It was an improbable locus for a superpower collision. But the shape and location, if not the history and social reality, of Angola were being firmly impressed upon the minds of millions of American television viewers. At issue, they learned from the Secretary of State, testifying before a Senate subcommittee on African affairs, was this basic principle: "The Soviet Union must not be given any opportunity to use military forces for aggressive purposes without running the risk of conflict with us."1 Angola was to be the post-Vietnam testing ground of American will and power in the face of the global expansion of a bullish rival whose recently realized military outreach was seen to be leading it toward dangerous adventures.
It was an improbable locus for a superpower collision. But the shape and location, if not the history and social reality, of Angola were being firmly impressed upon the minds of millions of American television viewers. At issue, they learned from the Secretary of State, testifying before a Senate subcommittee on African affairs, was this basic principle: "The Soviet Union must not be given any opportunity to use military forces for aggressive purposes without running the risk of conflict with us."1 Angola was to be the post-Vietnam testing ground of American will and power in the face of the global expansion of a bullish rival whose recently realized military outreach was seen to be leading it toward dangerous adventures.
But why Angola? When Secretary Kissinger attacked Soviet and Cuban intervention on the ground that they had "never had any historic interests" there, many Americans probably wondered, conversely, what their own historic interests in Angola might be.
Outside of the work of a few dozen Protestant missionaries and teachers who offered an heretical world and extra-world view and some basic skills to several hundred Africans in an otherwise rigidly repressed colonial society, there had been little American interest in Angola until very recently.
American coffee drinkers have for the past few years consumed some $100 million of Angola robusta beans each year. And the Gulf Oil Corporation developed a moderately important petroleum find in the Delaware-sized enclave of Cabinda, where it was pumping some 150,000 barrels a day by 1975. The United States, as a rule, subordinated African concerns to larger issues-in Angola's case, the pressure from its NATO ally and the host to U.S. strategic air and naval facilities in the Azores Islands, Portugal. While voicing support for the principle of self-determination, Washington carefully eschewed taking actions that might have sped its achievement in Angola, Mozambique or Guinea-Bissau, for fear of incurring the wrath of the Salazar regime, which maintained doggedly that Portuguese Africa had been indissolubly fused into the Portuguese body politic.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
International competition and political action sometimes appear to be channeled between frail dikes. To put the thought another way, it is as if the seething mass of ambition and potential violence so characteristic of international relationships is contained in quieter times behind a thin shell of a veneer. Once the shell of constraint is broken, subsequent adventures become easier to contemplate. It is for some of these reasons that we should, perhaps, examine how the confines of restraint in Angola were broken through, and whether a different American policy in the period before the Soviet/Cuban intervention in 1975 might have produce a different result.
Charts the development of US foreign policy efforts under Reagan in (1) the Angolan conflict (2) South Africa. Since 1981, the US assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Chester A Crocker, has pursued two main objectives in Africa (1) the reduction of Soviet/Cuban influence and cross-border conflict (2) the introduction of more liberal policies in South Africa.
Assesses the impact of the Soviet collapse on the survivability of the Castro regime. Argues there should be no change in US policy towards Cuba. Loosening economic pressure would lessen incentive to reform, while increasing it would risk turning a "Cuban problem into a US problem".
