Angola Weekly News Summary ~

Contact number : (212) 682-3081January 15, 1976

ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY (OAU) SUMMIT ON ANGOLA

" It is not the OAU who will solve the Angolan problem, it will bethe Angolan people, " said Luis Almeida, Director of Information ofthe People's Republic of Angola, following the break-up of the extra-ordinary meeting of the Organization of African Unity after it failedto recognize his government as the sole representative of the Angolanpeople.

The OAU, which consists of 46 independent African states (exclu-ding South Africa and Zimbabwe) merely requested the nine-nation execurtine board to "follow the . problem closely . "

Mozambique's President Samora Machel opened the meeting with astrong speech supporting the People's Republic of Angola and urgedthat the 46 OAU member states "provide all necessary support to thepopular Movement in order to drive out the invaders, " Machel con-demned " those traitors who had opened the door to South Africa " andcalled the FNLA and UNIT, "puppet forces that paved the way for theSouth African aggressors ."

Machel i s speech was followed by that of Senegalese PresidentLeopold Sengor, who said that MPLA, FNLA and UNITA should reconciletheir differences .

TO recognize any one of the three factions wouldbe to think like Europeans," concluded Sengor.

The two speakers represented a division that remained through-out the meeting . Twenty-two countries, led by Nigeria, supported theposition of recognition of the MPLA-led People's Republic of Angola,while 22 countries supported the "reconciliation " position . Ethiopiaand Uganda took no " official" position . Finally, in the early hoursof January 13th, it became apparent that no compromise could be reached,and the meeting was adjourned.

Preceeding the OAU meeting, the U.S . had launched a diplomaticcampaign against open recognition of the People's Republic of Angolaand in support of its position of a government of national unity.Assistant Secretary of State for African Aff airs,W lliam E. Schaufele,visited five African countries : Cameroon, Gabon, Zaire, Ivory Coastand Senegal. These countries were all committed to opposing recogni-tion of the People's Republic.

Also, just prior to the meeting the State Department announced anew "carrot and stick" policy of giving or not giving aid to countriesdepending upon how they vote in the U .N . and other international forums.Already, the U .S . has postponed development aid to Tanzania because ofits votes in the U .N ., and Tanzania's position on Angola may well put

MPLA SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE, 825 WEST END AVE ., APT 14F, NEW YORK 10025

it out of the aid picture this year . Last year Tanzania received sig-nificant aid from the U.S . Nigeria has also been mentioned as a pos-sible target, but a large amount of U .S . oil comes from Nigeria.

Before last week's OAU meeting there had been considerable specu-lation in the " establishment " press that the OAU might decide to seatrepresentatives frAm the People's Republic of Angola, thereby recogni-zing the MPLA-led government as the legitimate representative of theAngolan people . When this did not happen, these same Western pressreporters were able to claim a victory for the Western-backed groups,and for South Africa and the United States, This interpretation leavesout very .importatt elements in the complex dynamics of the OAU summit.The fact that 22 African countries stood firmly for recognition of theMPLA Government, despite tremendous pressures from the United StatesGovernment, is significant ; also important is that support for theMPLA Government was seen by these countries as more important thana united African position, which, under the circumstances, would havebeen superficial and compromising to the interests of the Angolanpeople.

In Luanda, Lucio Lara, a leading member of the MPLA, said thatthe OAU conference did not change MPLA's position of no negItiationswith FNLA and UNITA. "We are at war with South Africa and Zaire," saidLara, and only with them would the People's Republic of Angela nego-tiate.

AFRICAN COUNTRIES SUPPORTING THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA : Algeria,Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde Islands, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, EquatorialGuinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea-Conakry, Libya, Malagasy, Mali, Mauritania,Comoro Islands, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia,Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Niger.

AFRICAN COUNTRIES REMAINING OFFICIALLY NEUTRAL : Ethiopia, Uganda

AFRICAN COUNTRIES OPPOSING THE RECOGNITION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLICOF ANGOLA : Cameroon, Cantral African Republic, Mauritius, Egypt, Gabon,Gambia, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Losotho, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco, Rwanda,Senegal, Sierre Leone, Swaziland, Togo, Upper Volta, Zaire, Zambia,Tunisia, Botswana .

