Halt Crackdown, U.S. Tells S. Africa : Administration Refuses to Use Sanctions Threat

WASHINGTON —  The Reagan Administration demanded an end to South Africa’s week-old state of emergency Friday but said that it would not impose economic sanctions even if Pretoria continues its crackdown on black political protest.

The carefully worded White House statement contained some of the sharpest language the Administration has ever directed at South Africa, but it appeared to be intended primarily as a defense of the policy of “constructive engagement,” which is facing increasing criticism on Capitol Hill.

“We believe we can provide a voice of reason and influence on the South African government, and that’s why we think it’s important that we maintain our contacts,” White House spokesman Larry Speakes said.

Nevertheless, there is growing pressure for some sort of sanctions to put a little muscle behind the Administration’s efforts at friendly persuasion. A Senate-House conference committee is scheduled to begin work next week to reconcile their respective versions of sanctions bills that passed each house overwhelmingly earlier this year.

Although the House bill is harsher in its provisions than the Senate measure, both would affect the South African economy. Neither bill is strong enough to bring the white-minority government to its knees, and both impose penalties that could easily be reversed if Pretoria were to change its policy.

South Africa’s state of emergency--imposed last Saturday--is becoming an increasing embarrassment to the Administration, which earlier had pointed to a list of reforms in apartheid, South Africa’s racial segregation policy, as the fruits of its diplomatic campaign.

Since the crackdown began, South African police have arrested more than 900 people. At least 16 have been reported killed.

President Reagan and the National Security Council discussed the situation at a meeting Friday. Although Speakes refused to say what the council decided, he volunteered a statement that he said reflects the President’s views.

“The real cause of violence in South Africa is apartheid,” Speakes said, reading from the official statement. “A lasting peace will take hold . . . only when apartheid is dismantled. We want the state of emergency removed.”

First Call by Administration

Administration spokesmen had not previously called explicitly for an end to the state of emergency, although they had criticized its results. But when asked if the statement was intended to be a threat to end the policy of constructive engagement if the state of emergency remains, Speakes said it was not.

However, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, predicted that the Administration will reverse its policy and impose some sort of sanctions during the five-week congressional recess that begins Thursday.

An element of wishful thinking may exist in Lugar’s assessment, because action by the Administration might spare the Senate a bitter battle. A few conservative lawmakers, led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), have vowed to mount a filibuster against the sanctions bill when it comes up for final action after the Senate-House conference.

Filibuster Only a Delay

A filibuster could disrupt the Senate for several days, but supporters of sanctions legislation believe it could not prevent eventual passage of the measure. The Senate passed its version of the bill last month 82 to 12--well above the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster and higher than the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto. The vote on the House bill also was well over the two-thirds mark.

Realistically, the U.S. government cannot be expected to impose sanctions any stricter than those contained in the House-passed bill. That includes a prohibition on all new investment in South Africa, a ban on bank loans and sales of computers to the South African government and a prohibition on the importation of South African gold coins.

Although these measures would hurt the Pretoria government, they would not irreparably damage its economy. The ban on computers might be the most troublesome because the United States remains a world leader in computer technology. But Japan, already one of South Africa’s top trading partners, could fill much of the gap.

Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.), an advocate of the House bill, said there is no possibility that American sanctions, by themselves, could force Pretoria to change its policy. But he said, “The only way of undercutting the cycle of violence in South Africa is for the regime to accept the fact that it can’t continue the present system indefinitely without incurring real costs.”