Law May Force Him to End Curbs on S. Africa, Bush Tells Lawmakers : Apartheid: Black Caucus members urge him to continue sanctions. They question his view that Pretoria is meeting conditions for removal.

President Bush told skeptical members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Tuesday that he may have little choice but to restore open trade with South Africa, insisting that his hands are tied by the sanctions law approved by Congress four years ago.

“I don’t have much flexibility,” the President said at the start of a meeting at which black lawmakers pressed him not to lift the limits on U.S. trade and investment with South Africa and urged him to moderate his attacks on congressional civil rights legislation.

White House officials have indicated recently that Bush is nearing a decision to lift the South Africa sanctions imposed at congressional insistence on Jan. 1, 1987, in an effort to pressure Pretoria to end apartheid. The timing has been the only point in doubt.

California Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley) said after the 90-minute meeting with the President that Bush is “taking a very strict and narrow definition of his role” in determining whether conditions set by Congress for ending sanctions have been met.

Under the sanctions law, the government of South Africa must satisfy five legal requirements before the restrictions can be removed: ending the national state of emergency, lifting the ban on the African National Congress and other black political groups, opening negotiations with representatives of the black majority, repealing apartheid laws and releasing all political prisoners.

The first four conditions have been met, and Administration officials say they are attempting to determine how many political prisoners remain in South African detention. If it appears that the fifth requirement also has been satisfied, the sanctions would be lifted.

Dellums, however, maintained that South Africa actually has satisfied only two conditions: lifting of the state of emergency and beginning negotiations with the black majority. And in any case, he said, “the spirit” of the conditions has not been met.

White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater said that while “subjective judgments” must be made about when the conditions have been met, the Administration intends to abide by its interpretation of the sanctions legislation.

“We are very concerned that we don’t move the goal post, so to speak, in terms of what the Congress wanted the bill to do,” he said. “We have to take a pretty strict interpretation in terms of judging the exact provisions of the law.”

During the meeting, the Black Caucus members also urged Bush to declare a “cease-fire” in the “war of words” over pending civil rights legislation, according to Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia.

The Democratic-sponsored measure, which has been passed by the House and is pending in the Senate, is designed to reverse the effect of several Supreme Court decisions that made it more difficult for minorities to pursue job discrimination lawsuits against employers.

Although the bill contains language specifically banning the use of racial quotas in hiring and promotion, the President contends that many employers would resort to rigid quotas to protect themselves against possible lawsuits.

“He should stop using the phrase--or using the word quotas, “ said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). “Saying that this bill is a quota bill is not helping. It’s just fanning the flames of division, sowing the seeds of discontent and the seeds of frustration.”

“If it’s a quota bill, we’ll call it a quota bill,” Fitzwater declared afterward. The presidential spokesman said Bush responded to the lawmakers by indicating that “this is not a problem of language, it’s a problem of the content of the bill; that if you don’t like it being called a quota bill, then change it. It’s as simple as that.”