Shultz Hints at New S. Africa Action, Assails House Bill

Secretary of State George P. Shultz hinted Friday at new Reagan Administration actions against South Africa, but denounced House-passed legislation imposing tough economic sanctions as a “cop-out” that would end 20 years of gradual U.S. pressure against apartheid.

Talking to reporters aboard his Air Force jet on the first leg of a 10-day trip to Asia, Shultz described President Reagan’s South Africa policy as a continuation of U.S. government actions dating back to the John F. Kennedy Administration.

It was a sharp departure from the Administration’s earlier position, which drew clear distinctions between Reagan’s “constructive engagement” policy and the confrontational approach of former President Jimmy Carter.

By invoking the legacy of the Kennedy Administration, Shultz may hope to head off Senate approval of legislation, passed by the House on Wednesday, requiring a total break with South Africa including the withdrawal of American business firms. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), brother of John Kennedy, is one of the Senate sponsors of the legislation.

“The bill the House passed would essentially end that (policy of steady pressure), as far as I can see, by saying we would give up the power to apply pressure by simply withdrawing,” he said.

In those circumstances, he added, “there is not much (more) we could do other than applying direct military force.”

Shultz said U.S. pressure against South Africa should not be thought of as a switch that is either on or off.

“What we are trying to get ahold of is a rheostat,” he said, referring to the device used to regulate the brightness of an electric light. “In fact, that rheostat has been getting worked with for 20 years or more. It may get worked a little further.”

He declined to say what additional actions are being considered, but he warned, “Our ability to apply pressure is limited and to some extent needs to be husbanded.

Expects Re-Stabilization

“If we think there is a future, and we do, in South Africa when at some point things re-stabilize in a different form, then we want to be there and our firms want to be there and to get their business,” he said. “A total withdrawal is more of a cop-out than it is an effort to continue with the process.”

Shultz said U.S. action against the racial policies of South Africa’s white minority government began when the Kennedy Administration joined in an international embargo on arms sales, and it has continued through a series of actions, the latest of which was the expulsion last month of the senior military attache at the South African Embassy in Washington.

Shultz was reminded that the expulsion preceded the latest South African crackdown on black dissidents.

“I regard the state of emergency and the control of access to information about what is going on as a major backward step, and I hope that it doesn’t lead to a kind of feeling of hopelessness and that all that is left is confrontation,” he said.

Shultz’s plane stopped to refuel in Alaska on the way to a trip to Hong Kong, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and the Palau Islands. It will be Shultz’s first visit to Palau, about 600 miles east of Mindanao in the Philippines, since 1944 when, as a Marine officer, he participated in the invasion of the island group, then held by the Japanese.

On other topics, he told reporters:

--The Soviet Union has not yet agreed to send Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze to meet with him to begin planning for the next U.S.-Soviet summit, despite a new U.S. concession agreeing to hold the meeting in Europe instead of the United States.

--Recent public rallies in the Philippines in support of deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos are “not the central issue. . . . The central issue is continuing the reforms that are under way, . . . continuing the process that seems to be getting started of economic invigoration.”

No Hang-Up on Locale

Shultz said the United States dropped its insistance on playing host to his next meeting with Shevardnadze because, “for reasons best known to the Soviets, some place outside of either the Soviet Union or the United States would be better from their standpoint. We don’t have a hang-up about that.”

Under normal diplomatic protocol, the next meeting would be in the United States because the last one was in Moscow.

Shultz said the United States is not prepared to restrict Marcos’ political activities from his exile home in Hawaii because that would constitute a violation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.