ON THE ANGOLLN FRONT

The armed forces for the People's Republic of Angola have libera-ted the northern ports of Ambriz and Ambrizete and have pushed backNational Front and foreign mercenary forces t, Sao Salvador, 37 milesfrom the Zaire border . Ambriz was the military headquarters of theMa,

Since taking Uige, the FNLA headquarters, the MPLA has continuedto push north and is not expected to stop until it reaches the borderwith Zaire . According to an article by Henry Kamm (Jan . 15 Mimes)the leadership of the PNLA felt that it 'shad almost no hope of stem-ming the advance of the MPLA'" and "that their best chance was to evacu.

30

ate soldiers and the civilian population and to reorganize for the kindof guerrilla warfare the National Front carried out against ., Portugal . "'

Africa News reported that Jane Bergerol, B .B .C . correspondent,has been traveling through the newly liberated areas in north-westAngela with Prime Minister Lopo De Nascimento of the MPLA . "Bergerolsays the major complaint of people she met was the lack of food, afterthe FNLA army passed through, feeding off the land and killing live-stock . Villagers als# wanted transportation to take them to homes theyfled during heavy fighting in the area . Another request the PrimeMinister heard was for weapons to defend themselves should the FNLAtry to return, "

On the southern front, South African and Western-backed forcesof UNITA are falling back on the central towns of Huambo and Benguelain the face of an offensive by the MPLA. This retreat is being madedespite constant reinforcements from South Africa.

FNLA THREATENS TERRORISM

FNSJA, frustrated by MPLA's rapid military advances, is new threat-ening to use international terrorist tactics, the Jan . 15 NY Timetreported . Paulo Tuba, a member of FNLA's political bureau and one of12 members of the front who are linked in a 24-member "revolutionarycouncil " with UNITA, said that the first strikes would occur rightin Luanda . " We are prepared to plastic movies, markets, and publicplaces . . . . In a war of liberation people have to die, " he said . Re-ferring to MPLA's supporters, Mr . Tuba declared, "Congo-Brazzavilleand Guinea and others have embassies abroad . They have airlines . TheRussians have embassies in Africa . We can find money to pay foreigncommandos to attack them. "

according to TubaThese threats reflect FNLA's current desperation and are/aimed

at putting pressure on FNLA's Western backers to increase their support,

CONGRESSMAN DIGGS, AN INVITED OBSERVER TO THE OAU, SPEAKS OUT(excerpted from the Washington Post, 1/12/76)

" Congressman Charles C . Diggs Jr . (D-Mich.) called American inter-vention in Angola 'the biggest blunder in the history of its relationswith Africa' today and said it would have forced the resignation ofSecretary of State Henry -A . Kissinger were it not for 'the awesomereverence' he enjoys . . . .'

"'Once again African specialists were circumvented by the secretary 'imperious attitude and . proclivity toward viewing conflicts in terms ofexercises in East-West one-upmanship .'"

" 'You simply cannot equate Soviet military support with SouthAfrican aggression,' he said . 'The Soviet Union has supported vir-tually every African liberation group forced to resort to violencewhen all negotiations for independence f ailed . . . .In contrast, SouthAfrica remains the bastion of white su.premacI nt domination on theAfrican continent ."

p .4

ERICA ACAD6NIC, JOHi MARCUM, SPEAKS Oi\ AI~GGLA

xcerpts from NBC's Meet the Press, Jan . 4, 1976, with JohnMarcum, African scholar and professor of Political Science at theUniversity of California, Santa Cruz . He is the past president ofthe African Studies Association and has testified before CongressionalCommittees on African Affairs . de include selected portions ofiWiarcum's responses as representative of a significant line of argu-ment against US Intervention within the continuing debate on USpolicy toward ►ngo1a.

yanel : Dr . Marcum, what's really at stake In Angola? Why are somany people so agitated about it?

JWr . ,Aanoum : I think at this point prestige is at stake . The UnitedStates, the Soviet Union, a number of other countries, have inter-vened and, having done so, their problem, I think, for the mostpart, is how to get out and save prestige . . .

Panel : Roscoe Drummond, writing recently in the Christian Science)Monitor, said the real issue is not whether the United States has asignificant stake in Angola, but whether the United States has a stakein trying to prevent Soviet colonization of the African continent . Isthat the real Issue?

Dr . Marcum : I rather question whether this is really a Soviet colo-nization . I think the tendency is to impose upon Angola and otherAfrican issues a kind of cold war, or big power question and not toexamine the thing on its own merit . It is very questionable whetherthe Soviet could colonize Angola if they wanted to . . . .

