation is worse up here than it is down there. And that I'm hopeful that maybe some of the facts will indicate to Senator Dodd and others that perhaps they gave a bum rap, they overreacted too quickly to some press accounts which were not exactly factually accurate in all respects, shall we say.

LEHRER: Well, speaking of Senator Dodd, let's find out what he does have to say. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Now for a different view from the man who cosponsored the Senate amendment to reduce the administration's 1983 aid request to El Salvador, you've all guessed by now, he is Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut, and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its Latin America subcommittee. Senator, why was it necessary to reduce aid to El Salvador? Is that because the situation is much worse up here?

Sen. CHRISTOPHER DODD: No, I think there's a -- and I appreciate the Ambassador's comments, but I think it's more than just a perception. There have been some very clear actions taken now since March 28th with regard to the one issue that I think enjoyed tremendous bipartisan support in this country, and by most accounts, served as the linchpin, if you will, for holding together the kind of support that the previous government and potentially the present government has in the country, and that is the land reform program. I'll go back, and let's just take a look quickly at what has transpired prior to the March 28th elections, and then subsequent to that, and I think one would have to conclude that there's something far more significant going on here than just a misplaced perception. We had the present president of the Constitutional Assembly, Major D'Aubuisson, rather violently opposed to economic and land reforms. He was less explosive in the campaign rhetoric, but certainly has been on record as being opposed to economic and land reforms. One of the very first things that the Constitutional Assembly does under his control is to repeal the legal basis for at least Phase II, if not all three phases of the land reform program.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you don't accept the Ambassador's explanation of why that happened?

Sen. DODD: Well, they've suspended Phase III, repealed Phase II. According to the head of the land reform program, there are as many as 5,000 evictions in the last month -- since April 1. And according to the head of the peasant labor organizations, as much as 12,000 evictions. There had been 2,000 evictions in the previous 22 months. They added cattle and grain to the land that would be exempted under the land-to-tiller program. And you have to understand, by just putting a herd of cattle on the land, you can exempt that property, and clearly the landholders in the past have been opposed to it. Now, why is all that important? It's important for this reason: you had less than 2% of the population of that country controlling more than 50% of the arable land in El Salvador. It was one of the reasons there was the tremendous unrest and the civil war. That's the real reason for it in many ways. And to now lose or potentially lose the support of these people means that I think you're going to have the ultraleft gaining its support, and certainly running the risk of having the present government fall. So that's the reason for it. That's why people are so upset about it in this country, and I'd add, it's more than just in this country. The leaders of every single one of the campesino organizations who supported the March 28th elections, who did not take a side in those elections, came before Senator Paul Tsongas and I the other evening when they were in Washington, and to a man, every single one of them said that they are deeply distressed over the mood and the direction the present government is going in with regard to land reform.

HUNTER-GAULT: So that as we sit here tonight, based on everything you've just said, you fundamentally believe that the Assembly and the government is backing off of land reform altogether?

Sen. DODD: I don't think there's any question of that at all.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think it's dead now?

Sen. DODD: I don't think it's necessarily dead. My hope will be that the government of El Salvador -- and certainly they can do whatever they want. If they want to walk backwards, that's their business. The United States doesn't have to follow suit. If that's what they want to do, that's certainly their right to do so. The question becomes whether or not we want to support with your tax dollars the economic and military assistance to a government that's going to disengage from the one reason why they may be successful ultimately in bringing some peace to that country, and that's the land reform program.

HUNTER-GAULT: And clearly your answer is yes. Well, some members of Congress are also calling for a total cutoff of aid. Briefly, would you support that at this time?

Sen. DODD: No. I think we have a process in place, and as has been pointed out by Jim, the July 28th date is when the President has to certify that certain things are being done. I'm the author of that certification language; it passed the United States Senate last fall. One of the issues is land reform. So there is time. They have between now and July 28th to get their act together, if you will, on land reform. If by that time they have, then there's certainly no reason why the economic and military assistance couldn't go forward. They have to also meet other criteria. So I wouldn't advocate it this particular hour. We have frozen the level of military assistance at the 1982 levels.

HUNTER-GAULT: As a way of sending a signal.

Sen. DODD: That's right. A clear, unequivocal signal.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We'll come back. Jim?

LEHRER: When the El Salvador land reform program was originally set up, a land reform expert from the United States was brought in as a consultant to the major peasant organization. He is Roy Prosterman, professor of law at the University of Washington at Seattle. He has done field work in 17 different countries, including South Vietnam during the war there. He spent a major portion of the last two years working on land reform in El Salvador. First, I take it you supported the land reform proposal as originally adopted by the government two years ago, correct?

