Right in Principle, Yes; but the Best Move? : ANC rejects a lessening of sanctions that may be inevitable

The African National Congress voted against its top leadership--and growing international sentiment--by retaining its hardline stance on maintaining economic sanctions against South Africa. But the strong message will not end the debate over sanctions, and the larger danger is that the split in the ANC could undercut the chances of a timely transition to a nonracial and democratic South Africa.

During a recent national conference that would have been illegal just a year ago, the ANC also threatened to renew its armed struggle if the white minority government does not get rid of all obstacles to negotiations by the end of April. That ultimatum may prove a huge stumbling block to the stalled negotiations, or it could spur all sides to settlement over seemingly irreconcilable differences. The risk is certainly great.

Whatever, that incendiary challenge is a far cry from the carefully timed proposal by the ANC’s president, Oliver Tambo, and his deputy, Nelson Mandela, that was designed to add new momentum to the negotiations. These two leaders expressed a refreshing willingness to reevaluate their stance on sanctions. They failed, however, to persuade the membership to drop the present stand on sanctions. And, unlike many other authoritarian popular movement leaders, Tambo and Mandela did not impose their position on the membership; they accepted the group decision.

While ANC members were debating the future of sanctions, the 12-nation European Community was voting to relax its voluntary restrictions. The EC did not lift sanctions totally. The organization retained the boycott on steel and gold as well as the embargo on arms sales. But, in a nod to all the recent reforms, it allowed new investment in South Africa. The move is symbolically significant because the EC--including Britain--invested more than $700 million in the year before sanctions were imposed.

The United Kingdom had already taken that step in February in response to the reforms achieved by South African President Frederik W. de Klerk. The removal of that barrier provided a psychological victory for whites, but prompted no rush of foreign investment into the uncertain South African economy.

The United States can lift sanctions only after South Africa has met certain conditions. Under De Klerk’s leadership, the white minority government has met several of the terms. In the past year, the government has freed Mandela, unbanned the ANC and other anti-apartheid parties, suspended the state of emergency and established goals for eliminating several legal pillars of apartheid. But while welcome, those steps do not warrant the lifting of U.S. sanctions.

To gain relief from the U.S. restrictions, De Klerk’s government must repeal major racial legislation, free all political prisoners and enter without preconditions into negotiations with representative black leaders.

The release of political prisoners and the return of exiles are major stumbling blocks. The white minority government has promised to resolve these matters, but many blacks had believed that their friends and relatives would be home before the end of this month. So frustration over the slow pace of progress may, in part, motivate the ANC hard line. The tough stance may also reflect a generation gap between the aging leadership and the more militant younger comrades. The threat of a return to the armed struggle, which was abandoned in August, may reflect the growing feeling of helplessness as the political death count rises.

The hard-line philosophies will do the ANC no good, however, if the message serves to isolate the ANC from international allies who believe the De Klerk government needs to be encouraged further toward a post-apartheid South Africa. And the isolation of the ANC would not likely advance the cause of negotiations.