S. Africa Outlook Grim, Tutu Says : Aide Concedes Limitations of U.S. Policy

The Reagan Administration’s top Africa specialist said Friday that the U.S. government’s policy of “constructive engagement” has not produced adequate racial reforms in South Africa but that economic sanctions would accomplish even less.

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester A. Crocker did little to mask his disappointment at the hard-line speech delivered Thursday by South African President Pieter W. Botha, but he said Washington should not abandon its efforts to influence the white minority government.

“It won’t be in our interest to walk away and sever our contact (with South Africa),” Crocker said in a speech to the Commonwealth Club. “We don’t intend to do so.”

Option of Dealing

Crocker tried to distance the Reagan Administration from the Pretoria government while retaining the option of dealing with South Africa through diplomatic means--a policy that has been called “constructive engagement”--instead of trying to punish and isolate the white-minority regime.

Crocker repeated the Administration’s familiar objections to legislation now awaiting final action in Congress that would impose economic sanctions on the Pretoria regime. He said the sanctions would hurt black workers far more than the government and would end any American hope of influencing the government. Besides, he said, such sanctions would not work.

“No single state can impose its will unilaterally (on another), no matter how unequal the power relationship may seem,” he said.

In the Senate, where a filibuster by conservatives blocked action before Congress’ August recess on a compromise sanctions bill agreed to in a House-Senate conference, Botha’s speech drew a generally chilly reaction.

Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kan.), who has advocated only mild sanctions until now, said Botha’s remarks “make it more difficult for those of us who have been trying to hold the line against pressures on South Africa that we feel could be counterproductive.”

Kassebaum said she was disappointed that there were “no specifics in President Botha’s speech that would help defuse the political violence in South Africa.” She criticized Botha for presenting “very important issues in a very unclear manner” and for failing to respond to the rising expectations of South African blacks.

“I fear it will only add more fuel to the fire of those who wish to use violence as a solution,” Kassebaum said.

‘Minor Tinkering’

And in the view of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Botha offered only “minor tinkering with the apartheid system” and basically “the continued maintenance of the white minority government’s totalitarian control over the black majority.” By rejecting the “one-man, one-vote” principle, Kerry said, “Botha is rejecting membership in the Western community of free nations.”

Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) predicted that “concern and disappointment” at Botha’s tone will spur Senate passage of the bill. He declined to speculate on chances that President Reagan will reject the bill but said if there is a veto, “there is a good likelihood that it will be overridden.”

The chief author of “constructive engagement,” Crocker used much bleaker language in assessing the situation than he had employed in previous speeches. Nevertheless, he said, “It may sound unduly optimistic, but compromise and reconciliation in this strife-torn area remain within reach. No responsible South African (of any race) wants to turn his country into an economic basket case.”

Crocker clearly was on the defensive throughout his speech.

“Being involved through our presence and our program means having tools of influence, rolling up our sleeves and pursuing our goals,” he said. “It does not mean being seduced by a status quo that is overwhelmingly repellent to Americans.”

He conceded that it is difficult to claim any recent accomplishments for “constructive engagement.”

“It would be a mistake for us to exaggerate what means of influence we do have,” Crocker said. He added there were encouraging signs a year ago, but “we’re living in a period now where there have been setbacks. We do not shrink from saying so. But our approach is one which is most likely to give us a chance to use what tools we do have.”

Crocker even declined to describe U.S.-South African relations as “friendly.” He said, “To describe the constructive engagement policy as one of friendship is a grotesque distortion.”

“We do not endorse in this Administration the limited changes that have been made--they are not enough,” he added.

The State Department official echoed a statement issued Thursday by the White House which referred to Botha’s speech as an important declaration containing some new elements. But Crocker said it must be followed soon by concrete reforms.

He said it is up to the Botha government to create political conditions that would persuade skeptical black leaders to agree to negotiations. While insisting that the United States is not trying to set the agenda, he said the Pretoria government could improve the atmosphere by scrapping the hated “pass laws” and by agreeing to the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela, the black activist who has been imprisoned since 1961.

Crocker referred to Botha’s assertion that his government was “crossing the Rubicon” by offering to open political negotiations with the country’s black majority and added, “The crossing of Rubicons in white politics simply can’t be stated, it must be demonstrated.”

Crocker said the Botha speech was difficult for Americans to understand because it was “written in the code language of a foreign culture within a polarized society” and as such raised many questions which only time will answer.

Crocker said that in the special language of South African politics, Botha’s assertion that his government would never permit a “one-man, one-vote” system may not mean that the government is determined to forever deny political rights to the country’s 25 million blacks, who account for 74% of the population.

But, he added, “If that’s what it means, then the situation is hopeless.”

Times staff writer Don Irwin in Washington contributed to this story.