Panel : Are you saying that the U .S . Senate was right to vote to outoff American aid to the two movements we have been backing in Angolaand that the administration was wrong in seeking to continue thisaid?

r . Narcum ,: Yes, I think the congressional action was really correctin this case, that we had nothing to gain by intervening, and indeed,one of the results of this is to raise the whole issue of governmentcredibility once again because of the way in which the aid was given;it was o.ert ; we were told there shouldn't be a public discussionabout it, and it has raised a lot of those problems that were leftbehind by the Vietnam experience.

Panl : What about the possibility of the establishment of a Russiannaval Base in Angola?

Dr .-Marcum, : The Popular Movement has said that it would not perm' .tsuch establishment, but even if they did those bases would sc . ~<<give the Soviets an enormous advantage . That is ., if they wish.,772 :

ocut off oil shipments, they could do that from Somalia or othc ;b 1 acesbetter situated and, if they did cut off oil shipments, I woul:resume they would be committing what would be close to an ac

warPanyway, so it doesn't really seem to me that it is that import .

P•5

Kr, Schweld : iihy is South African intervention such a cardinal sin?

Pj1arcum : South African intervention is -• in African termsagain, look at this question as an African problem, not just a globalproblem . South African intervention is a cardinal sin in thatAfrican countries feel threatened by a country whose racial system Ia .an anathema to them . 1i€eria ° s recognition of the Popular Movementgovernment was occasioned primarily because of South African Inter -vention . South Africa is in Africa . There are a whole series ofissues such as South Wiest Africa, Rhodesia, that are inter-related,and those are coming up.

Panel : Is Henry Kissinger an imperialist in your view?

PrA_Mlirpum : I don't know that Mr. Kissinger is an imperialist . Ithink heis someone who hasn't paid much attention to African problems.He has been apparently preoccupied with a number of other issues andwhat I fear is that this kind of situation that we face now hasbeen allowed to develop without attention given to it early enoughand we have confronted then a situat ion where we are involved, othersare involved, and it is very hard to find a way out . It is a preoccu-pation with global issues, with big power confrontation, and a kindof perhaps a disdain for things as mundane as Africa, until we getin deeply, to find a way out.

Panel : Zany comparisons have been made between our intervention inAngola and the situation, the quagmire we found ourselves in in 5:: thVietnam and Indochina . Have we intervened, in your estimation, onthe right side, given the military difference between the twoopposing factions?

,Dr . Marcum ,: I suspect ' we intervened on the side that is not going towin . The coalition that is fighting against the Popular he~ r . yhas not been able to do very well . In fact,iit really isn ' tcoalition government because its two parts are fighting betwetr them-selves . It is a kind of no-win policy, - If you will . . . .

Zr. Dash ,: So the matter is just not a Soviet-backed group sue' >_ , t dby the United States and South Africa, fighting against the Sc ..s,,..backed troops.

Dr . Marcum :. The fact that the two movements opposing the Popui rKovement have allowed themselves to become aligned with South Mahas done them, their own cause, :inestimable harm in the long run.And the United States has found itself caught up in this because,whereas we have proclaimed - that Soviet and Cuban intex-veetion iswrong -- and I am not 'saying' we shouldn°t urge that ei.mrybedy keepout -- we have been unwilling to sayanything about South Africa ..The State Department said on the first of December that it hadnoticed in the press that there were allegations of South Af rtcantroops in the country, but that it had not been in communication withand did not intend to be In consultation with South Africa on thatmatter . , , ,

p .6

I think what is difficult for us here in this situation isthat our government hasn't really made a very clear statement aboutwhy we are in there, what really is at stake . CAI the one hand it issaid that we don't care whether the Popular Kovement rules or not.On the other hand we are in there doing everything we can to make surethey don't and I would find it, as a citizen, very confusing if Ijust sat down and read our government statements about why we are &a-ing . it at all .

*************

ACTIUIS TO SUPPORT THI PEOPLz'3 RzPUBLIC CF' aGCLA

The MELA Solidarity Committee announced this week two new projectsto build support for the A2LA : a petition for a people's recognitionof the People's Republic of Angola, led by the EPLA, and a campaign toraise 410,000 for the kiLA Solidarity Fund . Copies of the petitionform are available from the Committee, 825 st Lnd Ave ., Apt . 14F,hew York, 10025.

