UNITA 1976
Source: The Workers’ Advocate [U.S.] Volume 6, Number 4, May 12, 1976;
Extracted from The Workers’ Advocate for the MIA Africa pages: by Paul Saba.
The chairman of the meeting, a member or the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), introduced Tony Fernandes, a founding member and Minister of Information of UNITA and Jorge Sangumba, Minister of Foreign Affairs of UNITA. Jorge Sangumba began the press conference by reading a prepared press statement issued by UNITA on March 13. The two representatives then answered questions for the reporters present at the press conference. The basic text of the press conference follows:
Comrade Sangumba:
Members of the press, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Now the Soviet-inspired civil war in Angola is over. The armed struggle has clearly become one of the Angolan people against the Russian army of colonial occupation. MPLA is no longer fighting UNITA and the FNLA, but Cuban mercenaries are fighting the people of Angola on behalf of Russian social-imperialism. There is now in Angola an army of occupation of fifteen thousand Cubans, and more than 1,500 Russian, Czech and East German military advisors. The first liberation struggle was against the occupation of our country by the Portuguese colonialists, armed and financed by all the NATO countries and racist minority regimes in Southern Africa. During the fifteen years of liberation struggle, the People's Republic of China provided major support to all the three Angolan liberation movements. Russian support was given to only one of the movements, MPLA. This same Russian support to MPLA was relatively slight when the enemy of Angola was colonial Portugal. The American support was naturally zero. In fact through its support to its NATO ally, Portugal, the United States actually supported the colonialist oppressor of Angola, directly by its administration and through multi-national corporations such as Gulf Oil.
Now, since the war against the Portuguese colonialists has ended, why have so many Soviet weapons been sent to MPLA? To kill whom? Naturally, the Angolan people, and to impose by sheer force of arms a pro-Soviet regime which will be used as a springboard to interfere with and attack other African States, thus creating a series of satellites far beyond the Russian zone frontiers. The USSR also laid its sights in Angola, regardless of all the consequences, in order to exploit Angola's abundant minerals, from oil to diamonds, and also to set up a reactionary global strategy to seek world hegemony.
Today, USSR ships have seized the port of Luanda, Lobito, and Mocamedes to transform them into naval bases and thereby to threaten the oil passage by sea, of United States and Western European countries from the east and south and dominate the southern flank. Consequently, taking Angola as a spring-board for expansion in Central and Southern Africa, the Soviet Union also attempts to further sabotage the national liberation movement in the whole of Southern Africa, and grab the strategic resources in the region. This is what UNITA considers in concrete terms, to be Soviet social-imperialism. The Angolan people surely, through the armed struggle that we decided a few weeks ago to wage, will resist and defeat Russian imperialism in Angola.
Now the issue of South Africa's involvement in the civil war of Angola, as a pretext of Soviet and Cuban invasion of Angola, is a false one. The South African question was manipulated by the Soviet Union in order to gain diplomatic support for the MPLA in the African and Third World countries. They succeeded temporarily. UNITA is no less an enemy of South African racist minority regime than is MPLA. In fact UNITA has been fighting against South African racist regimes and the abominable South African idea of Bantustan in concrete terms. From 1968, UNITA has been supporting the freedom fighters of Namibia through SWAPO. SWAPO does not have a single military camp inside Namibia, which means that all the activities have been done from the Angolan soil. Not from Luanda, not from the centre, but the southern part of Angola where UNITA has its military bases. UNITA shall continue to support all the just struggles and genuine liberation movements in Southern Africa. Not only against Western imperialism, but also against Soviet social-imperialism.
Also, it has been reported that UNITA and the other friendly organisations have been recruiting mercenaries to fight in Angola alongside UNITA. UNITA never had, does not have, and will never accept mercenaries of any kind, to fight for us. Furthermore, the idea of mercenaries contradicts the very concept of guerrilla warfare which is based on people's support inside the country. The question of mercenaries was another Soviet propaganda gimmick to denigrate UNITA and divert attention from the main issue, that of Soviet and Cuban invasion.
