Every President hopes that history will remember him favorably for some great or unique achievement of his regime, although few have such ambitious designs as Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase or Theodore Roosevelt’s building of our Panama Canal. The names of some Presidents will, unfortunately, be forever tied to unhappy events.
It is beginning to look as though President Carter may be known as the President who allowed the Communists to take over Africa. His policy has become clear: put political and economic pressure on anti-Communist governments to force them out of office, and sit immobile when Communist troops advance.
The result is to give the green light to the Communist conquest of Africa. The Communists’ plan is to proceed from Angola across to the Horn of Africa at Djibouti and Yemen. This will give them control of the narrow south end of the Red Sea through which oil from the largest producer, Saudi Arabia, passes.
Even Senator Abraham Ribicoff, a longtime supporter of our no-win foreign policy, is getting alarmed. He said recently, “whoever controls that oil will control the economic lifeblood of the West. Let the Soviet Union control that oil… and where will the United States be?”
The partnership of Soviet arms and Cuban troops to conquer African countries of enormous size is mind-boggling in sheer audacity. But the Carter policies are permitting it to succeed. The result is to reduce the unhappy victims to a reign of terror and to administer military, economic and psychological defeats to the West.
The invasion of the copper-rich province of Shaba (formerly Katanga) was launched from Communist-controlled Angola. The invaders massacred hundreds of Europeans and blacks, and looted and raped. The Carter policy in the face of such aggression and atrocities was to do nothing, pleading that the President’s hands are legally tied.
Ambassador Andrew Young praised the Administration because it “has not overreacted to the appearance of Communist influence.” He said, “I think the slowness to respond has been very much in our favor.” This is the update of the Owen Lattimore “let the dust settle” policy under which our State Department cut off aid to our ally, the Republic of China, and allowed the Communists to take over Mainland China.
Fortunately, the French and Belgians did not follow Young’s do-nothing advice about Zaire. They sent paratroopers who quickly recaptured Kolwezi, the copper-mining center of Shaba province, and drove the invaders back to their bases in Angola.
The battle for Africa is not over because some Zairians have been rescued. Cuban soldiers have been stationed in 14 African nations including Mozambique and Ethiopia. Arms have been shipped from the Soviet Union, including tanks and MIG fighter planes, to enable the Cubans to form new armored brigades.
Local guerrillas are being trained in Mozambique to step up the invasion of Rhodesia. A military airport has been constructed in Mozambique near Rhodesia’s southern border. The Carter Administration is assisting by imposing its economic boycott on Rhodesia (at the same time that it pleads it can do nothing in Angola and Zaire).
The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London research organization known for not emphasizing the Communist threat, stated in its recent annual review of world strategy: “It is the capability for the global dispatch of military equipment and forces, coupled with a readiness to become actively involved and American reluctance to reciprocate in kind, which will provide opportunities for Soviet influence in a period of conflict in Third World areas.”
In plain language, the equation is simple: Soviet aggression plus American inaction equals Communist conquest of Africa.
