I <strong>The</strong> PluUlb LineGetting tough in Zaireby Murray N. Rothbard<strong>The</strong> Establishment media put it thisway: After shilly-shallying in a weak andindecisive manner, the Carter administrationanything-directly or indirectly-to dowith the invasion. Now, the Cubans areno more above a little deception thanhas at last decided to "get any other government; but the untough" in Africa against the Cuban settling point is that, until now, the(and behind them the Soviet) menace.President Carter himself has kept up adrumfire of hysteria about the spectre ofCuban troops in the recent invasions ofthe Shaba province of Zaire from basesin Angola. This bogey was used as theCubans have not been at all shy in proclaimingtheir role in responding to invitationsby friendly left-wing governmentsin Africa. In Angola and in Ethi0pia they have boasted of their militarysuccess; why the sudden attack of bashfulnesspretext for America's decision to goin Zaire?military in its continuing intervention inAfrica. Paratroopers of the 82nd AirborneFurthermore, the sources of Carter'sinformation on the alleged role of theDivision were kept on the alert Cubans are highly tainted. <strong>The</strong> inwhile American planes were used to flyBelgian and French paratroopers intoformation comes, proximately, from theCIA, which has lied through its teeth toKolwezi, in Shaba province, to successfullyeveryone, especially the American pubput down the rebellion. <strong>The</strong> lic and Congress, for many years, not"integrity" of Zaire was, temporarily, the least on its role in the civil war insaved once again, and the Cubans beatenAngola. Senator McGovern has challengedback.Except there are several things verywrong with this picture. For one, theCubans deny vehemently and absolutely,privately and publicly, that they hadthe CIA to prove its contentionsabout the Cubans, so far without success.Reports are that the CIA got its informationfrom the French, who in turngot the charge from Dr. Jonas Savimbi,r~}1rlOYl.----- .the colorful "pro-American" guerrillaleader in Angola, who is hardly the mostsober of reporters.From Carter's whining about Congres&tying his hands on interfering withAngola, it is clear that the real purposeof his getting tough in Zaire was as aprelude to resuming U.S. interventionin the civil war in Angola. Carter isdisplaying unmitigated gall in trying torevive our Angolan adventure, for thewhistle has just been blown on the hiddenand nefarious CIA role in the Angolanconflict of 1975-76 in a new bookby John Stockwell, In Search ofEnemies: A CIA Story. Stockwell, itshould be noted, was· no less than thehead of the CIA operation in Angola. Inhis book, Stockwell confirms what a few"paranoid" antiwar Americans chargedat the time: that at each step escalatingthe Angolan conflict, the Soviets intervenedwith aid only after the UnitedStates did, through the CIA; the Sovietrole was never initiatory but only reactive.Furthermore, the Cuban troopshipment came only after South Africasent its troops into Angola on behalf ofthe "pro-Western" side, an interventionthat was hailed by and coordinated withthe CIA. Moreover, Stockwell revealsthat "after the war we learned thatCuba had not been ordered into actionby the Soviet Union. To the contrary,the Cuban leaders felt compelled to intervenefor their own ideological reasons."Not only was Holden Roberto, the"pro-Western" Angolan leader, on theCIA payroll for years, but dozens of CIAofficers were dispatched to manage allthe branches, military and propaganda,of the Roberto side during the civil war.Furthermore, Stockwell reveals thatFord, Kissinger, the Pentagon, and theCIA were pondering about escalatingthe Angolan intervention into a fullscale,Vietnam-type conflict-this, astoundingly,only months after thedebacle in Vietnam itself! <strong>The</strong> administrationworking group in chargeof the covert operations in Angolacontemplated sending in Americanarmy units, a show of American navalstrength, and even weighed "the feasibilityof making an overt military feintat Cuba itself to force Castro to recallhis troops and defend the home island."Only one thing stopped these nefar-10<strong>Libertarian</strong> <strong>Review</strong>
ious plans of the Ford-Kissinger administration:the solidly antiwar sentimentin Congress and in the Americanpopulation. Alert to some of the CIAshenanigans in Angola, the Congressbarred any use of 1976 defense budgetfunds for intervention in Angola. It isthese restrictions that Carter now yearnsto reverse. He must not be allowed toget away with it.<strong>The</strong>re is irony piled upon irony in theZaire-Shaba story. If they are not "outsideCuban agitators," who are the nastydisturbers of the peace in Shaba province?Are they Commies? Does anyoneremember the "heroic Katanga freedomfighters" of the early 1960s? <strong>The</strong>y werebeloved by the American right wing,because they were the only black liberationistsand independence fighters whoseemed to be right wing and procapitalist.In fact, they fought hard,from 1960 to 1963, for the independenceof Katanga from the centralgovernment of the Congo, now renamedZaire. Katanga has almost all the copperand cobalt, the major export commoditiesof Zaire, and the Katanganswere backed in those days by Belgiancopper-mining interests.