The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; US Southern Africa Policy

(Tease)

JIM LEHRER (voice-over}: South African troops leave Angola after a week, and after turning up some Soviet military advisors and triggering a U.S. veto at the United Nations.

(Titles)

LEHRER: Good evening. There were these developments today in and about southern Africa. South Africa released the name of the Soviet officer captured last week in Angola and said two other Soviet officers, both lieutenant colonels, were killed. British and German television crews independently confirmed a South African claim that its troops had withdrawn from Angola after its week-long pursue-and-destroy mission against Soviet- supported Namibian guerrillas. Philip Hayden of Viznews met South Africa`s returning forces.

REPORTER: To avoid missile attack, we flew low and fast toward Xangongo, a strategic town about 60 miles inside Angola. We had hoped to land to inspect the battle-torn town. But with the withdrawal of South African troops just before our visit it was deemed too risky, so we headed south towards the border, and caught our first glimpse of the South African withdrawal. It was a seemingly endless stream of military vehicles heading home. Along the road we saw no sign of the defeated Angolan and SWAPO forces. Instead there was an eerie post-battle calm, as those in the war- stricken area tried to get back to normal. The South Africans captured a massive amount of weapons during the raid. The haul includes hundreds of tons of ammunition, land mines, trucks, tanks and a wide assortment of guns, which the South Africans were keen to get their hands on. Much of the material was Russian or East German, and according to the South Africans it had been used by SWAPO forces as well as the Angolans. At the start of this raid, the South Africans had talked about a routine follow-up operation. But it seemed to us that it must have been on an unprecedented scale, involving infantry, artillery and air strikes. By tonight, most of the South African forces should have pulled out of Angola, but there have been problems. Vehicle breakdowns and the risk of land mines along the dusty, untarred roads have hampered the return to base. Philip Hayden, BBC, from Namibia, South-West Africa.

LEHRER: The withdrawal claim was disputed by Angola, which said in an official cabinet statement that it may call on its allies -- meaning, apparently, the Soviet Union and Cuba -- for further help in repelling the South Africans. It said it is considering the call for help because of the U.S. veto Monday of a U.N. resolution condemning the South African action. And finally, the U.S. mission at the U.N. pulled a strange reverse on tomorrow`s special U.N. General Assembly session. A spokesman announced early this afternoon that the U.S. would boycott the session called by African nations to condemn South Africa`s continued control over Namibia, also known as South West Africa. Less than an hour later another spokesman said it had been a mistake. The U.S. would participate tomorrow. Tonight, southern Africa, the many pieces of the growing confrontation and the growing debate over U.S. policy. Robert MacNeil is off; Charlayne Hunter- Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, Namibia, the embattled territory that is the focus of the conflict, has been administered by South Africa since 1920 under a League of Nations mandate. The mandate was revoked by the United Nations in 1966, and 10 years later South Africa agreed to grant independence. But so far, despite repeated U.N. resolutions and U.S.-led diplomatic efforts, South Africa has refused to hold elections. Located between South Africa and Angola, Namibia has a population of only one million, 10 percent of whom are white. The battle now being waged in this mineral-rich region is between South Africa and the South West Africa Peoples Organization, or SWAPO, which has been recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. SWAPO has conducted its guerrilla war for independence against South Africa from bases inside Angola. It was the battle against those bases that brought South Africa into contact with the Soviet military officers. Following the raid, Angola appealed to the United Nations for a resolution condemning South Africa, an appeal that was denied when the United States exercised its veto right. The alternate U.S. representative to the United Nations, Charles Lichtenstein, told the Security Council that both sides were at fault.

CHARLES LICHTENSTEIN: There is little doubt that South Africa`s resistance to granting the people of Namibia the right to self-determination, as this council has called . on it to do, is a basis for the tension and instability which exist in the region today. At the same time, it is clear that the presence of foreign combat forces in Angola -- particularly the large Cuban force -- and the provision of Soviet-originated arms to SWAPO, and the presence of Soviet military advisors, fuel the explosive atmosphere of confrontation and violence which daily plagues the people of Angola, Namibia, and indeed the entire region. As a result the United States had to vote against the resolution under consideration today, a resolution which places blame solely on South Africa for the escalation of violence.

