Sudan: Meeting The Madhi (Well, His Great Grandson)

Opposition leaders in Sudan dismissed the country's March 1996 presidential and parliamentary elections as a sham designed solely to perpetuate the grip on power held by the Islamic military leaders who seized control in 1989. One of the most outspoken opposition critics was Sadeq al-Madhi, the elected civilian Prime Minister toppled in that coup seven years ago. I spoke to Mr. Madhi at his home in Omdurman outside Khartoum.

In Sudan, things are not often as clear-cut as they might otherwise seem. Take for example the case of Sadeq al-Madhi, the elected civilian Prime Minister overthrown in a 1989 coup.

In some other countries, he might have been executed or imprisoned. But even though the Islamic military authorities who ousted him have been frequently accused of committing serious human rights violations, Mr. Madhi remains very much alive and active in his opposition to the government.

Although he says he is not permitted to travel outside the Khartoum area and reports that his activities are closely monitored by security personnel, Mr. Madhi is generally free to leave his home in Omdurman across the Nile from the capital to play tennis and polo and to conduct other business. He regularly meets visiting dignitaries as well as reporters, often in a comfortably furnished thatched hut in the lush green gardens of his residential compound. And he even mingled with government officials at a recent reception held at a foreign embassy.

The 60-year-old Oxford-educated Mr. Madhi brushes aside suggestions that this is in any way an anomaly. He says that overall Sudan is a very tolerant society.

"Well it's very interesting. You'll find Sudan is a very tolerant society. The Sudanese program is such that they deal quite separately with social and personal matters and political matters.”

A good example of this is the fact that Mr. Madhi is related by marriage to a man who might otherwise be considered his arch-enemy. Hassan al-Turabi is the Islamic intellectual considered the brains behind the military rulers who seized power from Mr. Madhi seven years ago. He is married to Mr. Madhi's sister.

The former Prime Minister says he and his brother-in-law were once quite close. But not any more. Their first split came over the imposition of Islamic law or Sharia in Sudan under former leader Jaafar Nimeiri.

“Yes there is this personal relationship. But we are as wide apart as you like in politics and ideology. It didn't use to be so. We used to be closer, to some extent, in the past in this respect. But the first thing that began this schism in our ideological and political commitment is when Nimeiri declared his so-called Sharia, which we said was a sham, which they said was genuine.”

Mr. Madhi says that from then on, his political differences with Mr. Turabi only deepened. But he says the real gulf came when his government was overthrown.

“The second event which really deepened this cleavage is the fact that they either organized this coup or cooperated with this coup and said that this coup's program is an Islamic program. Our idea was to totally reject this and say this is all sham and it is Nimeiri number two and no more, second edition of Nimeiri's abuses.”

Mr. Madhi says his brother-in-law has tried to talk him into cooperating with the current leadership -- an overture which he says he rejected. Despite the political strains, though, he says their personal links remain largely in tact.

“Ideologically and politically, with regards to Islam and to Sudan and the south, the economy and foreign relations and so on, we are 180 degrees apart. Nevertheless there are relations of a personal and social nature.”

Mr. Madhi did not say when he last spoke to his brother-in-law. But he does have other social contacts with top leaders of the current government. When the younger brother of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was recently killed in fighting with rebel forces in southern Sudan, Mr. Madhi was among those who went to the President's home to offer personal condolences to the family.

Mr. Madhi is the great grandson of the late 19th century Madhi who led a successful revolt against the Egyptians who then ruled Sudan. That Madhi's tomb, considered one of the major historical sites in the country, is just a short distance away from the current Mr. Madhi's home.

Sudan 1996: Tree Vs. Razor Blade Vs. Tank Vs. Elephant; Who Will Win? (Hint: It’s The Ceiling Fan)

Voting was under way in Sudan in March 1996 in Presidential and Parliamentary elections, the country's first since the 1989 coup that toppled civilian officials and put an Islamic military government into power. I was in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to report on the balloting.

Question: what do a tree, a razor blade, a tank, and an elephant have in common?

Answer: they are all symbols assigned to candidates on the Presidential ballot in Sudan's current election.

Sudanese and foreign election observers say there is little doubt that President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose symbol is a ceiling fan, will win. He is the best known contender among the 41 Presidential contenders.

Critics like former Sudanese Prime Minister Sadeq al-Madhi, overthrown by General Bashir in a 1989 coup, say the others are just a bunch of nobodies.

“Those people have very little support in the country and in fact if you meet those candidates you will see they are not serious about the business of candidacy itself.”

Political parties have been banned in Sudan since the military takeover. Mr. Madhi and other opposition leaders are boycotting the electoral process, in which candidates are also running for seats in a new, 400-seat Parliament. Two-hundred-75 of the seats are to be directly elected.

The others have been filled through a separate organization known as the National Congress, a body that represents various professional and social groups in Sudan.

Sudan's Islamic military authorities say the new, non-party system is better and more democratic because such factors as partisanship and money have been eliminated and other influences like tribal, regional or religious differences have been minimized.

The influential Secretary General of Sudan's National Congress, Ghazi Salaheddin, says it may not be a perfect system. But he argues it is well-suited for Sudan after its coup-riddled past.

“We hope that thru this system we might be able to bypass all the shortcomings of our previous political systems. We are not arrogant about it. We don't say that this is pure wisdom, we don't that this is the final wisdom..."

But critics, both foreign and Sudanese, say it is just a system intended to perpetuate the grip on power of the current Islamic military leaders.

Because of that, these critics say, many Sudanese have chosen not to vote, especially in the Khartoum area. They claim authorities, who deny that the overall turnout is low and voters are unenthusiastic, have resorted to tricks to impress election observers.

Diplomats taken to one polling place in Khartoum reported examining the two boxes used by voters for casting the separate Presidential and Parliamentary ballots they are given. They said the Presidential ballot box was full while the Parliamentary one was suspiciously empty. They believe the full box was prepared for them as a show.

Foreign journalists have visited polling places at various times of day and found no voters at all or just one or two. One correspondent said that soon after he arrived at yet another such inactive location, a vehicle-load of voters in traditional turbans and robes suddenly appeared in what he characterized as a clearly organized show for his benefit. Another journalist was told she needed special, advance permission in writing to enter polling stations.

Sudan 1996: A “Different Spirit” of Democracy

In March 1996, Sudan held its first nationwide general elections since the 1989 military coup that brought General Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Islamic backers to power. The voting for President and a new parliament in Africa's largest country took place over several days and I was in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to report on the electoral process.

There are few visible signs of electioneering in Khartoum and activity at the city's polling places has been noticeably slack. Leaders of Sudan's banned opposition parties say that is because the people know the voting is a sham.

“It is really a complete farce to call it elections. This is a showpiece, a window showpiece that has nothing to do with genuine elections and it is the same that dictators everywhere do.”

That is Sadeq al-Mahdi, the Sudanese prime minister overthrown seven years ago when General Bashir took power. He and Sudan's other major opposition leaders are boycotting the vote, charging the process is neither free nor fair.

Mr. Madhi acknowledges that 40 candidates are challenging General Bashir for the presidency under the country's new non-party system. But he claims that is worth little more than a possible entry in the Guinness book of world records. He describes the other contenders as a collection of political unknowns and lightweights.

