U.S. Ties S. Africa Policy to Violence : Harsh Statement Cites Apartheid’s ‘Responsibility’

The Reagan Administration, in an unusually harsh response to the declaration of a state of emergency in South Africa, said Monday that the white minority government in Pretoria bears “a considerable responsibility” for causing the current violence in that country because of its apartheid policy.

The White House statement, read by Deputy Press Secretary Larry Speakes, reflected an increasingly tough approach by the Administration toward South Africa. Barely five weeks ago, the United States recalled its ambassador for what were termed “consultations” in response to a cross-border military raid by South Africa against guerrilla strongholds in neighboring Botswana.

Although Speakes did not specifically call on South African officials to lift the state of emergency, he indicated that the United States does not approve of it. He added that the Reagan Administration expects the South African government “to exercise its responsibilities in a scrupulous manner.”

Some Responsibility

The Administration, which Speakes described as “very disturbed” by the increasing violence in South Africa, finds it “understandable” that Pretoria wants to restore law and order. But he said the authorities there must accept some blame for causing the situation.

“The South African government bears a considerable responsibility at this time,” he said. “The period of violence must be ended . . . so that South Africa can proceed into a meaningful political dialogue which would lead to basic reforms, moving away from apartheid, which system we consider to be repugnant and largely responsible for the current violence.”

Speakes insisted that his statement reflects no change in the Administration’s policy of “constructive engagement” toward South Africa, even though that strategy has previously ruled out strident public statements in place of quiet diplomacy.

‘Still in Close Touch’

U.S. policy, he said, is “still to remain in close touch and work closely with the South Africans and make our views known to them on a continuing basis.”

In addition, Speakes said, there has been no change in the Administration’s opposition to differing House and Senate bills that threaten to impose sanctions against South Africa. A House-Senate conference committee is expected to meet later this week in an effort to smooth out differences between those measures.

The Senate bill would impose economic sanctions--including a ban on bank loans to the South African government and a prohibition against the sale of computers for use in the enforcement of apartheid, the policy of institutionalized racial separation.

The House bill, which also provides for sanctions, is tougher than the Senate version because it would also impose an immediate ban on new investment by U.S. firms with business in that country.

Possibility of a Veto

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tried without success to persuade the House to accept the Senate bill without a conference on the ground that Reagan would certainly veto any measure tougher than the Senate version.

White House officials have expressed a desire to weaken sanctions in both versions, but the President himself has not publicly mentioned the possibility of a veto.

Members of Congress in both parties argue that their legislation has nudged the Administration toward a tougher stance on South Africa.

In addition, Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.) called on the Administration Sunday to denounce the South African government “for being primarily responsible for the cause and creation of the turmoil.”

Although the President said last month that he has no intention of breaking relations with the Pretoria government, State Department officials said that U.S. Ambassador Herman W. Nickel has not returned to South Africa since being recalled June 14. No date has yet been set for Nickel’s return, officials said.