HUNTER-GAULT: South African officials said they hope the capture of Soviet advisors will make Western nations reconsider their criticism of the raid into Angola. The South Africans claim there are some 500 Soviet advisors, 2,000 East Germans and almost 30,000 Cubans stationed in Angola. This afternoon, Jim talked with South African Ambassador to the United Nations Adrian Eksteen about the raid and its aftermath.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, why should the capture and killing of the Russian soldiers cause a change in U.S. and other Western criticism of the Angola raid?

ADRIAN EKSTEEN: SWAPO, a terrorist organization that is supposed to participate in elections in the territory of Namibia, has sanctuaries in southern Angola. There they are being assisted by the Soviet Union with propaganda against the territory and its people, the supply of arms. We have proof of that. Now we have proof of Soviet advisors actively engaged to assist SWAPO. The situation in that southern part of Angola is thus a threat to the territory of Namibia and the people. SWAPO acts against the territory and the people. They cross back into southern Angola where they seek out the sanctuary being given to them by the Angolan government and by the Soviet Union and its forces there with sophisticated arms. And that is a new situation that has developed. With that situation increasing to the point that the Soviet Union has now become actively involved in it, there cannot be any question of free and fair elections in the territory of Namibia, which the West wants, which South Africa and the people of South Africa and Namibia also would like to see to take place. And for that reason the Western world must open their eyes to this threat, this direct threat posed by the Soviet Union.

LEHRER: Open their eyes and do what, sir?

Amb. EKSTEEN: To see that the Soviet Union is not trying to do the same which it has done in the case of Afghanistan, and that the West should act earlier than it has acted in the case of Afghanistan. Would it be necessary to have another Afghanistan before the West open their eyes?

LEHRER: Do you -- do you feel the Reagan administration is more friendly to the South African position thus far than the Carter administration was?

Amb. EKSTEEN: On the question of Namibia, on the question of South West Africa, and South Africa`s action towards SWAPO in southern Angola, I could perhaps remind you that we have acted in May of 1978 in the so-called Casinga raid into Angola against SWAPO terrorists, and also of last year. That was during the Carter administration. And we will pursue our policy of protecting the territory of Namibia and the people, regardless of who is in the administration in Washington.

LEHRER: I take it you were pleased by the U.S. veto of the resolution in the U.N. on Monday?

Amb. EKSTEEN: The United States has made it clear for what reason it has had to veto that for its own interest, how it sees its interest in the world, and how they would like to act and to see things in a proper context. We are naturally glad that people do take things like that into consideration when they pronounce their policies, that they see it in context, that they also see that there is a threat by the Soviet Union, that there is a threat of Cubans in Angola, and that the conventional wisdom that`s been shoved down our throats in the past is not being repeated -- that the moment there is a settlement in Namibia, the Cubans would leave immediately. That is a complete fallacy.

LEHRER: Black African governments have generally protested this South African incursion into Angola and its continued control over Namibia. Their major diplomatic efforts in these and most other matters are mounted through the Organization of African Unity. The chairman of the OAU council of ministers is the foreign minister of Kenya, Robert Ouko. Charlayne interviewed him, also earlier this evening.

HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Ouko, Angola has said it might ask for help against South Africa from its allies. Does that, as far as you understand, mean the Soviet Union, East Germany, and Cuba?

Dr. ROBERT OUKO: It is the duty of every government to protect its territorial integrity. That integrity has been violated by South Africa from time to time, and with impunity. The Angolan government must be expected to look for friends to help her carry out that obligation.

HUNTER-GAULT: What sort of help, specifically ?

Dr. OUKO: Well, if peaceful persuasion of South Africa fails to bear fruit. Angola should be expected to seek help to repulse aggression forcefully.

HUNTER-GAULT: What is the role, as you understand it, of the Soviet and Cuban and East German troops in Angola at this time?