The third stage of our liberation struggle is the guerrilla warfare against the Cuban army and the Soviet advisors who have been recolonising Angola. The Cuban soldiers are not only looting houses, and raping Angolan women, but also taking over the shops, smuggling diamonds, and settling the most fertile areas of Angola, such as in the area of Sela. Recently, the League of the Angolan women shot 17 Cubans for raping some of the Women's League. Two weeks ago, the guerrillas of UNITA destroyed 12 Soviet tanks, and armed cars such as T54's, T34's and captured 25 Cubans. The Cubans in Angola, apart from settling, are bringing over their families, and the MPLA in April 1976 intends to extend to all of the Cubans, Angolan citizenship.
The multi-national corporations, which during the struggle against Portuguese colonialism financed the Portuguese colonial army, are now financing the Soviet and Cuban armies. Last week, Gulf Oil paid to the MPLA-Luanda government $102 million and the other multi-national corporations are about to do the same.
This second war of liberation against Russian and Cuban soldiers will and must continue until the last Cuban and Russian is driven from the Angolan soil. UNITA calls upon all the peace-loving and revolutionary organisations to fight together in all fields in such a way the Russian imperialism will suffer the same fate as U.S. imperialism suffered in Viet Nam. This is the end of the statement, that we could use. So if the members of the press or friends have any questions, we are ready to answer.
Question: What is UNITA's connection with the Communist Party of Canada, which I gather is sponsoring this?
Answer: The relations between UNITA and the Internationalists were formalised at the historic Necessity for Change Conference in London, England in August, 1967. More than 25 liberation organisations participated in this conference. UNITA and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) were two of them. The Canadian Internationalists, an anti-imperialist youth and student movement founded in Vancouver in 1963 who later founded the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) sent a delegation to the conference.
Question: UNITA though is not a democratic movement for the liberation of Angola?
Answer: Of course UNITA is a democratic movement, not only from our point of view, because all the Western reporters have been unanimous on Angola. If we had elections in October last year, UNITA comfortably could have over 75% of the total vote. In other words, it means that we are really a movement of majority -- in other words a democratic movement.
Question: You're saying in your statement you support other nationalistic movements in Africa or South Africa. What would be the next ground for the nationalist movement? Would Rhodesia be an example?
Answer: For our support? Well. Rhodesia--the only support that you can give to them, is not by sending an expeditionary army to Rhodesia. This you cannot do. As far as SWAPO is concerned, we occupy the same geo-political position. SWAPO is our neighbour.
The people in the northern part of Namibia are the same as the people in the southern part of Angola, the Quanyama people, the Ovambolan. So we think that whenever we can assist them, we are ready to support them. But one thing UNITA will never do, that is, to dictate what type of struggle SWAPO should wage. If SWAPO thinks that through the United Nations, they are going to get total liberation of Namibia, it is up to them to decide. If they think that they are going to wage an armed struggle against the South African racist minority in Namibia, it is up to them to decide. Secondly, we want to help the brothers of Namibia, not in isolation but through other African states, by consulting them and finding out what is the best way of supporting them.
Question: You made no mention of South African troops. You talked about no mercenaries being involved in UNITA but there were South African regiments fighting along the....
Answer: Well, this is exactly what the Western press unitedly say. They have been saying recently that South Africans were involved along side with UNITA and the FNLA. And, later on we discovered it was a very intelligent plot to help the Russians. In fact, the liberals in Western countries have been the best lobbies of the Russians and the Cubans. There is no question about that.
Question: Must have been pretty artistically done, because we have seen films of the South African troops fighting in grounds near UNITA.
Answer: Well, I submit to you myself being in Zambia, I was the only organiser of western journalists going in UNITA areas. I wonder, whether one day we will really organise a trip, whether for you or other men, to go to UNITA areas and to film UNITA fighting with the South Africans. As far as I remember, I don't recollect any incident like that. But let us analyse the problem of South Africa. It is not just the question of reporting, because reporters can report anything for the market in order to sell their newspapers better. Because, the issue of South Africa, in the past three months, was very exciting to sell newspapers. Is South Africa a superpower? South Africa is not a superpower. So, who could effectively fight the Russians in Angola? It is not South Africa!