An Ad Hoc Co-alition Against U .S . Intervention in Lngola, con-vened. by ACOA at December and January meetings, with representativesfrom such groups as the Women's International League for Peace andFreedom, Clergy and Laity Concerned, has called for a demonstrationin Washington , ionday, January 19, when Congress reconvenes.

The American Committee on Africa (JCCft) co-ordinated a quarterpageSvertisement in the hew York Times, Sunday, January 18, urgingreaders to tell their Congressional representatives to stop all fundsfor U .S . actions in Angola . The ad, sponsered by numerous trade union,academic, black community, and other progressive groups and indivi-duals, also denounces the government's myth that the men and womenof the HPLA are Soviet puppete . ACOA urges reproduction of the ad inother papers . Copies are available from ACOA 305

46th St . M'C 10017.

During the week of Jan . 12, a newly formed Southern Africa Committeat Dartmouth College sponsered a week of events focusing primarily onan3ola . The Boston MPLA Solidarity Committee held a rally and teach inon aneola on January 17th .

1024 Hill St . Ann Arbor Aich . 48104The Hichigan Free Press, /a progressive weekly published from Ann ,

Arbor, has produces a tabloid poster in its latest edition similar tothe button .of the

Solidarity Committee . The poster reads "Solidar-ity with the Angolan -i,eople : iiPLA" with the movement's insignia & colors

************

The American Committee on Africa (305

46th St .

10017) hasa supply of the hation magazine which contains several excellentarticles on Angola . Rates are 50¢ per copy . Bulk orders over 10 are350 per copy and over 50 are 250 per copy.

per monthIt costs us almost p2/to send you the Angolan Weekly Trews Summary

each reek . Many of our subscribers can not afford. that much . An increas-ing number of prisoners have asked to receive our news summary . Theycan not pay at all . Please send us as much money as you can . Onlyyour continued financial support allows uc to keep producing theseWeekly hews Summaries .

Inferutew LU 11*) ThPLA ?restdefrI RcJas+inho N€z-6c~ Rene Wor4-, LeNmda

-Crom Le Monde-.7ax). 3, 1914,utcpnnfedl .nThe Guaccc;n4641 . 14,19 410

What Is your evaluation of thecurrent situation?

We are faced with a majorproblem which stems directly Yfrom foreign aggression . Wehave abandoned some positionsbecause of enemy forces, es-pecially those from South Afri-ca, have forced us to retreat,which has meant the loss ofports such as Lobito, Benguelaand Novo Redondo, in particu-lar . But we have made theforces from Zaire draw back,and we think we have soweakened them that we don'thave to fear a significantoffensive from them.

On top of all this, we are nowalso subject to economic ag-gression . The United States andother imperialist countries arebeginning to organize a boycottagainst us . Some of our foreignbank accounts have been frozen.Planes we'have paid for haven ' tbeen delivered to us . U.S . oilfirms, like Gulf Oil, for example,are beginning to sabotage ouroil economy .

We'll have to adopt additionalstringent measures wheneverwe notice the threat of sabotageto any sector of our political oreconomic life . Our country isstill disorganized, signs ofindiscipline are appearing . Someasures will have to be takento make sure that misguidedelements can't interfere withour daily lives.

If I were to sum up my im-pressions after a month of inde-pendence, I could say I amsatisfied . Independence haschanged living conditions in ourcountry and whatever problemswe face are precisely thosebrought on by this transition.We need time to grasp that weare fully independent andwhollY resPonsible for ournational life.

The People's Republic hasdecided to set up a UnitedAnti-Imperialist Front on Itsterritory . But Is this front reallyhomogenous?

There are always exploiterson one side and exploited on theother . Peasants and workershave always been the exploitedones and they have the potentialto push the revolution to its con-clusion, whereas the petit bour-geoisie and the bourgeoisie, whowere relatively well treated bythe colonizer, will tend to holdup the revolutionary process.uBut this initial resistance oughtnot to make us forget that weare all victims of foreign

aggression . So long as SouthAfricans, Zairians, and Portu-guese mercenaries are engagedin aggression against us, weshould do everything to closeranks and avoid disputes be-tween classes with conflictinginterests . This is the rightapproach to take, for if we

emphasize the class Strugglewe'll quite obviously weaken theanti-imperialist front . And thatcould mean losing control of thecountry . Besides, what would bethe point of such a class struggleunder South Africa's heel? Sowe must chase the aggressorsout before settling our political,economic and cultural problems.

What do you think of yourfoes' tactics?

