The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

- Good evening. The leading headline today came from South Africa, where President Botha rejected one man, one vote for Blacks, but offered a manifesto for negotiations. Also, a failure in the tail structure was blamed for Monday's Japanese airliner tragedy, and a weakened Hurricane Danny hit Louisiana, causing minimal damage. Robin? - After the news summary, we devote the entire NewsHour tonight to analysis and reaction to the speech by South African President Botha, linked by satellite, we have three South African views and two American. In Johannesburg, Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu and Transvaal Chairman of the Conservative Party, Clive Darby-Lewis. In Washington, South Africa's ambassador-designate Herbert Beukes. Then for U.S. reaction, in Washington, D.C., Congressional delegate Walter Fontroy, and in South Bend, Indiana, Republican Congressman Mark Siljander. [music] - The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour is funded by AT&T, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and this station and other public television stations.

- President P.W. Botha today urged change for South Africa through negotiations and peace. He said the alternative is bloodshed, turmoil, and murder. It came in his anxiously-awaited speech to the National Party Congress in Durban, South Africa, in which he rejected one man, one vote for Blacks, but said other changes can be made as long as his government is not pushed too far too fast. Our report is from Brian Stewart of the CBC. - In his speech, the most important of his career, Prime Minister Botha tried to achieve a delicate balance. He promised cautious reform, but also rejected a universal vote. He insisted the system would have to be overhauled to give Blacks a much greater say in South African affairs. - You know, let me state explicitly that I believe in participation of all the South African communities on matters of common concern. Why don't you cheer me now? [half-hearted cheers] I believe there should exist structures to reach this goal of co-responsibility and

participation. - Many of his proposed changes raised far more questions than answers. But in one important step, he appeared to weaken the hated policy of homelands. He insisted Blacks would never again be forced to become members of these quasi-independent states against their will. As for the equally hated system that rigidly controls the movement of all Blacks, Bohta agreed it was outdated. He promised a major new study to see whether it should be modified. In the impoverished Black townships, he reaffirmed the right of Blacks to buy homes and pledged $400 million in development aid for poor areas. But when it came to Black political power, Botha remained firm. Blacks would not get an equal vote. - I know for a fact that most leaders in their own right in South Africa and reasonable South Africans will not accept the principle of one man, one vote in a unitary system. Such an arrangement would lead to domination of one over the other and it would lead to

chaos. - Botha appeared to offer no new conditions for the release of imprisoned black leader Nelson Mendela and was determined to resist violent pressure. - We can ill afford the irresponsibilities and destructive actions of barbaric communist agitators and even murderers who perpetrate the most cruel deeds against fellow South Africans because they are on the payroll of their masters far from this lovely land of ours. - The address fell far short of the strong reform package that many were predicting here just a week ago. But over the foreign reaction, Blacks here are not likely to be much impressed. There was some movement, but no bold ventures and certainly no promise of a new beginning. - Perhaps the most significant reaction of black militants to President Botha's speech will be the view from their oldest political movement, the African National Congress.

Its leader, Nelson Mandela, is in prison, so his wife Minnie spoke for him in an interview with Charlayne Hunter-Gault, who is on special assignment in South Africa for the NewsHour. - The Botha regime must be doing this to openly declare war on the oppressed people of this country. They are bound to respond likewise to that kind of situation. - How do you respond to the notion that the anger is so deep and events are moving so fast that your husband and the ANC just may be bypassed by events? - The African National Congress is a voice of the people of this country. The African National Congress, when it decides that the government should be brought to its knees in response to its own policies, will guide whatever action the people of this country will want to take.

- The official U.S. reaction to the Botha speech came from White House National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. He told reporters in Santa Barbara, California, near where President Reagan is vacationing, that apartheid and violence in South Africa must end. Then McFarlane was asked if the Botha statement went far enough. - It isn't really relevant what I think about whether this is good enough or not, whether it is or not is measured by whether or not the parties in South Africa believe it, and that will only be apparent in the days ahead. We believe is that change will only occur when the government of South Africa can present itself in an credible fashion, achieve the confidence of the Black community and sit down at the table. Now we are not prejudging whether that will happen or not. We hope devoutly that it does. The President believes that there are things in this statement that have not been publicly espoused before, and to that extent it represents an apparent

commitment to negotiation. But again, it's whether or not that will be the result. We hope so, but it isn't for us to prejudge it, but to wait and see what happens. - We will be devoting all of the program after this news summary to the Botha speech. - On the Gulf of Mexico, the eye of Hurricane Danny struck the coast of Louisiana this morning with winds of up to a hundred miles an hour in the gusts, then moved slowly inland in a northwestern direction. The heaviest impact was felt along the coasts where the wind and heavy rain rapidly raised the level of the water as far east as New Orleans. Tides of five or more feet above normal were predicted, and ten or more inches of rain. About 10,000 people left their homes in various coastal towns, and about 20,000 oil workers were brought ashore from drilling platforms in the Gulf. By mid-afternoon the National Weather Service was reporting that the storm was weakening as it moved inland. A hurricane warning remained

