John Prendergast

Angola’s Deadly War

Dealing with Savimbi’s

Hell on Earth

Briefly...

• The rebel organization National Union for the Total Independence of Angola

(UNITA) has plunged Angola back into a recurring nightmare of war and human

rights depredations. Dissatisfied with any scenario in which he is not Angola’s

president, UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi has chosen war over peace, for the second

time this decade.

• Two hundred people are dying every day. With many more people in need of assistance than in Kosovo, and higher mortality rates than in East Timor, Angola is the

world’s deadliest war. 

• Fabulous natural resource wealth provides blank checks for the continued prosecution of the war by UNITA and the government.

• Because Angola provides 7 percent of U.S. daily imports of oil, a figure that could

double in the next five years, the United States has a direct national security interest in the stability of the country.

• Given the obstacles to immediately resuming negotiations to end the war, a

peace strategy must be supported, which could include promoting quiet crossline contacts, aggressively enforcing sanctions against UNITA, and engaging with

the government on good governance, human rights, and institution building.

www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT

1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036-3011 • vox 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

The views expressed in this report do not

necessarily reflect those of the United States

Institute of Peace, which does not advocate

specific policies.

CONTENTS

2 Introduction

3 Renewed Warfare Erupts

5 Finding the Path to Peace

7 Promoting Transparency and

Good Government

7 Advocating for Human Rights

8 Building Peace Through

Economic Development

8 Enhancing Security

9 The Way Ahead

October 12, 1999

ABOUT THE REPORT

This Special Report results from John

Prendergast’s trip to Angola and neighboring

countries during September 1999. He met with

representatives of the Angolan government,

Angolan civil society, the diplomatic community,

and international nongovernmental organizations.

This is the fourth in a series of Special Reports on

African conflicts authored or coauthored by Prendergast since he left the National Security Council

staff. This report was written before he joined the

State Department as a special advisor to Assistant

Secretary for African Affairs Susan Rice.

Previous reports focused on the Horn of Africa,

the DRC, and Rwanda and Burundi.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE
Introduction

Despite a $1.5 billion peacekeeping operation and the tremendous potential a peacetime economy could unlock, Angola has descended back into Africa’s most deadly war

for the fourth time in the last four decades. The rebel UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi has

decided for the second time this decade that war is a better option than peace, choosing to plunge the country back into war in 1992 after losing national elections and in

1998 after abandoning—after four years of uneasy peace—an internationally brokered

peace plan to which he had agreed. Savimbi again has decided that if he himself cannot govern the country, he will continue to endeavor to make the country ungovernable. 

Better armed than ever, the Angolan government and UNITA rebels engage in

scorched-earth offensives, destructive sieges, and other tactics that primarily rebound

on civilians. More vulnerable than ever, Angola’s civilian population continues to pay an

increasingly heavy price.

The international community and the Angolan government face a bitter conundrum,

no less difficult than that faced in Sierra Leone with its revolution by amputation. After

Savimbi and UNITA walked away from two peace agreements this decade, should he

continue to be viewed as a credible negotiating partner? Or should the war option be

played out in full, with the military defeat of UNITA—as elusive as that goal surely is—

becoming the sole path to future stability? Or is there a middle option, perhaps hard

to envisage now, in which other elements of UNITA beneath Savimbi are engaged diplomatically in order to lay the foundation for a future peace agreement beyond Savimbi’s

capacity to destroy?

Before attempting to answer these questions, it is important to explore the current

context. Angola is a country of extreme contraditions. It is one of the fifteen poorest

countries in the world, despite fabulous mineral riches. Billions of dollars worth of diamonds and oil are exported each year, while the war causes 200 people to die every

day from hunger and ill health. The latest series of signature bonuses (standard practice throughout the world), paid to the government by oil companies for the right to

explore one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, provide nearly $1 billion in

new resources, much of which will be utilized to finance the war effort. Over the last

decade, UNITA has sold over $4 billion worth of diamonds, despite United Nations

(UN) Security Council sanctions. This wealth has helped purchase one of the most

highly militarized countries on earth, peppered with 10 million landmines and up to

100,000 amputees. Angola stands alone at the top of UNICEF’s Child Risk Measure,

which examines the risk of death, malnutrition, abuse, and development failure for

children worldwide.

