[net.politics.theory] Politics and tribes

berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/19/85)

> ...................  There are many African countries that are larger
> than Sweden and are still quite bad.  Zaire, one of the largest
> countries in Africa, is also among the most brutal and corrupt (and a
> U.S. ally, BTW).
>
> The reason why AFRICAN countries tend to be so bad is because in
> Africa, countries do not, for the most part, correspond to nations.
> They tend to be arbitrary areas, carved up by the colonial powers.
> They tend to encompass several mutually hostile tribal groups.  When a
> member of one of these groups takes power, his group prospers at the
> expense of the others, hostility ensues.
>
> A very relevant example of this is the current situation in Angola,
> where Jonas Savimbi's UNITA guerrillas are fighting the Marxist
> government.  In recent months, there has been growing support in the US
> for aiding UNITA, in the name of stopping Communism in Africa.
>
> None of the people who write in support of Savimbi mention that he is
> a democrat, or what his politics are at all.  This is because Mr.
> Savimbi really has no political viewpoint.  He has taken arms from the
> Chinese and the South Africans, as well as the CIA.  Currently, he
> finds it convenient to spout an anti-Communist line, so he does.
>
> But don't be deceived, UNITA is not *FOR* anything, they are merely
> *AGAINST* the current government of Angola, which happens to be
> Marxist.  They are not against it *BECAUSE* it is Marxist, but rather
> because the leaders are of a different tribal group.
>
> What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do
> is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is
> certainly none of our business.  But I digress...
> --
> Sport Death,       (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
> Larry Kolodney     (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
> --------
At the time of the first civil war in Angola (shortly after independence)
there were three armed forces: one of the leader of Bakongo tribe (10%
of the population), the force based in the area of Mbundu tribe (25% of
the population, the area contains the capital, Luanda) which allied
later with Cubans, and the force based in Ovimbundu area, Unita.
The large backing of Savimbi is due to the fact that Ovimbundu are the
largest tribe, 40% of the population.

Still, it could be in the interest of US to have Savimbi at the helm:
US would be his natural friend, and he would be able to influence SWAPO
in the non-marxist direction.  SWAPO is again a tribal based force,
and its tribe forms majority of Namibia population.  In such a situation,
US could whole-heartedly support Namibia independence, since this could
create another friendly country.

The other big prize would be a possibility of fixing Benguela railroad,
which, if usable, would be an export outlet for Zaire and Zambia.
Currently this railroad, crossing Ovimbundu teritory in Angola, is useless
because of guerilla war.  Accidently, Zambia used to support Savimbi.

As you see, the victory of UNITA offers stabilization of US influence in
Angola, Zair and Zambia, which together is not a negligible goal.

The problem is that it cannot be done cheaply.  A potentially good
strategy would be to offer large economical help to Zambia, so this
country would provide free access to UNITA arms transport.  Because
of the Cuban presence, the total cost of economical bribes and
military support has to be in billions rather than in millions.

Another question of African policy is: how to encourage allies to
be democratic.  Same in South America and Asia though.

Of course, one can ask: why US should bother to have influence in all
those poor countries.  I do not see very clear answer here.

Piotr Berman