6.
Angola is a government that is recognized by every western European
country, recognized by all African countries as far as I know save Senegal, recognized by Gulf Oil, recognized by Arthur D. Little, and General Tire and Rubber. These private concerns are doing quite well, and love the Cuban presence because, as Andy Young said, the Cubans have rather stablized things. And because if the Cubans weren't there, the South Africans would have run over the country a long time ago. As a matter of fact, South Africa invades the country on a daily basis, bombs it day and night, so that the southern part of the country looks like a lunar terrain, with South African bomb craters just littering the place. The Angolans have said that when the Namibian situation is cleared up and South Africa no longer enjoys that corridor into Southern Angola to kill Angolans and Namibian refugees alike, then the Cubans will leave. I think we can appreciate that the Angolans don't want foreign troops in their country. I don't think any country wants foreign troops in its country. So the Cubans will leave when that problem is cleared up. Well, what does the U.S. do? While we recognize the country of South Africa that is invading Angola, while we recognize Germany that has Soviet troops, while we recognize the Soviet Union and I'm told they have some Soviet troops there too, not only do we not recognize Angola but we seek to lift the Clark Amendment so that covert activity can begin to overthrow the government of Angola. Now that's not the way to win friends and influence people. But, happily, the sub-committee on Africa, under Howard Wolpe's leadership, voted seven to nothing to reject the presidential request. Some of you may have better information than I because I was flying during the full committee vote. I'm confident that the full committee turned us down as well. The vote will come up in the Senate next week. Now the Senate is likely to go along with the president to request repeal of the Clark Amendment, and we'll have to fight this out in the House-Senate conference when it comes to that. It's going to be tough. I'm pleased though that the Reagan people are not lobbying much for what they proposed. I think they've begun to see the folly in some of the policies they first tried to push.
However, on the Namibian question, there are other reasons for the South Africans to be happy. We negotiated something that everybody had agreed to, even the South Africans, to have elections first under U.N. supervision, and to have that elected constituent assembly work out a constitution for that country. The Reagan administration people say that that hasn't worked. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It hasn't worked because South Africa hasn't agreed to it and South Africa hasn't agreed to it because there's been no real pressure coming from the Reagan administration to make them agree. So that now what they propose to do is to negotiate a constitution before they have the elections. Again, South Africa is very happy about that because all they sought to do in the first place was to buy time. Now they've come out with a statement that under no circumstances would they sit still for a SWAPO government in Namibia when they know that if there is a vote in Namibia it's going to go the same way it went in Zimbabwe. It's going to elect SWAPO. Here again--I must talk about my good friend, Chester Crocker, now--here again, it just shocks .me sometimes how some people can look at a sign on the wall, and the sign says "Go" and they will look at it and say, "No, it doesn't, it says 'Don't Go'." And you ask, "Are we looking at the same thing?" Response, "Yes, we are." Well, I used to talk to my good friend Chester Crocker. He told me that Bishop Muzorewa had support in Zimbabwe, and I would say to Chester, no, I don't think he does. I think Chester was somewhat influenced