South Africa alone cannot effectively fight the Soviet Union. It cannot! So, really it was a false issue. Secondly, when did South Africa come to Angola? Reporters have been saying that it was UNITA and FNLA who called South Africans to Angola. This is false! It is against history! South Africa came to Angola in 1969, under a contract between the Portuguese colonialists and South Africans, when South Africans started to build up the Cuene Dam in Angola. The Cuene Dam is a counterpart of the Cabora Bassa. In 1969, South Africa put troops in the southern part of Angola. Now, when we formed the transition government, we had the three armies of MPLA, UNITA and FNLA facing the South Africans five kilometers apart from each other. Not a single shot was fired against South Africa at the time. Mind you; it was immediately after we came from Portugal in January. Now the civil war started in March 1975, and the issue of South Africa started to appear in the press around June, July, August, September. Why, only in that period did people discover South Africans were in Angola, if South Africans have been in Angola since 1969!? We come to the conclusion that the South African issue was the only emotional issue, which could unite the liberals outside, because they could appeal to something, to help the "niggers" in some way in Africa, and that was the only issue that could unite all the African countries, and Third World countries despite their contradictions. And I think the Soviet Union succeeded in having a diplomatic victory for MPLA around the issue of South Africa. But mind you, this is only a temporary diplomatic victory, because the situation will be reversed.
Question: So you are telling me that UNITA and South African troops never fought side-by-side, never supported each other in the war against MPLA?
Answer: This is exactly what I am saying.
Question: So, where does the UNITA support come from?
Answer: From 1966-74, UNITA never received a single penny from the OAU, because UNITA was not recognised by the OAU until January 1975. In other words, OAU ignored UNITA for nine years. Finally, people said how come these people have been surviving inside Angola without OAU support, without Cuban support, without American support, without outside support? The story is very simple. We relied mainly on our people.
In terms of weapons we captured a lot of weapons from the Portuguese, and we also did a lot of underground work buying weapons and bringing them into the country. This was in the first stage of the struggle. As far as the second stage of the struggle, we have met a lot of friends recently, in the Western world and in Africa who gave us support and they are going to continue to give us financial, diplomatic and military support.
Question: This will be to raise funds for your campaign?
Answer: Not this time.
Question: Will you be visiting the United States?
Answer: I have already been in the United States and I am going back home next Tuesday.
Question: And you have already been to Europe as well?
Answer: We have a representative in Europe. He is my brother here, Tony Fernandes. He is based in Europe, so his job is to brief people in Europe about what is taking place in Angola.
Question: How much longer do you expect Zambia to provide support?
Answer: Zambia never supported us militarily.
Question: Offices?
Answer: Even officers. And we will never accept Zambian officers coming to our land to fight for us. This we will never do. Offices or officers? -- (the question was of offices) We don't really have offices as such. At the moment that UNITA ceased to be a liberation movement on the 11th of November 1975, when Angola became independent; UNITA, FNLA and MPLA all ceased to be liberation movements. Therefore, they would not have offices like SWAPO and CAPAC and so forth. Really, we are there as individuals operating in their house.
Question: What will happen if Dr. Kuanda withdraws his support from UNITA?
Answer: I said that Dr. Kuanda never gave military support. Dr. Kuanda only gave us political support. And I think that in Africa he has been one of the most consistent men, the men of principle. You may have heard about his press statement; he said, "That, Angola today is a land under occupation of Russians and Cubans". So he does not see why Zambia should recognise an occupation, an occupied country. Zambia has consistently been supporting the idea of stopping the war and putting all the foreigners out of Angola, from South Africans to the Soviet Union and the Cubans. He has supported the formation of a government of national union and wants Angolans to settle their own affairs. Up to today he has been consistent; I don't know if it is going to change tomorrow.
Question: The U.S. also supported the recognition of MPLA, did it not?
Answer: I don't know about that. But whether the U.S. recognises the MPLA or not does not change anything.
Question: Can you comment on UNITA's relationship with Zaire?
Answer: Well, our relationship with Zaire is exactly the same as the relationship we have with Zambia, with Kenya, with Gabon, with Ivory Coast, with Senegal, with Cameroon, or with any African state. Of course with Zaire we have a special relationship in the sense that Zaire is our neighbour. Zaire shares with Angola more than 200 kilometres of frontier. In Zaire, there are more than one million Angolan refugees. During the armed struggle with the Portuguese, and now during the civil war, Angolans are still running away to Zaire. Therefore it is only normal not only to have a political relationship, but to have a special relationship with Zaire.
Question:There have been reports here that Zaire asked UNITA, and FNLA, to leave the country. Now, would you want to comment on that, in view of what you just said?
