UNITA 1976
Source: People's Canada Daily News, January 14, 1976 and The Workers’ Advocate [U.S.] Volume 6, Number 2, February 1, 1976;
Extracted from The Workers’ Advocate for the MIA Africa pages: by Paul Saba.
The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) would like to appeal to all freedom and peace-loving people of the world to give all political and moral support to the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) currently meeting in Addis Ababa to decide upon the fate of the Angolan people.
We might all too optimistically rejoice over this fact that at last theOAU, the responsible Africans, are now meeting to precipitate an African solution to an African problem. But we should be sober enough to understand the complexities of the Angolan crisis and to exercise caution in assessing any possible solutions. Facts:-
1. The Angolan civil war was triggered by the massive intervention of the Soviet Union, to which other foreign powers have responded by aligning themselves on opposing sides. By July 1975, for example, the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola), by sheer military strength wielded from Russia, violated each and every cease-fire agreement; MPLA swiftly and systematically occupied all strategic towns in the country, and it became a mockery to try to uphold and implement the Alvor Agreement tenet on the realization of general elections which were scheduled to take place last October. The FLNA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola),.the traditionally pro-Western faction, did not have enough weapons to withstand the MPLA's offensive - Western support was all too weak to match Russia's. UNITA had the population and the political and moral strength of the peasant masses, controlling 55% of the Angolan population - and an army of 40,000 men. This could have been the largest of the three armies, but, unfortunately, only a fraction of its men were armed, for UNITA never had the support of any superpower; so in practice UNITA's army was the weakest of the three and had no means to resist the Soviet Union's highly sophisticated weaponry. There was no western ally on UNITA's side. UNITA, however, managed eventually to get enough support to repel the invasion and arrive at the present military standoff with MPLA. We perfectly understand that the forces engaged in the war are essentially foreign both in motives and in material resources. It is a very big war now, demanding the deployment of missiles, rockets, helicopters, armoured vehicles and skills and showmanship that guerrilla armies simply could not master. Naturally, the motives of the foreign people are not philanthropic or humanitarian on behalf of the Angolan people! Because of such massive involvement of external forces, the solution of the Angolan problem now largely transcends the ability of the Angolan leaders to resolve the conflict internally.
2. The foreign forces involved in Angola are essentially non-African. The conflict, therefore, surpasses the ability of the African states who are, at most, being manipulated and used by non-African powers. Much is being said about the Soviet Union's arm-twisting and bribing of certain African heads of state to induce them to recognize the MPLA. Soviet pressure started as early as last October; we know how last November President Idi Amin of Uganda vehemently denounced such high pressure. tactics by the Soviet Union. Of course many African countries have already buckled under such pressures and others did not resist the money bribe. But there are also many who are fully and genuinely committed to the search for a stable, lasting solution to the Angolan problem, for it is, after all, an African problem; some of Angola.'s neighbouring countries suffer with us in the flesh, and they could not take the Angolan crisis lightly or emotionally.
3. Politicians the world over are failing to distinguish cause from effect in the Angolan war. Therefore, instead of condemning all foreign intervention the issue has become clouded by South African troops on Angolan soil. UNITA has, and continues to categorically deny any collusion, alliance or support with the racist South African forces. It is necessary to continue to state the nature of South African involvement in Angola simply because the Soviet propaganda machine has used the South African invasion of Angola to brand the rival movements of the MPLA, namely UNITA and FLNA as the agents of racist imperialism.
Since UNITA's leadership returned to fight on Angolan soil the guerrillas of the Namibian liberation movement, SWAPO, have always found sanctuary, arms, supplies and brotherhood in UNITA liberated territory. This alliance of giving blood with blood to our SWAPO brothers enabled SWAPO guerrillas to intensify their attacks on the illegal racist government of Namibia. The escalation of SWAPO guerrilla attacks in Namibia over the past months conclusively confirms UNITA's stand against apartheid South Africa. Where then is the logic which associates UNITA forces with the invading South African forces? The aim has been to undermine the joint command of UNITA/FLNA while attracting African support to the so-called Russiin alternative. UNITA's main objective is the total independence of Angola for which we must never tolerate the expansionist patronizing presence of any imperialist force in the country. Russia must therefore be denounced for its imperialist adventure in Angola along with all other foreign armies now on Angolan soil. No rule should, by sheer military force, be imposed upon the people, for that could only be contrary to the very goals for which we fought the Portuguese colonialists. South Africa is an athema to Black Africa, and UNITA is determined to continue to give its support and fight it to the very end. There could be no possible ground for accusing UNITA of cooperating with South Africa unless there is open malice. UNITA's solidarity with the peoples of Azania, Namibia and Zimbabwe is firm and total for we believe that the total independence of Angola can never be complete until Azania, Zimbabwe and Namibia are free from the oppressive and humiliating apartheid minority regimes. During the 14 year war against the Portuguese the Soviet Union invested a total of about L27 million in aid to the MPlA; but after the defeat of the Portuguese, i.e. during the 12 month period from November, 1974 to October, 1975, the Soviet Union spent about L60 million in aid to MPLA, now obviously having as the only enemy the Angolan liberation movements that did not want Russian imperialism in Angola. UNITA is a pan-African Socialist mass movement in theory and practice, and we do not see why we should go from Portuguese colonialism to Russian neocolonialism.
4. Ideally, OAU member countries should have undertaken more efforts, bilaterally and privately, to convince themselves of the need to analyse the problem as objectively as possible, refrain from recognizing any faction, and then, as a powerful united organization, persuaded the non-African pwoers to withdraw from Angola. The OAU could then finally convene the three Angolan parties and vigorously support the formation of a government of national unity - for the sake of Angola's territorial integrity and people's unity. The weakness of the OAU, at the present time, stems from three main sources; (1) there is no outstanding unifying leadership within the OAU; (2) there is a tendency of the OAU member countries to yield to non-African powers and pressures; (3) the pan-African ideology and philosophy are being overshadowed by the economic strength of the relations of East/West to which OAU members tend to cater, thus reducing the Organisation to an aggregate of East/West clients. We do, however, think that this is a very serious moment and the OAU should transcend all its weaknesses for the sake of Africa. End item