in effect on the Louisiana coast, but the notices were reduced to gale warnings in a number of other areas. - It was a structural failure in the tail that caused the Japan Airlines 747 to go out of control and crash, killing 520 people. That was the preliminary finding today of investigators in Japan, and the Japanese government then ordered the immediate inspections of the tail assemblies on all other 747s in Japan. And in Lebanon there was another murder by car bomb today. Israeli authorities said one local militiaman was killed in the blast, which took place at a military checkpoint five miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Widespread fighting was also reported in several neighborhoods of Beirut today. Most of it believed to be between Christian and various Muslim forces. Some of the worst fighting was in the Christian neighborhood, where 13 persons died in a car bombing yesterday. And in the never-ending Iran-Iraq war, Iraq claimed today its planes demolished the Iranian oil terminal at Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. There was no word from Iran on the claim

and no other confirmation. - The government released another economic statistic today showing a slow rate of economic growth. Industrial production rose two-tenths of a percent in July, after a rise of three-tenths in June. Private economists said the figures suggest the economy has not yet begun the robust rebound forecast by the Reagan administration. Also today auto industry analysts said the 10 percent decline in auto sales reported yesterday for early August is due to reduced demand and not the car hauler strike. Scott Merlis, auto analyst at Shearson Lehman Brothers in New York, said weakness in other sectors of the economy has spread to autos. - And finally in the news of this day, the accused father-son spy team of John and Michael Walker made a court appearance in Baltimore. John Walker, a retired naval officer, is accused of being the leader of a spy ring that sold military secrets to the Soviet Union. Michael, a Navy enlisted man, is charged with having passed Navy documents to his father.

They sat at opposite ends of the counsel's table this morning. John Walker, without the toupée he was wearing in most of the previous photographs that have been released. The purpose of today's court session was for the judge to grant Walker's request for separate trials. U.S. District Judge Alexander Harvey, said John Walker's trial for October 28 with Michael's to follow immediately thereafter. - We move now to an extended focus section for analysis and reaction to the major speech today by South African president P.W. Botha. By live satellite connection, we are joined in Johannesburg by Bishop Desmond Tutu, by a regional director of the South African Conservative Party and the Botha government's representative in Washington. We'll extend our discussion to include American opinion as well. As we reported earlier, President Botha firmly rejected the principle of one man, one vote. Here are some other excerpts from his speech to the National Party Congress

in Durban. - I'm not prepared to lead white South Africans and other minority groups on a road to abdication and suicide. [applause] Listen, my friends. Listen, destroy White South Africa and our influence in this subcontinent of Southern Africa and this country will drift into factions, strife, chaos and poverty. [applause] Peaceful negotiation is their enemy. Peaceful negotiation is their enemy because it will lead to joint responsibility for the progress and prosperity of South Africa. Those whose methods are violent do not want to participate.

They wish to cease and monopolize all power. Let there be no doubt about what they would do with such power. One has only to look at their methods and means. Violent and brutal means can only lead to totalitarian and tyrannical ends. From certain international, as well as local quarters, appeals are being made to me to release Mr. Nelson Mandela from jail. [scattered applause, jeers from crowd] I stated in Parliament, when put this question, that if Mr. Mandela gives a commitment that he will not make himself guilty of planning,

instigating or committing acts of violence for the furtherance of political objectives, I will in principle be prepared to consider his release. The violence of our enemies is a warning to us. We who are committed to peaceful negotiation also have a warning to them. Our warning is that our readiness to negotiate should not be mistaken for weakness. [applause] I have applied much self-discipline during the past weeks and months. I've been lenient and patient. Don't push us too far. - With us, live from Johannesburg, is Anglican Bishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner

