Should De Klerk Get a State Visit?

Like his predecessor, Pieter W. Botha, South Africa President Frederik W. de Klerk is intent on repairing relations with other nations. Thus, much is being made in Pretoria of the royal reception De Klerk was accorded on his visit to the Ivory Coast, his first visit out of the country since his election. But there is nothing to judge the significance of the trip beyond its cordial atmospherics.

Unlike his predecessor, De Klerk has articulated a commitment to broad political change. This has inspired suggestions that Washington follow the example of the Ivory Coast with an invitation for a state visit by De Klerk and a relaxation of sanctions. This would be a mistake, as the Bush Administration seems to understand. Washington, wisely, has adopted a wait-and-see attitude while giving the new South African leader the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Caution is dictated by two considerations. First, the reforms that De Klerk has undertaken, however remarkable they may seem against the background of repressive racism in South Africa, are largely cosmetic and do not yet address the fundamentals of racism and segregation that drive apartheid. And, second, what few reforms there are appear to be coming in response to pressure, not least the pressure of American sanctions (even though they have not been faithfully applied).

The goal of the Bush Administration is “a nonracial and democratic South Africa,” Herman J. Cohen, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, told Congress recently. De Klerk has rejected both concepts, affirming instead government by groups, meaning races, while rejecting universal suffrage in the sense commonly understood in practicing democracies--that is, one person, one vote.

Cohen spelled out some of the conditions required if there’s to be any chance to achieve the dialogue De Klerk has promised the people of South Africa. Among those conditions are an end to the 4-year-old national state of emergency,release of Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners, return of the political exiles and legalization of the African National Congress and other opposition groups that are now banned.

The new assistant secretary recognized the importance of “balancing pressure and incentives” and, in so doing, specifically committed the Administration “to effective enforcement of our existing sanctions.” This commitment is now being tested following exposure in The Times of flagrant abuses in steel imports from South Africa by Americans ready to look for loopholes rather than adhere to the intent of the law. This matter is now under review by the State Department.

As we understand Administration thinking, it will be watching the next session of the South African Parliament with special interest. The Parliament convenes in February and ends in July. On its agenda will be De Klerk’s call for abolition of the Separate Amenities Act. Though promising, that would be but a modest beginning of what needs to happen if there is to be true dialogue. His cutbacks in military service and the military budget also are promising. So was his surprise visit with Mandela--and his commitment Friday to cooperate with Mozambique. But only when there has been fulfillment of the fundamentals for dialogue can Washington usefully consider an invitation to De Klerk to come to the White House.

Yes, communication is important, and Felix Houphouet-Boigny, president of the Ivory Coast, whose collaboration with South Africa is long-standing, may have helped it along. Other South African presidents have been welcomed to Abidjan, but none with the ceremony accorded De Klerk. The meaning of the visit, however, will be measured not just in expanding contacts between Pretoria and other African nations, but what it means for the disenfranchised black majority in South Africa.