Dr. OUKO: The Cuban presence in Angola is a result of South Africa`s notorious habit of invading Angola from time to time. And Angola sought the assistance of these troops to help protect the people and the territory of Angola. And that is their role. And I think that when the South African menace is removed from Angola, the need for such troops will be greatly diminished.

HUNTER-GAULT: But the help that they might seek -- that they have talked about seeking from their friends and allies, presumably those groups -- is that -- would you expect that to change -- the nature of the involvement -- to change?

Dr. OUKO: Well, Angola is a sovereign state, and these consultations or discussions with her allies she has carried out on her own, not in concert with the OAU or other countries. And I think that they`re entitled to do so.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Has the fighting between South Africa and SWAPO escalated now into an East-West conflict involving the Soviet Union and the United States -- - superpowers?

Dr. OUKO: It need not degenerate or escalate into an East-West confrontation, and we sincerely hope it will not.

HUNTER-GAULT: At this point you do not feel that it has?

Dr. OUKO: Well, I don`t think it has, and ii should not be. It is a fight for the liberation of Angola, and the United Nations has clearly stated that the South Africans are in Angola-are in Namibia illegally. And we have spent many years seeking the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia. This process will continue whatever shape it takes in the future.

HUNTER-GAULT: Was the United States of the resolution condemning the South African raid into Angola wrong in your view?

Dr. OUKO: It was a setback, because we do not -- we in OAU -- do not understand how we can fail to condemn aggression -- naked aggression -- by South Africa of Angola. And so we had expected all nations to support a resolution which had been toned down greatly to accommodate the different views of the parties that took part in the debate. And it was a disappointment that the resolution was vetoed.

LEHRER: Now, two different American points of view on how the Reagan administration is handling this situation in Southern Africa. First a supporter, Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator, do you believe the administration was correct in vetoing that U.N. resolution on Monday?

Sen. RICHARD LUGAR: Yes. The administration was correct. A very difficult call, but the right call, where the administration pointed out through Ambassador Lichtenstein that we condemn the aggression, no doubt about that. We condemn apartheid; we are very uncomfortable with the entirety of the South African problem. But at the same time we also condemn the presence of 20,000 to 30,000 Cubans, of perhaps as many as 1,000 Soviets, 400 Eastern Germans -- or however many are there; a pretty concentrated number of people who have backed the regime in Angola that got there without election, and that have given refuge to the SWAPO forces that are attempting to take over in Namibia.

LEHRER: Do you think the South Africans were thus justified in going into Angola last week?

Sen. LUGAR: No, they were not justified. To say that you understand what they were doing and that you understand the provocations and that you see the dangers of Soviet takeover in Namibia, with the strategic implications of that, is not to say that it is justified. It`s just simply to say that an even-handed policy takes a look at both of the provocations as opposed to condemning only one.

LEHRER: Do you think that this situation has gotten to be an East-West situation -- us against the Soviet Union -- now?

Sen. LUGAR: Well, I think it always was, in a sense. In other words, Secretary Haig is pointing out we`re not going to leave things on the table for the Soviets to pick up easily. We`re very concerned about the Cuban presence as surrogates for the Soviet Union -- have been for a long time -- have condemned that. We`re concerned about the Soviets themselves being there, and the Eastern Germans. This triple play of Cubans training the militia. Eastern Germans training the security forces, the Soviets running the whole thing, has been replayed several times. We`re not eager to see that repeated. On the other hand, we are working with the contact group to try to get an independent Namibia. And that requires --

LEHRER: Contact group of five countries with the United States and Western countries that have been working toward a solution.

Sen. LUGAR: Precisely, and that is an important element. It`s an important objective of our diplomacy. And this has been a setback for that, without any doubt.

LEHRER: What do you see as the potential danger in the U.S. actions -- the veto and other things -- of alienating the black African nations, as indicated by the interview that Charlayne did with Dr. Ouko?

Sen. LUGAR: Very clearly, that is a danger. It`s a very large danger. And yet at the same time, black African nations, it seems to me, are relying upon the leadership of the United States to bring South Africa to the table. Now, we could go into rhetoric, and simply on the basis of principle or piety, indicate what South Africa ought to do, but they haven`t moved. We`ve tried to mix it up. We`ve tried to get engaged in this situation again, because without South Africa`s willingness to negotiate, there is unlikely to be much independence in Namibia for the foreseeable future.