Desmond Tutu, who has tried to stop the recent violence and to open a dialogue with the Botha government. Bishop Tutu, we just heard, Winnie Mandela say on this program earlier, that the Botha government must be taking this approach as she put it, "to openly declare war on the people of South Africa." Do you agree with her? - Well, we have had nothing new from the state president. I was myself very deeply distressed that the state president should, instead of providing a statesman-like outline of a vision for our country, have behaved like a hack politician out to get votes. It certainly is going to make people in our community desperate. And when people are desperate, then they will use desperate means to attain their ends. And this is something that we were seeking to avert. - Did you find no grounds for encouragement

in the speech? For example, the president's promise of participation in a dialogue for Blacks? - Not at all. I mean, he was prescribing to us because he says those who would participate in that dialogue would be elected leaders. And he knows that he is referring to leaders in the dummy institutions, which the government has imposed on our people, although he speaks about a government that doesn't want to impose solutions. And he knows that those are people who have by and large been rejected by our people. We are saying we would like to resolve the crisis of our land reasonably peacefully through negotiation, but it ought to happen with the authentic representatives and leaders of every section of our community. And for the Black people, there's, I mean, you really just be hiding your head in the sand if you were unaware that

a Nelson Mandela and those in jail with him and others in exile were undoubtedly our leaders. He certainly is my leader. And I am not going to be dictated to as to who should be my leader. And if Mr. Botha is in earnest about solving the problems of this country, then he ought really to sit down in a national convention with those who would be representative of the people. - Did you feel from what he said that you personally would be excluded from such negotiations that they would not include... - [laughter] I'm not a politician, despite all appearances to the contrary. I have kept saying that I am a leader by default because our leaders are almost always wished away. When the Black community produces a leader, then he's chopped off: either he's banned, he's detained without trial or he is charged with high treason as is happening

now with many of the leaders of say, for instance, the United Democratic Front. No, I am not somebody with a political ambition at all. And I am speaking really as a church leader who has the best interest of our land at heart. I love this country passionately. And I am saying actually that I mean, it is surprising that our people should still be prepared to accept me as a leader when I have nothing to show for my advocacy of peaceful change. All that has happened is that there has been an escalation in the violence of the authorities, their intransigence and their arrogance. The Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's national security adviser, said late this afternoon that the Botha approach would work if it was viewed

in South Africa as a credible earnest of intent. Is it a credible earnest of intent? - It is absolutely nothing of the sort. The president had the opportunity and once again we see a government that has a chance, a golden opportunity letting it slip by because he could have said quite clearly, "We seek to dismantle apartheid," because all the unrest in this country is due to a vicious, immoral and totally un-Christian policy which is apartheid. And the world has passed judgment on it and even the government itself has apartheid ought to go. But he ought to have said quite clearly this is what we want to do and we have a specific plan. At the moment, he is telling us we have crossed the Rubicon... crossed the Rubicon to go where? And how do we get there? - Where do you think it leads now? - At the moment, I mean, we don't know. The trouble is,

I am fearful that we are on the brink of a catastrophe which is totally unnecessary. Right, we'll be back, Bishop Tutu. Also with us from Johannesburg is Charlayne Hunter-Gault, who is in South Africa on special assignment for the NewsHour. Charlayne? - Robin, we get another perspective now from an executive official of the Conservative Party, the movement that broke away from President Botha's Nationalist party over their reformist direction. He is Clive Darby-Lewis, also a businessman and director of the Stollard Foundation, which is a conservative think tank here in South Africa. Mr. Darby-Lewis, you've heard Bishop Tutu's unhappiness over the speech. What's your reaction? - Well, I must say that I almost share Bishop Tutu's sentiments and it's very seldom that we agree in the political field as he's an advocate for what he calls majority rule, which is obviously Black majority rule. And I believe in partition as the correct solution for South Africa.

- You're probably unhappy for different reasons too. - I'm unhappy in that it looks as though the National Party under the leadership of Mr. Botha is once again doing to go a little bit further this time in betraying the mandate which they were given by the voters who elected them to Parliament. You know, that was the reason why we broke away in the first place. We did not get elected to power on the basis of a power-sharing mandate. - Well, what specifically are you talking about in terms of easing a little bit further? - Well, he's talking about considering the relaxation of influx control. - That influx control means the government determining where Blacks should live and when they should be allowed to move. - No, in fact, it determines whether Black people from the different national states may seek employment in the already overstrained urban areas in South Africa. - And you're opposed to that? Opposed to relaxing... - I'm opposed to, I believe that influx control is necessary

and is certainly very much in the interests of the different Black peoples who are already employed in jobs. They enjoy stable employment in the urban areas. And the only consequence I can see of the abolition of influx control would be an uncontrolled flow of a third-world situation flowing to a first-world situation and causing tremendous chaos. - What about his proposal that full citizenship for Blacks in South Africa would at least be put on the table for discussion? Do you have any problems with that? - Well, you know, full citizenship. What does full citizenship mean? Full citizenship, as we see it, means that Black people must have the right to vote in a common, on a common voter's roll. If we have to hodge-podge all of the different Black nations together and call them Blacks in South Africa when they differ, the Zulus, for

