The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Interview with Alexander Haig

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: On a day when President Reagan had to reassure Israel that the United States is still their friend, we speak to Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. President Reagan today sent Israeli Prime Minister Begin a personal, public assurance that the United States was determined to maintain Israel's military superiority in the Middle East. The message was made necessary by an uproar in Israel over remarks by Defense Secretary Weinberger during a recent visit to Jordan. Mr. Weinberger indicated that the United States might send advanced aircraft and missiles to Jordan, which Israel regards as an enemy. Officials traveling with Weinberger spoke also of "redirecting" American policy. On television this morning Mr. Weinberger said the Israeli military margin was now so great that selling air defense missiles and F-16 jets to Jordan wouldn't jeopardize it. In his letter to Prime Minister Begin today, Mr. Reagan said, "There has been no change regarding our military supply relationship to Jordan, and Secretary Weinberger brought me no new request." This incident has focused extensive media attention on several apparent differences of emphasis in foreign policy between Secretary Weinberger and the Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, involving not only the Middle East but Poland, Western European defense and Central America. Tonight, Secretary Haig's view. The Secretary is with Jim in Washington. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, welcome.

Sec. ALEXANDER HAIG: Good to be here.

LEHRER: First, on the Israel flap. President Reagan, in that letter to Mr. Begin today, seemed to blame it all on what he called "incorrect and exaggerated commentary in the press." There's more to it than that, is there not, Mr. Secretary?

Sec. HAIG: No. I really don't think there is. As I explained on national television on Sunday, and as Cap explained this morning in a television appearance, we coordinated his trip very, very carefully before he went, and I know Cap reiterated this morning, the President in his letter to Mr. Begin tonight, and I stated yesterday that there's no change in American policy with respect to the state of Israel. There has not been with respect to the armaments that were discussed. I think it was also made very clear that there has been no decision nor has there been a specific request. And should there be one, it will be considered within the bureaucracy and consultations; if a favorable decision were made, it will be accomplished with the Congress. So we have a little bit of a not-too-unusual firestorm in Washington press circles.

LEHRER: Well, but the Secretary of Defense did confirm publicly that he did in fact discuss selling the jets and the missiles with King Hussein of Jordan, did he not? I mean, he did in fact discuss that with him, did he not?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I think there were a broad range of discussions, and it doesn't serve any purpose to outline the particular details of them, but the key point to bear in mind is there was no specific request, no offer made and no decision made --

LEHRER: But they did --

Sec. HAIG: -- of any kind.

LEHRER: But they did talk about it, at least the Secretary says they did.

Sec. HAIG: Oh, I think there's no question that all of our meetings with His Majesty have focused, among other things, on the security needs of the state of Jordan.

LEHRER: Did you know Secretary Weinberger was going to discuss selling these things --

Sec. HAIG: Well, if I say that I know he was going to discuss selling them, then I would be contradicting what I just said.I knew the topic would likely come up because it came up during His Majesty's visit to Washington. We are very familiar with his concerns about the modernization of Jordanian armed forces needs.

LEHRER: Now, Mr. Begin said today that if these armaments were in fact sold to Jordan, it would seriously jeopardize the security of Israel. Secretary Weinberger says today that's not so. Which one is right?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I'm not here to adjudicate between a Cabinet officer and the comments of a very concerned allied leader. It goes without saying that Israel is in the front line of the confrontation on the Arab-Israeli dispute. Their concerns about their security posture are long-standing, understandable, and certainly must be listened to sympathetically. Notwith-standing, I think the President made it very, very clear once again to Prime Minister Begin that we are going to maintain the technical, qualitative superiority enjoyed by Israel today. And every judgment that's made on the Middle East or arms arrangement with a moderate Arab state takes that requirement into consideration.

LEHRER: Is it true that you do not favor such a sale as what the reports have said?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I've seen a lot of reports of what I favor and didn't favor and how I'm miffed at this time of day or that time of day. Let me just tell you that Mr. Weinberger's visit was a well-prepared visit, one in which coordination before the visit was complete, and I'm very comfortable with the outcome of it.

MacNEIL: Mr. Secretary, is it the press's fault that some senior official aboard Mr. Weinberger's plane talks of "redirecting American policy" in the Middle East?

Sec. HAIG: Do you think I would ever have the temerity to blame the almighty press for any distortion of reality? No, I think the problem is that perhaps something was said less clearly than it might have been, or an enthusiastic reporter failed to hear a caveated statement or condition with respect to his statement. I wasn't there, and I'm the last man to be the judge.

MacNEIL: Well, let me ask the question another way. Is there in fact a discussion within the administration -- where various views on foreign policy obviously are canvassed -- there a discussion on redirecting American policy in the Middle East?

