Marching to Pretoria's Beat

By Russ Hoyle

As the South Africans leave Angola, the U.S. takes heat

"The West's whole Africa policy is on the verge of collapse because of Washington's attitude," said a senior West German official. "South Africa is conducting an invasion, an act of aggression, and we feel the U.S. should have the courage to condemn it," said a French diplomat. The trigger for the complaints: the U.S.'s lone vote in the U.N. Security Council last week against condemning South Africa's massive search-and-destroy mission in Angola. The assault was aimed at guerrillas of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), who are fighting for the independence of Namibia, a territory administered by South Africa.

At issue was Washington's increasing distance from its closest allies for failing to repudiate South Africa's boldest military venture since it committed troops to the Angolan civil war in 1975. For well over a week, an estimated 4,000 South African troops had ranged over southwestern Angola, seeking out new air defense systems said to have been set up to deter South African cross-border raids. After previous South African incursions, and subsequent calls for condemnation of South Africa at the U.N., the U.S. had abstained from chastising Pretoria and at least once joined a vote of disapproval. But last week's veto indicated that the Reagan Administration has other ideas. It apparently sees no gain in trying to prod Pretoria's apartheid regime, especially by public condemnation, into a change. It also prefers to view developments in southern Africa as part of an overall East-West confrontation rather than a black-white struggle. The Administration's policy for southern Africa was outlined only days before the U.N. veto by Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester Crocker. Citing South Africa's mineral wealth and strategic importance, and the West's stake in the stability of southern Africa, Crocker insisted that the U.S. "cannot and will not permit our hand to be forced to align ourselves with one side or another in these disputes," but should try "to maintain communications with all parties." Though he declared that the U.S. would not align itself with "abhorrent" apartheid policies, Crocker asserted that Washington "has no intention of destabilizing South Africa in order to curry favor elsewhere."

The speech was the strongest indication to date that the new U.S. strategy is to bolster South Africa's confidence by assuring Pretoria of its political and economic security in the face of regional turmoil. Said Crocker: "The worldwide significance of the region derives from its potential to become a cockpit of mounting East-West tensions."

Almost on cue, three days after South African troops had begun to withdraw from Angola, Defense Minister Magnus Malan announced that they had captured a Soviet soldier, Nikolai Pestretsov, 36, in a convoy of SWAPO guerrillas and Angolan forces some 31 miles from the Namibian border. Two unidentified Soviet lieutenant colonels and two Soviet women also were reported killed.

That Soviet military personnel are in Angola and that Moscow is supporting SWAPO has long been known. But this was the first evidence that Soviet advisers were involved with SWAPO down to the platoon level. According to the latest U.S. intelligence estimates, the Soviet Union has about 1,000 military and economic advisers in Angola. In addition there are around 400 East Germans (British estimates go as high as 2,500) and up to 20,000 Cuban military personnel.

The U.S. is a member of a five-nation Western "contact group" seeking a U.N.-sponsored Namibia settlement. The other four--Britain, France, West Germany and Canada--fear that U.S. willingness to tolerate South Africa's provocative policies will only lead to delay, thus strengthening Soviet influence in the region. Last January South Africa withdrew its approval of a U.N.-sponsored plan for a cease-fire and for supervised free elections in Namibia, largely for fear that SWAPO would emerge victorious. Last week Secretary of State Alexander Haig revealed that Pretoria is again ready to go along with the U.N. plan, provided certain unspecified "confidence-building" measures are guaranteed beforehand.

The future of Namibia has become a touchstone of Western good faith in black Africa. Any association of the U.S. with Pretoria's Namibia policies will be seen by black Africa as a deeper identification with a regime that suppresses a black majority; it could also encourage South Africa to resist even minor reforms of apartheid. Says Donald McHenry, U.S.

Ambassador to the U.N. under Jimmy Carter and a former member of the contact group: "We are in danger of being on the wrong and losing side, as we were in Viet Nam, Iran and Nicaragua." A tilt toward South Africa, he adds, is "shortsighted, naive and part of [the Administration's] ideology and paranoia toward Communism. The South Africans' hope is to turn attention away from self-determination and racial domination to an East-West arena."

With remnants of the South African force still in Angola by week's end, the Luanda government threatened to appeal for help to expel them forcibly. Though the U.S. reversed an earlier pronouncement that it would boycott a planned U.N. special session on Namibia, it was determined to maintain a neutral role. Explained a U.S. official: "We are prepared to take the heat and hope that by taking heat we might facilitate compromises in the long run," meaning that support to South Africa now might translate into a settlement with Pretoria on Namibia later. --By Russ Hoyle. Reported by Marsh Clark/Johannesburg

With reporting by Marsh Clark

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.