Answer:Yes, such a thing may have affected the FNLA, but not UNITA because UNITA does not have an official office in Zaire, UNITA does not have a single military camp in Zaire -- has never had one in the past and will never have one in the future. UNITA does not have a single military camp outside Angola. So, when an African state will say, well, UNITA and FNLA, close down your houses, will this change the situation inside the country? It will not change it. What I am saying is that the reports you are giving are being a little bit dramatised. UNITA does not have offices officially in Zaire, it does not have headquarters in Zaire. So therefore, when they said that Mobutu asked UNITA to leave Zaire, this doesn't really give you any news at all. Possibly it affects FNLA, because FNLA has a big office headquarters in Kinshasa, but not UNITA. Our headquarters is inside Angola.
Question:But if the MPLA is the government of Angola, officially recognised by Zaire, how could you have a special relationship with President Mobutu's government?
Answer:Well. Are you saying that Zaire diplomatically recognised MPLA? Well....
Question:Last week!
Answer:Last week! When they met in Brazzaville?
Question:Yes.
Answer:No! Your information is wrong. Zaire met Dr. Neto in Brazzaville and the two parties decided to normalise their relations. That was the exact text of the communique. An equal number of representatives of each side are going to form a committee to study other problems, which is then going to lead to full diplomatic relations. This is exactly what the communique says. But UNITA is an Angolan liberation movement. So I don't see why MPLA is to have a monopoly on having a special relationship with Zaire. Both UNITA and FNLA being Angolan movements have to have relationships with Zaire. We have to.
Question:But wouldn't the M.'LA, as part of the negotiations, insist that it be the sole recognised governing party in Angola; wouldn't it insist that Zaire not have any special relationship with any other group in Angola?
Answer: Yes, they may, they may. MPLA is definitely asking that. But there are 1,000,000 refugees in Zaire, members of FNLA. It is a problem. Of course, for us it is not. They are members of FNLA: how are these refugees going to go back to MPLA and MPLA control? This is not our problem. But since the controversy in Angola is not over yet, we think that UNITA has to maintain good relations with the neighbouring countries, Zaire and Zambia, no matter who forms the regime in Luanda.
Question: How do you justify the statement that the controversy in Angola is not over when the OAU has recognised the MPLA government, and countries from East and West have also recognised the MPLA?
Answer:You see the recognition which counts in Angola is the recognition from the Angolan people. The question is, did our own people recognize MPLA? I think that you yourself know that the answer is "No". How do we measure that the Angolan people recognise MPLA? Because of Soviet guns? The answer is no! Diplomatic recognition -- what does it mean? How many countries recognised Chiang Kai-shek for the past thirty or forty years? What happened. Where is Chiang Kai-shek now? So you see, this is the problem. That as long as the Angolan people do not recognise a particular liberation movement, it does not matter how many recognitions you have in the world. It cannot succeed. Our people have said that the Cubans and the Russians have to leave Angola. This struggle is legitimate and they should continue the resistance. And if we succeed, OAU will change. And you know already how often they change their mind.
Question:What is the status of the FNLA at the moment? Are you associated with them, or do you consider them a dead cause?
Answer:No, we don't consider them a dead cause. They are still in Kinshasa, and still have some forces inside Angola. But they are facing a lot of difficulties. They had problems in the northern part of Angola after the collapse of Negage, their headquarters. Later on they had further problems with the mercenaries. But I think that FNLA is not a dead issue yet. The alliance of FNLA with UNITA was within the spirit of the formation of the government of national union. We thought that later on they might join us, but they have refused to join us. Also, we have to clarify here that the issue of FNLA was also used against UNITA by people who do not know anything about Angola, but parade around as experts on Angolan affairs. They have forgotten that in 1972, MPLA made an alliance with FNLA. Everyone following the whole development remembers that. There was an agreement signed in Kinshasa, whereby FNLA and MPLA would form a political and a military commission. Dota Gushinet was elected leader of the military commission and Holden Roberto the leader of the political commission. Of course, at that time, the alliance was a "progressive" alliance, because it was made by MPLA. Three years later, the same alliance made between UNITA and FNLA was a "reactionary" alliance.
Secondly, we have already had an alliance between the three movements, through the Mombasa Agreement, through the Alvor Agreement and through the Nakuru Agreement last year. And finally, we had a tripartite alliance between the three Angolan liberation movements during the transitional government, whereby the liberation movements would share a similar or same number of portfolios for the administration of the country. Of course, at that time people thought the alliance was progressive, but when the MPLA left the alliance, people then said the alliance was reactionary.
