U.S. May Ease Sanctions if De Klerk Acts on Reforms

WASHINGTON —  The Bush Administration, increasingly optimistic that President Frederik W. de Klerk genuinely intends to end apartheid in South Africa, will consider lifting U.S. sanctions if the reformist rhetoric is backed by concrete action, according to a senior U.S. official.

“De Klerk ran on a platform of dismantling apartheid,” the official said. “That was very constructive in our view. We think he should be given time to implement it.”

The official said that when Congress imposed U.S. sanctions in 1986 to protest South Africa’s apartheid policy of racial segregation, it authorized selective lifting of the restrictions if conditions changed.

“We will certainly consider doing that,” the official said, if De Klerk releases imprisoned black leader Nelson R. Mandela and other political prisoners, lifts restrictions on black political activity and opens a dialogue with black leaders.

The 1986 sanctions, passed by Congress over the veto of President Ronald Reagan, limit activity of U.S. firms in South Africa, ban most imports from South Africa and deny U.S. landing rights to South African Airways.

If the White House relaxes the sanctions, it would mark the first time since early in the Reagan Administration that Washington has attempted to improve relations with the white-dominated Pretoria government.

Such a step would send a clear signal to the rest of the world that the United States is ready to consider South Africa’s readmission to the international community, which has ostracized the nation because of its apartheid.

But it probably would touch off a new storm of controversy on Capitol Hill, where many lawmakers are suspicious of De Klerk’s intentions and appear ready to consider even tougher measures unless the new president moves promptly to open up South Africa’s political system. Blacks, the majority in South Africa, have no vote in national politics.

Lawmakers Skeptical

Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.) and Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), chairmen of House and Senate subcommittees on Africa, said Congress is willing to give De Klerk a few months to show his good faith by releasing political prisoners and rescinding an order banning the African National Congress and other political organizations. But, they said, there is a limit to congressional patience.

“If, by Feb. 1, those things are not in place, then you will see new sanctions legislation begin moving through the Congress,” Wolpe said.

Simon said he would support additional sanctions unless there is “significant movement” in South Africa by February or March.

Wolpe said it would be foolish to relax sanctions now because “the only reason the government is beginning to sound a reform tongue is because of the cumulative pressures that are building, both inside the society and as a result of actions by the international community.”

Despite the difference in emphasis, the gulf between the Bush Administration and Congress seems much narrower than it was during the Reagan Administration, when the White House feuded with Capitol Hill over both goals and tactics.

Simon said Secretary of State James A. Baker III has assured him that the Administration hopes to establish “a joint Administration-Congress policy on South Africa” that both Democrats and Republicans could support.

Although the Administration has signaled its opposition to new sanctions, Simon noted, the two sides are close enough in their basic approach to make such a joint policy a realistic goal.

For instance, the senior Administration official said the United States will “maintain existing pressures” on South Africa until De Klerk’s intentions have become clearer and there is general agreement both on the ultimate goal of ending apartheid and on the specific steps that should be taken soon to open South Africa’s political system.

Economic Motives Seen

The senior Administration official, who asked not be named, said De Klerk’s promises of reform do not reflect a commitment to racial tolerance so much as a “sober analysis” that South Africa’s standard of living cannot recover until the nation achieves cooperation between the races.

Michael Clough, a senior fellow for African studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said South African leaders realize “that they don’t have in the Bush Administration people who are sympathetic to them, like they had in the Reagan Administration.”

Clough said Bush can use the good-cop, bad-cop technique in dealing with South Africa, assuring De Klerk that the Administration is ready for better relations but warning that Congress is bent on additional sanctions.

“The Bush Administration is well positioned to have its cake and eat it, too,” Clough said. “They can tell De Klerk that they really don’t like the idea of more sanctions, but they have Congress to deal with.”

But Pauline Baker, an Africa expert on the staff of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said the United States may be on the brink of sending dangerously mixed signals to South Africa.

“The world seems to think of De Klerk as the Gorbachev of South Africa, a man committed to reform the system. But we don’t want reform of apartheid--we want it to be abolished,” Baker said.

“De Klerk is certainly a much more nimble politician than his predecessor,” she continued. “He may take some halfway measures which the United States will applaud and get caught in the middle.”

But Administration officials said it would be a mistake for Washington to fail to demonstrate its preference for De Klerk’s style over that of his predecessor, Pieter W. Botha.

Wolpe agreed that the United States must differentiate between De Klerk and Botha. But he urged the Administration to avoid reacting only to words without waiting for action from the new Pretoria regime.

“If there is some really concrete evidence of the process (of racial reconciliation) being set in motion, we should acknowledge that,” he said. “But to simply respond to rhetoric, rather than to concrete actions, would be very foolhardy.”