example, differ from the Tswanas as much as the Germans differ from the French. - But President Botha said that he was opposed to one man, one vote. Are you saying that he can't allow citizenship for all South Africans and also be opposed to one man, one vote? - How can that work? - You think it will ultimately be the case if you grant citizenship that there will be one man? I believe that the one of the basic privileges and rights of citizenship is the right to vote. And this is what the problem is all about in South Africa. There is a fear of domination. The Xhosas fear domination by the Zulus, the Vendas fear domination by the Tswanas. These are all different nations and I know that Bishop Tutu disagrees with me but that has never really been put to the test. - It's also the case that the whites fear domination by the Blacks as well. - Of course, for obvious reasons, the whites at the moment pay 90% of the total income tax revenue into the state coffers in South Africa. They also pay 63% of the total

general sales tax revenue into the coffers. In return for that, they derive 34% benefit from their taxes. This is also a cause for concern. - So do I hear you saying that internally from your perspective, this would not be, the speech tonight would not be considered a credible earnest of intent? - I don't think so. I think it's very vague and I think that he's passed the buck onto, for example, the president's council to decide on influx control. He says that he's not going to set up an arrangement for the Black self-governing states who are not independent before he negotiates with them. But you know, the National Party have had 40 years in which to negotiate with these people. Why are they only doing it now? - What do you think is going to be the impact on the turmoil that's presently tearing this country apart? - I don't think it's going to have any effect whatsoever. The turmoil which we're experiencing in South Africa is being, it's being incited by the ANC,

by the allies in South Africa, the UDF. I differ there again with Bishop Tutu as well, regarding Nelson Mandela as being the leader of the Black people. I wonder which Black people ever elected Nelson Mandela the leader. He may have been elected to an executive position in the Communist Party or in the ANC, but he certainly has never been elected as a leader of any one of the Black nations in southern Africa. - All right, Mr. Darby-Lewis, we'll come back, Jim. - A South African government official now responds to the questions and concerns of Bishop Tutu and Mr. Darby-Lewis. He is the South African ambassador-designate to the United States Herbert Buekes. Mr. Ambassador, let's take Bishop Tutu first. He said that the Black people of South Africa are desperate. The President's speech today will make them even more desperate. - Well, I think the President's speech today went a long way. He indicated today that he laid a foundation, a framework for negotiations. That's what we've been hearing for a long time now,

that we ought to negotiate. That's what the President indicated today. He opened up the process, he indicated that willingness. - What about Bishop Tutu's concern about who the President is willing to negotiate with? Can you clarify that? - I see, unfortunately, it seems to be an impression that the President or the South African government had not made an attempt to talk or consult with Black leaders in the country. And it's a pity that he would suggest that. I believe that attempts have indeed been made to talk, to consult with Blacks in the country before these proposals. It is regrettable that someone like Bishop Tutu, that he has not participated in that in those talks. - What about his point, though, that every time a Black leader comes to the fore, he or she is then jailed, banned or otherwise eliminated? - Well, that elimination, that the bishop refers to, elimination has been done very much by the Blacks, by radicals in the Black townships. That we've been seeing, we've been seeing it on your own news program here,

and the South African government is trying to prevent exactly that. We want to do so, to get to that point that the President has announced tonight of negotiations, of political dialogue with the people. - What about Mr. Darby-Lewis's point that you can't have citizenship without the right to vote? - I don't believe that the government is indicating that people should have citizenship and not vote. I very much believe in myself that they should vote. The voting is not the question that we debate on. It's how the voting should take place. It's how that political participation should take place. - No, excuse me, I'm not sure I'll follow you there. I mean, the President used the term, no one man one vote under a unitary system. What is he talking about? - Well, does it have to be a unitary system? This is the whole point. - You mean everybody voting for the same office. - No, but everybody can participate in a political process. We talk, are we after a specific constitutional model that some people prescribe to us, or are we going to negotiate in the country

for a democratic participation in the country, for democracy? I think that is a more reasonable objective to strive for. - But Mr. Darby-Lewis says you can't do it that way. I mean, you can't give somebody the right. You can't make somebody a citizen and then restrict what offices they can vote for. He's just wrong about that? - I do not see that as mutually exclusive that you can extend citizenship and then not to give them in the right to participation in the country's political affairs. And that's what we have been saying now, what the President said tonight, that that can be done. - What about Mr. Darby-Lewis's point that what the President is saying is actually a rejection of the mandate that he was given by the whites who elected him to office. They don't want this. - I differ from him in that regard. I think the President has a mandate to proceed with the reformist program. - Why? - Pardon me? - Why? Why did the mandate come? Because they fear as the President said today, bloodshed is coming or what? - The mandate is simply

to go on with the political process in the country, for a political program in the country. And that the mandate that he refers to is about election and people expressing their confidence in the leadership, the government's leadership, to establish that program for political participation. - What is your position? We heard what Mr. Darby-Lewis and what the Bishop said. They disagree on the role of Nelson Mandela. How do you see his role? - There's a role to be played for everybody in the country to establish a program for political participation. And I believe that the only norm that has been set is for people to do so in a peaceful way. That is all. - Does that mean that Nelson Mandela is the leader of the Blacks or is not the leader of the Blacks, from your perspective? - I can't speak for him and I don't know that anyone in particular can speak for him and I don't believe that there has been any election which he can lay claim. So I cannot really pronounce him that.

