To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your editorial "End Aid to El Salvador" makes good sense in arguing against United States support to military regimes in violation of human rights, but a Chile, El Salvador is not. Historically the United States has supported, toppled and even created governments in Latin America as a hedge against undesirable influence in the hemisphere. Today we see that our support has created dictatorial regimes that, while being anti-communist, neither live up to American ideals of human rights nor enjoy popular support. To complicate matters the left has been able to play on such misguided policy to rally support for, and bring to power, governments less than sympathetic to United States interests, while the Reagan administration threatens to solve the problem by further increasing aid to right-wing regimes and severing negotiating channels with the left.

Foreign policy toward El Salvador under the Carter administration was unique in that it represented an effort by the United States to move away from the political extreme advocated in the past by lending support to a political center. For this Mr. Carter must be given credit. When progressive military officers joined with the left to oust a repressive right-wing government in October of 1979 the administration saw in the move a logical alternative to the two political extremes that have historically disrupted Central American politics. United States involvement, and especially the efforts of Robert White, subsequently led to a land redistribution program that divided the holdings of some 300 powerful landowners for the benefit of 60,000 farm families, while private sector interests received continued encouragement from the government. When the administration resumed aid to the military-civilian junta several weeks ago it was more out of a fear that the left's "final offensive" would destroy this delicate ideological balance than the calculated genocide you alluded to in your editorial.

The 10,000 deaths in 1980 attributed to El Salvador's three-way civil war have indeed given the meaning of United States aid new and unpleasant connotations, but not necessarily because of "hollow" human rights ideals held by the Carter administration as your editorial suggests. Rather, several events largely unrelated to Carter foreign policy have been the reason for political disruption. First, the impact of Ronald Reagan's election has given the extreme right a feeling of immunity to economic sanctions for human rights violations and prompted all-out attacks on the left and clergy by right-wing "death squads." The left, anticipating increased economic and military aid to right-wing factions by the new administration, has launched its "final offensive" against the government and right to secure interests which it believes will be lost with Reagan in office. Second, the vestiges of a long history of political domination by the right have been a constant destabilizing factor in formulating an ideologically balanced government. Wealthy families, most of whom live in Miami and Guatemala City, have always had ties with security forces and remain largely responsible for bankrolling "death squad" maneuvers and contributing to the "undisciplined" nature of military officials in government.

The options open to the United States in coming months will be limited. To cut off aid to the reformist government would be to disillusion many of its present supporters who would turn to the left should promises for reform go unfulfilled. Yet for the Reagan administration to continue support would be to give tacit approval for the violation of human rights. Whatever the outcome in the next four years, support to El Salvador under the Carter administration should be recognized as an effort toward ending political extremism in Central America. The policy decisions were not always perfect, no policy could please everyone under the prevalling conditions, but at least it was a stop in the right direction. Douglas Farmer '82