<strong>The</strong> American right wing, however,never really understood the Katangans.In fact, neither the right nor the leftcomprehend the real problem in Africa:the central fact that there is not a singleAfrican "nation" that is truly a nation,that has any coherent or unified language'nationality, or culture. <strong>The</strong>frontiers of the African nations were allinherited from the frontiers establishedby Western imperialism in the late 19thcentury, when Britain, France, Belgium,Portugal, and Spain rushed in tograb as many areas of Africa as theycould. <strong>The</strong> frontiers established by theimperialists were artificial administrativeboundaries, with no relation tothe true nationalities in Africa- thetribes. <strong>The</strong> boundaries incorporateddozens of totally separate and even warringtribes into one "nation," while cuttingthrough and artificially dividingareas held by specific tribes. <strong>The</strong>re areno genuine African nations; they aregeographical expressions only.Vitally important to modern Africanhistory was the fact that the imperialpowers trained a small minority ofAfrican natives as a cooperating, or"comprador," elite to administer thecountry under the aegis of the imperialmasters. Generally, this native elite wastrained in universities of the home country.Western universities being whatthey are, the elite imbibed Marxist andFabian socialist ideology. Superficially,one might think that this socialism rancounter to the interests of the imperialpower, but this was only true "externally,"that is, in struggling over whowould rule this centralized nation-state.For internally, the socialist ideologycoexisted very cozily with the imperialists'desire to centralize the country,to "modernize" it under statistdirection, and to exploit the nativepopulation for the benefit of the administrativestate authorities.Generally, this meant the coercionand exploitation of the native ruralpeasantry on behalf of the ruling urbanelite in the capital city. <strong>The</strong> only realdifference between the Western imperialistsand the native socialists wasover who would constitute the state.As a result, when the weakenedWestern empires began to withdrawfrom Africa after World War II, theartificial, central governmental structurewas simply turned over to the existing,educated, native socialist elite.Thus, imperialism's parting legacy toAfrica was to ensure generations of exploitationof the native rural tribes bythe new power elite in charge of theparasitic urban centers.In the former Belgian Congo, theUnited States and the Communistsopted for competing central governments.<strong>The</strong> United States favors strongcentral governments everywhere, thebetter to influence and dominate thecountry, so as not to have to worryabout revolution or "destabilization" ofthe status quo anywhere on the globe.<strong>The</strong> United States' man in the Congowas General (now President) Mobutu,for many years on the CIA payroll, andthe brother-in-law of "Angola's" HoldenRoberto. <strong>The</strong> reason for this seeminganomaly is that the western Congo andadjoining northern Angola are both thehome of the same Bakongo tribe, ofwhich Mobutu and Roberto are leadingmembers. <strong>The</strong> Communists, also infavor of centralized government, puttheir hopes on Patrice Lumumba,whose strength was centered on thetribes in the northeastern Congo. In themeanwhile, the Lunda tribe in southernKatanga province, 1500 miles awayfrom the capital city, Kinshasa, tried tobreak away from central governmentalrule. After five years of fighting andmaneuvering, with the help of U.N.troops and the murder of Lumumba byCIA-hired thugs, the United States'man Mobutu took over power in theCongo.Several thousand of the Katanganfreedom fighters refused to give up, andinstead fled westward to Angola, wherethey took up arms for the Portuguese totry to crush Roberto, relative of thehated Mobutu. When the Portugueseleft Angola in 1975, the Katangansnaturally joined forces with the nextgreat enemy of Roberto, the proCommunist MPLA, which finallycrushed Roberto the following year.<strong>The</strong> Katangans, their province renamedShaba, were now aided by the newregime to get back to their homeland. Ifwe persist in looking at the Katangans inCold War categories, we could say that,once ultra-capitalists, they have unaccountablyshifted in the past 15 years tobecome "pro-Communitss." But thatwould be absurd. <strong>The</strong>se men are simplyKatangans, fighting again for their oldcause. Outside of that, they are no betterand no worse than the other fightinggroups and tribes in the area.Since Roberto has been smashed, theUnited States now looks longingly at theguerrilla forces of UNITA, headed byDr. Jonas Savimbi. Savimbi's "antiCommunist" forces have indeed seizedcontrol of virtually all of southernAngola. <strong>The</strong> reason is that Savimbi issolidly based on the Ovimbundu tribe,which populates southern Angola,whereas both the MPLA and the oldRoberto group are strong only amongthe northern tribes.If the United States would only keepits mitts off, there would probably becontinuing Savimbi rule in southernAngola, and the swollen monstrositythat is the "nation" of Zaire wouldcrumble into more workable constituentparts that are based in tribal realities.<strong>The</strong>re would be one less reason for theUnited States to get into a war or to stepup its military spending. Would that besuch a dire fate for central Africa or forourselves?•<strong>July</strong> <strong>1978</strong>11