- But to the Bishop's point, finally, Mr. Ambassador, you just returned from South Africa. You were over there while this was being drafted. Why did the President today not say that the goal of all of this is to eliminate the system of apartheid? - Well, now look what the President has said. He has addressed the most crucial issues that we've been dealing with. We're talking about citizenship. We're talking about participation in the country's political affairs, in the national affairs of the country. And the President has said that, but what has not been done is to lay out in specifics the details as to how it should come about. Now, that is a criticism that Bishop Tutu had, that Blacks have not been consulted on it. But that's exactly what the President is suggesting here, that we should get together now in political dialogue and discuss and negotiate those details. But the problem is that expectations have been raised here and perhaps deliberately so and unrealistically also. And now that we have not come up to those expectations, it is being seen as somewhat as less of a success.

And another problem is that in the criticism is directed at the absence of certain code words, certain connotations. And I don't believe that that is going to serve any purpose. What we ought to do in that country now is to get ahead and to talk and to get together and to establish a political participation program. - Thank you. Robin? - Bishop Tutu, the ambassador says that the President has addressed the most crucial issues, you heard him: citizenship, participation. - Yes, I get very distressed at the fact that we engage in semantics at a time when our country is burning. He is saying that this particular person that the Black community has recognized as their leader has not been elected. I mean, that's a preposterous statement to make. How could he be elected? First of all, when Blacks have been excluded from any process of election and then the organization

to which he had belonged is banned. He is in jail. I think I mean, we should stop behaving like children. And he knows perfectly well that because that kind of process could not happen, there is another way of finding out whether someone has got credibility and acceptance in the community. And you do it through polls. And every survey that any newspaper in South Africa has carried out has demonstrated what the Black community believes. Otherwise, you would have to say that all polls are invalid. - Mr. Ambassador, how's your... how do you respond? - Sir, I do not want to engage in recrimination with Bishop Tutu. But what I am saying is that to the question that was asked, that gentleman, Mr. Mandela, has not been elected. Now, the Bishop has acknowledged that. He has not been elected. And that's all that we're talking about.

I'm not saying that there isn't a reason why he's not been elected. I've simply said that he has not been elected. So you cannot prove that. But that is not. - But I'm sorry. But I'm saying that the Black community acknowledges him as its leader. Take him out of jail and let us have an election. And I bet you all the tea in China to all your Krugerrands that he will come out head and shoulders above. Anybody you could wish to put... pit up against him. - I do not own many of those. - Can I go back to Mr. Darby-Lewis? The Ambassador says the President Botha has a mandate to proceed with a reformist program. And tonight's speech is evidence of proceeding in that direction. - I must say this, that the last time we had a democratic election in South Africa was in 1981, when the National Party was elected to power under the banner of separate development. Since then, they had a referendum where the

television media in South Africa, which is government controlled, was really controlled in favor of a yes vote for power sharing with Coloureds and Indians. This was not a democratically held election. After that, the President decided to postpone democratic elections until 1989, which means that if we hold elections then and anything is possible between now and then, it will have been eight years before we have the democratic possibility of expressing our opinion as to what the government is doing and what it isn't doing. - Is your charge, Mr. Darb-Lewis, that what the Botha government is doing is dismantling apartheid by creeping stealthy stages? Is that what you believe is happening? - No, no. What we believe is happening is that they are introducing a suicidal power sharing political experiment in Southern Africa, one which has never worked in a single instance

throughout the whole world. - Bishop Tutu, what's your comment on that? - About what? I mean, that they are introducing... - A power sharing policy. - So all I would say is that what we are getting in this country is no direction really. The government has lost direction and all we are asking from them is, for goodness sake, try to indicate that you do have a plan and the plan is a dismantling of apartheid and that you have a specific timetable. I mean, it's a nonsense to say that coexistence has failed everywhere in the world. It hasn't failed in the United States. It hasn't failed in Kenya. I mean, we are so very selective. In many countries, in Latin America, you have people of diverse colors living together as members of one nation.