When the spokesmen of theUNITA and FNLA puppetgroups talk of a government ofnational union, they do so fortwo reasons . First, as a tacticalmove designed to win thesympathies of countries whichare perhaps unaware of theirlinks with racist South Africaand expansionist Zaire . Second-

ly-, because they know that,strategically, the struggle willbe won by the people, hence bythe MPLA.

As for us, we don ' t want tonegotiate with UNITA and theFNLA, or with any of theaggressors . Let them allow ourcountry and our people to be-come organized . There can beno agreement with the repre-sentatives of imperialism in ourcountry.

As regards the conference theOrganization of African Unity isplanning to hold in AddisAbaba, I think it will be usefulfor our struggle, for Angola, andfor all of Africa if it examinesthe question of foreign aggres-sion in our country . If it con-cerns itself with other problems,it will collapse . Besides, we aresure of' being recognized bymost of the African countries, sowe'll have a backing which will~enable us to reach our goal . t

Mr. Kissinger considers thatthe presence of the Soviet UnionIn Angola Is upsetting worldequilibrium.

Let's get one basic pointclear . All throughout the strug-gle against Portuguese colonial-ism and all the time we weresubject to exploitation, oppres-sion and the worst brutalities,Kissinger had absolutely noth-ing to say . Even at that time, theSoviet Union was helping us bysending supplies of arms for ourliberation struggle—and for thiswe are very grateful . It is whenwe have become independentand free and beginning to buildour state, that the U .S . StateDepartment becomes worriedby the fact that we have Sovietarms . Just because the SovietUnion supplieslies us with wea-pons, it doesn ' t mean that wehave become a satellite . We ' venever been one . We've neverasked Moscow for advice on howto set up our state . All the majordecisions in our country aretaken by our movement, ourgovernment and our people.Once again the U.S. StateDepartment is operating asinternational imperialism's chiefagent.

The South Africans want tocontrol Angola . It ' s somethingthey have been wanting for along time . They have alwaysmaintained that their defenseperimeter runs from Angola toMozambique . They want to takeover our country .entirely so as tobe able to ensure their domi anance in all of southern Africa.Zambia, Zimbabwe, and per-haps Mozambique would thencome under Pretoria ' s rule . Onecannot therefore put the world'sliberating forces, which areengaged in working for thegenuine liberation of people--thesethese forces are' representedhere by the socialist countries,including the Soviet Union,Cuba and progressive Africancountries—on the same footing

as forces which want to controlour country and take it over.

What do you think of theproposals to "put an end toforeign interference" In Angola?

We are a sovereign state andwe seek help from anybody weplease to defend our territorialintegrity, our economy and thereconstruction of our land . Nocountry has the right to accuseus on that score . When theUnited States speaks of puttingan end to foreign interference,what it wants is nothing morethan the expulsion of thesocialist forces, precisely thosewhich are helping us to avoidbecoming a new Americancolony.

Aren't you afraid that thepeople in the area may becomecasualties of an escalationbetween great powers as hashappened in other parts of theworld?

An escalation of the war inAngola is possible . The interestAmericans show in Angolacould theoretically lead to anextension of the war beyond thefrontiers of our country but Idon't think that it is veryprobable . The balance of forcesin the world is such today thatwe can rule out the thought of alocal conflict touching off alarger war. It's true our peoplemay suffer even more . But weare ready for that to win ourtotal liberation and indepen-dence. Our allies are ready toback us until we reach this goal.And don't forget there are otherinstances of the pressure ofworld opinion forcing the UnitedStates to withdraw its forces andleave its proteges in the lurch,as did happen in Saigon, forexample . We also hope SouthAfrica ' s troops will withdrawand with them its puppets,FNLA and UNITA.

Sb4e41ef*'

VCn3QJ icLw

S cL€4 -F, LLtL .&s flyerere,In+

'TcuA. . a, m

NYERERE: It is a fight for real independence, and against racialist South Africa."

1

"The cvnflae a s not d'f gha between Communists and anti-Communists.

A war is being fought in Angola . But itis not .a war for, or against, coin-mun'sm. It is a continuation of the warfor Angolan freedom which has beengoing on since 1961.

Until 1974 the Angolans were fightingagainst Portuguese colonialism . In thisstruggle the nationalist movementsreceived military and other materialaid from the Soviet Union and otherCommunist 'countries . The UnitedStates of America gave no support tothe independence movements . On thecontrary, it supported the Salazar andCaetano governments in their attemptsto suppress the liberation struggle.