LEHRER: You think, then, persuasion rather than coercion, which has become the common term of the Reagan administration in terms of how to deal with South Africa, is correct?

Sen. LUGAR: Well, I don`t see what sort of coercion we would have in this respect. You can talk about sanctions and trade problems and what have you, but as a matter of fact, black Africa`s trade with South Africa increased by a multiple of at least two last year to $1 billion. If we really got into that sort of situation, we would totally disrupt all of the ties between black Africa and South Africa. Now, this, I think, is looking at it realistically, and I think the Reagan administration is doing that but to maintain even hands in this particular situation takes a lot of courage and patience. I think it`s important that we do so.

LEHRER: Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Now for that other point of view. For that we go to Donald McHenry, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Carter administration. Mr. McHenry is currently research professor of diplomacy and international affairs at George Washington -- - I`m sorry, Georgetown University in Washington. Mr. Ambassador, do you think the U.S. was wrong not to support the U.N. resolution condemning the South African raid?

Amb. DONALD McHENRY: Well, I think the United States was wrong in the vote which it took. It clearly for the first time was separated even from its closest allies. The French supported the resolution. The British abstained but spoke very clearly against the Angola -- the South African incursion in a way which was very clear and very forceful, and not in the kind of mushy and speaking out of both sides of the mouth, as the United States did.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that the confirmation that Soviet troops, Soviets, were directly involved in Angola effectively changed the political situation in South West Africa?

Amb. McHENRY: No, I don`t think so. I think a great deal of attention is being played to the presence of the Soviets now. I don`t know why anyone should be surprised about a Soviet presence in Angola. And I don`t really understand why there is an attention to them -- to it, as much as there is. This is what the South Africans would like. They would like this to be seen as an issue of East-West conflict rather than the question of fundamental human rights, the self-determination question which it really is. If you did not in the first place have the South Africans refusing to allow the Namibian people to exercise their right of self-determination, there would be no effort on the part of the Namibians to overthrow the South African government, and there would be no effort on the part of the Soviets -- or there`d be no basis for an effort on the part of the Soviets -- to assist them. That the Soviets are present to assist the Angolans or to assist the Namibians in the pursuit of this fundamental right -- in my judgment -- is no different from the presence of the United States in El Salvador, and the United States` assistance to the El Salvadorans.

HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think the South Africans were trying to achieve in this latest incursion into Angola?

Amb. McHENRY: Well, it seems to me the South Africans were trying to do a fundamental thing: a) to weaken SWAPO, and b) in weakening SWAPO to ensure that this line of defense which the Angolans have set up was not installed. The South Africans for many months now have had a virtual monopoly of an ability to roam free over southern Angola. The Angolans in response started setting up air defense system, and the South Africans wanted to wipe that out. Now, in the process -- particularly with the discovery of what should have been obvious to anyone familiar with this, that there would be Soviets assisting in the preparation of this line of defense -- the South Africans now will play that for all it`s worth, knowing that there is this paranoia in the United States about the Soviet Union, and hoping that the real issue, which is self-determination, will be lost sight of.

HUNTER-GAULT: Just very briefly, do you think that this policy of even- handedness that the Reagan administration now is saying it wants to pursue with respect to these issues, signals a tilt towards South Africa?

Amb. McHENRY: Well, in the first place, I don`t see how one can be even- handed on one of the great issues of our time. The issue of self- determination is one which should have been settled many, many years ago. But clearly the statements aren`t very even-handed. The United States is projecting an image of siding with the South Africans, and the South Africans believe this. The South Africans believe that they can now operate in this area with impunity. And in my judgment, they`re now going to not only operate in southern Angola, but we`ll see them operating in Mozambique and in Zimbabwe as well.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Senator, that that`s the signal the United States is giving South Africa?

