U.S. to Seek Joint Action on Sanctions : Would Coordinate With Europe; May Name Black Envoy

President Reagan, apparently reacting to a firestorm of criticism, has softened his opposition to sanctions against South Africa and will seek action against the white-ruled government in concert with European allies, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said Friday.

“Unilateral steps would pale in relation to what we could do in concert with our allies, and that’s what we intend to do,” Speakes said.

Assistant Secretary of State Chester A. Crocker leaves for London on Tuesday to consult with allied leaders about what the Administration characterizes as “non-punitive” steps against South Africa, including the denial of travel visas to white government officials seeking to visit the United States or European countries.

May Name Black Envoy

At the same time, the White House appeared close to naming Terence A. Todman, 50, a black Foreign Service officer, as the next ambassador to Pretoria. Todman, now U.S. ambassador to Denmark, has been recalled to the State Department for consultations.

The White House has been anxious to name a black to the post to underscore symbolically its opposition to apartheid. An earlier decision to nominate North Carolina businessman Robert J. Brown fell through when questions arose about Brown’s past business dealings.

Todman, who has held ambassadorial posts in several nations, including Spain, Costa Rica and Chad, presumably would be easily confirmed by the Senate. A spokesman for Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Lugar had suggested Todman and “considers him an excellent choice.”

Plea for Patience

The White House, attempting to put a better face on its South African policy after the negative reaction to Reagan’s speech Tuesday, appealed to congressional leaders at home as well as irate black leaders in South Africa to be patient as the Administration continues its “ongoing policy review.”

Remarks by South African Bishop Desmond Tutu--who called Reagan’s speech “nauseating” and said that “the West can go to hell”--were “not helpful to the situation,” Speakes said.

“We would just hope that these individuals would continue to try to work for a peaceful resolution of the problems there,” and not resort to such rhetoric, Speakes said. “We want to be helpful.”

A senior White House official defended Reagan’s turnaround on sanctions as a “tactical” maneuver designed to maximize leverage on the recalcitrant South African leadership. But another top official, speaking on the condition that he not be identified, said the shifting policy stands reflect “disagreements that are broad and, in many cases, quite deep” within the Administration.

Speakes told reporters that “non-punitive” sanctions are actively being considered at the White House, even though Reagan did not mention any of them in his address Tuesday to foreign policy specialists. Denying visas to South Africa’s white elite, limiting U.S. Embassy personnel in Pretoria and banning U.S. landing rights for South African Airways are all measures Reagan could invoke at some point, he said.

Speakes also left open the possibility that Reagan might take some unilateral steps if he fails to win European support for joint action. For example, it is considered all but certain that Reagan will renew and possibly expand an executive order banning computer sales to the South African government when it expires Sept. 9.

Sanctions Defined

Speakes defined non-punitive sanctions as measures specifically targeted against the South African government and ruling elite that would not cause widespread economic hardship for the country’s majority black population.

He said Crocker’s mission is not designed to sell the allies on a certain set of sanctions, but for “true consultations” to determine what common ground, if any, the allies share in dealing with the white-ruled government in Pretoria.

Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is under even more intense pressure than Reagan to accept some form of sanctions. One White House official said that Reagan’s hard-line rhetoric against sanctions earlier this week stemmed in part from his desire “to stand shoulder-to-shoulder” with Thatcher, who was alone among the allies in supporting Reagan’s bombing raid on Libya earlier this year.

Slow to Adopt Sanctions

The Europeans have been slow to adopt sanctions against Pretoria, in part because of their substantial economic investments in the South African economy. While the United States depends on South Africa for certain strategic minerals, its dollar investment in the country is relatively minor. “It’s much more of an economic problem for them,” said a White House official.

After a dizzying week of policy pronouncements, the White House appears headed for some sort of compromise that would embrace limited, non-punitive sanctions “targeted on those in the decision-making process” of the South African government, a senior official said.

But even that narrowly focused attempt to extricate Reagan from a political hot spot drew criticism from hard-liners within the Administration who had urged Reagan to hang tough on sanctions.

“It doesn’t make sense to deny South Africa landing rights while Aeroflot (the official Soviet airline) is here,” said a disgruntled White House aide. “The South Africans, for all their faults, don’t have 9,000 ballistic missiles pointed at us.”

Times staff writer Norman Kempster contributed to this story.