Question:Reports we have received here indicate that the war is all but over. Is that the situation?
Answer:No! I think that what people are trying to do by saying that the war is over is to discourage UNITA from fighting and to discourage people from giving support to UNITA. The war is not really over. In fact, it is the beginning of a very serious confrontation. It is no longer against our MPLA brothers. It is now against an army of occupation, 15,000 Cubans, 1,500 Russians, Czechs and East Germans. Today in Angola, the Cubans are settling in Angola, occupying the most fertile lands, the area of Sela for example, and bringing their families to settle. Apparently in April, next month, citizenship will be extended to them.
Question:How do you fight a power which seems to be much larger than Angola?
Answer:Like the Soviet Union? Well, the United States lost in Viet Nam and I think that is another superpower. But I will explain to you how we are going to fight and how we are going to succeed. First, we have the people.
Question:How many people?
Answer:Over four million people. This is exactly the number. Over four million people.
Question:Is that based on a tribal basis or what?
Answer:No. In Angola, among the four million people you will find more than forty different tribes. It is not tribal support.
So (back to the original question) the people are the most essential thing. We don't claim to have support from the whole of Angola, this would not be true; mainly from the 11th parallel. If you go to a map of Angola, it is exactly between Porto Amboin and the Novo Redondo (UNITA's support base). People there are giving political support to UNITA.
Secondly, we are better armed than we were against the Portuguese colonialists. In other words, the civil war, the short-lived civil war, allowed UNITA to get weapons and to be better armed, better equipped and better trained. Our army is also much more politicised than before. We had much more time to politicise the army. From the other side, when we fought against the Portuguese, the Portuguese had 600,000 colonialists in Angola. Some of them were born in Angola, but most of them came from Portugal. These people controlled the economy of the country, the commerce and the industry. So this meant that local people, for their very survival depended on the local Portuguese shop. Thus they were automatically subservient to the Portuguese as such. Secondly, the Portuguese had a sophisticated police state, called PIDE, of the Gestapo type. The PIDE had tentacles not only in the towns but even in the villages. What does this mean? It means that when a guerrilla, during colonial times, arrived at the village, you were not sure whether your father, your mother, your cousin or your brother was not a member of the Portuguese Secret Police.
Now during the civil war, we discovered that the country was divided in three. People who gave political support to FNLA were in the northern part of Angola. People who gave support to MPLA were around the Luanda-Malange corridor. And people who gave support to UNITA started from the 11th parallel.
We don't think that the Soviets and the Cubans, for the next twenty years will succeed in building up a police state and an infrastructure like that the Portuguese built over five centuries. This is why we think that the objective conditions for our success against the Russians and Cubans are much more appropriate. Furthermore, the Cubans don't speak the language. They speak Spanish -- smoke a big cigar! Also they don't know the terrain. It is really a foreign terrain. The Cubans are only in the towns. They are not occupying the simple village and they are not in the countryside. So what this means is that our target and our objective is much more precise and much more limited than it was when we fought against the Portuguese colonialists. So, we don't see why we are not going to succeed.
Question: What proof do you have that citizenship is going to be extended to the Cubans?
Answer:This was the declaration made in Congo-Brazzaville by Dr. Neto.
Question:When was the declaration made?
Answer:About three weeks ago.
Question:Could you tell us the purpose of your visit to Canada?
Answer:To visit our comrades in Canada, the United States and all over Western Europe to brief them about the new stage of the second liberation struggle we have undertaken and what is going to be the next strategy and tactics to adopt against Soviet social-imperialism.
Question:Have you made any approaches to the Canadian government for recognition?
Answer:No.
Question:Do you intend to?
Answer: I don't have time for any meeting now after this press conference. But the Canadian government is the government of a sovereign country and state and it can take any position it likes on Angola. I think for the people who did not take this position in the past, for political reasons, possibly it's too late. Because now nobody is going to convince us that we should not resist any more. So, if the Canadian government thinks we should resist, their assistance will be welcome. But if they want to recognise MPLA, good luck to them.
Question:On the question of guerrilla warfare -- how many people would you actually have fighting for your cause? You mentioned the people of Angola, but how many people have you actually got?