In his words, it is a show not worth seeing.

Still, the Bashir government has gone out of its way to publicize the voting, in which representatives to a new, 400-seat Parliament are also being chosen. Official election observers, mainly from Arab and African countries, have been invited to watch the voting process. Sudanese authorities also encouraged international journalists to apply for visas and have allowed them unprecedented access to report on the balloting.

But with the outcome of the voting considered a foregone conclusion, Sudanese authorities have had to face tough questions about the exercise.

The Islamic intellectual considered the real power behind the Bashir government, Hassan al-Turabi, says it comes as no surprise to him that Sudan's experiment in developing what he calls a new political model is under fire, both at home and abroad. But he says he is not concerned.

“Every new rise of a civilization in history is normally encircled by the old regimes, internally and externally, and they want to crush it so to maintain the old strategic balance of interests. And if this newly born upsurge of civilization (Sudan) will maintain itself and assert its independence, ultimately by pragmatism others will deal with it pragmatically because it is a very rich country, one of the richest countries in the world. And now it is moving powerfully forward toward a political model and we don't just copy Westminster model or French or American. It's close to democracy, yes, but it's a different spirit.”

Authorities here say the new, non-party system is aimed at minimizing tribal, sectarian and regional allegiances and eliminating what they consider such negative influences as money and political affiliation in the campaigning process.

Critics in the small western diplomatic community charge it is simply a system designed to perpetuate the grip on power of the country's Islamic rulers -- rulers seeking the mantle of legitimacy associated with elections because they have become increasingly isolated internationally over their policies. These include the Khartoum government's continued prosecution of a long and costly civil war with Christian and Animist rebels in southern Sudan and its alleged support for Muslim militant groups from abroad.

Still, Sudanese officials scoff at the notion that they are close to collapse because of mounting pressure from the world community. Some hint at fence-mending efforts after the elections in a bid to attract development aid and investment.

But others, like Mr. Turabi, say they welcome the challenge of isolation. He argues it will help Sudan become more self-reliant as it goes its own way.

Sudan: A Pre-Election Coup Uncovered

The March 1996 visit to Sudan for elections coincided with reports of a coup plot. As I discovered, diplomats in Khartoum viewed the discovery of this new plot as another sign the country's Islamic leaders were not as secure in their grip on power as the staging of national elections might suggest.

A top Sudanese political official has dismissed the coup plot involving dissident army officers as a minor affair which resulted in a few arrests.

The influential Secretary General of Sudan's National Congress, Ghazi Salaheddin, characterizes the plot as amateurish and says the attempt never posed a serious threat to the government headed by General Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

“That was a very minor thing, so it was not a very major, threatening attempt and it seems that the officers who were involved were rather amateurish in the way they handled the coup attempt.”

Mr. Ghazi, regarded as a powerful figure in the current Sudanese political system, gives no details about the plot other than to say a few people were arrested.

Sudanese opposition sources speaking on condition of anonymity say they heard 15 people were arrested, but claim the leader of the group, a colonel, escaped and is still at large. These sources also charge it is unclear whether there was a bona fide coup plan or whether authorities simply moved against suspected dissident elements in the military.

On the surface, the Bashir government, which seized power in a 1989 coup of its own, appears confident enough about the future that it is currently conducting national Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Opposition parties, banned since the military takeover, are boycotting the poll and General Bashir and his supporters are certain to retain power.

But diplomats in Khartoum, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the official admission this week that there was a coup plot underscores their belief that Sudan's Islamic authorities are not secure and no longer in full control of the army.

They say additional evidence to support this view comes in the form of new and credible information that army units in at least two places in southern Sudan have mutinied.

The dissent is linked to opposition to the ongoing civil war in the south -- a more than decade-old conflict with predominantly Christian and Animist rebel groups that has proven costly to Khartoum in both money and manpower.

The diplomats say they also believe the recent crash of a Sudanese C-130 military transport plane outside the capital was caused by a suspicious explosion. They say it may have been the result of sabotage carried out by disgruntled elements within the military.

This portrait of an internal threat to Sudanese authorities comes at a time when the Khartoum government is also facing increasing international condemnation about its alleged support for foreign terrorist groups.

Officials here categorically reject charges that they host, sponsor, or train terrorists and rebels from abroad. But there appears to be at least some concern that this week's scheduled anti-terrorism conference in Egypt may once again put Sudan in the international spotlight.

The National Congress Secretary General, Mr. Ghazi, claims Sudan is being demonized in the west and says he views the conference in Sharm el-Sheikh with suspicion.

But diplomats say that in recent weeks Sudanese authorities have privately given them direct and indirect assurances that they are taking steps to lower the profile and even reduce the presence in Sudan of militant Islamic groups. They say these include Hamas, which maintains an office in Khartoum and which has been linked to recent deadly terrorist bombings in Israel.

Back to Sudan, 1996: Terror Training

In March 1996, the government of Sudan, poised to hold national elections, granted Nairobi-based journalists something they had never granted any of them before: visas. So I and several others flew to Khartoum. Once there, I did several things, and I will roll out reports about some of my activities over the balance of this week. First up, Sudan’s long links with terrorist training. Sudanese authorities were, in 1996, categorically denying western charges that they were training foreign terrorists at special camps scattered across the country. They did, on the other hand, acknowledge openly that there were training camps for the country's so-called Popular Defense Forces, where young Islamic fighters were undergoing military instruction. That March, I was among a group of reporters taken to one such camp outside Khartoum and had this report. Obviously it was a staged and highly-controlled visit but it provided some useful information and color.

Under a broiling afternoon sun, a group of 16 new recruits practices assembling and disassembling AK-47 assault rifles. As each of them completes the test, they jump up, shouting “Allahu Akbar," God is great.

It is part of the course of instruction at a Popular Defense Force training camp about 25 kilometers north of Khartoum. The camp is named after Ebad Khatim, a student volunteer who was killed while fighting with Islamic militia forces against the mainly Christian and animist rebels in southern Sudan.

Officials at this bleak and sand-swept camp say the training typically lasts from 45 days to two months and that all of the trainees are volunteers, who serve without pay.

One of them, a 29-year-old bank clerk, tells visiting reporters he enlisted out of a sense of religious responsibility to defend Sudan. He says he wants to go to the south to fight rebels loyal to John Garang, who he calls a danger to the country.

The recruits seem enthusiastic as they sing and chant religious slogans for visitors. Their commanders say they do not fear death.

Yet the more than decade-old war in the south, by all accounts, continues to remain a costly and draining venture -- both in terms of money and manpower.

Several relatives of senior government officials and other influential Sudanese have been killed in the fighting -- including the younger brother of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose death was announced last month.

Officials deny categorically that any foreigners are undergoing training in these camps. They say the recruits are 100 percent Sudanese.

Sudanese authorities charge that most of the claims about foreigners stem from Egyptian intelligence reports. They say they have repeatedly invited Egyptian officials and other critics to visit any part of the country to inspect alleged guerrilla training camps. But they say Egypt has rejected all such overtures.

