Reagan Prepares to Review Policy Toward Pretoria

President Reagan is preparing to review his controversial policy of “constructive engagement” toward South Africa and soon will receive from his advisers a number of proposals aimed at forcing changes in the white minority government’s system of apartheid, a senior Administration official said Wednesday.

The official, who spoke to reporters on condition that he not be identified, indicated that a new list of options has been drawn up in response to the increased violence and the recently declared state of emergency in South Africa and to growing pressure from Congress for a change in U.S. policy.

Contrast to Denials

Reagan’s statement was in sharp contrast to frequent denials by White House officials that there are any plans to review U.S. relations with the Pretoria regime.

Although the official declined to discuss any options under consideration, Republican sources in the Senate said Reagan could be on the verge of imposing limited economic sanctions against South Africa. Such a move would preempt further action by the House and Senate, which have passed measures imposing sanctions but have been unable to agree on a compromise bill.

“I would expect the effectiveness of current measures to be assessed and a possible strengthening to make clear our commitment to our goal, which is change away from apartheid at as fast a pace as possible,” the Administration official said of the upcoming policy review.

Meanwhile, he said, the White House intends to claim credit for the improvements in the South African policy of racial separation that have occurred in recent years. Officials have drawn up a list of 17 such changes--including abolition this year of the Mixed Marriages and Immorality Act.

But he cautioned that he does not expect any change in the Administration’s basic stance that the United States must continue to maintain relations with the Pretoria government to affect policy there--a premise that has been at the heart of Reagan’s course of “constructive engagement.”

“I wouldn’t anticipate any fundamental change,” he said. “The policy from the beginning has been designed to influence change at as rapid a pace as possible toward internal stability and regional peace. It is founded upon the premise, which the President continues to believe, that you can best influence change by having influence.”

In recent weeks, the Reagan Administration has moved away from its emphasis on private diplomacy with South Africa by taking two highly visible steps. These were the recall of the U.S. ambassador June 14 to protest South African raids on guerrilla strongholds in Botswana and Angola and the issuance of a White House statement earlier this week holding the white minority government largely responsible for the increased violence.

No date has yet been set for Ambassador Herman W. Nickel to return to Pretoria. Indeed, the senior Administration official said that Nickel’s continued presence in Washington will be “useful” during the upcoming review of policy options.

The Democratic View

Democrats in Congress contend that the Administration has no choice but to consider a new policy toward South Africa in light of the current violence and the state of emergency imposed last Saturday.

“Clearly, the establishment of a state of emergency was the final nail in the coffin of the policy of constructive engagement,” said Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.).

According to Solarz, apartheid is fast becoming a potent political issue in the United States.

“In the last couple of months,” he said, “South Africa has moved from the back stage to the front stage of American politics, where I think it is likely to remain for quite awhile.”

Apparently responding to a political shift, the Republican-controlled Senate voted for the first time July 11 to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, including a ban on U.S. bank loans to the Pretoria government and a prohibition against the sale of computers to government agencies that enforce apartheid laws.

Differences Over Sanctions

Since then, however, the Senate and House have been unable to resolve their differences over sanctions. The Democratic-controlled House had passed an even tougher measure, which also would impose an immediate ban on new investment by U.S. firms to South Africa.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) has tried without success to persuade House Democrats to accept the Senate version, on the grounds that anything stronger would be subject to a filibuster by conservative senators--and a likely veto by the President.

But Democrats in both the House and Senate insist that Reagan cannot veto a sanctions bill in the current political climate without risking a strong public backlash. Sen. Alan Cranston of California said the situation in South Africa “provides greater strength for a strong bill and provides more strength to get it through the Senate and get the President to sign it.”

But Senate Republicans suggested that Reagan could deprive House Democrats of a political victory on this issue by imposing some of the Senate-passed sanctions before any legislation is sent to the Congress.

“The White House could come out of this looking like the good guys because of the stupidity of the House Democrats,” one Senate Republican source said.

Administration officials have said that while Reagan strongly opposes the House bill, he also has reservations about the Senate version. But Lugar and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) have expressed confidence that they can convince the President to sign the Senate bill.

Policy Shifts Urged

In an interview with CBS News from Johannesburg on Wednesday, Bishop Desmond Tutu renewed his call for a change in U.S. policy in light of the current state of emergency.

“What would have been the reaction of Mr. Reagan if it was not black people who--500 or more of them--were killed in August?” asked Tutu, a Nobel Prize winner and a leading opponent of apartheid.

“What would have been his reaction if those casualties were white? Would he be sitting and making rhetorical statements, which mean absolutely nothing, while he is giving aid and comfort to as vicious a system as apartheid?”