- Mr. Ambassador in Washington, Bishop Tutu says you have no plan. Mr. Darby-Lewis says it's a very vague plan that was outlined tonight. You said it doesn't contain the code words that some in this country would like, meaning get rid of apartheid as Mr. McFarlane said again today should be done. What does it mean? Is it the beginning of the dismantling of apartheid? I'm not sure that apartheid is any more the issue here. What is at issue is a question of participating in the political affairs of the country and the president today has laid out a program of principles. The purpose of that was exactly to establish those guidelines and then within those guidelines, within that framework, people ought to get together and negotiate about that form of government or the form of political participation that ought to take place. - Why is that unacceptable, Bishop Tutu? - I'm sorry. I mean, what we are seeing in this country is a constitutional dispensation which is utterly fraudulent.

It gives the appearance of power sharing when what it is doing is perpetuating a white minority rule. And what we hear, I mean only a few days ago, one of the ministers, cabinet ministers, said what we will have is the whites will still have their own schools, they will have their own areas. Apartheid is firmly in place and what we are seeing is just a tinkering in order to hoodwink the international community to thinking that we are reforming and so leave South Africa alone. And that is in fact part of the consequence of Reagan's policy of constructive engagement which I must say is as evil as the apartheid that they are trying to protect. - Mr. Darby-Lewis, do you agree with the Bishop on this that what they're doing is tinkering with the system of apartheid in order to get international opinion to leave the country alone?

- Mr. MacNeil, you know we're talking about two issues here. We're talking about as Bishop Tutu calls it apartheid, we prefer to call it separate development. And we're talking about political participation, participation in a political structure. And it's all very well for Bishop Tutu to wax eloquent about the injustices which exist. But for domination to be eliminated in Southern Africa, there is only one solution and that is through partition. Partition will ensure that each of the different nations, including the white nation which is the second largest nation in Southern Africa, will have the right to govern themselves, to spend their money, the way they see fit, and to exercise total sovereignty over their affairs as is the situation in Europe. - We do not wish to be dominated by any one of the Black nations and in turn we do not believe in the white domination of the Black nation. - Well gentlemen, we'd like to broaden this discussion

and please don't go away, Jim? [Bishop Tutu laughing] - President Botha did speak in his speech of pressure from a broad on his government and nowhere is the debate over that pressure more intense than it is in the United States, where Congress has passed legislation to apply sanctions against South Africa, something President Reagan among others adamantly opposes. We sample the United States political reaction to the Botha speech now with two members of the House who see the issue differently. They are Democrat Walter Fontroy, the non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia, and Congressman Mark Siljander, Republican of Michigan, who joins us tonight from South Bend, Indiana. First, Congressman Siljander in South Bend. What did you think? How would you characterize what you heard today from President Botha? - Well, I listened to each and every word of the speech, and unfortunately I was discouraged. We heard some positive talk about eliminating some building blocks of apartheid in the Influx Control Act and the homelands policy and engaging colloquy with Blacks toward integrating them in the political system, which is positive. But

what I'm discouraged about, we did not hear a specific timetable. We did not hear a format by which these events would take place. So many of us that find apartheid abhorring the facts that over 600 people have died in that country, the fact that prompted, I think, the speech by President Botha today, we were discouraged by the fact we haven't heard the details and the specifics of how this new change of attitude after 37 years of dogma can be translated into practical changes in the system. - Mr. Fontroy, your reaction in general way? - Well, I was very disappointed. We had been led to believe, as a result of the administration's discussions in Vienna, that there would be some measurable changes announced. What we got instead was a response that not only did not address any of the conditions set out in the House-Senate conference report, but which really was an insult to the intelligence of the American people. And quite frankly, having heard Bishop Tutu, I'm confirmed in that. I mean, it was just a litany of contradictions. They said one thing and then took it back. We're going to have

we're going to have participation, but it's not going to be one man, one vote participation. - Nothing, nothing in other words, that would dissuade you from your belief that the United States should proceed with economic sanctions and other actions against South Africa? - Well, there's no question, but that none of the conditions addressed by the House-Senate report was met and that therefore the President has no choice, I think, but to sign this measure and to let them know that we're serious about preventing the American people from cooperating with this patently, blatantly, dishonesty, hypocritical and repressive system. - Now, Congressman Siljander, while you were disappointed in what the President said today, has it changed your views towards sanctions from the United States? Well, no. The bill that passed the House and was agreed to by the conference committee essentially dealt with implementing the Sullivan principles, which is patterned after the anti-apartheid act that I introduced myself that only received 127 votes and two weeks later,