Angola Diamonds, The Final Chapter: ASCorp Rejects Impropriety Charges

Just two weeks later, Angola's state-controlled diamond-marketing monopoly rejected charges of involvement in improprieties, including illegal diamond trafficking. I had this report on 4/11/2002:

Sources close to the Angola Selling Corporation or ASCorp are angrily accusing local officials and international diamond industry rivals of undermining the monopoly's efforts to control the diamond trade in Angola.

These sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, point to the recent charge by officials of Angola's ruling MPLA party in the diamond-rich province of Lunda Norte. The officials accused ASCorp of illegal trafficking and certifying miners with whatwere considered dubious pasts. They also complained about a lack of access to mining data and what they considered insufficient royalty payments.

The sources tell me these local officials, and others in Angola, have been angered by the establishment of the ASCorp monopoly. They say the officials have, in the words of one source, “been cut out of the action" --- a reference to years of corruption in the Angolan diamond industry.

“ASCorp has more enemies than you can imagine," says this source. He says these include not only government and ruling party officials but also independent miners, who no longer have the freedom to chose where they sell precious gems.

The source says major international diamond industry institutions also feel threatened because there is now the prospect of increased diamond production from Angola --- notonly because of diamond controls but also because of the advent of peace, a reference to the recent cease-fire between the government and the UNITA rebels.

"This cease-fire in Angola," says the source, “is potentially a great threat to the likes of De Beers because what it means is that Angola now has the opportunity to produce more diamonds and flood the international market and reduce prices."

“These big companies," the source continues, “are naturally threatened by peace in Angola, ironic though that may be."

ASCorp is 51-percent owned by the government of Angola and 49-percent owned by foreign shareholders. The monopoly, formed two years ago, has increased tax collections to the government dramatically, yielding over 60-million-dollars in taxes last year. ASCorp has also been credited with curbing smuggling and other industry abuses although the firm itself has conceded some smuggling continues to occur.

Note: The government in 2003 ended ASCorp’s four-year-old monopoly and the diamond marketing firm was then forced to compete with other private companies to buy diamonds from miners and small producers.

Final Note: UNITA leader Savimbi was killed by government troops in late February 2002. He is buried in a cemetery in Luena in Angola's eastern Moxico province.

Angolan Diamonds: The Garimpeiros Revolt

Angola's state-run diamond buying monopoly conceded a year after my initial reports that high-grade stones were still being smuggled out of the country. But as I also reported on 3/27/2002, the Angola Selling Corporation, called ASCorp, challenged statistics suggesting the smuggling had increased because independent miners felt the monopoly was cheating them.

ASCorp figures I obtained show the export value of diamonds from Angola's independent miners fell last year (2001) by more than 80-million-dollars, or 21-point-seven-percent. The average price per carat for those diamonds fell an even greater amount, 26-point-three-percent. That is more than 75-dollars per carat compared to 2000.

Industry analysts admit last year was tough for diamonds sales and profits because of the economic recession in such key markets as the United States.

But they also say the lower prices paid out in Angola cannot be attributed solely to lower global demand. Instead they contend independent miners are increasingly turning their backs on the state-controlled diamond buying monopoly, originally set up to curb smuggling and other abuses.

The miners, known as garimpeiros, are suspected of moving high-grade stones into the Democratic Republic of Congo and other neighboring countries. There they obtain higher prices and pay lower taxes than in Angola.

Christian Dietrich is a diamond industry analyst who has studied African markets extensively. He says in a statement: “African diamond miners and dealers do not respond well to monopolies because they always feel they are being cheated, which they are."

An ASCorp spokesman admits independent miners are smuggling diamonds to the Congo and elsewhere. He says Angolan authorities have recognized the need to tighten border controls to stem the flow, estimated by independent monitors at between one and two-million dollars a day.

But the spokesman, Marcus Courage, disputes the suggestion miners are being cheated. In a statement, Mr. Courage says ASCorp “pays a fair price for diamonds." He says independent miners are reimbursed at rates “which reflect the world market price."

At the same time, the spokesman is challenging the authenticity of the export figures I obtained. He says the state-controlled monopoly has not yet officially published its statistics for 2001. He says the figures are still being collated and reviewed by the firm's auditors.

The data, provided to me by industry sources on condition of anonymity, show the overall value of Angola's diamond exports fell last year despite an overall increase in the total number of carats exported. The figures include not only the output of independent miners, but also the production of Angola's eight major state-controlled mines.

Diamonds are a key ingredient in Angola's export earnings. In the past they also played a central role in fueling the country's civil war, with the UNITA rebel movement selling gems mined from areas under its control to buy arms and ammunition.

In a related development indicating government disenchantment with ASCorp, officials of Angola's ruling MPLA party in the diamond-rich province of Lunda Norte have reportedly accused the monopoly of involvement in illegal diamond trafficking.

According to a document made available to me, the officials accuse ASCorp of certifying individual traders with what are considered dubious pasts, permitting them to move diamonds with little or no government control. In the document, the local leaders of the Movement for the Popular Liberation of Angola party also complain about a lack of access to mining data and what they consider insufficient royalty income.

ASCorp has had no immediate comment on the charges.

Angolan Diamonds: The Government Cries Foul

In August, 2001, just three weeks after that previous report, Angolan government authorities rejected charges that rebel diamonds could be laundered through loopholes in the country's new diamond buying system. But as I reported, there was startling new insider information to support the diamond-laundering charge.

An Angolan government document I obtained explains why authorities in Luanda dispute suggestions that their country remains a source of so-called conflict diamonds.

The document, dated in October last year, claims there are none because the UNITA rebel movement has collapsed. It contends Angola's armed forces, in the words of the document – have regained control of the whole country.

Analysts describe the claim as preposterous. Even Angolan state-controlled news media continue to report on rebel activities.

But perhaps more significantly, sources inside Angola's government-controlled Ascorp diamond-buying monopoly admit diamonds mined by UNITA supporters are still moving through the state purchasing system.

These sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, also say that despite Ascorp's public position, the firm has never considered its main duty to be halting the trade in conflict diamonds. Instead, they say its primary function is to boost state revenue from the diamond industry.

Ascorp's annual report confirms it was created in February of last year to increase the income out of diamond trading in Angola. But it goes on to add that Ascorp was also established to control the identity and authenticity of diamonds in Angola and to make sure this industry will not sponsor illegal activity.

Despite this, independent investigators tell me they have uncovered a number of flaws, especially with Angola's so-called Certificates of Origin system for diamonds. Among the problems are what they term conflicting standards in the issuance of such certificates.

They cite cases in which different stamps of approval are used and in which different people have signed certificates without explicit approval. They also say some certificates have been issued with unrecognizable signatures.

The investigators suggest possible high-level collusion in the issuance of questionable certificates. Among those who investigators say have access to the certificate process is the daughter of Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, Isabel Dos Santos. Sources say she has a variety of diamond industry interests.

My previous report quoted diplomats and diamond industry sources as saying rebel diamonds could still be laundered through the Angolan system --- for example, by rebels paying local businessmen with diamonds for supplies and these businessmen then selling the diamonds as their own to the state-buying organization.

In response, Angola's Ministry of Geology and Mines hand-delivered a three-page statement to my associates in Luanda. In it, the Ministry said there was no foundation forallegations that the system allowed for the laundering of diamonds.