The future development of the country is being mortgaged in exchange for weapons

and for foreign currency, which often finds its way into private bank accounts. This “war

of dispossession,” according to the Grupo Angolano de Reflexao para a Paz (GARP, a civil

society peace advocacy organization), “makes everybody vulnerable in the face of the

power of the gun.” The war in Angola has raged for nearly forty years, whereas the average Angolan is only seventeen years old. Thus, over 80 percent of the population has

never experienced an Angola at peace.

The war has produced twice the number of people in need of assistance as there are

in Kosovo. Two million Angolans have fled their homes and suffer from a lack of basic

amenities, while up to 3 million remain inaccessible to humanitarian agencies. Economic

dislocation continues to increase, as inflation and a free-falling Angolan kwanza continue to eat away at purchasing power and domestic investment. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization says that Angola is in the worst shape of the sixteen countries

receiving emergency food assistance worldwide.

2

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

The United States Institute of Peace is an

independent, nonpartisan federal institution

created by Congress to promote research,

education, and training on the prevention,

management, and resolution of international

conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute

meets its congressional mandate through an

array of programs, including research grants,

fellowships, professional training programs,

conferences and workshops, library services,

publications, and other educational activities.

The Institute's Board of Directors is appointed

by the President of the United States and

confirmed by the Senate.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chester A. Crocker (Chairman), Schlesinger Professor of

Strategic Studies, School of Foreign Service,

Georgetown University • Max M. Kampelman, Esq.

(Vice Chairman), Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and

Jacobson, Washington, D.C. • Dennis L. Bark,

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution on War,

Revolution and Peace, Stanford University •

Theodore M. Hesburgh, President Emeritus,

University of Notre Dame • Seymour Martin

Lipset, Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason

University • W. Scott Thompson, Director, International

Development Studies, Fletcher School of Law

and Diplomacy, Tufts University • Allen Weinstein,

President, Center for Democracy, Washington, D.C. •

Harriet Zimmerman, Vice President, American Israel

Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO:

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State •

Daniel H. Simpson, Vice President, National Defense

University • Walter B. Slocombe, Under Secretary

of Defense for Policy • Richard H. Solomon,

President, U.S. Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
The conflict in Angola sends sonic waves throughout the region, dramatically affecting neighboring countries and forcing governments to choose allegiances. Angolan warring parties have changed or shaken governments in the Democratic Republic of the

Congo (DRC), Congo-Brazzaville, Namibia, and Zambia. For example, the Angolan government intervened decisively in both the DRC and Congo-Brazzaville wars in 1997 in

support of the eventual victors, in both cases overthrowing governments deemed too

supportive of UNITA. For its part, UNITA recently diverted some ammunition to separatists in Namibia’s Caprivi Strip as punishment for the Namibian government’s alliance

with the Angolan government. This led to a series of military confrontations. The resulting crackdown by authorities led to charges against the Namibian army and police for

human rights violations. UNITA’s low-cost, low-risk strategy sends the message to governments throughout the region that if they cozy up to the Angolan government, there

will be consequences.

Over the last five years, UNITA was able to rearm and resupply—during implementation of the 1994 Lusaka Protocol peace agreement and despite international sanctions—

because of a robust network of sanctions busters. These ranged from neighbors looking

for a payoff to illicit diamond dealers to opportunistic arms merchants. In its continuing game of musical chairs regarding resupply bases, UNITA now benefits from strong

footholds in Burkina Faso and Togo, which replaced Congo-Brazzaville and Zaire after the

Angolan government helped overthrow the governments there. The fuel for UNITA’s

resupply efforts during this decade has been diamonds, replacing the aid UNITA received

from the United States and apartheid South Africa during the Cold War.

Beyond the conflict’s critical humanitarian dimensions and ramifications for regional

instability, the stakes for the United States are high. Already, 7 percent of U.S. daily

imports of oil come from Angola, a figure that could double over the coming five years.

In the next decade, between $40 and $60 billion will be invested in developing discoveries in the Lower Congo Basin. Given current projections, Angola will produce 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2015, more than Kuwait’s current daily production. American

refineries are the only ones outfitted for Angolan crude. Angola clearly must be treated

as a country in which the United States has direct national security interests, both for

the future energy security of the United States and for the American jobs related to contracting for and supplying the infrastructure necessary to exploit the oil. The United

States must be willing to allocate resources commensurate with Angola’s rising importance.