Answer:During the civil war, we had over 22,000 fighters. When we decided to have guerrilla activities, we decided to make a force of 15,000 soldiers--a hard core, compact force of 15,000 young men that were going to be distributed in all provinces of Angola where UNITA had political support. We are not claiming to be engaged in guerrilla warfare on a national scale. There are areas where we do not have political support. And a guerrilla without the support of the local population is no longer a guerrilla. He is a vagabond. Unless you form a Sierra Maestra and from there you organise a base area. But in Angola we don't have a Sierra Maestra. The guerrillas have to rely on the people, and then they are going to succeed.
Question:You mentioned you were better off now than you were during the war earlier on. Can you tell us where you acquired your arms from?
Answer:Well, I deal with foreign affairs. These answers the General Command of UNITA can give you. Some of the weapons we are getting -- I haven't any idea where they are coming from.
Question:Let me put it another way. Have you been receiving any financial support to buy these arms with?
Answer:From abroad? Yes, from African states and from other friendly countries. And don't forget -- Angola is very rich in material resources. We don't have any reluctance to use our gold or our diamonds to get finances and then to buy weapons.
Question:Can you tell me which African countries have given you...?
Answer:No. I don't think that would be proper. The list is too long. Idon't think you are going to publish all of them.
Question:How many countries? Can you put a figure on the countries?
Answer:You remember when we went to the OAU, for that extraordinary meeting on Angola. We had 22 countries in favour of a government of national union. Remember? In other words the UNITA line. And 22 countries in favour of the Soviet line. I think there are 22 countries. This is why I said the list is too long. Will you publish the 22 countries in your newspaper?
Question:If they were split, you know, 50-50, how come the OAU accords recognition to the MPLA?
Answer:It is a simple majority. At the moment it is not 50-50. There are 22 countries. There are 46 African states. If MPLA gets 23 countries, it is a simple majority, period.
Question: How much money do you need to continue your campaign?
Answer:How much money? I do not really know how much money. It would be a lot of money. It depends on our needs and also on future developments. And also, don't forget, we are going to capture a lot of weapons from the Cubans, and this has already begun to happen. We are not going to depend mainly on outside assistance. We have always said right from the beginning that UNITA is essentially a self-reliant organisation. Because we know that outside assistance sometimes is very opportunistic and uncertain; that, at the moment you need or expect to have external assistance, it is exactly that moment the external assistance does not come. The moment we said: "To Hell with external assistance!" we found that a lot of friends were willing to give us things that we needed. So, you have to rely first and foremost on your own human and material resources, and then the outside assistance will be only a complement to the things that you really don't have inside the country. So, we don't expect very much from outside.
Question:You said earlier that you were forming a group of 50,000 or 15,000?
Answer: 15,000.
Question:Have you any long-range ideas on how long it will take to win your struggle?
Answer:No. This depends very much on the development of objective conditions. We see only two possibilities that can come from this type of war. First, since we are now going to hit hard at the Cubans inside Angola, the Russians might convince Dr. Neto to make a political compromise to solve the "crisis". UNITA will goalong with any political compromise, as long as the Russians and Cubans are out of Angola. The second alternative is that if the Soviet Union should insist that MPLA should keep the Cubans and Russians, then the country will be divided for some time into two parts, most likely along the eleventh parallel. And such a thingwould be most unfortunate. This would be the situation until the time comes that the country is re-unified again, either by political or military means. We don't see any alternatives besides these two. But we think that the best solution would be a political solution. But this political solution is only possible if foreigners do not interfere in Angolan internal affairs. And we already have a lot of experience on this question. The reason that UNITA, MPLA and FNLA were able for the first time in our history to reach agreements in Mombase, Alvor and Nakuru, was that we did not have a single Cuban, Russian or any foreigner advising the liberation movements. We sat down in a room like this one for five days, quarreling with each other, insulting each other without a foreign representative -- not even an African leader present. The meetings took place in Kenya, for instance, Nakuru and Mombasa. Kenyatta was not in the room. Kenyatta attended the first session in which the session was opened, and the last one for signing the documents. But not a single Kenyan or OAU delegation was allowed to be in the room during the actual discussions. This is why we reached an agreement. So, I assure you, if Russians, Cubans and all other foreigners leave Angola, we are going to see that in less than five months, Angola is going to find a political solution. But as long as these people are there--we are not going to find any solution.