380 votes. Now, there were four sanctions. All the sanctions I would predict that government could live with easily, a South African probably wouldn't find that objectionable. What they'd find objectionable is creating US business environment that's conducive to Black upward mobility, that's conducive to Black education, to Black housing, to Black scholarships, to Black opportunity, that itself would be the most devastating sanction against any type of racial system that separates Blacks and whites. - What do you think? Yeah, go ahead. - There was one thing which the President mentioned. He boasted the fact that they had a $5 billion balance of trade surplus. Well, the bill that's passed by the House, the House Conference, the House Senate and House Conference bill, indicates that they won't be making about $500 million that they have been making in sales of Krugerrands in this country. And so that much of their balance of trade surplus with the world, which is expressed its abhorrence at this system, will not be available to them. - Yeah. Congressman Siljander, what would be your advice to President

Reagan now? Should he sign that bill? What should the administration do now after this speech? - Well, unfortunately for the President, there is not enough meat by far in that speech to give him ammunition by which to veto the bill suggesting that there is a definite change of engaging a new policy in that country. So I think the President has no alternative, frankly, but to sign the bill. I think the Senate will overwhelmingly pass the bill. I think the bill in itself excluding the four sanctions which I personally find, philosophically, in opposition to what I believe, but the bill in its major context is really a departure from the more liberal approach of banning new business, which was the guts of the Gray approach. So this is by far the moderate approach. It by far sends a clear message that we in the United States find apartheid abhoring. And what we can control in terms of U.S. business, new and present investment, we intend to deal with that in a positive way by encouraging our business to open up their businesses to desegregation, open work environment, contributing outside to health, education and Black scholarships. This is a kind of effort,

I think, is a very positive move on the part of Congress. While I do want to reiterate, I do find the three sanctions against the government and one sanction I claim banning Krugerrands against the South African people, I think they're virtually meaningless, and I repeat, I think the government would not find them very objectionable. - Of course, you've already said, as far as you're concerned, full speed ahead on sanctions, you would like to, when Congressman Siljander said the Gray proposals, that means Congressman Bill Gray, the bill that passed the House and then was changed a little bit in the Senate, it's a stronger thing. That's still your view of it, right, Congressman Fauntroy? - Without a question, I think as a result of this speech, you're going to see three things happen. First, I think you're going to see on the campuses of the country more activism on a part of students who want no longer for the institutions of higher learning to invest in apartheid. You're going to see increasingly American workers who are losing their jobs to the cheap labor market that's maintained by apartheid in South Africa, like

steel workers and coal miners, joining in an effort to get their cities and their states not to allow government funds to be invested in businesses that are exploiting the cheap labor in South Africa and maintaining this repressive system, a system which quite frankly against the background of what we've heard today, seems to be nowhere near dismantling. Congressman Siljander, the ambassador mentioned, President Botha first in his speech and the ambassador reiterated at a moment ago, this question of expectations for the Botha speech. Were you a victim of that yourself? Did you expect a lot more today than you heard? And if so, why? - Well, while the president of South Africa claimed that the media built up expectations just to allow people to then drop what they had hoped would be major announcements of major changes, I was simply had high expectations because of the conditions of South Africa. The fact and the timing of the speech itself really created an expectation within me. I had hoped to see much more. I had

hoped to see a discussion about stopping pass laws which require black security passports to travel from one area to another in South Africa. I'd prefer to see not just a discussion of abandoning that, but a timetable when and where, under what format. And dealing with the Homeland Act, I agree it should be abolished, but when? Mr. Botha, many of us wonder when and where? And these are the type of questions that are still yet unanswered and I feel the speech left that ambiguity lagging in his discussion. - Mr. Ambassador, what about that? Why was the decision made to not be specific and not go with timetables? - The purpose of the occasion was simply not that, to lay out details, and as the president indicated there, the details will follow through negotiations and talks. It's as simple as that. Now, why is it so difficult to accept that fact that once you start on that road of negotiations that you cannot then address an agenda of issues some of which the president laid out

today? - Let me say that I feel most embarrassed for the administration. An administration which announced a few weeks ago that it was very clear that the source of the violence is the existence of apartheid, which an administration which sent its national security adviser to Vienna to discuss some measurable changes of direction and which now has to stand up and mumble about, well, they said they're going to negotiate, they said they're going to negotiate, but then they define who they were not going to negotiate with and Bishop Tutu sort of confirmed that from the ground level. They said we're going to dismantle... we're not going to force independence upon the homelands, but we're not going to include them either into the political structure. We're going to give citizenship. - They've not been excluded. You see that is people are just jumping to conclusions here and I must say Congressman Fontroy is participating in it. The president has not said that that is being excluded. It is simply indicated that those people,

communities who do not want to opt for independence from South African administration, they will be part of the South African nation, he said. They will become citizens of the country. Now these are issues that critics of the South African government have been addressing for a period of time. This is what we've done now. - Would you listen to this double talk? They're going to be citizens but they can't vote. - No one said that they cannot vote. Nobody said that. You said it. - I heard him say there will be no one man one vote... - In a particular structure. Now you see what Mr. Fontroy, why is it then so necessary for you to prescribe to us? You're sitting in Washington and you prescribe to us what particular model of constitution we have to follow. I am not, we are not, we have to make sure that we talk about two different systems here. - Will you forgive us. Citizenship. [crosstalk] Citizenship in a democracy. Citizenship in a democracy means participation. It means voting. - Well, not prescription from Washington, no sir. - Let's ask Bishop Tutu, Mr. Darby-Lewis. Bishop Tutu is one man one vote the crucial thing to you.