Renewed Warfare Erupts

With the breakdown of the Lusaka Protocol peace agreement, full-scale war between

UNITA and the government resumed in late 1998, following a number of attacks

throughout the year by UNITA on government positions. The Lusaka Protocol, signed by

the government and UNITA in 1994, included

(1) a cease-fire,

(2) demobilization and disarmament of UNITA forces,

(3) the integration of UNITA senior military officers into the

government army, and

(4) the extension of government administration into all UNITA

territory.

UNITA signed the agreement when the government army was on the offensive and

winning territory, and used the protocol to forestall even greater losses and buy time to

rearm. Ironically, after what was supposed to be four years of an internationally superOver the last five years, UNITA

was able to rearm and

resupply—during

implementation of the

1994 Lusaka Protocol peace

agreement and despite

international sanctions—

because of a robust network

of sanctions busters.

3

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

Angola clearly must be treated

as a country in which the

United States has direct

national security interests.
vised process of demobilization and disarmament backed by multilateral sanctions,

UNITA now wants significant amendments to the Protocol—or a new agreement—to

reflect its stronger position.

After two bloody but unsuccessful offensives against Savimbi’s headquarters in Andulo

and Bailundo on the Planalto (central highlands), the government launched a new offensive in September 1999 aimed to liberate the triangle of Malange, Huambo, and Kuito from

UNITA control. This comes on the heels of a string of setbacks for the government since

the Lusaka peace accords fell apart and war resumed. Huge amounts of arms have been

imported by both parties; a doubling of world oil prices in the last ten months boosted

the government’s efforts in this regard. The situation is further complicated by increased

separatists attacks in the oil-rich northern Angolan enclave of Cabinda.

With its September offensive, the government seeks to degrade UNITA’s military

capacity and force it to return to the Lusaka Protocol. The quality and quantity of arms

the government purchased may allow it to put a dent in UNITA’s capacity, but UNITA

also has enhanced its already impressive arsenal. Grotesque levels of corruption within

the military and political elite, poor logistical lines, and inadequate soldier care also

hamper the government. Fighting in rural areas and superior strategy and discipline give

UNITA an advantage. UNITA also undertakes hit-and-run guerrilla operations, tactics

which a government army trained for conventional warfare is ill-prepared to counter.

UNITA seeks to hold its positions, continue to increase pressure on key governmentcontrolled towns, conduct hit-and-run attacks on vulnerable targets, make some advances

in the context of a counteroffensive, make some areas ungovernable, and eventually create what it hopes will be a “victory by social explosion”- thus forcing the government

back to the negotiating table or to collapse under its own weight. To do this, UNITA will

likely increase pressure on infrastructure targets, such as water and electricity, and hit

where the government is vulnerable. It also continues to attack small towns and villages

throughout the country, resulting in countless civilian casualties and continuing displacement. Some argue that a fallback goal of UNITA is to divide the country in a way in

which UNITA could control a major port and many of the key diamond-producing areas.

Whatever the goal, Savimbi perceives war as his best option for now, buying him time as

he fights for the day if/when his military and political fortunes might improve.

As long as UNITA is successful on the battlefield, political and military challenges to

Savimbi within UNITA will be minor. But if the government’s most recent offensive is

successful, the financial difficulties and internal divisions plaguing UNITA may further

erode support for Savimbi. If further efforts to internationally isolate UNITA begin to

work, the advantage of time will return more clearly to the government. Nevertheless,

there seem to be an inexhaustible supply of young cadres recruited by Savimbi and

fiercely loyal to him long enough to cultivate the next batch of recruits. Savimbi retains

the loyalty of his army in part because of his method of recruiting young people: totally saturating them for years with pro-UNITA and antigovernment propaganda, aiming to

win their hearts and minds at an early age, and terrorizing those who don’t comply.

Corruption on both sides continues to be a massive obstacle to peace and development in Angola. Power has increasingly been concentrated in the Angolan presidency

(Futungo), and UNITA authority remains concentrated in the hands of Savimbi. 

