ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Angola Revisited

Regarding your article "Diamonds are for terror" [ETS!, Feb. 16, 2000].

I spend part of each year in Lisbon, Portugal (I am Portuguese), where I have made acquaintance with several Angolans citizens who reside there (some of them for many years). There is a very large Angolan population in Portugal, mostly in Lisbon, due to the difficult conditions in Angola. The large majority holds difficult and poorly paid jobs--the men as construction workers, the women as house servants and janitors, largely.

I know partisans of both UNITA and MPLA (none of whom own diamonds, by the way), and I cannot sort out which are the righteous. I have developed the notion that I should not label one "good" and the other "bad." History is too complex and I know it poorly. There is a huge lot to know about, you see? The very little I know is only enough to see through the lack of knowledge contained in your article. To know a few facts, even many facts, is different from "knowledge." Understanding of such a complex situation is not achieved by gathering a few scattered and selected facts.

The history of foreign support to UNITA and MPLA--a focus of your article, though you only mentioned the foreign support given to UNITA, not to MPLA--started before Angola's independence from Portugal in the seventies, including South Africa, the U.S., etc. on UNITA's side, and China, USSR and Cuba (who sent vast numbers of troops to Angola), on the other. (I suspect that mentioning the two sides, rather than only one side like you did, will in the eyes of some label me rather than you, as taking sides!)

But it has been quite a while since it was in the U.S.'s interest to support UNITA. The U.S. has been instrumental in keeping MPLA in power. The MPLA gave oil-exploration privileges to U.S. companies, for example, and the mutual back-scratching has been going on for many years. Whether or not appearances may point to the contrary. Without the active U.S. role in protecting the oil wells, the Angolan oil exploration would have long been threatened by UNITA.

You mentioned nothing about the ethnic/geographic constituencies of UNITA and MPLA. There is a South and a North in Angola. There is a half of the country with most of the riches in diamonds and oil, another with mostly agricultural potential. There are geographical reasons why diamonds are in the hands of UNITA. There are strategic reasons why the Angolan government and many in the West wish to keep Angola under a centralized government controlling the borders that were established by the Portuguese colonialists: to get a share of the geographically uneven distribution of natural resources.

You write that the Angolan government is "socialist," thus receiving antipathy from the US. What evidence do you have that the Angolan government is socialist? The fact that they claim to be socialist? Is it the design of their flag (the star, cogwheel and machete in the style of hammer and sickle)? Do you distinguish labels from the actual reality? Furthermore, do you consider that the Angolan government has been fairly elected? Have you given any thought to any of these (fundamental) questions?

Finally, is it in your opinion okay to publish articles on such enormously important and scandalously misunderstood topics (for many years, the average death rate in the Angolan war was 1,000 per day, the country is torn apart, families divided, a huge diaspora unable to return...) without actually understanding them either?

Truth is not "there's the bad guys and the good guys, and we'll tell who

the bad guys are by watching whom the U.S. is backing." What then when the U.S. backs up both parties? At different times, even at the same time? What when the U.S. claims to support one but actually supports the other? What then? Don't we then realize we should get used to doing some actual thinking?

Mariza Cabral, via e-mail

P.S. This is a P.S. to my earlier letter to Maria Tomchick on Angola. A bit long but I think it's worth it to read on:

A quick web search on altavista with the keywords "Angola" and "oil" tells us most important things. The first result of the search is "http://mbendi.co.za/cyanoi.htm". Here's a few things we immediately learn:

The importance of oil to the Angolan government is immediately reflected in that there is a Minister of Petroleum. The Angolan oil industry is dominated by the State-owned Sonangol. Then we read that: "Key foreign companies active in the upstream area have invested more than U.S. $8 billion in Angola. They include Energy Africa [South African], Agip [Italian], Chevron (US), Elf (France), and Texaco [US] which manage the operation of Angola's producing oilfields. In addition, nearly three dozen oil companies have interests in the various oil fields."

Following a web link on "oil fields" we find out more:

"Chevron which has been operating in Angola for over 40 years, has discovered four new offshore fields with 300 million barrels of recoverable oil. Texaco has been in Angola for more than 25 years and will invest U.S. $600 million to develop new fields. Halliburton was awarded a U.S. $200 million dollar contract to develop oil well services in Cabinda Province. Production activities in Angola accounted for 10% of Elf crude oil production in 1996, unchanged from 1992. This production came from Block 3 and the Cabinda concession."

Is this picture consistent with the thesis that it is in the U.S. interest to be backing up UNITA? It is not. The relationship between the U.S. and Angolan governments is that of a highly lucrative business. (If the U.S. also backs up UNITA--I have no idea--this could be to keep President Eduardo dos Santos on his toes, needing foreign support.) It is worth to Texaco an investment of 600 million dollars. To Angola it is worth U.S. backing. Including the physical security protection against oil-field attacks and sabotage by UNITA, which would promptly result in the overthrow of the MPLA government.

If the U.S. had any intention of removing the MPLA government (and why would they have?), this could be easily and swiftly arranged. Oil is the government's lifeline, as Maria Tomchick herself wrote.

P.P.S. [This is a third letter from Mariza Cabral-ed.] I wrote: "You write that the Angolan government is 'socialist,' thus receiving the antipathy from the US."

Sorry, this was a misrepresentation of what you wrote. You were referring to diamond merchants. My apologies also for perhaps having extrapolated beyond what you actually wrote on U.S.-Angolan relations.

M.T. replies: The focus of my article was indeed the influence of the diamond market on the conflict in Angola, not the influence of any particular government, be it U.S., Russian, Cuban, South African, or Portugal. Indisputably, the MPLA allowed oil concessions to Texaco, Elf Aquitaine, etc. to help maintain its economic viability in a mostly-capitalist world and to help pay for the long, brutal, and crippling war with UNITA. Yes, UNITA was initially funded and trained by the CIA; there's no disputing that fact. Since I'm a U.S. citizen writing for a U.S. readership, I feel a particular duty to point out U.S. responsibility (however brief the reference--as this one surely was) for beginning such a terrible war. I make no apologies for that.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed that it took three e-mail letters for you to realize that you had misinterpreted my article.

Bruno Lives!

ETS!,

Here is a heart warming tale for all animal lovers out there:

A mastiff mix, big as a Mack Truck and twice as friendly, was donated to the Humane Society from what was believed to be a abusive household. Young couple comes and picks this great white giant out of the herd and takes him back to their home in Wethersfield. All is well for the dog and couple. Games are played and abuse is but a faded memory for dog. Then, this young couple decides to move; the dog decides to stay.

After the couple moved and came back for the dog they found he was missing. That was two years ago. Wethersfield, Connecticut and the Hartford area suburbs have quite a unique resident. A self liberated, dare I say, anarchist dog wandering its streets. Just about everyone has seen this huge white mastiff mutt meandering slowly down the quite suburban streets. Those who have tried to associate with him have found him a bit standoffish. But who could blame him? The police and other authorities have been trying to catch this canine for over two years with no avail. The closest they've gotten is ten feet, he quite the runner. Somehow he managed to live on his own, completely autonomous for two years thru sleet and rain as well as humid summers.

His name is Bruno. And after hearing his story I have declared him my official mascot. I salute you Bruno. I should hope he mates and creates the first anti-authoritarian breed.

--Colin M., via e-mail