- My dear friend, when you say a person is a citizen, he is a citizen is a citizen. I mean it's a tautology to have to try to describe what a citizen is. If I am a citizen of South Africa, I ought to be able to travel freely in the land of my birth. I ought to be able to live where I am able to afford to live. And we were told that democracy means government of the people, by the people, for the people. We didn't formulate that particular ideology. We were told that that is what democracy is and it involves universal suffrage. And now we get all these semantic games. And I have sought to say that we don't talk about Black majority rule. We're talking about majority rule where all South Africans participate and the best person is chosen,

elected for a particular position. And just to indicate that actually our people certainly are not obsessed with ethnicity. At a time when you would have thought that Black people would say "To hell with all white people," you have organizations such as the UDF, the United Democratic Front, which is in your terms a rainbow coalition where people of all races come together because our dream, our vision is of a non-racial, a truly democratic South Africa. Now you hear people talk about Blacks being people of different nations. I am a Xhosa. I'm told that I'm of a different nation and in South Africa there are two different Xhosa nations. Why is it possible for an Afrikaaner to coalesce with an English, with a French, with a German? They said, I mean by what alchemy is it possible for white people from all those different nations to become one nation

and we Blacks are told that we belong to different nations. - Let's ask Mr Darby-Lewis that. That was his point earlier. - What's the difference Mr. Darby-Lewis? - Before we get to that, I would like to say that I think it's quite preposterous that the American government should even consider interfering in South Africa's affairs. I don't hear the same vibes coming from America against the Russians who are the worst in the world as far as oppressing people are concerned although of course they don't allow the situation to exist which exists in certain of our Black residential areas at the moment. Is what America is looking for a similar reform to what took place in Iran? We all know what happened there where the American government forced the Shah to reform, to introduce a democratic system of government and instead what did they get? The Ayatollah Khomeini and his ridiculous dictatorial attitude which has plunged Iran into a chaos from which I don't think it'll ever emerge. - Congressman Siljander, do you think this is something the United

States ought to bow out of it? It's none of our business? - No, I think that as the bill that passed the House clearly indicated, it is our business as far as our US investment, as far as that goes. I think this conversation is indicative of the ambiguity of the whole speech of President Botha but it was also indicative of the diverse opinions in terms of how we change and how we encourage a change in South Africa. None of us disagree that apartheid is abhoring. I don't think anyone on this panel disagrees with that issue. The issue is what should the US policy be toward encouraging change? And I argue the policy toward encouraging change is to put Blacks in a position economically, put a Blacks in a position socially and politically where they can speak their mind and through a majority rule the Blacks can become the spokesmen that they deserve to become in their own nation and we can do that through desegregating our own workplace and through encouraging outside education and investment. - Let me ask the ambassador a question finally. I had the

impression listening to President Botha's speech this afternoon that he was speaking as much to the American audience, to the international audience, as he was to the people of South Africa and the people in that room. Did I read that correctly? What was your reading? - The occasion was simply a provincial congress of the ruling National Party and it addressed the people there but obviously some of the issues that he addressed were issues of concern internally, primarily but also there would be the interest abroad in it. - This is a very serious matter to President Botha. - It's a serious matter inside South Africa correct, to move ahead with the reformist program. - No, no, no. I mean the reaction and the view of South Africa abroad. - No, inside the country. That is primarily the concern. - Have you heard anything from what you've heard on this panel and that makes you feel at all good about what President Botha did today? What he did today I think was an important milestone as a start on that path but what disturbed me is the diversity and opinion

that we have here and not knowing exactly what we're talking about precisely. It shows the complexity of the issue which is not understood. - Thank you, Robin? - Once again, the main stories of the day, South African President Botha dashed hopes of major changes in apartheid but called on Blacks to negotiate. Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, said on the NewsHour, he was very deeply distressed at what he called Botha's failure to provide a vision for the future of South Africa. A structural failure in the tail of a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 was blamed for the biggest single-plane disaster in history. Hurricane Danny hit the coast of Louisiana and began losing some of its force. Good night, Jim. - Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night. - The MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour is funded by AT&T, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and this station and other public television stations. For a transcript, send two dollars to

Box 345, New York, New York, 101.