The Ministry also challenged allegations that diamond revenues were not all reaching government coffers. My initial report quoted a foreign diamond executive as alleging some taxes were being deposited into a private account controlled by the Deputy Minister of Geology and Mines.

The Ministry statement did not specifically deny that allegation. It said only that tax collection was the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance.

The Ministry statement challenged the accuracy of diamond export statistics cited in the previous report, which it said were in conflict with those in existence in the public domain.

But the only useable statistics made public on the government's official web-site date back to 1992. The Ministry failed to offer any statistics of its own. It also did not respond to a formal request for data or for an interview to discuss diamond-related issues.

The UN Monitoring Mechanism on UNITA sanctions also declined to respond to questions about a recent fact-finding mission it undertook to Angola to look into diamond-related issues.

Angolan Diamonds: Not Just The Rebels’ Best Friend

And now, let’s turn to diamonds, one of Angola’s greatest assets and a source of controversy for years. Beginning in 2001, I began probing Angola’s diamond industry after sources informed me about irregularities --- not just the problem of rebel sales of what have become known as “blood diamonds,” but also of problems in the government’s effort to control the market. In this first report, I looked at the Angolan government’s claim that its diamond marketing controls had proved so efficient in the fight against illicit, rebel-mined diamonds that Angola might serve as a model for other countries.

Angola's boast about its diamond controls came through clearly in a report carried by its state-run news agency (ANGOP) after this month's Moscow conference on the conflict diamond problem. The report claimed the gathering recognized "the efficiency" of the system now in place in Angola.

At the heart of the Angolan control program is the Angola Selling Corporation or Ascorp, a state-controlled diamond-purchasing monopoly instituted in February 2000. Analysts say it has been promoted as a means to prevent diamonds mined by Angola's UNITA rebel movement from being exported through official channels. It is also intended to boost tax revenues.

But diplomats and diamond industry experts are now raising serious questions about the success of both the effort to curb the rebel trade in diamonds and to collect more taxes.

For one, these sources maintain rebel diamonds can still be laundered through the new system - for example by rebels paying locally for supplies with diamonds, which businessmen in turn present to the state-buying organization as their own diamonds.

For another, the sources say they have heard diamond revenues are not all reaching state coffers. In fact, one foreign diamond mining company executive has told diplomats of taxes allegedly being deposited into a private commercial bank account - an account controlled by Angola's deputy minister of mining and geology, Carlos Sumbula.

Mr. Sumbula headed his country's delegation at last week's Moscow diamond conference. It was Mr. Sumbula who was quoted two weeks ago by the Angolan news agency ascharacterizing the country's diamond control system as a model.

Christian Dietrich is a diamond analyst who has written extensively about Angola. He says part of the problem in effectively monitoring diamond mining affairs in Angola is a lack of official transparency.

“The Angolan government does not really like to disclose any statistics. They are much happier to keep everything at an arms length so nobody can actually criticize what they're doing.”

In fact, Mr. Dietrich was able to obtain official Angolan government diamond production figures only through the Belgium-based non-profit Diamond High Council, which has worked with Angolan authorities. He says these Angolan government figures differ dramatically from those provided by Ascorp.

According to Ascorp, Angola's formal diamond production has been climbing steadily in both value and volume in recent years. It cites two-point-seven-million carats, valued at 367-million dollars in 2000 -- an increase over the 1999 figures of two-point-three-million carats valued at 313-million dollars.

Ascorp reports production of one-point-six-million carats valued at 244-million dollars in 1998. But government figures for that year show only one-point-four-million carats valued at a much higher 424-million. The government data show production increasing to two-point-one-million carats in 1999, but declining in value to 279-million-dollars.

Mr. Dietrich says the discrepancies suggest the data has been deliberately falsified. He says there are equally troubling questions about the tax revenues reported by authorities.

“They have increased state revenue from the diamond sector from a total of 30-million from 1998 and 1999 combined to over 60-million in the year 2000 so now they can tell us how this revenue is being used for the upliftment of the population and national development or even development of the diamond sector. Of course, I really would doubt they will outline how that will happen.”

Although UN sanctions officials have been generally supportive of Angola's reforms, even they have pointed out weaknesses. In a recent report, these officials said -- quoting now -- "illicit Angolan diamonds are reaching diamond markets regardless of the certificate of origin system."

And they estimate the UNITA rebel movement probably laundered about 100-million dollars worth of diamonds through international diamond trading systems last year.

I learned of additional problems affecting the diamond industry in Angola. According to diplomatic and industry sources, these include undercutting by the Ascorp purchasingmonopoly of the real value of diamonds by up to 30 percent. Sources also report the mining of potentially valuable sites in a way that yields excellent short-term returns but ruins the diamond deposit for long-term exploitation. There are also continued complaints by foreign investors of unjustified payment demands by Angolan partners.

Angolan officials repeatedly rebuffed my efforts to obtain their comments for this report.

Mr. Bush Can Only Fit So Many Visitors to the White House in his Schedule

The White House declined comment in late April 2001 on the reasons behind President Bush's decision not to meet Angola's leader during a planned trip to the United States. Note: the following story includes a line from critics who said Africa was not a priority for the Bush administration. Aside from meeting scores of African leaders, Mr. Bush has twice traveled to Africa, though neither trip included Angola. He did have Mr. Dos Santos to the White House in May 2004.

The White House says many world leaders want to meet President Bush but there are only so many he can fit into his schedule.

Those comments follow word that Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos has shelved plans for a trip to the United States because he failed to win an invitation to the White House.

Mr. Dos Santos is described by Angolan sources as disappointed. He had planned to make his US visit in late April. It was to have included meetings with oil executives and his acceptance of honorary degrees from American universities.

Asked if Mr. Bush was ever interested in meeting the Angolan leader, the White House declined comment.

Some critics have suggested Africa is not a priority for the Bush administration. However South African President Thabo Mbeki is expected to visit Washington later this year. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo is due here in just 10 days time and has scheduled talks with Mr. Bush.

Nigeria is a leading oil producer. Angola is as well.

However Mr. Bush has come under recent pressure to ease restrictions on Angola's UNITA rebel movement. In line with United Nations sanctions, the United States has closed down the rebel group's offices and banned travel by UNITA representatives.

But in April, as Angolan President Dos Santos was planning his US trip, Senator Bob Smith wrote the White House to urge a lifting of those sanctions. He said it was in the United States' interest to listen to all sides in the Angolan conflict to achieve a balanced policy.

Senator Smith's letter was also critical of President Dos Santos, linking the Angolan leader to corruption.

In addition, another petition from nearly 20 mainly conservative groups and individuals was also sent to the White House in April urging a similar easing of restrictions on UNITA.

The Angolan government severed talks with the rebels after accusing UNITA of breaching promises made under a 1994 peace agreement. It is now pursuing the rebels' military defeat.

Guess Who’s Not Being Invited to the White House? (And No, It’s Not Savimbi)

President Bush has sent a message to Angola's leader. But as I reported in late April 2001, the message did not contain the one thing Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos wanted most.

Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos hoped to be visiting the United States now, accepting honorary degrees, meeting oil executives and more.

