Day 6: Angola (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 11:33:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Day 6: Angola (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Day 6: Angola  (Read 808 times)
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


« on: September 05, 2015, 04:44:59 PM »

Recently read both of Piero Gleijeses' books on the Cuban intervention in Angola, Conflicting Missions: 1959-1976 (which actually covers Cuban foreign policy in the whole of Africa) and Visions of Freedom: 1976-1991. They were both very good, in depth and even handed.

I feel quite well versed on the subject now. If anyone has any questions, I'd love to discuss them in depth.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2015, 07:51:04 PM »

If you measure economic success solely by the profits of multinational corporations, yeah, Angola is "thriving". Most people are still poor though. Most of the country still has no infrastructure. The MPLA has not done a good job. Sure, they've done a better job than some other African governments (not saying much) and they were far and away the best option in the Civil War, but let's not get carried away.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2015, 07:57:32 PM »

the way US and British media report about Angola in particular makes me suspect that they want state failure as a desired outcome.

1) The US and British media never report on Angola.

2) Why would they want a state failure? The Angolan government has a lucrative relationship with international big business. State failure would be bad for the bottom line. You think the West wants to bring down Angola because 40 years ago it feigned non-aligned Marxism? Hell, even back when they were actively feigning non-aligned Marxism, Chevron and BP and Exon were already in bed with the MPLA and trying to restrain the Reagan administration. 
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2015, 08:39:02 PM »

I'd like to see some evidence Chevron was funding Sivimbi. It doesn't make sense. They literally signed contracts with the Angolan government. South Africa attacked their plants. Additionally, conservatives in America led a campaign to boycott Chevron.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2015, 10:13:29 PM »

Sure, I think we're mostly in agreement but it's a matter of emphasis. The MPLA haven't been terrible but don't give them too much credit just because they had a bit of revolutionary chic in the 70s.

I imagine things would have been better if Lúcio Lara had become president instead of dos Santos. Lara, who I believe is still alive but super old, was leader of the MPLA's social democratic wing and he was actual Neto's number two. He was passed over in favor of dos Santos though because he was half White and had a White wife, and they thought that wouldn't go over well.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2015, 10:23:03 PM »

Interesting fact about China and Angola. China actually backed all the main factions in Angola's war at one point or another.

Most famously, they backed UNITA very briefly in the late 60s. This is probably most well known because of how comical it is. UNITA flirted with Maoism but then when the money dried up, they turned conservative, although they forgot to take the word "socialism" off their flag. Really though, of all the parties, China's involvement with UNITA was the shortest.

After that, China kinda sorta backed the MPLA in the early 70s. Or rather, the Soviet Union was convinced the MPLA had gone Maoist. The MPLA was interested in legitimate non-alignment, not just being pro-Soviet with a third world veneer. This angered the Soviet Union so they started backing a rival MPLA faction made up of bush commanders. These commanders attacked the MPLA leadership for being too White and Westernized. Ironic since they themselves were backed by the White Soviet Union and the leadership was supposedly backed by fellow third worlders China. Ultimate the leadership challenge failed though, mostly because the Soviets found the bush faction too uneducated and hard to control. They grudgingly returned to backing the mainstream MPLA and then China followed suit by withdrawing its support.

By the time the Civil War actually started, China had decided to back the FNLA, as it was considered a more professional, serious challenger to Soviet influence. That was, of course, a very wrong calculation. FNLA was wiped out in the first year of the War. By that time though, Mao was dead and China didn't have any interest in backing anyone else.

Of course now, the MPLA and China are buddy buddy.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.