Sen. LUGAR: No. I don`t agree at all. I think we are very much about the even-handed business. But let me just comment, Jim. I was astonished to hear Ambassador McHenry say we should not be surprised that the Soviets are in Africa much as we`re in El Salvador. Africa is a long way from the Soviet Union, and I would argue that the Soviets, the Cubans, and the East Germans got there a long time ago to help out the Angola regime, quite apart from SWAPO. That situation simply comes along in the aftermath. What we have to remember, you know -- this is not paranoia, it is the fact that Soviet aggression has preceded in many respects -- and Africa is one big one -- and that the Namibia situation does become perilous if the Soviets are following on, offering assistance to SWAPO in that situation.

Amb. McHENRY: Well, Americans are selective in their knowledge of the facts. The fact is that you would not have any -- that if the Portuguese hadn`t stayed in Angola and Mozambique, and we hadn`t backed the Portuguese to the bitter end, if the -- if there had been independence in Zimbabwe, if there were independence in Namibia, there would be nothing there for the Soviets or the Cubans to exploit. But they have the opportunity to be on the side of motherhood. They are defending a principle which the great majority of mankind stands for, and that is the principle of self- determination. Change that situation, and you would find most of the Africans and most of the world objecting to the Soviet presence. But so long as they are assisting in the achievement, the attainment, of a goal which is recognized, they will defend it.

LEHRER: And so the presence of Soviet troops doesn`t hurt the Soviet Union ?

Amb. McHENRY: Well, it`s not Soviet troops.

LEHRER: Well, Soviet advisors.

Amb. McHENRY: Yes, Soviet advisors. And there are Soviet advisors there in part because of past policies. Don`t forget the whole human infrastructure of Angola left when the Portuguese left. Someone had to go in there and be of assistance. Western countries wouldn`t. America has stayed clear of Angola, refused to recognize it. One shouldn`t be surprised that the Soviets would be there, or East Germans or Cubans.

Sen. LUGAR: Well, I think we are still surprised because I wouldn`t accept for a moment the thought that Soviets are trying to help out self- determination in Angola. They`re trying to protect a regime which is demonstrably -- I believe -- an unpopular one. I don`t think the regime in Angola would win the election. The Soviets are fronting for them. It`s not really clear SWAPO would win an election in Namibia. Soviets are fronting for them. In other words, the Soviets, quite apart from trying to help self-determination, are trying to get their people placed and installed, and as a matter of fact, that`s not a very good idea for the United States to countenance. Now it does get back, however, to the problem of South Africa. We`re against apartheid. We are for human rights. We`re against South African aggression. You know, the whole purpose of the show, is this even-handed thing going to work? We don`t know. But if it doesn`t, there`s not a very good alternative right now except for pious sentiment, hoping that somehow the Lord will provide.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, the senator said a minute ago that what the Reagan administration is doing takes courage.

Amb. McHENRY: I`m not sure it takes that much courage. I think that -- frankly, I think this administration gets its kicks out of being different, out of doing things and saying that we have the courage to do it, whether it`s right or wrong. And I think that this is an unfortunate attribute which we see.

Sen. LUGAR: Well, I still think courage is a good idea. I`m not certain there have been any kicks out of it. It`s simply a difficult situation. I respect the fact Ambassador McHenry has toiled in this vineyard for a long time, and you know, we all prayed that he might have succeeded. But the fact is that it hasn`t come to a negotiation in Namibia yet. Somehow or other South Africa ought to be influenced to come to the table to try to be secure enough in its position that it`s willing to negotiate.

Amb. McHENRY: But you can influence -- we have to hold in mind, countries act on the basis of their interest. The South Africans have followed a policy on a perception of their interest. They are not going to change and come and give independence to Namibia simply because the United States is friendlier with them.

LEHRER: Do you think it might?

Sen. LUGAR: No, I would agree with that. I don`t think that they would be influenced in that way. And I --

Amb. McHENRY: And therefore --

Sen. LUGAR: -- am not sure how they are going to be influenced. I`m just saying we`re trying some new avenues for this constructive engagement, even-handed idea.

LEHRER: All right. We have to leave it there, gentlemen. Mr. Ambassador. Senator Lugar, thank you very much. Good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: We`ll see you tomorrow night. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.