Question: You mentioned the possibility of a divided country. Are you suggesting that the country should be partitioned or do you mean divided politically?
Answer: No, I am not saying that. You see the map of Angola up here, (points to map) This one is a map divided in two. It was not divided by us. It was divided by the Portuguese. This is the northern part of Angola-Cabinda in the north. You see Luanda there, then the other half. The eleventh parallel is this line here.
Question: Do you have your support in the south?
Answer: Exactly. From Novo Redondo to Pareira there is, let us say, more than half of the country. The people of this area politically support UNITA. Without exaggerating, you can see from the spots on the map there that it is the most populated area, an area of the most dense population in Angola. Here is exactly why MPLA fears an election and the Russians fear an election. Three-quarters of 600,000 Portuguese settlers in Angola, mainly the little businessmen, were supporting UNITA. This is why they created conditions of civil war in order to force all the Portuguese to leave Angola. And they succeeded in sabotaging the election. Now, if MPLA is really the vanguard of the people, as some people have been saying, or if it is a progressive movement, why does MPLA fear people? And if UNITA is a "reactionary" movement, as the Soviets and Cubans are saying, how is it that UNITA has popular support? This is a contradiction in terms. People do not follow reactionary things. This is exactly what I mean. I am not advocating the partition of Angola. I am describing the possible alternatives. The first alternative is a political solution.
Question:Which you consider the best one, right?
Answer: Yes, the best one. If the Cubans and the Russians leave, we will reach that compromise. But if the Cubans and Russians remain in Angola, forcing us to solve the problem militarily, then the second alternative will be the partition of Angola into two parts until we are able to reunify Angola either politically or militarily.
Question:Will this coalition be between all the factions, or will you be selective in that?
Answer: It will be between all the factions. Because UNITA is not for excluding other people. These people who are against FNLA don't know what they are talking about. These so-called experts on Angolan affairs, know nothing about Angola. FNLA, despite the contradictions we have with them, made a historical contribution to the liberation of Angola. Who started the armed struggle in 1961? It was not MPLA. It was FNLA. Only in 1963 did FNLA start to go astray. But FNLA made a historic contribution to the liberation of our country. Therefore, Angolans should give respect to them.
Question:MPLA as well?
Answer:Exactly. All three liberation movements made historical contributions. This is why UNITA is in favour of a coalition of all Angolan liberation movements and all patriotic forces or individuals. They should form a government of national union. But the Soviet Union said no.
Question:Are you disappointed that the U.S. Congress would not allow U.S. aid to come to Angola?
Answer:Well, I am not disappointed. Why should I be disappointed? Did the U.S.A., I mean, imperialism, help us during the Angolan liberation struggle? What type of assistance did we get from that government? We got nothing. In fact, the U.S. was helping the Portuguese. And you know this story. So there's no reason why Ishould be disappointed. I should be disappointed only if in the past the U.S. gave us assistance against the Portuguese, and in the end changed their minds, and told us, "No, we cannot support you against the Russians". But I am not disappointed. But also, we should not rule out the possibility of superpower hegemony tactics. Possibly there is a deal somewhere between the two superpowers over the question of Angola. I am not going to elaborate more. This is really just food for thought.
Question:You think there is a deal?
Answer: We don't exclude this possibility.
Question:Could you speak up sir?
Answer:You heard properly.
Question:No, I didn't honestly.
Answer:I said that we should not exclude the possibility of a deal between the United States and the Soviet Union over the question of Angola. In fact, just read the statement from Mr. Kissinger. What do you think Mr. Kissinger is saying? That the U.S. will never again tolerate another Angolan situation. Isn't that what Mr. Kissinger is saying? He said that the U.S. would never tolerate again another Cuban and Russian invasion like the invasion of Angola. So what this means is that the adventure in Angola was tolerated.
Question:Do you think this sort of deal would be a kind of compromise in which all powers would stay out of Angola?
Answer: I do not know. But it smells like a deal.
Question:Good or bad?
Answer:Very good! (laughter)
(Comrade Jorge Sangumba is referring to the exposure of the two superpowers. The press used this last comment of his out of context to suggest that Comrade Sangumba was relying on superpower deals.)
Chairman:We'll take one more question.
There were no more questions, and the press conference was concluded.