But authorities in Luanda held off formally announcing the trip in hopes of winning an invitation for Mr. Dos Santos to the White House.

President Bush finally wrote the Angolan leader two weeks ago (April 16th). Mr. Bush said in the document he looked forward to working with the Angolan leader to bring peace and freedom to Angola, an oil and diamond-rich country, torn for more than two decades by civil war.

But there was no invitation to Washington.

The letter was largely just a thank-you note, replying to the congratulatory message Mr. Dos Santos sent Mr. Bush on the occasion of his inauguration as US president in January.

White House officials were not immediately available to discuss the lack of an invitation, or the letter.

But sources close to the Angolan president suggest he is disappointed. Sources say Mr. Dos Santos has now abandoned plans for a US trip.

In the meantime, the Pentagon has disclosed its top official on African affairs visited the Angolan Embassy in Washington last week. A defense spokesman says Bernd McConnell met Angola's ambassador for what was termed an informal discussion of bilateral relations. No details are available.

Mr. McConnell created a controversy earlier this year by admitting he held unofficial meetings with the UNITA rebel movement's representative in Washington. UNITA has been fighting Angolan government forces since the breakdown of the country's peace process two years ago. As a result of the breakdown, blamed on UNITA, the United States suspended formal contacts with the rebels.

The Pentagon says Mr. McConnell also met Portuguese Embassy officials last week, and has since flown to Lisbon. He is meeting officials of the community of Portuguese-speaking countries to discuss US cooperation in the group's activities. The trip is expected to last one week. Portugal is the former colonial power in Angola.

UNITA 2001: Bouncing Back Or On the Verge of Collapse?

Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi says in an exclusive interview that his UNITA rebel movement is bouncing back militarily. But as I reported in March 2001, US officials were painting a bleak picture of the rebel group's true prospects on the battlefield.

Jonas Savimbi acknowledges UNITA's forces have suffered through grim times - losing their strongholds in a series of government offensives during the past two years.

But in a satellite telephone interview, the UNITA leader says the worst is over, and the rebels are now making a comeback. Mr. Savimbi says he decided to break 18 months of silence precisely because he feels safe. He says UNITA has reorganized its forces, and now, with their increased mobility, rebel units are within 100 kilometers of the Angolan capital, Luanda.

US officials acknowledge UNITA can still stage attacks that disrupt life in Angola. But overall, these officials say, rebel fortunes have been on a steady decline. They estimate UNITA's active forces now number 10-thousand at most - less than half of its estimated strength in recent years. They say these rebel forces are under-equipped andpoorly-supplied. They also say tightened international sanctions mean there are no longer any significant flows of weapons and other materiel to UNITA units.

Analysts say that could be part of the reason why Mr. Savimbi, in his interview, has called for a new dialogue with the government.

But US officials appear skeptical about the prospects for any new peace talks. For one, they say Angolan authorities would probably only be interested in negotiating Mr. Savimbi's surrender or exile - and the rebel leader is not likely to accept either. For another, these US officials believe that after so many years of fighting, Angola's government finds it convenient and profitable to allow the rebels to continue to operate – provided the capital remains peaceful and rebel activities are by and large limited to remote rural areas.

The government in this way can blame the rebels for continued military spending, which has been a known source of official corruption.

March 2001: Can The End Be Far Off? Savimbi Breaks His Silence, Calls for Dialogue

Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi has broken an 18-month silence to call for dialogue between his UNITA movement and the government of President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos. I reported on an exclusive telephone interview with Mr. Savimbi.

Mr. Savimbi says Angolan government troops still want to capture him and crush the UNITA rebel movement. But the rebel leader says that despite military setbacks during the past two years, he has never been in danger. He also maintains UNITA has regrouped as a fighting force.

Now, though, Mr. Savimbi says he wants to re-open a dialogue with the government to bring about peace and national reconciliation in Angola after a quarter century of civil war.

Mr. Savimbi was speaking by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location inside Angola.

His comments came just three weeks after Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos privately told US officials he is perplexed that there have been no peace feelers from the rebels.

That led one American diplomat to suggest in a confidential memorandum that President Dos Santos might be open to an initiative from Mr. Savimbi.

The US Ambassador to Angola, Joseph Sullivan, has meanwhile said the United States recently made contact with what he describes as "various people linked to UNITA." Mr. Sullivan says the contacts were were aimed at encouraging the rebels to give up their arms and to rejoin the peaceful political process.

In his interview, rebel leader Savimbi appears to be aware of the US contacts. He says the Angolan government should take advantage of what he terms the international support for a new peace dialogue.

He specifically mentions American authorities who he says are beginning to realize the solution to the Angolan conflict is through dialogue. He says there is what he calls a monumental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations in this regard.

He says the Clinton administration approved of Angolan government's efforts to crush UNITA militarily to achieve peace.

Despite Mr. Savimbi's call for new talks, US officials say privately they do not hold out much hope for any new movement towards peace. These officials say that for the Luanda government, the only purpose of any new peace dialogue would appear to be arranging the surrender or exile of UNITA leader Savimbi. They say the rebel leader is not likely to agree to either option.

These US officials also say that notwithstanding Mr. Savimbi's statements, UNITA's fortunes remain on a steady decline. They say the total number of active rebel fighters is now believed to be about 10-thousand and these, they say, are under-equipped andunder-supplied.

Previous efforts to bring about peace in Angola collapsed in late 1998 when the government launched a military offensive against UNITA. The government charged the rebels had failed to demilitarize as promised under the terms of a United Nations brokered peace deal.

Since then, the government has refused to negotiate with UNITA. The continued fighting has driven nearly four-million Angolans from their homes, creating a humanitarian crisis through the oil and diamond rich country.

UNITA’s Favorite Conservative

You’ll recall the recent postings on the contacts a top Pentagon official held several years ago with UNITA’s one-time chief representative in the US, Jardo Muekalia (aka Domingos Muekalia). Mr. Muekalia also had a meeting back then with Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political advisor, at a conservative gathering. UNITA and Mr. Muekalia had great hopes for a Bush-led shift in US policy in favor of the Angolan rebels after the Clinton administration, which had distanced itself from UNITA.

There was no shift, though. And Federal Election Commission records show Mr. Muekalia gave no contributions to Mr. Bush or the Republican Party.

They do show, however, that he sent $200 to a conservative candidate for President, Howard Phillips. The money was returned, just as the Republicans returned donations made to them by the wife of arms dealer Pierre Falcone.

The backing for the conservative Mr. Phillips was not surprising. Below the following entry from Federal Election Commission documents are some excerpts from Mr. Phillips’ conservative publication.

Contributions to Political Committees
MUEKALIA, DOMINGOS
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22041
PHILLIPS, HOWARD VIA PHILLIPS 2000 INC

10/03/2000
-200.00
20036402612

11/05/2001
200.00
22037440597

11/05/2001
-200.00
22037440597
Total Contributions: -200.00

If you click on the minus 200 dollar entries, the first is described as a “refund of contribution.” The second is “refund of contribution, check lost.”

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of February 28, 2002:

SHAME!