Human rights abuses also block the path to peace. Depredations on both sides

include torture, summary executions, indiscriminate killing of civilians in the context of

military engagements, forced displacement, continuous mine-laying, and media censorship. UNITA has pursued a policy of pushing civilian populations into government-held

cities in order to stress the government’s capacity to control these areas and demonstrate that the government is unable to protect civilians. Then UNITA shells them incessantly and indiscriminately. Most of the civilians moved into government areas are

With its September offensive,

the government seeks

to degrade UNITA’s military

capacity and force it to return

to the Lusaka Protocol. 

4

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

Savimbi perceives war as

his best option for now, buying

him time as he fights for the

day if/when his military

and political fortunes

might improve.
children and the elderly, whereas those of productive ages are press-ganged into military service or kept to work the fields. Youth are again fleeing UNITA areas across neighboring borders to escape such a fate. Like so many conflicts around the globe, the litany

of horrors is nearly endless. With each incident comes another layer of suspicion and

another round of retribution that must be overcome for peace to become possible in the

future.

Finding the Path to Peace

The spectacular failure of previous peace agreements haunts deliberations over any

potential new initiatives. Savimbi’s focus on winning power by whatever means necessary, his willingness to abandon commitments made at the negotiating table, and the

international community’s unwillingness—however sincerely motivated—to challenge

the parties when they did not comply with previous requirements all contribute to an

uneasy reticence concerning next steps to counter the return to war. Government maladministration does not make the task any easier.

The Angolan government will likely not negotiate with UNITA until the government

is in a better military position than it presently occupies, particularly in light of the

campaign it is waging to villify Savimbi and brand him a war criminal. Hardliners within the government exclude any possibility of negotiating with Savimbi. Others see the

possibility if it is in the context of terms of implementing the Lusaka agreement. The

Southern African Development Community (SADC, a political and economic umbrella for

the governments of the region) supported the government’s position at its August

meeting, declaring that Savimbi “ceased to be a viable interlocutor to the solution of

the Angolan conflict.” Either way, the government at this juncture only conceives of

negotiations over ways to complete the implementation of the Lusaka process. In this

scenario, there might be interest in conducting direct military-to-military negotiations

on outstanding issues related to demobilization, disarmament, and integration of military forces. 

Key government officials expressed a willingness to listen to any ideas UNITA has—

without Savimbi—regarding how to move forward in the Lusaka process. A high-ranking

official in the President’s office told me that, absent Savimbi and after the current round

of fighting, “we can discuss forms, means, and ways to complete the implementation of

the Lusaka agreement. There are no miracles here. Without peace there is no solution to

the economic and political crisis.” President dos Santos clarified recently that the government’s objective is to fulfill the terms of the Lusaka Protocol. But the government’s

branding of Savimbi as a “war criminal”—however accurate—has complicated further any

potential resumption of some kind of a peace process. 

Although it is too soon to envisage the exact nature of a future process, UNITA could

be represented by officials directly under Savimbi. Other elements of UNITA could be part

of a dialogue, but without associated armies these elements are not a viable alternative

to Savimbi’s UNITA. These include

(1) UNITA deputies in Luanda (who call themselves the “Platform for

Understanding” and are headed by Abel Chivukuvuku) who

disagree with the direction taken by Savimbi and

(2) UNITA-Renovada (“renewed UNITA”), a splinter faction of UNITA

headed by Eugenio Manuvakola that neighboring states and the

government have recognized as the partner in implementing the

Lusaka Protocol. Contacts of any kind in support of implementing the protocol provide an alternative to war for those in UNITA

who would choose such a path.

5

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

The Angolan government will

likely not negotiate with UNITA

until the government is in a

better military position than it

presently occupies, particularly

in light of the campaign it is

waging to villify Savimbi and

brand him a war criminal.

Although it is too soon to

envisage the exact nature of a

future peace process, UNITA

could be represented by officials

directly under Savimbi.
What to do with Savimbi is as much as anything the cause of the return to war in

Angola. Dissatisfied with election results in 1992, and again unhappy with the end state

called for in the Lusaka Protocol, Savimbi has exercised his veto with extreme prejudice.

He has twice gone back to war and halted tentative transitions. The international community should search for ways to bring pressure to bear on Savimbi to remove himself

from active UNITA leadership. Misplaced advocacy for direct talks with him or offers to

mediate between him and the government provide a forum to Savimbi that will only fuel

his further machinations.

