Taming the New Violence

The widening warfare in Angola is a betrayal of all of Africa by nations, among them the United States, blinded by ideological considerations to the real problems of poverty and hunger that haunt the continent.

Soviet and Cuban military advisers apparently encouraged Angola to undertake a massive escalation of its anti-guerrilla war, massing arms and men to support an attack on the stronghold of Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA rebel forces in Cuanda-Cubango province at the southeastern corner of Angola. A better strategy would have been an escalation of negotiations. As the battle spread, South Africa deepened its military commitment to Savimbi, sending its troops into battle against the Angolan government forces and their Soviet and Cuban allies. Pretoria claims it turned the tide of battle. Also at the heart of Savimbi’s strength were the arms and munitions of the United States, including Stinger missiles. One can only guess what re-supply the CIA may now be mounting.

South Africa justifies its direct military role in Angola on grounds that it is defending itself and Namibia. The transparency of that argument is obvious. Geography measures how insignificant a threat Angola can ever pose to South Africa. Clearly, Pretoria’s real interest is to continue to block independence for Namibia, where it perpetuates control in defiance of the United Nations.

The United States justifies its support of Savimbi and his UNITA forces on grounds that his political demands have been ignored by the Marxist government of Angola. It is yet another case of an American President and Congress concluding that any means are justified if the end is to attack a Marxist regime. This is doubly tempting to the Reagan Administration because it is striking at both the Marxists of Luanda and the communists of Cuba.

In the eyes of the world and most of the rest of Africa, however, the United States is seen as a faithful ally of the white regime in South Africa, undergirding another phase of Pretoria’s brutal campaign to destabilize neighboring black states while perpetuating its illegal hold on Namibia and its denial of majority rights in South Africa itself.

The government of Angola must share the blame for the deterioration of the situation. The massive military campaign was a bald rejection of American efforts to win a negotiated settlement of the civil war. We regret the stubbornness of the Angola government in refusing to negotiate a settlement with Savimbi, even though his goals have always been ambiguous and his constituency limited. Nevertheless, the intrusion of South African troops and the infusion of American arms can only make matters worse. There is growing evidence that the Cuban troops will be withdrawn when they are no longer needed, but it is also clear that they are sorely needed now because of the threat posed by South African troops and American arms.

Angola is a pathetically impoverished nation struggling for survival. Famine is only one of the problems haunting the nation. It desperately needs peace so that the process of economic development can proceed. Ideologies are irrelevant in such circumstances. But as matters rest, all black African states, struggling with much the same problems as Angola, feel betrayed when foreign powers make battlefields of their hungry lands. The United States has much to gain by demonstrating a coherent and constructive policy, ending military involvement, opposing South Africa’s aggression, speeding the process of negotiation, and rejecting all excuses that delay independence for Namibia. That, in turn, will eliminate the rationale for Soviet aid and Cuban troops.