GEORGE W. BUSH DISGRACES HIMSELF AND DISHONORS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY MEETING WITH DR. JONAS SAVIMBI’S ASSASSIN, JOSE EDUARDO DOS SANTOS, WHILE SAVIMBI’S BLOOD IS STILL ON THE FINGERS OF ANGOLA’S CORRUPT LENINIST TYRANT

On Monday, February 25, The Conservative Caucus hosted a news conference at which I delivered the following statement (The complete conference, including media questions is recorded on a Visions of Victory audiocassette which is available on request to anyone who returns the enclosed reply envelope asking for a complimentary copy. Recorded on the cassette are remarks by Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy; Brad Phillips, President of the Persecution Project Foundation; and Jardo Muekalia, Dr. Savimbi’s last official representative in the United States):

Dr. Jonas Savimbi was a great Angolan patriot, truly a man who served as a loving, self-sacrificing father to those of his countrymen who shared his love of freedom and who were willing to die to escape the bonds of Portuguese colonialism and Communist tyranny.

In the war against Soviet imperialism America had no more faithful and courageous ally.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/angola.htm

Angolan Arms Dealer’s Family Update

According to the Associated Press on Aug. 30, 2007, under a plea agreement, Sonia Falcone was ordered to leave the US and not return for at least 10 years. Her departure stemmed from a misdemeanor charge of hiring foreign workers not legally authorized to work for her at her Paradise Valley estate.

The AP report said she intended to temporarily resettle her family in China. (There was no explanation on why she was going to China nor am I aware of any reports on the presence of the Falcones in China since then.)

Her supporters alleged she was targeted by US federal authorities because of her husband and his alleged involvement in an illegal arms trafficking deal to Angola in the early 1990s. Federal authorities denied the indictments against Sonia Falcone had anything to do with her husband.

For more background on Pierre Falcone and the arms trafficking charges against him go to:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/angola/index-04.htm
also
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/report.aspx?aid=154

According to Public Integrity, Falcone's father, Pierre Falcone Sr., was a Corsican fruit merchant who had settled in Algeria and became an arms dealer in Venezuela and Argentina.

Despite (or because of) the investigations against him, Angola appointed Falcone an envoy to UNESCO, giving him immunity from possible prosecution. See:

http://www.iansa.org/regions/europe/documents/undermining_security/security_equipment.htm

This report from the International Action Network on Small Arms says:

“In September 2003, the Angolan government appointed French billionaire businessman Pierre Falcone as its ambassador to UNESCO. This was a highly unusual act as Falcone was then, and still is, under investigation by the French authorities for illegal arms trafficking to Angola. UNESCO representatives expressed their shock and dismay at this appointment, adding it was unacceptable that an arms trafficker was now a member of the agency. In November 2003, French actress Catherine Deneuve resigned as UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador protesting Falcone's nomination.”

"Falcone's lawyer argued that Falcone has total immunity from prosecution because of his new status as an Angolan diplomat. However the French authorities have said the immunity only covers acts related to his diplomatic functions. On 14 January 2004 France issued a global arrest warrant for Pierre Falcone. The arrest warrant was issued after Falcone reportedly refused to appear before a judge and left France, breaching his probation terms. Despite such actions Amnesty International is still concerned that France does not have adequate laws covering the brokering of arms transfers outside French territory by French nationals and residents.”

The Beauty Queen, the Angolan Arms Dealer and George Bush

The family of an international arms dealer linked to Angola and once detained in France denied suggestions it tried to win influence with the Bush administration. I had this report in late March 2001.

Arms dealer Pierre Falcone tried to get George W. Bush to visit his family's luxurious multi-million dollar Arizona estate during Mr. Bush's campaign for the Presidency.

But political sources in the southwestern state say the family's invitations and offers to host fund-raisers were rejected.

Nevertheless, Mr. Falcone's wife Sonia had her US based health and beauty products company give the Republican party 100-thousand dollars, most of it after last November'sPresidential election. But party officials, concerned the money might be tainted, returned the donation.

Despite this, a spokesman for the Falcone family rejects as "ludicrous" and as "insanity" suggestions the Falcones have made any attempts to influence the Bush administration.

Spokesman Justin Rose, speaking from his Phoenix, Arizona office by telephone, cannot say if Sonia Falcone has sought any form of US assistance on behalf of her husband. Pierre Falcone has been detained in a Paris jail since December while authorities investigate an arms dealing and influence-peddling scandal that also involves the son of aformer French President.

Neither the Bolivian-born Sonia nor the Franco-Brazilian Mr. Falcone are US citizens. However she and their three young children spend much of the year at a plush home in a prestigious Phoenix suburb known as Paradise Valley.

The Arizona Republic newspaper reports the 10-point-five million dollars spent for the estate last year by the Falcones represented the most expensive home sale in state history.

Mr. Rose says Mr. Falcone's imprisonment in France has been a source of extreme frustration for the family. However he says they have been bouyed by what he characterizes as an outpouring of support by neighbors and other friends in the localcommunity.

Mr. Falcone has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the high-level French investigation involving arms sales to Angola. He has won support from Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, who recently defended Mr. Falcone in an unusual and highly-publicized critique of French authorities. The Angolan leader credited Mr. Falcone, though his arms sales, with saving the lives of millions of Angolans and preserving democracy and the rule of law in the country in the face of ongoing rebel attacks.

There are numerous reports linking the Angolan leader's family and Mr. Falcone in an oil partnership with significant holdings in one of Angola's potentially-rich deepwater offshore exploration blocks. Falcone family spokesman Justin Rose says he knows nothing about any such links.

In the meantime, it has been learned President Dos Santos will visit the United States in April on what trip organizers indicate is a mainly private visit. It is not yet known whether he will hold talks with any Bush administration officials.

The Angolan Arms Dealer’s Wife, the Republican Party, Bush and McCain

The Republican National Committee said in early 2001 that it had returned 100-thousand dollars in campaign donations from a company headed by the wife of a suspected international arms dealer. The arms dealer, Pierre Falcone, was under investigation in France at the time in connection with suspected illegal arms sales to Angola.

Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos has nothing but praise for Pierre Falcone, who he credits with helping support Angola at a critical moment in its history.

But in the United States, Republican party officials have sought to distance themselves from any suggestion Mr. Falcone may have indirectly tried to buy influence with the new Bush administration.


According to the Republican National Committee, it rejected contributions made by Essante, a Utah-based health company run by Mr. Falcone's wife, Sonia. The Federal Election Commission says Essante gave the Republicans 100-thousand dollars in two installments last year -- 20-thousand dollars last May and another 80-thousand dollars on November 16th -- more than one week after the Presidential election won by George W. Bush.

But a spokesman for the Republican National Committee tells me the money has since been returned. The spokesman, confirming a report first published in Newsweek magazine, says the party wanted to avoid any suggestion that it accepted tainted money.

Mr. Falcone has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the arms trafficking scandal dubbed in France as "Angolagate." It is the same scandal which led to the arrest of Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, the son of a former French president.

Essante, the firm run by Mr. Falcone's wife, did not respond to my request for comment on the return of its 100-thousand dollars in campaign contributions.

However a spokesman for the Falcone family told the Arizona Republic newspaper that any suggestion the couple was trying to buy influence with the new administration is "unfortunate, false and wrong."

