Too frequently policy makers in Washington or Moscow see local or regional issues in southern Africa solely through their own, often distorted, lenses. And seen exclusively in ideological, or alternatively East-West or Cold War terms, they view their interests as inherently antagonistic. The old African maxim popular among non-aligned leaders in the early 1960's is apropos: "When the bull elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." Yet, unlike two elephants contesting clashing claims to territory of or sexual supremacy, southern Africa is not the territory of either of the super powers. Nor does Angola belong to other regional powers, notably South Africa. Although such states may have "interests" there, Angola is not their's to shape. One way of slicing into Angolan analysis is to try to appreciate the diversity of parties to the dispute. In this regard Angola is tremendously complicated. Angola is an issue that has metastasized in the sense that it has ramified or spread out to touch not only Angolans, but neighboring peoples, and governments far beyond southern Africa.1 This is not new. During Angola's war for independence, Portugal's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization provided support for its faltering colonial regime. It thus almost assured that Portugal's wars be internationalized. To offset that external weight, the various national movements for independence drew upon assistance and sanctuary provided by other states, other movements and interstate organizations. Metastasis implies that a localized disease spreads as it grows. Angola also serves as a lure attracting foreign interests that see in Angola an opportunity to expand their power and influence. By imposition as well as invitation external forces sought to exploit Angola's vunerabilities. As a result, ten years ago Colin Legum titled one of his books After Angola: The War Over Southern Africa.2 For 25 years now, as John Marcum so well reviews, Angola has represented an issue of continual unrest.3 Angola does not go away, and until it is resolved other regional issues cannot be addressed directly and without let. Thus Angola involves more than just geographical Angola. The Angola puzzle is at once an issue of domestic Angolan politics and an issue of international political economy, both regional and global. In that respect the question might be approached as a problem in the classic level-of-analysis dilemma.4 Do we study Angola chiefly as a question of the international system? In that case issues of domestic interest are seen as instrumental to the larger interstate systemic issues. How do various state and non-state actors relate to one another and why? What is the larger balance of forces and interests or the correlation of forces in the world and in the region? Or do we see international politics as just one component of the domestic Angolan political struggle? The interstate system level of analysis emphasizes external determinants of state behavior. The national or state level of analysis attributes such behavior largely to internal characteristics: the lpolitical system, the economy, and the social structure of Angola itself. There is a third level of analysis that provides an even sharper, more microscopic view of the Angolan questionthe decision-making level. The policy makers, the policy and the decisions taken by individual governments and decision-making bodies of non-state actors and movements become the focus. How do policy makers perceive the political arena in which they operate? Which elements, factions and interests prevail in the various actors involved and how do they relate to other actors and interests? A chief consideration with regard to Angola is the tremendous complexity of the issue. This complexity is reflected in several different ways. First, there are a large number of major actors involved. Various Angolan parties, especially the MPLA and UNITA, diverse foreign regimes. Secondly, within many of the actors there is debate and disagreement on how best to deal with the issues at hand. Americans have followed closely the pull and tug between various U.S. parties, factions, offices and personalities over southern African policy. No less a confusion of opinion exists, for example, in South Africa or within the Angolan government. This, in turn, contributes to the third
Read full abstract