ROY PROSTERMAN: That's right. It was in the context of a country with the highest proportion of landless people -- that is, plantation laborers and tenant farmers -- anywhere in the hemisphere, and it was a major land reform program with the three phases that have been described.

LEHRER: If the plan is carried through to its final conclusion -- in other words, on paper, how much reform would in fact be accomplished by the time Phase III was finally finished?

Mr. PROSTERMAN: With all three phases completed, virtually all of the 300,000 families that had formerly made their living as tenant farmers, sharecroppers or plantation laborers would own land, either individually or cooperatively. And it would affect roughly half of all cultivated land in the country. Even Phase I and Phase III between them -- that is, excluding the medium-sized estates in Phase II -- benefit over two thirds of the formerly landless families.

LEHRER: Do you agree with Ambassador Hinton that Phase I, which was put into effect, has really accomplished a lot, just in terms of reform? Do you agree?

Mr. PROSTERMAN: Yes, with some qualifications. For example, the credit needed by the co-ops is not getting out so far this year, and that's a big problem, and there also have been indications from the Constituent Assembly and from the new minister of agriculture that some effort might be made to reverse or qualify Phase I, but basically Phase I is in place, yes.

LEHRER: Do you consider it, in the words of the Ambassador, the major piece of this overall reform plan?

Mr. PROSTERMAN: No, I really regard Phase III, the land-to-the-tillers portion of it, as the most important. It benefits the largest number of families, about 150,000 erstwhile tenant farmer and sharecropper families, versus only about 50,000 families benefitted under Phase I. And it includes a very high proportion of basic food crop land -- grain land, bean land -- that people rely on for their livelihood.

LEHRER: Professor, let me ask you. You've heard what Ambassador Hinton said and we've heard what Senator Dodd said. How do you interpret, just from the standpoint of looking at it as an expert, in terms of this land reform plan, how do you look at what the Constituent Assembly has done to Phase II and Phase III?

Mr. PROSTERMAN: Well, with all respect to Deane Hinton, who has one of the toughest jobs on the planet at this point, I'm afraid that what we've seen is a major reversal of the land reform process. Phase II is now in grave doubt, and even more significantly, Phase III has -- as I read the new legislation, without much doubt, the intention of the Constituent Assembly is to suspend all taking of applications, at least, and perhaps other processes under the land-to-the tillers program. They have in fact, since May 20th, two days after the passage of the new decree, ordered all of the local offices of the land reform agency to stop receiving peasant applications for land under land-to-the-tillers. The eviction process, as you pointed out, has been extremely large scale. I have in my briefcase a list of 3,600 names of campesinos, peasants belonging just to the one major peasant organization, who have been evicted since the elections on March 28th. I think the estimate of 9,000 is probably a fair one. And just today in the Salvador newspapers there was published an interpretive statement by the minister of agriculture, which is the most adverse possible concerning the scope and effect of the new Decree 6 -- the scope of that in limiting or reversing the land-to-the-tillers program.

LEHRER: No question in your mind then, finally, that the government wants to kill the land reform plan?

Mr. PROSTERMAN: Well, one can hope for reason, perhaps. It is undoubtedly the crucial program, as I think all three of us would agree here, the crucial program in maintaining support for a moderate center path in giving the peasants an alternative to violence on the left. At this point I must say I support the Dodd-Kassebaum amendment, because I think it's one of the best ways of sending a signal down there that the U.S. simply will not tolerate a reversal of this crucial reform.

LEHRER: Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Ambassador, a major reversal of the land reform program.Both Senator Dodd and Mr. Prosterman. What do you have to say to that?

Amb. HINTON: I say this. I wish they had their facts right.

HUNTER-GAULT: Which ones are wrong, sir?

Amb. HINTON: I'm really surprised -- they're both wrong. I'm really surprised that they think that they can interpret the law better than the Assembly with its clarification. I have admitted that there has been a political swing to the right and that there's a serious problem of evictions out in the countryside. Phase III has not been suspended. Today in El Salvador 200 new titles were distributed by President Magana; the Minister of Defense, Garcia; and the Minister of Agriculture, Miguel Muyshondt.

HUNTER-GAULT: What about that, Mr. Prosterman? You just said just the opposite.