The spokesman is quoted as describing Sonia Falconeas a conscientious and generous woman. The Falcones maintain a home in Arizona.

According to the Federal Election Commission, Mrs. Falcone personally gave money to the Bush campaign and the campaign of Mr. Bush's one-time Republican rival for the Presidency, Senator John McCain.

But the FEC records show at least a portion of her contributions to Mr. McCain, who is likely to be the 2008 Republican Party candidate for President, were returned.

[Note: If you are interested in checking out the Federal Election Commission files, go to:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtmlThen enter Falcone, Sonia and/or Essante (the name of her firm) into the search box. The FEC records of their 2000 campaign contributions should appear.]

Coming Up: Bush, McCain and the Angolan Arms Dealer's Wife

...and the story behind her campaign contributions. Read it here this week.

Scoop: The Pentagon Defends Its Africa Man’s UNITA Contacts

The Pentagon in February 2001 defended contacts by its top African affairs official with a man regarded as the US based representative of Angola's UNITA rebel movement. The story, first reported by me, was now picked up by other news organizations.

Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral Craig Quigley admits neither the Secretary of Defense nor any other top government official or agency approved of or knew about the contacts in advance.

But he says senior Defense Department African affairs official Bernd McConnell firmly believes he did not violate US or UN restrictions on contacts with UNITA by meeting Jardo Muekalia.

“He (McConnell) feels very strongly that he's on solid ground here, that this is not in contravention of the prohibitions that have been put in place for official interaction withrepresentatives of UNITA.”

Admiral Quigley acknowledges the meetings -- including one held in late January -- focused on Angolan questions. But he says the contacts occurred outside the Pentagon and were held outside normal working hours. The spokesman says Mr. McConnell was seeking what he terms perspective on how the United States can help revive the stalled peace process in oil and diamond rich Angola.

“If he (McConnell) can use these informal discussions as a means to further a peace process in Angola, that's his motivation.”

But Admiral Quigley denies it is any sort of one-man diplomatic initiative.

The State Department appears to have been caught off guard earlier this week when asked about the contacts, which were first reported by me. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher insists the United States does not have official contacts with UNITA, having severed its dialogue with the rebel group two years ago.

That move followed the collapse of the Angolan peace process and the resumption of the country's civil war. The international community has blamed the rebels for Angola's continued instability and imposed extensive sanctions against UNITA.

Mr. Muekalia describes the sanctions, including the closure of all UNITA offices abroad, as a barrier to efforts to resolve Angola's problems. The rebels hope the new Bush Administration will bring about a fresh start to the peace process.

Mr. Muekalia has also met recently with Karl Rove, a top White House aide to President George W. Bush.

[Editor’s Note: Bernd “Bear” McConnell, a US Naval Academy graduate, remained in government service after his contacts with UNITA were exposed. After his Pentagon Africa job, he became Director of the Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He was most recently a senior official at the US military’s Northern Command. NORTHCOM, as it is known, is responsible for defense of the territorial US, including defense support for civilian authorities.]

Scoop: Pentagon Confirms Meeting With UNITA's Muekalia

The Pentagon confirmed in February 2001 that a top Defense Department official had indeed been meeting with the man regarded as the senior representative of Angola's UNITA rebel movement in the United States.

A Pentagon spokesman says top Defense Department African Affairs official Bernd McConnell met late last month with Jardo Muekalia, UNITA's man in Washington.

The spokesman, Army Lieutenant Colonel Paul Phillips, says the Pentagon is aware that contact with Mr. Muekalia is prohibited under UN-imposed sanctions.

But Colonel Phillips says the breakfast meeting held just days after President George W. Bush's January 20th inauguration was unofficial and therefore did not violate any restrictions.

Nevertheless, Mr. Muekalia says the meeting was at Mr. McConnell's request. He says the Pentagon official and his aides wanted to “pick my brains” on where things are in Angola. Mr. Muekalia says he gave them his views.

Defense Department officials could not immediately clarify how a senior Pentagon official, with aides, could seek and hold a meeting with Mr. Muekalia to discuss Angolan issues and then suggest the talks were "unofficial" and not in violation of US and UN policy.

But the former UNITA representative says he believes that US officials interested in hearing all sides of the Angolan story are, in his words, certainly free to talk to whomever they wish. Mr. Muekalia makes clear his pro-UNITA views, saying that sooner or later, the international community will rediscover the wisdom of reaching out to UNITA and its leader, Jonas Savimbi.

Angolan Embassy officials in Washington have denounced the meetings as illegal. The United States formally severed contacts with rebel leader Savimbi and his top aides and representatives two-years ago. The move followed the collapse of the Angolan peace process and the resumption of the country's civil war.

Mr. Muekalia served openly as UNITA's representative in Washington until UN sanctions mandated the closure of all the rebel group's offices abroad. UN sanctions experts say he has continued to serve unofficially as UNITA's representative. They also describe the United States as one of the most important bases for UNITA activities in the wake of the imposition of international sanctions against therebels.

The rebels are hoping for a change in US policy from President George W. Bush, a Republican. Past Republican administrations have openly supported UNITA and provided it with arms.

Scoop: The Pentagon’s Africa Man Has Secret UNITA Contacts; So Does Karl Rove

The Pentagon's senior African affairs official has been meeting in Washington with the man regarded as the Angolan rebel movement UNITA's top representative in the United States. As I reported exclusively in February 2001, the contacts appeared to conflict with US policy.

The United States severed contacts with UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi two years ago following the breakdown of the Angolan peace process and a renewal of the country's civil war. A State Department spokeswoman says that in line with that decision, no senior US officials should be meeting with any of UNITA's representatives.

But the Pentagon's top Africa official, Bernd "Bear" McConnell, has had repeated contacts with Jardo Muekalia, the man who used to represent UNITA openly in Washington but who is now barred by UN mandated sanctions from doing so.

Most of their meetings have been outside the Pentagon, including at least one that took place following the January 20th inauguration of President George W. Bush.

But Mr. Muekalia actually visited the Pentagon last year, accompanying an Angolan visitor to the building. Details of that visit and other contacts between Pentagon officials and the UNITA representative are unknown.

A Defense Department spokesman, Army Lieutenant Colonel Paul Phillips, describes the contacts as infrequent and informal, suggestingmost were innocent social encounters.

But it is apparent UNITA's man in Washington has used such meetings to promote the group's viewpoints.

In another contact -- this one on January 10th, ten days before President Bush's inauguration -- the rebel representative met with Karl Rove, a close Bush associate and now a senior White House official.

In a statement, Mr. Muekalia says he won agreement from Mr. Rove that the Bush administration would review the UN mandated restrictions imposed by the Clinton administration against the Angolan rebels.

The conservative Free Congress Foundation confirms it facilitated a meeting between the two men. But according to a spokesman for the organization, Mr. Rove merely said he assumed the restrictions would be reviewed. He also made clear it would not be a top priority.

Diplomatic sources say Angolan government leaders are certain to be outraged by word of these contacts.

Past Republican administrations supported the rebels openly and UNITA's foreign affairs secretary, Alcides Sakala, recently wrote that the rebels look forward to what he termed a "fresh start" from the Bush Administration.

