‘On and On in El Salvador’

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion in your editorial (April 2), “On and On in El Salvador,” that President Jose Napoleon Duarte “should once again try to renew the long-stalled peace talks between his government and the guerrillas political representatives,” I must say you leave out a crucial ingredient: the role of the United States in renewing these talks and helping them to achieve positive results.

As Jorge Castaneda noted in his article (Editorial Pages, April 3), “Salvador Rebels Show Who’s Got the Grit,” that the “. . . wishful thinking and short-term political considerations have completely replaced serious analysis with regard to Central America.”

There are two basic options for U.S. policy in El Salvador: a military-centered policy or a policy based on dialogue and negotiations. The Reagan Administration has conducted a military-centered option for six years, which has significantly contributed to the deteriorating economic and political situation in El Salvador, including 60,000 people dead.

The attack at the El Paraiso military base is just another example of the failure of that policy. A policy that places support for dialogue at the heart of U.S. involvement has not been seriously attempted.

When Archbishop Arturo Rivera Damas was here in Los Angeles in December, he stated that the only rational and humane way to end the conflict was through dialogue. He also stated that this would only happen if the United States wanted it.

As the mediator in the previous two dialogue sessions, the archbishop is in a unique position to assess what the realistic possibilities for peace are in his country. Officially, one American has now died in combat in El Salvador. How many more Salvadoran and American deaths will it take for policy-makers in Washington to listen to the archbishop?

RICHARD A. HOWARD SJ

Los Angeles