U.S. Leaders Hail News but Storm Is Brewing Over Lifting of Sanctions

While President Bush joined other U.S. leaders Saturday in hailing the imminent release of black activist Nelson R. Mandela, a political storm already was brewing over whether the move warrants relaxation of U.S. sanctions against South Africa.

From his retreat at Camp David, Bush telephoned South African President Frederik W. de Klerk and “pledged U.S. willingness to help create a climate for negotiations” between the nation’s white minority leadership and its black majority.

Bush also invited the South African leader for talks at the White House, adding that Mandela would also be invited after his scheduled release today from 27 years of imprisonment.

In a separate statement, Bush praised De Klerk for showing “bold and imaginative leadership in recent days, which has earned the admiration of many of us who hope for swift and peaceful evolution in South Africa.”

Under De Klerk, South Africa has legalized the African National Congress and about 60 other banned political groups, freed leading black prisoners and pledged to negotiate a new constitution. In his dramatic announcement Saturday, De Klerk also said that a nationwide state of emergency would be lifted if no further violence accompanied Mandela’s release.

Although Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman J. Cohen said De Klerk’s initiatives could lead to the lifting of U.S. sanctions “within the next few weeks,” black leaders and key lawmakers cautioned the Administration not to move too fast.

California Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the United States “should continue to use the moral and economic lever of even more stringent sanctions as a vehicle for helping to accelerate the end of apartheid in a nonviolent context.

“While I welcome the release of Nelson Mandela from almost three decades of imprisonment for his political beliefs,” Dellums said, “I am concerned that no mention has been made about the release of more than 2,000 other black South Africans still in prison because of their struggle to end apartheid.”

The issue of imprisoned blacks has been controversial because many held on criminal charges are considered by black opposition leaders to be political prisoners.

Sanctions imposed by Congress in 1986 over President Ronald Reagan’s veto prohibit new U.S. investment and bank loans in South Africa; bar imports of South African iron, steel, coal, uranium and agricultural products; outlaw sales of computers to South Africa, and prohibit U.S. landings by South African Airways.

Under the terms of the law, Bush is empowered to modify or suspend the sanctions if political prisoners are freed and if South Africa meets any three of four other conditions.

The four conditions are:

-- Repealing the 1986 state of emergency.

-- Lifting a ban on democratic political parties and allowing all races to participate in the political process.

-- Repealing the Group Areas Act, the apartheid law dictating where blacks can live and work.

-- Negotiating with the black majority without preconditions.

The 3 1/2-year-old state of emergency allows South African police to detain suspects for up to six months without charging them or bringing them to trial. It also allows the government to restrict protests and to bar the press from areas of unrest.

Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.), House majority whip and author of the 1986 sanctions legislation, also indicated his opposition to a quick lifting to sanctions.

“Just because we freed one man doesn’t mean that we freed an entire nation,” Gray said.

Randall Robinson, executive director of TransAfrica, an anti-apartheid group, also argued against lifting sanctions.

“Clearly, the U.S. has played a significant role in bringing the South African government to this historic point,” Robinson said. “Progress could be seriously stalled by the failure of the U.S. and European governments to maintain sanctions and continue pressure for further reform.”

Robinson termed Mandela’s release “a tiny step on a long road to dismantling the apartheid system.”

Last week, President Bush hinted that he was interested in lifting sanctions.

“I think when people move in the right direction, it is certainly time to review all policy,” he said.

Administration sources stressed that Bush would not move precipitously without consulting Congress. But a congressional source involved in the issue expressed concern that the White House might try to loosen sanctions before serious negotiations between South Africa’s blacks and whites are under way.

Among the possible first steps would be lifting the ban on landing rights for South African Airways, the source said.

Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), chairman of a Senate subcommittee on African affairs, announced that he was “indefinitely suspending” further action by his subcommittee on a bill that would expand existing sanctions. But Simon also noted that Mandela’s release and the conditional pledge to lift the state of emergency in South Africa “still fall short of an end to apartheid, and it is premature for the United States to begin lifting sanctions at this point.”

Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Mich.), chairman of a House subcommittee on Africa who met with De Klerk in South Africa last month, urged the Administration to be “very careful” in handling the issue.

“There are still hundreds upon hundreds of political prisoners in South African jails, and the emergency is still in effect,” Wolpe said in an interview. “The situation must be created in South Africa where anti-apartheid activists are as free as the government party to organize, to move about the country and to speak freely. Then we can talk about beginning negotiations.”

Wolpe also called on the White House to use as a model America’s recent approach to events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

“We did not move prematurely in relaxing pressures in place (in Eastern Europe) until we believed that the process of change was irreversible and that fundamental change was occurring,” he said. “I hope we do not have a double standard as we approach South Africa.”