Mr. PROSTERMAN: Well --

Amb. HINTON: The minister also revoked this instruction which he had given to FINACTA to slow the process down. He and I had quite a discussion about that the other day at lunch. He told me that he didn't believe in the confiscation of property without compensation, which is now -- there's two years that have gone by, there have been 30,000 titles and seven cases of compensation paid. I pointed out to him the importance -- I think the Senator and professor and I all agree on the importance of the program. And he told me, "Well, the principles are very important and you just can't go on this way." And I said, "Mr. Minister, I think, you know, you better reconsider that." Now, he has reconsidered. He reversed his instructions today. We haven't -- we're not out of the woods, you know. This has been a complicated, difficult problem. They do not have the resources to pay. I wish that Senator Dodd, instead of cutting aid, would vote some money and put a carrot out there to make the program work.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Ambassador, let me just get the Senator to respond and see if what you've just said makes him feel any better.

Sen. DODD: Well, you know, that it does is, I think, sort of confirms what I was saying earlier. I mean, there is an attitude that is persisting under the present government to not make this program work. Look. Let's make a couple of things clear. There wasn't a presidential election on March 28th. It was a constitutional assembly election. I don't think anyone doubts at all that had it been a presidential election between Mr. D'Aubuisson and President Duarte, who would have won that contest. There was a coalition formed by minority parties that was able to garner the majority seats in the constitutional assembly.The people on that day were saying that they wanted an end to the violence. I don't think it could be read as an endorsement of a particular political program. And there was no misunderstanding, despite the fact the program wasn't working very well. Look, we all knew of the problems. It's hard to make anything work when you've got a civil war going on.But I don't think anyone doubted that Jose Napoleon Duarte was committed to land reform in El Salvador.

HUNTER-GAULT: So, in other words --

Sen. DODD: Just the severse is true today.

HUNTER-GAULT: Right. Let me just get Mr. Prosterman to respond briefly to what the Ambassador had to say. Are you reassured from his explanations?

Mr. PROSTERMAN: Unfortunately not, both because on May 18, when they passed the original reversing decree, and on May 27th when they passed a so-called clarification, D'Aubuisson and others in the national assembly held a press conference and said that Decree number 207, land-to-the-tillers, was suspended. Moreover, the newspaper advertisement that came out this morning from the Ministry of Agriculture states the effectof that new decree in the most negative and destructive possible way.I'm afraid, Deane, it's a real problem. That advertisement makes no reference to Decree 207 or land-to-the-tillers. It simply says all agriculturalists in the country can now rent out land -- cotton, cane or grain land -- and that's an invitation under Salvadoran conditions to an orgy of eviction and violence against the beneficiaries.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, let me ask you this. Both Professor Prosterman and Senator Dodd have said that through the amendment that Senator Dodd -- it's now passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may go to the full Senate before too long. That sends a message to the El Salvadorans. Does that help or hurt? Do you think it sends the right message? Is that helpful?

Amb. HINTON: No, I think it's overreaction. I said that before. Let me tell you what the reaction down there has been. The Senator's language says something like, "You cannot modify in any respect two Salvadoran laws in any way that would harm the intended beneficiaries' rights." The reaction in El Salvador is that this has been -- this is arrogance.This is an American dictate about an internal matter that they have made clear by legislative and presidential action.And let me say, Senator, President Magana believes as much in agrarian reform as President Duarte did, and he's been working for it for 20 years. So their reaction has been, "Look. We elected our congress, our Constituent Assembly, with legislative powers, and now the Senate of the United States is telling us that they cannot act in this area. We're not changing the thrust of the reform. We are trying to make it --

Sen. DODD: Deane, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Before you run off, look. All we're saying is you can do anything you want in El Salvador, but we have now provided, last year, $133 million in economic and military assistance. We're prepared to spend $128 million in the Caribbean Basin this year, one third of all that money to go to El Salvador, as well as $166 million in military assistance in 1983, and $50 million we're prepared to hold out to provide to El Salvador. That's $473 million in two years. Now, I don't think people in this country want to have their money spent in a rat hole, in effect, and that's what's being suggested. Now, they can do what they want in El Salvador. We're not telling the constitutional assembly what to do. We're just telling them that if they dismember the land reform program, they cannot count on the largesse of the United States government to support that kind of an effort.

Amb. HINTON: Well, Senator, that was clear from the previous legislation. The progress certification is there. I'm telling you what their perception of your action is.

LEHRER: What is your perception of it?

Amb. HINTON: I think it goes beyond the detail of what is necessary in this situation. I have said I thought, you know, that the facts have been misunderstood, and there's been an overreaction. They are -- I repeat, there is nothing suspended.

LEHRER: We can't get into that again.

Amb. HINTON: The campesinos are getting titles -- today they're back on course.

LEHRER: All right, we've got to go, gentlemen.

Amb. HINTON: And I hope they stay on course.

LEHRER: We have to go. Senator Dodd, thank you very much.

Sen. DODD: Thank you.

LEHRER: Gentlemen here, thank you very much, and good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.