Sec. HAIG: Not at all. We have had a long-standing policy on the Middle East that involves support for a peace process; it involves a firm understanding and continuation of our commitment to the state, the security and the well-being of the people of Israel, but it also involves the development and strengthening of a relationship with the moderate Arab regimes of the area. And there is nothing new about that. It's a long-standing, bipartisan American policy over a number of years.

MacNEIL: Well, if all this is true, why was such a dramatic clarification by the President necessary today?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I think clearly there was a great deal of controversy here at home, in European and Middle Eastern press; and needless to say, the meeting of the Knesset yesterday confirmed the concerns that were generated in Israel. Understandable. And the President felt that he, again, because of all this controversy, should reassure Prime Minister Begin with respect to our policy.

MacNEIL: Well, if there is no change in policy, why would their concerns be understandable? Why would Mr. Begin's concerns be understandable?

Sec. HAIG: Well, now you're just depreciating the value of your national communication medium when you write something that generates concerns.

MacNEIL: I see.

LEHRER: Well, the President was clearly embarrassed by all this, was he not, Mr. Secretary?

Sec. HAIG: I don't think the President was happy with this. I don't think Cap Weinberger was happy with it. I talked to him about it very soon after he returned, and he was rather disturbed that some of the reporting had taken on the character that it had. I personally was also rather concerned about it. So there was unanimity in that regard.

LEHRER: Yeah. There's still -- you know, I don't want to keep belaboring it, but it's hard to figure how something like this could happen if everything is, you know, running smoothly --

Sec. HAIG: Oh, my God --

LEHRER: -- here in our government, and foreign policy is under firm control, how something could happen like this that would cause one of our friends --

Sec. HAIG: Oh, my golly --

LEHRER: -- to do what they did.

Sec. HAIG: You know, I guess any objective observer of the Washington scene who reflects back on the previous administration and the administration before that and the administration before that, as I have, finds this -- there's nothing new about this, and I think it is important that the President is exposed to differing viewpoints on every policy issue. After all, he's the man that makes the decision, and he's the one that's held responsible at the ballot box for the prudence or lack of prudence of that decision.

LEHRER: As I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Secretary, analysts, commentators -- whatever you want to call them -- are suggesting that you and -- in a healthy way, you and -- or unhealthy, whatever the case may be, but you and Secretary Weinberger are out of synch in your beliefs on Middle East policy and that it's up to the President to resolve this out-of-synchness -- if that in fact is a term. Has that not happened?

Sec. HAIG: I don't agree with that at all. I think the President's policy on the Middle East has been very clear to both Cap Weinberger and to Al Haig. When we bring an issue forward to him, sometimes we are in full agreement, other times we are not. And there's nothing new at all about that. One of the things that has changed in the Washington scene in my 20-years' observation is that all of these previously somewhat less exposed discussions that go into policy formulation now become instantaneously available to the press. I sort of regret that. I think it's a shame and I think we pay a price for it. I wouldn't have it any differently in the context of the availability of the press to pick these things up, but I do think we have a lack of discipline today in our bureaucracy and those who participate in the policy-making process. That's got a legacy that goes back to Vietnam. We saw how it influenced that Vietnam crisis, and we've witnessed it through Watergate and the subsequent years of American policy formulation. I regret it and we pay a price for it.

MacNEIL: When you said on Sunday, Mr. Secretary, that there is really only one spokesman for American foreign policy and that's the President, does that mean that only the President's statements are definitive?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I certainly hope not. I think you will find that the statements I made on Sunday very closely parallel the letter that was largely drafted by the President and dispatched and made public today. I don't find any error, if you will, between what the President has said and what in the area of foreign policy we are saying at the Department of State.

MacNEIL: Has this flap made it more difficult to calm the Israelis down, hopefully to discourage them from making an attack on southern Lebanon because they are anxious about the increased PLO buildup there, an attack that seemed imminent a week or so ago? Has this made that more difficult?

Sec. HAIG: Well, no, I wouldn't look at the issue in such a narrow perspective. I think anyone that reflects back on recent months, and perhaps beyond that, would understand that there is a growing sense of concern in Israel.After all, they joined a peace process at the time of Camp David in which both parties accepted risks. It's now the time to pay for that -- the return of the Sinai. In the intervening period we've had a number of unprogrammed jolts to Middle Eastern stability -- the death of President Sadat, the crises -- the two crises in Lebanon which were not generated by either Israel or Egypt, but came right out of the turmoil and the cauldron that is Lebanon today. All of these things, Western and worldwide and American reaction to the Iraqi raid and the Golan annexation, have caused a degree of concern in Israel which is both understandable and must be dealt with in our overall policy formulation day to day.

MacNEIL: Is an Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon still a risk in your view?