The “Troika” charged with overseeing the implementation of the Lusaka Protocol

(Russia, Portugal, and the United States) is too limited a lens through which the

international community explores peace options. Other countries and multilateral

organizations, including Mozambique, South Africa, Brazil, the European Union, and

others have experience and input that would be helpful. A “Troika Plus” might meet

informally and brainstorm around ways to move forward. This kind of a group also

must examine ways to guarantee any future agreement against major infractions by

signatories, a key failing of those charged with overseeing the deeply flawed implementation of the Lusaka Protocol.

Angolan civil society has shown an increased resolve in its advocacy for peace.

Led initially by the Protestant Church, a diverse group of civil society leaders—mixing all sorts of points of view—produced a Manifesto for Peace, advocating for

renewed negotiations and arguing for a role for civil society in the peace process. The

Catholic bishops also have contributed to the push for peace with a pastoral letter

calling on the government to negotiate. A National Convention for Peace will be held

near the end of 1999 to plan more comprehensive strategies for civil society’s

involvement in peace.

During this period of military engagement in which the government refuses to

negotiate directly with UNITA, second-track initiatives can help lay the groundwork

for possible future dialogue. Civil society representatives, particularly church-based,

are best positioned to undertake this role. The international community, particularly

the United States, should be on the margins of any unofficial effort, creating confidence and pressuring the parties for serious engagement. Whatever dialogue that

might arise will by necessity be confidential at the outset, given the nature of the

rhetoric over the last year. The United States should support quiet diplomatic efforts

by civil society, particularly the churches, to promote dialogue. This kind of effort

could lay the groundwork for other efforts that might follow. The United States and

American nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also could support networking

between Angolan civil society elements and those from other countries with experience in peace advocacy or second-track negotiations.

Incentives must be created for UNITA leaders remaining in the bush to have the confidence to make a choice for peace. The reality is that they will need to be assured of

positions of authority and access to productive assets or investment opportunities. Many

UNITA parliamentarians were humiliated when reduced to receiving under-the-table payments from the government just to survive in the aftermath of the Lusaka Accords, a far

worse situation than the status they held while still in UNITA areas. Many of UNITA’s

officers received only a few hundred dollars as part of the demobilization process.

Dissatisfied with election

results in 1992, and again

unhappy with the end state

called for in the Lusaka

Protocol, Savimbi has exercised

his veto with extreme prejudice. 

6

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

The United States should

support quiet diplomatic efforts

by civil society, particularly the

churches, to promote dialogue.
Promoting Transparency and Good Government

The quality of administration is a key element in assuring populations that choosing

peace will provide a better life than remaining at war. The government has failed so far

to use this tool effectively, although many recognize its shortcomings in this area.

Decentralization can be a key to enhancing accountability, but the government has not

matched its rhetoric with implementation. Donors should engage in dialogue with the

government about future governing arrangements, including transferring more power to

regional authorities and increasing popular representation at the base of Angola’s political structure.

In certain places, the government handled badly the extension of state administration called for in the Lusaka Protocol. Police and military were unleashed—often

unpaid—and they proceeded to loot and pillage areas coming under the government’s

control. This alienated civilian populations in these areas, and word spread to other

UNITA-controlled areas that a similar fate awaited them. The government also largely

failed to integrate UNITA administrators, medical staff, teachers, and others into the

newly extended administrative areas. Donors could dialogue now with the government

over additional processes of extending administration as part of any future agreement.

Transparency also must be at the top of any list of necessary reforms for the Angolan

government. Central Bank Governor Aguinaldo Jaime has liberalized exchange rates and

is a strong, articulate advocate for further reforms. The International Monetary Fund

(IMF) is insisting rightfully on increased budgetary transparency as a condition for further multilateral engagement. Only a credible structural adjustment program should

open the door to international support, debt reduction, commercial lending, and serious

World Bank investment.

Elections also will be a key ingredient to consolidating peace at some point in the

future. Top officials told me that it would take four years after signing any further

agreement before elections could be held. Much more thought should be given to how

to use new elections as a means of conflict management, not as a concession to the

opposition but rather as a means to establish popular support for a transitional roadmap

for Angola’s future. Starting with local elections could slowly help build a democratic

culture, as lower-level contests could delay the high stakes/high-risk national competition until more investment in the process is created. 

