President’s Speech Draws Heavy Bipartisan Criticism : Reagan Faces Sanctions Battle With Congress

After a much-publicized review, the Reagan Administration’s reaffirmation of its controversial policy of “constructive engagement” toward South Africa has set up a major confrontation with Congress that is likely to end with legislatively mandated sanctions against the Pretoria regime.

Indeed, President Reagan had barely concluded his speech to foreign policy specialists Tuesday when Republican leaders in the Senate predicted that a measure to force sanctions would be passed with enough support to override a presidential veto.

In delivering his strongest denunciation of tough sanctions to date, Reagan spurned the advice of the Republican leaders, who had warned the President only a day earlier to leave the door open for punitive action or to risk having Congress become the driving force in setting South African policy.

Now, “the President is impaled on this thing,” Senate Assistant Majority Leader Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) declared after the speech.

Similarly, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) was clearly stunned that Reagan had so roundly ignored the sentiments of the Senate. Making the case for sanctions specifically targeted against the South African government, he argued, “These are not actions that close down mines--they do not bring about unemployment.”

As a start, Lugar said his committee within days would draft a bill that calls for a ban on U.S. landing rights for South African Airways, a limit on American visas for South African whites and a measure to freeze the U.S. bank assets of South Africans.

Although some of Reagan’s staunchest conservative allies, such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), are expected to filibuster against any sanctions bill, Reagan appears to have virtually no support from more moderate members of his party.

On the Democratic side, California Sen. Alan Cranston said, “Plainly, President Reagan is on a different wave length than a majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress.” He vowed, “Congress is now going to take the lead.”

And Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) predicted that there would be a “bloodbath” in South Africa if both Congress and the Commonwealth nations failed to adopt sanctions soon. He added, “The President continues to embrace a failed, flawed and bankrupt policy.”

‘Drive and Freshness’

One senior Administration official, who briefed reporters before the speech, conceded that Reagan is not offering much new in his Administration’s approach to South Africa. But the official contended that Reagan brought “a drive and freshness” to his restatement of familiar proposals.

Although “constructive engagement,” the Administration’s term for quiet talks with the South African government, appears to be alive and well, Reagan never mentioned the phrase during his address, apparently on Lugar’s advice. Asked about this omission, the official said, “I’ve been told that I shouldn’t use those words--and I won’t.”

However, the change appeared unlikely to assuage many Administration critics. “It’s the same policy they’ve had for six years--speak loudly and carry no stick at all,” said I. William Zartman, director of African studies in the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Bereft of News

The Administration originally had hoped to boost its credibility with Congress and stave off stronger action by making the nomination of black North Carolina businessman Robert J. Brown as ambassador to South Africa a centerpiece of the speech. But Brown’s decision to withdraw his name because of questions over his business practices left Reagan bereft of positive headline-making news in a major presidential speech.

Officials had hoped the President’s call for the release of the imprisoned leader of the outlawed African National Congress, Nelson Mandela, would receive the prime billing instead. But while Reagan said that “a timetable for elimination of apartheid laws should be set,” beginning with Mandela’s release, he did not seem willing to set such a timetable himself.

“No deadlines and no pressures,” Zartman observed. “He throws the ball in the other court and then walks away.”

Although an early draft of the speech prepared by the State Department advocated modest sanctions, such as banning landing rights and reducing the number of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Pretoria, White House policy-makers believe that those steps--while popular domestically--would set the United States on a collision course with the South African government.

“What we’ve done here doesn’t give us the kind of emotional release many people would like, but we’re going to continue to hold to that very difficult road that we’re on,” one White House official said. “You’ll have to make your own judgment which is more courageous.”

Meanwhile, according to Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-Conn.): “The mood in the House and Senate is such as to repudiate constructive engagement. The speech bolsters that.”