NEWS ANALYSIS : U.N. Not Offering S. Africa a Cure : Diplomacy: The Security Council’s resolution makes clear that a solution must come from within.

Leaders from across the political spectrum in South Africa, desperate for international support, are hailing the U.N. Security Council’s decision to send a special envoy here this week as a victory for their respective causes.

But the arrival Tuesday of Cyrus R. Vance, the U.N. secretary general’s special representative, won’t bring an end to the violence that grips South Africa. And it won’t even begin to bridge the yawning differences between President Frederik W. de Klerk’s white government and Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress.

That formidable task, as the United Nations’ resolution makes clear, remains the responsibility of De Klerk, Mandela, Inkatha Freedom Party President Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi and all the other opposing forces in South Africa.

Vance’s mission, under the U.N. resolution, will be a combination goodwill and fact-finding effort. After meeting with leaders of all factions in the political maelstrom, Vance, a U.S. secretary of state under President Jimmy Carter, will return home with suggestions for a possible U.N. role in reviving stalled talks on a multiracial constitution.

While De Klerk’s government welcomes observers such as Vance, it strongly opposes any direct U.N. role in the fitful transition process. And, without South African government assent, a U.N. peacekeeping force or even U.N.-sponsored talks are out of the question.

However, the United Nations’ renewed interest in South Africa’s internal affairs, after two years of a hands-off approach, will put extra pressure on the government to end the violence--and on De Klerk, Mandela and all the other leaders to find ways of resolving their differences.

From here on, the United Nations will closely monitor the process. And whether De Klerk’s government likes it or not, this means that foreign watchdogs, if not umpires, will be determining which parties are being reasonable--and which unreasonable.

As Edward Perkins, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former American ambassador in Pretoria, put it during the Security Council debate: “The world is watching.”

What the world saw in New York, though, has deepened concern about South Africa’s future. Accusations flew back and forth across the Security Council chambers, and the proceedings, televised live across South Africa, left little doubt about the lingering bitterness of apartheid and the difficult road ahead.

But the resulting resolution seemed to please everyone.

The ANC saw it as “a categorical repudiation of the attempts by the De Klerk government and its allies to blame the ANC for the violence that has plagued our country.”

And, in a statement, the ANC said that the United Nations, by placing responsibility for ending the violence “at the door of the South African government, recognizes that the Pretoria regime has been less than rigorous in its pursuit of these murderers.”

Not surprisingly, De Klerk’s foreign minister, Roelof F. (Pik) Botha, did not see it as an indictment of his government. He said the government accepts responsibility for dealing with the violence and is grateful that the United Nations had no intentions of interfering.

Botha, who has spent more than two decades at loggerheads with the United Nations, saw victory in the fact that the organization “for the first time has not condemned the South African government.”

Buthelezi, who leads Inkatha, by most accounts a key party in the violence, welcomed the U.N. decision but said he thinks the exercise is mostly a waste of time. And he stepped up his criticism of the ANC, which he blames for the violence.

The pro-government Citizen newspaper cut through the political rhetoric in an editorial Saturday, noting: “Our problems are far from over. One only has to look at Yugoslavia to see how ineffective the U.N. can be.”

And the Citizen warned darkly that the U.N. resolution could lead to a takeover by the ANC, long seen as a U.N. favorite.

The resolution “may be the thin edge of the wedge and, if it is, we will rue the day the United Nations got a foothold here.”

For now, though, the resolution hasn’t changed much.

The government and Inkatha still blame the ANC for creating a climate where violence flourishes, citing as evidence the current “mass action” campaign in which ANC supporters have held mock trials of De Klerk, occupied government buildings and marched through city streets.

The ANC, on the other hand, still blames the government for abetting the violence, which has claimed more than 7,000 lives in De Klerk’s three-year rule. And it refuses to return to the table until the government takes strong steps to curb the bloodshed.