Given the national security interest the United States has in Angolan stability, the

U.S. Agency for International Development should redouble its efforts in the democracy

promotion arena, supporting aid programs that enhance the institutions on which a

future functioning democracy might be built.

Advocating for Human Rights

Promoting human rights is rarely part of the warring parties’ discourse in Angola. The

Lusaka Protocol provided amnesty for anyone who committed “illegal acts” during the

conflict. For what were some of the most egregious human rights violations perpetrated on the face of the earth, a blank check was handed out and the slate was wiped clean.

During the protocol’s failed implementation, key external actors and the UN mission did

not publicize serious abuses or challenge the perpetrators for fear of upsetting the

process. In its most recent report on Angola, Human Rights Watch concludes, “The

impunity with which rights were abused eroded confidence in the peace process and created a vicious cycle of rights abuse that steadily worsened,” encouraging “both parties

to regard the peace process with contempt.”

Transparency also must be at

the top of any list of necessary

reforms for the Angolan

government.

7

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

During the protocol’s failed

implementation, key external

actors and the UN mission did

not publicize serious abuses or

challenge the perpetrators for

fear of upsetting the process.
The government’s branding of Jonas Savimbi as a war criminal creates a thin but

important precedent for reversing the state of total impunity that exists presently. Savimbi is indeed responsible for a litany of crimes against humanity, but of course he is

not alone. The international community must advocate for and support development of

the rule of law as one of the bases for future governance and stability. Without it, future

Savimbis become possible.

As the debate continues over the role of the UN in Angola, space must be made for

a human rights office that is free to investigate and report on abuses wherever they

occur. But such an office should also be charged with building the capacity of the

Angolan government’s system of justice and ability to counter human rights abuses. Providing report cards of violations is only meaningful if actors on the ground can begin to

do something about reversing this state of impunity.

Building Peace Through Economic Development

The government must use—and be seen by its population as using—some of its

added revenue from rising world oil prices and from future expected production increases to undertake significant social and economic development initiatives. This should

include addressing some of the structural reasons for continued conflict. The government

has done little to demonstrate that it has any concern for civilian populations, particularly those from Ovimbundu areas. (Despite 40 percent of the cabinet and nearly half of

the army being from Ovimbundu areas, perceptions of discrimination still linger, fuelled

by UNITA rhetoric.) Transparently targeting investments at these areas would build longterm confidence and help lay the groundwork for an alternative future beyond war.

The government’s announcement of a social and economic investment fund provides

an opportunity to restructure internal investment and opportunity. The United States

should welcome the effort and provide technical assistance in initiating this fund. If the

government demonstrates its seriousness, donor agencies and oil companies should consider how to construct a tripartite initiative with the government that could support the

rehabilitation of the productive economy of Angola. Such an initiative could target support for microbusiness, industry agriculture, and education. Again, some specific effort

to provide funds to initiatives involving those from Ovimbundu areas would be very helpful in reducing tensions.

Enhancing Security

With U.S. leadership, the UN is stepping up its efforts to enforce sanctions against

UNITA. Two expert panels under the direction of Sanctions Committee Chairman Robert

Fowler (Canada’s UN ambassador) began meeting in late August. Sanctions-enforcement

measures may include

(1) intelligence and information sharing,

(2) deployment of monitoring teams at airports and other key locations throughout the region,

(3) support for air surveillance,

(4) interdiction of UNITA supply flights,

(5) training for customs inspection, and

(6) more aggressive diplomatic engagement.

Specific efforts to limit UNITA’s access to legitimate diamond markets is a step toward

standardized certificates of origin. 

The government must use—and

be seen by its population as

using—some of its added

revenue from rising world oil

prices and from future expected

production increases to

undertake significant social and

economic development

initiatives.

8

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

With U.S. leadership,

the UN is stepping up its

efforts to enforce sanctions

against UNITA.
Sanctions will increase the cost of doing business for UNITA and those that deal with

UNITA, and it is hoped they will reduce the amount of business UNITA is able to do. They

will not foreclose all financial transactions; there are simply too many loopholes in the

international system. Significantly, though, the initiative sets the precedent for UN leadership in creating international mechanisms for ensuring that member states abide by

legal obligations with respect to the arms and diamond trade.