Sec. HAIG: Well, it is, but I think, and I would hope that objective observers would reflect back on the situation before the Habib mission. We were literally hours away from conflict. That ceasefire that was put in place through two presidential missions to the Middle East still holds, and of course it's fragile and of course it's got to be tended. And if arms are moved into southern Lebanon to the PLO, or if the Soviet Union announces a new arms arrangement with the PLO, or if terrorists move from Lebanon through Syria through Jordan into the West Bank, it's a cause of legitmate concern on the part of Israel. And it requires restraint on both sides, and the United States as a full partner in this process has to do all that it can to maintain that restraint.

MacNEIL: When you say you hope there will be restraint, does that mean that you aren't quite sure you have persuaded Israel not to intervene there?

Sec. HAIG: No. I think Israel has maintained a very restrained posture. I anticipate that posture will be maintained in the days and weeks and months ahead. But it's not an open-ended commitment.It depends on the performance of the PLO and the circumstances in Lebanon. And so they, too, have an obligation.

LEHRER: Is it a fair statement, though, Mr. Secretary, that this flap of the last couple of days complicates the situation a little bit?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I think anything that contributes to uncertainty -- which shakes confidence -- is a disturbing factor. On the other hand, I think the facts associated with the justification for that have been already put in focus, and I hope they would stay that way.

LEHRER: Let's talk about El Salvador and Central America for a few minutes, Mr. Secretary. You have refused thus far to rule out the use of military force in El Salvador. Why is that?

Sec. HAIG: Well, as a matter of principle, I have refused always, and I think historically anyone with my responsibilities is obligated to maintain a full panorama of options. Now, with respect to the naughty question that you're going to ask next, let me tell you the President has already reassured the American people repeatedly that there are no current plans underway for the deployment or utilization of American military forces in Central America. On the other hand, what could be more self-defeating than for a nation a priori to lay out conditions under which it will be guided in the period ahead? All that does is provide to those who do not bear your interests in mind, or who may be antagonistic to those interests, a roadway through which they can conduct their own strategy and policies.

LEHRER: My next question, Mr. Secretary, is even naughtier than that -- than the one you already answered, and that is that Secretary Weinberger, again, has made it very clear, one time in my own hearing, that he does not think that the introduction of U.S. military forces in El Salvador is a wise thing because he does not believe the American people would support it. Is he wrong about that?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I think that's an observation that I wouldn't be particularly uncomfortable with. On the other hand, I have a responsibility to articulate our foreign policy in its broadest sense. I happen to know that the President's view on that question is that these are i's that should not be dotted and t's that should not be crossed. And I'm not about to do it. And let me tell you also that the conduct of American foreign policy cannot be the lowest common denominator of the populists' view of our people. Our people elect a president to lead, to take the responsibilities in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. And if he makes a bad call, why, they'll just plain vote him out of office. But if we were to determine our foreign policy based on the lowest common denominator of the national mood, I think we would be on very fallacious ground, and I know this president has no intention of conducting his affairs that way.

LEHRER: But you concede the point that at this stage in the situation that the majority of the American people would not support sending U.S. forces there?

Sec. HAIG: I think the majority of the American people would be appalled at the prospect of American involvement militarily anywhere in the world. I do think, however, that our own doorstep poses a different set of problems, perhaps, than in distant Vietnam or the Middle East or perhaps some other area of the world.

MacNEIL: Mr. Secretary, it's been reported the President is going to suggest that maybe some other countries -- Argentina, for example -- could be persuaded to send troops, which would preclude the sending of American troops to El Salvador. Is he in fact going to suggest that?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I'm not going to preempt the President's prerogative.As you know, he's going to make a speech on this subject in the immediate future. I do think the President has made it very clear that he recognizes that paternalistic American attitudes towards Central America or Latin America are not good, and that this is not a big-brother operation. It is, after all, the states of the region who are most seriously threatened by events in Nicaragua and Salvador and Guatemala today, and clearly it is important that those states move together, whether it's in the OAS family or some other alignment, such as the recent political alignment of Central American states.

MacNEIL: Have any of them indicated a willingness to take part in such a venture?

Sec. HAIG: No, well, I think what you're suggesting there is a venture of a military character, and I wouldn't discuss it were it justified to discuss it, and it is not because it is not a pertinent option at this moment.

MacNEIL: Has the situation been reached in El Salvador when the forces of President Duarte and the junta will not prevail unless there is further help from outside, and I don't just mean equipment, but further sort of manpower help from outside? Has it reached that point?

Sec. HAIG: Not at all, and I'm not aware of any judgment held here in Washington that would suggest that it has reached that point.On the other hand, I think it's very clear that today the guerrilla forces in Salvador are supported, aided, abetted and indeed largely controlled from territory outside of Salvador. And if that were to continue as an open-ended and escalating involvement, why then, we in the United States and those who are concerned about events in Salvador would be seized with a serious problem.

