U.S. Ties Improve, S. Africa Envoy Says : He Calls Pretoria’s Independence Plan for Namibia the Reason

WASHINGTON — Despite continuing American objections to apartheid, U.S. relations with South Africa have improved as a result of the Pretoria regime’s new plan for Namibian independence, South African Ambassador Herbert Beukes said Wednesday.

The week-old proposal to begin U.N.-sponsored independence of Namibia on Aug. 1, provided that neighboring Angola agrees to a timetable for withdrawal of an estimated 30,000 Cuban troops, has removed one possible cause of U.S.-South African friction, Beukes said during a breakfast with members of The Times’ Washington Bureau.

“I believe the convergence centers around the (American) acceptance of the fact that, yes, South Africa has given a very credible expression and commitment to resolving the Namibian issue. . . . It seems to me that some Western governments believe that’s a reasonable stand that we are taking,” he said.

Beukes dismissed as possible “public posturing” the Angolan government’s immediate rejection of Pretoria’s terms for ending South African control of Namibia, or South-West Africa. The former German colony, a sparsely populated, mostly desert territory, was taken over by South Africa during World War I and administered under a League of Nations mandate, which was terminated by the United Nations in 1966.

‘Firmer Than Final’

He said the Angolan government may accept the proposal when it realizes that South Africa will not soften its demand for withdrawal of Cuban troops. On that issue, he said, Pretoria’s position is “even firmer than final.”

Beukes charged that thousands of Cuban troops, mostly blacks, have been “integrated” into Angolan society, possibly as a trick to circumvent an agreement for Cuban withdrawal. He said South Africa will accept this.

He also said: “It will not be acceptable if they were just to move those (Cuban) people to where they had been until 1974 . . . the Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia or Mozambique . . . where they could be flown back on short notice.”

Beukes said he expects anti-apartheid activists in Congress to try this year to legislate stiffer economic sanctions against South Africa than the mild measures imposed last year by the Reagan Administration. He declined to predict how successful the campaign would be.

Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.), one of the leaders of the anti-South Africa bloc, vowed a new campaign for economic sanctions.

“The situation in South Africa has gotten much worse,” Gray said. “They are killing more (people) than they were a year ago. . . . There is a good possibility you will see pressure within Congress for additional action.

“It’s tragic that the United States continues to identify itself with racism,” he said.

Administration Chided

Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, chided the Administration for “trying to identify progress where none has occurred.”

But Chester A. Crocker, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, said, “President Reagan has directed us to be even more actively engaged across the political spectrum in South Africa during this painful period.

“Violence and repression occur at levels that disturb all of us who hope for peaceful change,” Crocker added. “South Africa is still a divided country, with much suspicion and mistrust.”

Beukes, citing South African and Western intelligence reports, predicted that the Angolan government will launch a new offensive against rebel leader Jonas Savimbi next month. He said that Savimbi, who is supported by Washington and Pretoria, should be able to blunt the attack if he receives promised U.S. military aid.

Asked if South Africa, which has used its own military forces in the past to support Savimbi and his guerrillas, would intervene militarily to prevent a rebel defeat, Beukes said, “We wouldn’t want the Cubans to roll up to the Namibian border, let’s put it that way.”

He carefully avoided saying that South African troops would be committed but said that a Savimbi defeat “would confront us with a very serious decision.”

Times staff writers Karen Tumulty and Don Shannon contributed to this story.