The Angolan army’s methods of counterinsurgency cause problems for postwar transition and reconstruction. For the future of the government’s nationwide credibility,

indiscriminate violence against civilians must be reduced, and a hearts-and-minds campaign must be instituted for real gains to be made. Angola’s minister of Social Assistance, Albino Malungo, described to me the establishment of new mechanisms for

government protection of humanitarian aid distribution, which is an important first step

in government acknowledgement of its social responsibilities. Ultimately, humanitarian

agencies need to be allowed to operate freely and without interference from either side.

Until that time, though, the government must do all it can to protect humanitarian

assets and the people the aid is supposed to reach.

The cease-fire agreement brokered among the belligerents in the DRC war has created a joint military commission. This provides an opportunity for the Angolan government to reestablish stronger links with the Rwandan and Ugandan governments on their

shared objective of reducing the threat posed by insurgencies operating out of the DRC.

Joint planning for actions against UNITA, Rwandan Interahamwe militias, and Ugandan

rebels could in time reduce the damaging suspicions that helped intensify the regional

struggle based in the DRC. This also could contribute to reconstructing the informal

regional security framework that loosely existed before the current DRC war.

The Way Ahead

UNITA and Savimbi have succeeded in alienating virtually all of its former staunch

allies in the United States Congress and around the world. The Clinton administration

has moved forward with a Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) between the United

States and Angola. The BCC provides a unique forum in which the fundamental issues

facing Angola can be discussed. Joao Laurenco, secretary general of Angola’s ruling

party, told me that the BCC can “help us to plan for Angola’s future, to think beyond

war.”

For example, it is critical to attract broad-based internal and external investment

beyond the oil and diamond sectors as a means to stabilize the economy and offer people an alternative path away from sectors dominated by the warring parties. The BCC has

as a focus sustained economic reform as a vehicle for diversifying foreign investment

beyond the dominant sectors. 

The Cold War logic that froze U.S. policy toward Angola has begun to thaw; still, the

United States is rightly hesitant about becoming too close—too fast—to an Angolan

government that fails to stop massive corruption, perpetrates human rights abuses, and

uses its military to destabilize neighboring governments. Nevertheless, with Angola’s

movement on some key reforms—for which the United States strongly advocates—in

the political and economic sectors, the relationship could grow stronger over time. This

will place the United States in an even better position to support an appropriate process

for ending one of the longest running and most destructive wars in the world.

Unanswered questions remain. Despite the good intentions of civil society and the

creative thinking of the international diplomatic community, how can any process work

if Savimbi’s singular goal is the Angolan presidency? How do negotiations resolve anything if his goal is to run the country and to achieve this goal by any means necessary?

A joint military commission

provides an opportunity for

the Angolan government to

reestablish stronger links with

the Rwandan and Ugandan

governments on their shared

objective of reducing the threat

posed by insurgencies operating

out of the DRC.

9

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

It is critical to attract broadbased internal and external

investment beyond the oil and

diamond sectors as a means to

stabilize the economy and offer

people an alternative path

away from sectors dominated by

the warring parties.
Now, as the war intensifies, the foundation must be laid for what inevitably will be

a return to some kind of process to resolve the conflict. Beating the warring parties over

the head with feckless Security Council resolutions is achieving nothing. The United

States realizes this and is moving to construct a new architecture of political engagement. Part of this engagement involves working with the Angolan government and other

interested parties in developing a more comprehensive peace strategy, which involves

economic, political, and social elements. Such a strategy must be supported multilaterally. Fundamental elements of this new approach might include

(1) quiet support for contacts between key actors on both sides

(without Savimbi),

(2) following through on commitments to vigorously enforce the

multilateral sanctions against UNITA and completely isolate

Savimbi,

(3) support for institution building in government and civil society,

and

(4) robust engagement with the government on issues related to

governance and human rights. 

These are all elements of a strategy that won’t stop the carnage immediately but will

put the United States in a position to help end this destructive conflict once and for all

in the near future.

10

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999
11

Angola’s Deadly War: Dealing with Savimbi’s Hell on Earth — United States Institute of Peace Special Report — October 12, 1999

MAP: Human Rights Watch, Angola Unravels: The Rise and Fall of the Lusaka Peace Process, 1999