A Clear Statement of Disapproval

The U.S. condemns apartheid as "morally wrong"

The Reagan Administration has rarely had much to say about South Africa's official policy of racial discrimination, known as apartheid, but its attitudes toward the country have often seemed sympathetic to the government of Prime Minister P.W. Botha. Last week the State Department moved to counter criticism that the U.S. is too closely aligned to the all-white regime. In what was billed as a major policy speech, Under Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger firmly denounced South Africa's political system as "morally wrong." Said he: "We must reject the legal and political premises and consequences of apartheid."

Eagleburger also hinted that the U.S. would soon intensify efforts toward a breakthrough on one of Africa's most intractable problems: independence for Namibia, a vast, mineral-rich territory controlled by neighboring South Africa. President Reagan, he said, was prepared to use "his full influence" to promote a compromise that would involve the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia in return for the removal of 30,000 Cuban troops from Marxist Angola.

The speech was more notable for its clarity in spelling out the U.S. position than for any bold departures from past practice. Endorsing a policy that has been pursued consistently by previous Administrations, Eagleburger rejected economic sanctions as a way to influence the South African government. Instead, he reaffirmed the U.S. goal of encouraging the Botha government to make small reforms, in the expectation that they will lead to larger ones. Said he: "U.S. interests are best served by encouraging the change that is now under way in South Africa."

Signs of improvement, Eagleburger noted, include the South African government's 1979 decision to grant blacks the right to form trade unions, a court ruling earlier this month that enabled some blacks to become permanent residents in urban areas, and Prime Minister Botha's plan, announced last year, to grant Asians and mixed-race "coloreds" a limited role in a white-dominated Parliament. By contrast, Eagleburger charged, any campaign to encourage U.S. companies to divest themselves of their holdings in South Africa would only "assure America's irrelevance to South Africa's future."

Of more immediate interest to diplomats was Eagleburger's suggestion that a compromise on Namibia was near. Ironically, it was the Reagan Administration that helped to stall talks on autonomy for the territory's 1 million inhabitants last year when it linked the proposed Cuban pullout from Angola to a South African withdrawal from Namibia. South Africa had not originally insisted on the Cuban withdrawal, but it subsequently fastened on the U.S. position as a delaying tactic. Last week Eagleburger fell back on the concept of "reciprocity" in the negotiations, a code word for a carefully timed agreement for the simultaneous withdrawal of South Africans from Namibia and Cubans from Angola. While U.N. diplomats involved in the Namibia negotiations down-played the importance of Eagleburger's statement, officials in South Africa privately welcomed it. They interpreted it as a U.S. acknowledgment that South Africa was changing, however slowly, and that the country should continue to pursue reforms, free of foreign intervention. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.