S. Africa Sanctions Passed by Senate : Would Bar Bank Loans, Curb Sales of Computers to Oppose Apartheid

The Senate, fighting off a threatened conservative filibuster, overwhelmingly passed a bill late Thursday that for the first time would impose restrictions on U.S. trade with South Africa as well on bank credit to that nation to protest its policy of racial separation.

The vote of 80 to 12 represented a strong repudiation of the Reagan Administration’s policy of “constructive engagement,” which seeks reforms in South Africa through subtle diplomatic moves rather than high-profile protests. It climaxed nearly a week of confusion and delay over final action on the measure and a highly charged debate punctuated with charges of racism.

The measure would bar American banks from making new loans to the South African government, halt the sale of U.S.-made computers and software to government agencies that enforce apartheid laws and ban the export of American technology that could aid nuclear research or the production of nuclear weapons in South Africa.

House Version Stronger

It also would impose harsher measures in 18 months, if the white-minority government in Pretoria has not made significant progress by then in improving the civil rights of that nation’s nearly 23 million blacks.

The House had earlier passed a stronger version, and the two bills will have to be reconciled in conference committee. President Reagan, who has opposed sanctions, has not said whether he will veto a measure containing sanctions.

The impact on South Africa of the comparatively mild strictures contained in the Senate measure will be mostly psychological and political rather than economic, according to many analysts.

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), who led the fight against the bill, said that he was pleased with the results of conservatives’ delaying tactics--even though the measure passed--because “the kind of garbage” that several liberal backers had wanted to add to the measure was blocked.

“Everybody is opposed to apartheid, . . .” Helms said. “But in this case, we’re not only shooting South Africa’s foot, but our own, because we need the minerals they have and access to their shipping lanes.”

Meanwhile, Helms, who had also engineered a delay in confirming 28 Administration nominees to high posts in the State Department and other agencies, relented Thursday and agreed to a compromise with Senate leaders on the issue.

Under the compromise, 23 of the nominees--most named to ambassadorships--were confirmed unanimously on a voice vote. However, the nominations of five others about whom conservatives had expressed particular reservations will be considered Monday in separate votes.

In recent months, pressure on U.S. lawmakers to act had mounted as South African police and military clashed frequently with black demonstrators. At least 50 black protesters have been killed in the last two weeks alone.

The bill passed last month by the Democratic-controlled House, 295 to 127, is an even stronger measure which, in addition to those sanctions included in the Senate version, would ban all new American investment in South Africa unless the President and Congress agree that Pretoria is making sincere progress toward ending apartheid.

The House bill also would end sales in the United States of gold Krugerrand coins, one of South Africa’s most lucrative foreign exchange earners. To avoid increasing the threat of a conservative filibuster, liberals Thursday abandoned plans to append a similar Krugerrand ban to the Senate bill.

The overwhelming votes in both chambers were seen as signs that President Reagan, despite his dislike of sanctions, eventually may have to accept some form of legislation imposing penalties on South Africa.

But the fierce show of defiance that Senate conservatives were able to mount, delaying a vote for four days, also suggested that the final, compromise version to be worked out between House and Senate conferees may favor the less stringent Senate bill as the conferees attempt to avoid further delaying tactics by Senate conservatives.

Backers of the sanctions said that they are designed to increase pressure on Pretoria for change as well as to end the close American relationship with a nation whose white-minority government practices legal segregation and repression.

“We have become identified as apologists for apartheid,” complained Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) during Thursday’s debate.

But a small band of hard-line conservatives led by Helms vehemently defended Reagan’s low-key approach to South Africa, contending that sanctions would cost the jobs of many blacks there.