MacNEIL: But for the moment the forces of President Duarte and the junta, with what aid we've given them in terms of supplies, you think are sufficient to hold the situation?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I think we have been addressing the issue which has involved a recognition that the levels of armaments shipped in to Salvador have crept back slowly to the levels that reached their peak about the time of the offensive last January, before this administration came into office. And that's going to require some additional assets -- socio-economic, developmental assets -- as well as military and security-related assets.

MacNEIL: To come back to opinion in this country for a moment, what you were talking about with Jim a moment ago, how do you feel about the buildup of public opinion, with prominent actors like Ed Asner forming committees to raise money to send medical aid to the guerrillas, with incessant talk about the analogies --

Sec. HAIG: Ed who? Ed who? [laughs]

MacNEIL: -- incessant talk about analogies with Vietnam. How do you feel about the way public opinion is bubbling up about the Central American policy?

Sec. HAIG: Well, you know, I am not familiar with the fella you mentioned but, you know, this is a great country; it's a pluralistic society, and we obtain our strength and our vigor and vitality from the divergence of viewpoints. And it's a great thing. Unlike Poland today, every American citizen is entitled to his own opinion and to the voicing of that opinion, and I would never seek to change that.

LEHRER: Ed Asner, for the record, Mr. Secretary, plays a newspaperman on television.

Sec. HAIG: Oh, well, I guess that should --

LEHRER: I should have told you that. I should have told you that.

Sec. HAIG: -- talk for his qualifications.

LEHRER: Right. There was a wire service report, just an hour or so ago, that said that a little over a month ago,in December, you used a Spanish Socialist leader as an intermediary to Fidel Castro to try to get something worked out on El Salvador. Is that so?

Sec. HAIG: No, not at all. It's untrue, and I think it's another one of those unfortunate distortions that can occur from time to time. I did meet the Spanish Socialist leader, Felipe Gonzalez, after he had completed a survey of the Central American region, which included discussions in Mexico City, Panama and Havana, but which were focused primarily -- the visit was -- on the situation in Nicaragua and Salvador. I welcomed his views. Surprisingly enough, they were not a rubber-stamp endorsement of the totalitarian steps that are being implanted in Nicaragua today, and were very close to the concerns that I have expressed.

LEHRER: He didn't bring any message to you from Fidel Castro, and you in turn didn't give one back?

Sec. HAIG: No.

LEHRER: You didn't --

Sec. HAIG: He wasn't hired for the job, and I don't think he would have taken it on had I asked him, and I wouldn't have presumed to ask him.

LEHRER: I see. Senator Leahy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, got back from El Salvador last night and he said this morning that the only hope for a peaceful solution down there is for there to be negotiations between the ruling junta and the leftist guerrillas. You disagree with that, do you not?

Sec. HAIG: Well, it depends on what he means by negotiations. We very much favor negotiations which would lead towards a presidential election in Salvador in 1983 and which would permit the people of Salvador to exercise their right for self-determination. We would not agree to a prearranged splitting of political power by guerrillas or anyone else that were not reflective of the will and the desires of the people of El Salvador.

LEHRER: Your ambassador or, our ambassador to El Salvador, Mr. Hinton, said the other day that he didn't think these elections were going to lead necessarily to a peaceful solution. The elections due on March the 28th. Why does he say that?

Sec. HAIG: Well, I don't think that's precisely what he meant.I think he meant that these elections, and the successful or less than totally successful conduct of them in this environment, are not going to spell the end to the struggle which is underway in El Salvador today. Thus far the guerrillas have refused to participate; they've refused to commit themselves to a cessation of the use of violence. And in that environment these elections are just another step in the direction of what we hope will be ultimately a free expression of the people of El Salvador in a peaceful environment.

LEHRER: We just have a minute or so left, Mr. Secretary.I did want to ask you one question about Poland. Are you having any second thoughts now about the decision that the administration made to not put Poland in default on these U.S. bank loans?

Sec. HAIG: Well, first, let me say I hardly go to bed at night without second thoughts about one or another aspect of the Polish question, but with respect to the default issue -- and I think you're talking about either the narrow issue of CCC credits, or the broad issue of default across the board. It's the view of the experts in our government, and the unanimous view of those experts, that at this time it serves the American interest best by not calling Poland into default. Now, that's an open-ended option. And we can change that decision at any moment when it appears that our objectives are best met by calling default.

LEHRER: Are you getting as annoyed asI read you are over conservatives saying, "Oh, Al Haig, he talks tough, but when it comes down to it he won't do things like default" and all these kinds of things?

Sec. HAIG: Oh, golly. I'm not annoyed by anything, and I don't ever have to worry about my conservative credentials. I fought the Communists in two wars; I bear wounds from those conflicts. I've been engaged in a struggle with Communism for the last 33 years. And I'm never disturbed by well-meaning criticisms on one judgment or another that we may or may not take. I welcome them.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us tonight. 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.