Portugal lost its colonial wars . OnNovember 11, 1975, the last Por-tuguese troops were withdrawn fromAngola, the independence of the newAngolan state was declared and hasbeen internationally recognized.

The Angolan war continues becausethose who supported Portugal have 'sought out and found others to act intheir interests . Some of these others areAngolans who are confused, some areAngolans who are traitors to the realityof independence, and some are Angolansupporters of racialism—both blackand white.

The MPLA was the movement whichbore the brunt of the anti-colonialstruggle. UNITA did a little fightingsometimes, although at others it foughtagainst MPLA . The FNLA existed ine : :ile• it did little more.

The MPLA could not fight against thePortuguese with bows and arrows .

Western countries refused to give themarms . The Russians and their allies didgive them arns.

Why countries gave arms to theMPLA is a matter which they know,and others can only conjecture . What iscertain is that the arms were obtained,and used, for the independence ofAngola . They were used by nationalists,for nationalist purposes . And now,despite the Portuguese withdrawal,arms are still needed for that purpose.

For independent Angola has beeninvaded by South Africa . And itsgovernment is also now being attackedwith American money, Americanarms, and by Americans and otherWestern mercenaries.

It is easy to see why the apartheidregime of South Africa has intervenedmilitarily in Angola . Nor is there anydoubt about the fact. South Africa hasadmitted "defending its interests" inAngola . Its troops have been capturedby MPLA forces—sometimes hundredsof miles from the Namibian border.

South Africa wants a client state inAngola now that it has no Portugueseally in that country . It wants it so as tostrengthen its hold on Namibia—forSouth Africa itself has no border withAngola . And it wants it so as to weakenAfrica's united opposition to its internalracialism and exploitation.

What is not so understandable is whyAmerica should want to intervene onthe side of -South Africa, against freeAfrica and the mass of the Angolanpeople . If the Americans are in-

tervening to prevent the Soviet Unionfrom getting military bases on theSouth Atlantic, and to prevent anAfrican country from becoming acolony or puppet of the U .S .S .R ., thenthey are- not thinking—just beingarrogant . For that policy is self-defeating, as well as being dangerousfor America and the world .

'The MPLA took arms from the SovietUnion and the .other Communistcountries in order to get Angolan in-dependence . Angola is now , in-dependent, and the MPLA governmentis already recognized by some 20African states . It is fighting SouthAfrican aggression . It therefore needsmilitary support from its friends, to'consolidate the formal independence.To the extent that it also has to fightagainst American aggression it willneed very IlSuch more support.

The MPLA has a debt of friendship tothe U.S .S .R . : and others, just asFRELIMO has one to China and othercountries . No one would suggest thatindependent Mozambique is a puppet ofChin g ; inde$d, on the Angqtan questionChina and ''Mththbique do not holdidentical views . Under the constitutionrecently adopted by the MPLA, thatgovernment. is committed to the policyof rign 7alignmh.rit in the, superpowcficftpeiition--whic6 Meats no foreignbases . Hut if th~MPLA government isfofced, to rely npdri one of the s4er-powers'for if3Veryexi,,5tettee ; it will beforced, willy—nilly, into its embrace:;gthat' is 'what the Russians."' 7nOvemeant, they'Wlll be succeeding thanks .

to the United Sti{t :•s of America.Was Vietnam not enough for America

to learn from? How many more peoplehave to die before reason can prevail?.Suppose America were to say to

'Angola--"If . you want to be colonized byRussia, that is your own business ."Everyone knows how resounding wouldbe the Angolan "no" and Africa's"no further ." The Angolans have shownthat they are willing to fight for their

.independence if they have to, and theywill find allies where they can in orderto do so.

Africa cannot generalize aboutforeign presence in Angola . We wouldlike there to be none at all . But Angolais now being attacked by South Africa.Africa must welcome continued sup-port from those who help Angola's gov-ernment to fight South African ag-gression.

At present the conflict in Angola is.not a' fight between Communists andanti-Communists . It is a fight for realindependence, and against racialistSouth Africa.•• The last few months have probablyaroused too much suspicion forAmerica now to be welcomed by the 'Argolans as supporters in this conflict;Ameriean .government intervention hasbeen :~~ great . But it is still withinpmePica's power'to get out of Angola,'la save. itself from another Vietnam,and to. ;prevent the 'nationalist Angolanstruggle from being converted intoan international ideological conflict .

r