Shultz Urges Contacts With S. Africa, End of Pullouts

Secretary of State George P. Shultz said Thursday that the Reagan Administration is determined to maintain diplomatic contacts with South Africa, in effect reaffirming the basic tenets of “constructive engagement,” despite an overwhelming repudiation of that policy by Congress.

“Sanctions by themselves do not amount to an effective policy in southern Africa,” Shultz said. “The time ahead is one for diplomacy, guided by a long-term view of our interests and objectives.”

In a speech to a group of U.S. business leaders, Shultz also urged American corporations to resist political and economic pressure to withdraw from South Africa and pledged that the Administration will “strongly support those firms that have taken the tough decision to stay.”

Shultz called for an end to the business withdrawal movement that has included more than 60 American firms since January, 1985, among them such giants as General Motors, IBM and Eastman Kodak. Two more companies--Honeywell and Revlon--announced Thursday that they are withdrawing.

“The attacks on American corporate involvement in South Africa are both ironic and unwarranted because American business has been a force for promoting interracial decency and equality,” he said.

It was the Administration’s first comprehensive statement of its intentions in South Africa since Congress imposed sanctions in October by overriding President Reagan’s veto. Although Shultz said that the sanctions “are the law of the land and we will enforce them,” he made it clear that the Administration has not softened its opposition to economic penalties against the white minority government.

Although the representative of the International Management and Development Institute who introduced Shultz said the group was interested in the spreading Iran arms controversy, the secretary did not deviate from his subject. He seemed to welcome an opportunity to divert attention, even if only briefly, from Iran and Nicaragua.

“It is not enough to campaign against apartheid,” Shultz said. “South Africans must know what the West stands for as the country redefines itself politically. We believe that the leaders of southern Africa--whatever their rhetoric of the moment--want us to be there, lending a hand. . . . It is the road of involvement--not disengagement--that will bring us closer to our goals.”

Chides Whites, Blacks

Shultz accused the Pretoria regime of repression and violations of basic human rights. But he said the leading black opposition groups are too prone to violence.

“Repression only deepens black determination to end the apartheid system . . . violence only stiffens white resistance,” he said.

Nevertheless, Shultz expressed sympathy for the aspirations of both blacks and whites. “We do not ask that black South Africans temper their passion for change,” Shultz said. “We share it. We only ask that it be channeled into constructive strategies for reconciliation.

“It is equally important to assure South Africa’s whites of their security as individuals and as a community,” he added. “We share with white South Africans a heritage of resistance to colonialism, a frontier tradition and an appreciation of entrepreneurial enterprise in an expanding modern economy.

U.S. to Back Dialogue

“Our objective is to encourage the extension of the full benefits of citizenship--which white South Africans so rightly cherish--to all of their countrymen,” he said. “If whites begin a meaningful political dialogue . . . with all their fellow South Africans, they will have firm--I repeat firm--American support.”

Although Shultz recited a long list of missed opportunities by the white government, he injected a tone of relentless optimism, citing both the “impressive strides in the organizational and political capabilities of black groups” and the determined efforts of the country’s outnumbered parliamentary opposition.

But on his list of bright spots, Shultz included the recently signed Indaba accord for a multiracial government in Natal province without mentioning that the plan was rejected by a key minister in the central government in Pretoria.