COUNTERING XENOPHOBIA: A HISTORY OF SOUTH AFRICA’S INTERFERENCE IN ANGOLA
We recognise that rising xenophobia, and specifically Afrophobia, scapegoats migrants while distracting us from the deeper causes of inequality. Colonialism, resource extraction, corruption, unequal development and economic systems all continue to benefit a powerful few at the expense of millions.
To understand migration today, we must remember history. Across Africa, colonialism and racial capitalism shaped borders, economies and patterns of resource extraction that continue to influence how wealth and power are distributed. These histories also help explain why people move across borders in search of safety, work and livelihoods. South Africa has often played an adversarial role in these histories on the continent.
Today, we look at the role South Africa played in Angola.
Did you know?
Angola is one of Africa’s most resource-rich countries. It has substantial reserves of oil, diamonds, iron, copper, bauxite and uranium.
Yet Angola’s resource wealth has also been deeply entangled with war and political power.
The struggle for independence
Angola’s struggle for independence brought together several political movements with different political bases, ideologies and international alliances.
The People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was formed in 1956 and drew significant support from the Ambundu people, as well as from other groups in Angola. It developed close relationships with other African liberation movements.
The National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) was founded in 1962 and drew much of its support from the Bakongo people, particularly in northern Angola.
The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) was established in 1966 by Jonas Savimbi, a former FNLA leader. Its strongest support base was among the Ovimbundu people in central and southern Angola.
All three movements fought Portuguese colonial rule, but their competing political visions and international alliances shaped the struggle for power.
When Portugal’s dictatorship fell in the Carnation Revolution of 1974, Portugal moved towards granting Angola independence. The three movements agreed to share power during the transition to independence. But the agreement collapsed.
Angola declared independence on 11 November 1975, but instead of a peaceful transition, the country descended into civil war. Interestingly enough, throughout the civil war, Sonangol Group’s (the state-owned national oil and gas company) export of crude petroleum remained unaffected.
South Africa’s role
The Angolan conflict soon became part of the wider Cold War struggle in Africa. The MPLA received military support from Cuba and the Soviet Union, while UNITA received support from apartheid South Africa and, later, the United States. The FNLA also received support from the People’s Republic of China and Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo). South Africa’s apartheid government was not a neutral observer.
In 1975, South African forces invaded Angola in an attempt to prevent the MPLA from consolidating power and to support forces opposed to it. South African military involvement continued for years, as apartheid sought to protect its regional political and security interests.
South Africa’s intervention was also closely connected to the apartheid state’s broader regional strategy. Angola bordered Namibia, which South Africa had illegally occupied, and the Angolan government supported the Namibian liberation movement SWAPO. The war in Angola became intertwined with the struggle against apartheid and for Namibian independence.
One of the most significant confrontations came at the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1987–88, involving Angolan, Cuban and South African forces. The battle and subsequent negotiations contributed to the withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola and formed part of the wider political process that led to Namibian independence in 1990. But for Angola, the war continued.
When resources become weapons
Angola’s enormous resource wealth became deeply intertwined with the conflict. During the civil war, these resources became sources of revenue for the competing sides.
UNITA captured diamond-rich areas in Lunda Norte and Lunda Sul, using revenues from the diamond trade to purchase weapons, fuel and other supplies and to sustain its military campaign against the MPLA. The Angolan government, meanwhile, relied heavily on revenues from the country’s oil industry.
Angola’s natural wealth helped finance a war that devastated its people. The civil war lasted for decades, ending only in 2002 with the killing of Jonas Savimbi and when UNITA entered into a peace agreement with the Angolan government. By then, millions of people had been displaced. Communities had been devastated by violence, landmines, destruction of infrastructure and the loss of livelihoods.
From war to oil dependence
The end of the civil war did not end Angola’s dependence on resource extraction. Oil became the backbone of the post-war economy, generating enormous revenues for the Angolan state and international oil companies. Yet oil wealth has not translated into equal prosperity for everyone.
Angola continues to experience widespread poverty and inequality, while many communities face inadequate access to public services, employment, and economic opportunities.
This raises an important question:
What does resource wealth mean if ordinary people do not benefit from it?
Angola’s experience shows that natural resources are not automatically a pathway to development. When resources are controlled by powerful political and economic interests, they can instead deepen inequality and become sources of conflict.
Migration doesn’t happen in a vacuum
Angola’s history reminds us that migration and displacement are shaped by forces much bigger than individual choices. Colonialism, Cold War intervention, armed conflict and resource extraction helped create conditions in which millions of people were displaced, both within Angola and across its borders.
People did not simply “choose” to leave. War, political violence, economic insecurity and the destruction of livelihoods drove people from their homes. South Africa was not separate from this history. For decades, apartheid South Africa intervened militarily in neighbouring countries, supported armed movements and defended a regional political and economic order that served its own interests.
When we blame migrants from Angola or elsewhere in Africa for today’s social and economic crises, we erase these histories.
Instead of asking why people cross borders, we should also ask:
What histories and systems have shaped the conditions they are moving from?
The answer is not to turn working-class communities against one another.
The answer is to confront the systems that produce poverty, inequality, displacement and exploitation. We need solidarity, not scapegoating.
This story is part of a series countering xenophobia and Afrophobia in South Africa.
Each post explores how South Africa’s history and present-day political and economic relationships with countries across the continent have shaped migration, energy systems, resource extraction and inequality. By understanding these shared histories, we can challenge the myths that blame migrants for crises they did not create.
Stay tuned for the next story in the series as we continue to unpack the histories that connect us across Africa.
Siyafana Sonke, We are one.