Curb Defends S. Africa Stands of Deukmejian, Reagan

Former Lt. Gov. Mike Curb on Monday defended both Gov. George Deukmejian’s backing of tougher sanctions against South Africa and President Reagan’s refusal to go along with stronger actions against the racist regime.

“If you really look at (Deukmejian’s) position on the issue and look at President Reagan’s position, there’s not the level of difference that some might want to make of it,” Curb said at a luncheon campaign appearance.

Curb, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, said he supports the Republican governor’s plan to put indirect pressure on the South African government by gradually selling off $11 billion in investments in companies that do business in that nation.

But he told the Conservative Order of Good Guys, a conservative Republican group, that he is “darn thankful for Ronald Reagan’s position” on South African sanctions.

Pending in Congress

Reagan, in contrast to Deukmejian, has opposed increasing economic sanctions against South Africa and has threatened to veto pro-sanction legislation pending in Congress. Reagan, who has opposed the sort of divestment policy Deukmejian has advocated for California, has said South Africa should set its own timetable for eliminating apartheid, in which the white minority rules the black majority.

“I think this though,” Curb said. “We must make sure as we talk about divestiture that we also remember that we’ve had some pretty bad experiences in recent history in Nicaragua and Iran, where our country has played a role in changing governments that maybe we had second thoughts about afterwards.

“I don’t think we ever want to see South Africa fall into the hands of the ANC (African National Congress) or the ANC and whatever Soviet influence might ultimately be there,” Curb added.

“So I am darn thankful for Ronald Reagan’s position . . . and the fact that he does not cave in to popular polls and walk away. I find it very comforting to follow what Ronald Reagan is doing on this issue,” he said.

‘Symbolic Nature’

But Curb said he thought “the symbolic nature of what George Deukmejian has done is meaningful with respect to our students, so I do not find a tremendous difference between Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian.”

Curb found himself defending both positions after a member of the audience said he thought Deukmejian was “getting into fields he has no business getting into” by backing the divestiture bill.

Asked afterward about his remarks, Curb said that what he meant was that “ultimately (Deukmejian and the President) would not be as far apart as some people think.”