Apartheid Foes Fear Repeal of Sanctions Is Unstoppable : South Africa: U.S. activists say changes have been cosmetic but others believe reform is under way.

As President Bush bolsters his efforts to lift U.S. sanctions against South Africa by meeting with Zulu Chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi today, anti-apartheid leaders in the United States who believe sanctions are still essential find themselves fighting an uphill battle and losing the public relations war.

South Africa, a once-burning issue that ignited national protests and a spate of local and national legislation, has moved to the back burner in mainstream America, they say, and, to some degree, their movement has been victim of its own limited successes.

The release of African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela after 27 years of imprisonment and the South African government’s repeal of apartheid laws, they contend, have led to the erroneous impression that apartheid in South Africa is nearly dead and gone.

“The euphoria over Mandela gave the wrong impression,” said Rep. Mervyn M. Dymally (D-Compton), chairman of the subcommittee on Africa. “A lot of people were committed to freeing Mandela. With Mandela’s release, that commitment waned. They forget that, while Nelson Mandela is not in prison, he still cannot vote.”

Although anti-apartheid groups agree that important discriminatory legislation has been repealed in South Africa, they contend there has been little actual impact either because the scope of the repeal has been limited or because the laws have been replaced by others that represent apartheid in disguise.

For instance, the repeal this week of the Population Registration Act, which classified each person by race and formed the foundation of discriminatory South African policy, applies only to those born after the repeal went into effect and has no bearing on the 28 million blacks currently living in South Africa.

“It’s like saying to the slaves, ‘We’ve abolished slavery, but it only applies to your children,” said Rep. Edolphus (Ed) Towns (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

A number of other factors also have reduced support for the anti-apartheid movement in the United States, activists say. They list the Gulf War, the recession, changes in the presidency both here and in South Africa, the emergence of black-on-black violence and the trial of Winnie Mandela.

Administration officials, who argue that the South African government has met all conditions for the repeal of sanctions, are seeking to end the 4-year-old economic restrictions by mid-July.

They are hoping that the President’s meeting today with Buthelezi, who heads the Zulu-based Inkatha Movement, could ease the way for some members of Congress to side with Bush. Buthelezi’s followers have had bloody battles with ANC members, and Buthelezi has called for an end to sanctions.

If the President lifts the sanctions, Congress will have 30 days to reimpose them by two-thirds votes. Many congressional leaders and anti-apartheid groups believe that, for now, the President has the upper hand.

“At this very moment, I would doubt that we have the votes in the House and the Senate to override the President on this,” said Randall Robinson, director of TransAfrica, the anti-apartheid organization that spearheaded the American drive toward sanctions.

Robinson and other anti-apartheid activists in America are struggling to rekindle the national fervor that led to sit-ins, arrests, picketing and campus protests--actions that prodded Congress initially to impose economic sanctions over President Ronald Reagan’s veto.

“It was the public that pushed them to sanctions in the first place,” Robinson said. “If the public is distracted, (Congress) could easily jump ship. That’s the kind of thing you have to worry about in this kind of climate.

“If we can remobilize mainstream America, the outlook is bright for the maintenance of American pressure. If not, we will lose. It’s as simple as that.”

Robinson and other leaders say many South African reforms actually fall far short of giving blacks an equal role in their nation:

--Although the state of emergency that gave government broad powers of detention without trial has been lifted, they note, the Internal Security Act, which gives government nearly those same powers, remains in effect.

--Despite the repeal of the Separate Amenities Act last year, government schools can still be segregated. Under the new law, 75% of the white parents must vote in favor of opening the school to blacks, and then the schools must be at least half white.

--The repealed Group Areas Act, which provided for residential segregation, has been replaced with a law that allows neighborhoods to draw up “norms and standards” that do not allow discrimination based on race but do allow it on other characteristics.

--The Land Laws, which forced removal of blacks from large areas and prevented them from purchasing property, have been repealed. However, whites may still refuse to sell land to blacks, and the government has refused to consider compensation or return of land to the 3.5 million blacks who were forcibly removed.

“These laws are like the scaffolding that existed for erecting a building,” said Themba Vilakazi, director of the Fund for a Free South Africa in Boston. “People have responded as though the removal of the scaffolding is equivalent with breaking down the building, which is not true.”

Such disparities have been lost on the American public largely because they have not been accurately or prominently detailed by the media, anti-apartheid leaders contend.

“The coverage has been remarkably unreflective of the net value of the steps in South Africa,” Robinson argued. “There is a yawning disparity between what has happened in terms of reform” and what people perceive has happened.

The result, Robinson said at a celebrity-studded fund-raiser in Los Angeles last week, has been that “the South African government is winning the public relations battle on apartheid.”

It is doing so, he said, because the American anti-apartheid movement has lost its two greatest allies--Reagan and former South African President Pieter W. Botha.

“Before sanctions . . . Botha and Ronald Reagan gave the anti-apartheid movement its biggest lift,” Robinson said. “They were both heads of state with the capacity for doing stupid things which would help us in the final analysis . . . . Both were succeeded by men who were infinitely more intelligent, a great deal more practiced and skilled in public relations.”

South African President Frederik W. de Klerk’s credibility has been enhanced at the expense of the African National Congress by fighting between the ANC and supporters of Buthelezi’s Inkatha Movement and by the conviction of Winnie Mandela, wife of ANC Deputy President Nelson Mandela, on kidnaping charges.

“The stories on black-on-black violence have tended to depress and confuse people,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). “People don’t understand that, and, not understanding that, they tend to feel helpless, or that the things they do will not be helpful. That has hurt us somewhat.”

Those factors have created a climate in which congressional leaders who have supported sanctions are beginning to reverse their position.

“There is some slippage, even though some of the people who are pushing for lifting sanctions didn’t really want sanctions in the first place,” said Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), who continues to support sanctions.

One of the more important defectors is Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who ushered the original bill out of his Foreign Relations Committee and urged the Senate to override President Reagan’s veto. Lugar said that, after meeting with Buthelezi earlier this week, he is inclined to believe that the conditions for lifting sanctions have been met.

As a preemptive strike, Waters and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) have introduced a bill to keep sanctions in place. It is currently being studied by the subcommittee on Africa.

Sanction supporters hope they can stave off Bush’s attempt to lift sanctions by refocusing public attention on the issue.

“The sentiment about sanctions is there,” said Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles). “The political activism is there, but that should not be confused with passive attitude. I think we can still trigger public support.”