House OKs New Curbs on S. Africa : Bill Would Halt Virtually All Trade, Cancel Investment

The Democratic-controlled House, in a move that the Reagan Administration contends will undermine peace talks in southern Africa, Thursday passed a sweeping anti-apartheid bill that would virtually halt trade and cancel all U.S. investments in South Africa.

Supporters acknowledged that the legislation, which passed the House 244 to 132 with the support of only two dozen Republicans, was far more radical than the sanctions that Congress imposed against South Africa two years ago over President Reagan’s veto.

“This is a tough bill,” Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-Fla.) said. “This bill comes as close to economic warfare as you could get between two nations.”

Would Bar Military Links

In addition to requiring divestiture and embargoing trade, the legislation would bar the Interior Department from issuing new coal, gas or oil leases to firms that conduct business with South Africa. It also would outlaw intelligence sharing and military cooperation between the United States and the Pretoria government.

The sanctions are unlikely to be enacted in their current form, however. Not only has the President pledged to veto the measure, but support for sanctions is much weaker among Democrats in the Senate.

In fact, the Senate currently has no plans to consider a separate sanctions bill before the final adjournment of the 100th Congress in October. But House Democrats hope to force a Senate vote on the issue in September by attaching the measure passed Thursday to legislation that is certain to be considered in the other chamber.

Parties Split on Issue

Few issues have divided Republicans and Democrats in the House as cleanly along party lines as South African sanctions, and Democrats view the split as one that will help them and their presidential candidate, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, in the November election. Polls show that a majority of Americans support sanctions against South Africa.

“Why is this bill being taken up now?” Rep. William S. Broomfield (R-Mich.) asked. “The answer is simple: This is the Dukakis-Jackson foreign policy initiative . . . timed to provide a boost to his presidential campaign,” he said in a reference to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who urged tougher action against South Africa in his unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Republicans charged that the Democrats had scheduled a vote Thursday in a blatant effort to embarrass the party and its certain presidential nominee, Vice President George Bush, on the eve of the Republican National Convention, which opens Monday in New Orleans.

Thirty-one Republicans were not even present for the final vote because many had already departed for New Orleans. “You picked on the one day when the Republican Party was going to be substantially weakened,” Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.) said.

Speaking for the Democrats, California Rep. Ronald V. Dellums of Berkeley, primary author of the legislation, denied any political motives in raising the issue Thursday. He said the measure was being voted upon now because the 1986 sanctions legislation had failed to bring an end to the South African government’s policy of racial separation.

“We are not bringing this bill to embarrass Republicans,” he insisted. “We are here to free black South Africa. This has nothing to do with presidential politics.”

Republicans opposed the measure on grounds that it would exact an economic toll on the victims of apartheid--the blacks who are employed by U.S.-owned interests in South Africa. In addition, they asserted that sanctions would only increase the determination of the white minority to remain in power.

Revolution a Possibility

“If you impose these sanctions,” Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) cautioned, “there is going to be a bloody revolution, and the blacks will not win because they do not have the weapons.”

Rep. Ron Marlenee (R-Mont.) added that Democrats were “advocating a scorched-earth policy against a very Christian--and I emphasize Christian--nation which has been a longstanding friend.”

At the State Department, spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said the timing of the vote also would undermine U.S.-mediated talks among South Africa, Angola and Cuba over the political future of southern Africa.

“The House debate is more likely to complicate than promote a successful conclusion,” she said.

One of the most controversial portions of the bill would force domestic oil companies, including Mobil, Texaco and Chevron, to dispose of their interests in South Africa. Oil-state members of Congress expressed the fear that it would increase economic hardship in their region, which already is suffering from lower oil prices.

Democrats acknowledged that the measure would not be painless--either in the United States or in South Africa--but they insisted it was necessary for the United States to express its unqualified opposition to the racial policies of the Pretoria government.

Eloquent on Issue

“Sanctions hurt, but apartheid kills,” declared Dellums, whose eloquence on the issue won him a standing ovation from his colleagues in the House.

In addition, Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.) argued that the white minority enjoys most of the rewards of trade with the United States. American firms employ only 48,000 of South Africa’s 26 million black workers, he asserted.

Republican efforts to weaken the bill were easily defeated by the Democrats. The House voted 259 to 125 against a substitute measure sponsored by Indiana’s Burton that would have eliminated all new sanctions but retained $40 million in the bill for U.S. aid to disadvantaged South Africans.

By a vote of 236 to 155, the House also rejected an amendment by Broomfield that would have permitted the President to waive the sanctions if West Germany, France, Japan, Britain and Italy do not adopt similar measures targeted at South Africa. Opponents of the Broomfield amendment argued that Reagan failed to follow the mandate of the 1986 legislation, which instructed him to persuade U.S. allies to impose their own sanctions.

As passed, the House bill requires U.S. companies with South African investments to divest them within 180 days. The President would be permitted to grant a one-time waiver of an additional 180 days to any person or company that made a good case for an extension.

The import ban would apply to all South African goods except strategic minerals that the President deems necessary for the U.S. economy, publications and imports from businesses owned wholly by black South Africans. Only agricultural products, publications, humanitarian assistance and charitable contributions would be exempted from the export ban.