UN sanctions experts are also likely to be concerned about the US contacts with UNITA. Recent UN reports have warned of the growing importance played by rebel representatives overseas, including in the United States. The United Nations says these representatives are playing a key role in maintaining UNITA's military and financial strength in the face of sanctions.

Word of the contacts follows last year's revelation that the United States, despite a professed desire for closer ties with the government in Luanda, had rebuffed an Angolan request for help in tracking down UNITA leader Savimbi, who remains a fugitive within his own country.

(See http://reporterregrets.blogspot.com/2008/02/pentagon-and-africa.html )

Presidential Politics in the US and African Concerns

The inauguration of a new US president --- especially one of a different political persuasion than his predecessor --- is always a time of uncertainty for foreign governments and groups who wonder if US policies will change dramatically. It is certainly true as the US approaches its 2008 election. But in January 2001, when President Clinton, a Democrat, stepped down and George W. Bush, a Republican, took office, one African country where the changeover was closely watched was Angola, one of the United States' leading oil suppliers. I tried to explain why.

It represents just a drop from Angola's overflowing oil revenue barrel.

But diplomats from Angola are leaving nothing to chance now that President George W. Bush is in the White House. They spent 21-thousand dollars for a quarter-page advertisement in the Washington Post newspaper's inauguration day edition --- a very public display of their hopes.

The ad conveyed the Angolan government's congratulations but also reaffirmed what was termed Angola's "firm desire to find peace" after decades of civil war.

It also said authorities in Luanda want peace so they can press ahead with the country's "social and economic development" --- a promise clearly aimed at heading off critics who charge that for years Angola's vast oil revenues have done little to improve the lot of the nation's largely impoverished population. They charge that corrupt officials have siphoned off vast fortunes and squandered more and more money on expensive military hardware needed in the Angolan government's continuing battle against Angola's UNITA rebels.

As for the UNITA movement, there have been no expensive advertisements to greet the new administration. But rebel leader Jonas Savimbi is clearly hoping for some new, pro-UNITA policy initiatives from President Bush.

Mr. Savimbi has purportedly written letters to both the new president and his new secretary of state, Colin Powell. Officials at the State Department say they cannot confirm the authenticity of the documents.

But in copies made available by sources close to UNITA, the rebel side says it is “encouraged" by the president's emphasis on “consensus, listening, and reconciliation." Mr. Savimbi says in his letter to Mr. Powell that he hopes these characteristics will help resolve the Angola crisis.

UNITA received US backing under past Republican administrations but fell out of favor under President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Former Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake is understood to have vowed at the outset of the Clinton administration to “finish off" UNITA leader Savimbi.

But Mr. Savimbi and his rebels remain a factor in Angola --- a factor that cannot be ignored. Rebels forces fight on despite US support for UNITA's international isolation, United Nations sanctions designed to cripple the rebels, and the Angolan government's firm refusal to have anything further to do with Mr. Savimbi.

The Luanda government blames him for the breakdown of the Angolan peace process, saying he violated the disarmament and demilitarization pledges made by UNITA in a 1994 peace agreement.

The new Bush administration has given few signals yet about how it intends to proceed in Angola. In his confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Powell lumped Angola together with Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He described them as places of conflict where the search for compromise, dialogue, and peace should replace war and killing.

That could be a hint the Bush administration will press authorities in Luanda to reopen talks with UNITA.

One South Africa-based analyst who closely follows events in Angola has already told me he is worried a change in US policy could, in his words “complicate matters wildly."

But diplomatic sources side with the well-informed publication “Africa Confidential" in predicting that President Bush's policy is likely to be guided more by oil interests and improving relations with Luanda than by old Republican associations with UNITA.

US: No, It’s Not Just Oil Driving Policy to Angola

The interview with then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Witney Schneidman also focused on another sensitive issue: whether then US policy towards Angola was driven solely by American interest in acquiring Angolan oil. He rejected the notion, his rejection coming as Angola's UNITA rebels attacked foreign oil facilities in a new twist to the country's long civil war.

Once the United States backed Angola's UNITA rebel movement against the country's then Soviet and Cuban backed Marxist government. Now it supports the former Marxist leaders UNITA is still fighting.

The rebels say the shift is easy to explain: Angola's government controls the country's lucrative oil resources, in which US firms have invested billions of dollars. As long as it continues to get its oil, the rebels maintain the United States no longer cares about Angola's civil war.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Witney Schneidman rejects such charges.

In an interview at his office in Washington, Mr. Schneidman says such thinking reflects what he characterizes as an incomplete understanding of the US interest in Angola.

“Oil is obviously a factor, but we have other interests in Angola and that concerns, number one, bringing this war to an end. Number two, working with all segments of Angolan society to help a viable democracy emerge with interest in economic reform. But we also have an interest in the role a vibrant and democratic Angola can play in the region of Southern Africa and what it can contribute to Southern Africa becoming one of the most attractive regional markets in the world.”

But charges of a shift in US policy persist. The influential “Economist" magazine recently ran an article about Angola titled “America's good new friend." It said new discoveries of deep offshore oil deposits would increase Angola's daily output from850-thousand barrels to a million-and-a-half barrels a day by 2004. The “Economist" predicts Angola will soon provide the United States with 10-percent of its oil imports.

Other publications routinely credit Angola with already providing the United States with a significant seven-to-eight percent of its imports.

But inquiries with the Department of Energy and the American Petroleum Institute paint a different picture. These organizations say that last year US oil imports from Angola amounted to about three-percent of total imports. That is less than was imported from Iraq, a country with which the United States does not have diplomatic relations.

Industry experts say that with increased oil production in the future, US imports from Angola are likely to increase. But they say it is by no means certain.

In the meantime, though, the UNITA rebels appear to have reversed their previous pledge not to threaten oil facilities in Angola. In a military communique, the rebels say they have attacked and set on fire two oil pipelines near Soyo on Angola's northwestern coast. The European oil consortium that controls those pipelines has confirmed the attack, but has not yet said what impact it will have on production. UNITA says its operations against oil facilities will continue.

US to Savimbi: Give Up The Struggle

A senior US official called in late 2000 on Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi to abandon his guerrilla struggle and bring lasting peace to his resource-rich but war-torn country. This is from an interview with then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Witney Schneidman in October 2000.

Mr. Schneidman acknowledges that UNITA rebel leader Jonas Savimbi has been discredited by his failure to live up to the terms of Angola's 1994 peace agreement and his role in the perpetuation of the country's long and bloody civil war.

But in an interview at his State Department office in Washington, Mr. Schneidman suggests there may still be a role for Mr. Savimbi to play in Angola --- provided he first agrees that his UNITA rebels will lay down their weapons. Mr. Schneidman says that is the only way forward if Angola is to enjoy peace.

“Come out of the bush and join the process --- join the process of economic reform, join the process of political reform, join the process of improving the lot of all people, join the process of having UNITA cadre get jobs, be able to invest in their futures, be able to look after the children with education and health care.”

Mr. Schneidman notes Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos has offered amnesty to the rebel leader if UNITA lays down its weapons. He also notes Mr. Dos Santos has announced his intention to hold national elections, possibly next year. [Eds note: he didn’t quite make it. They are scheduled for September 2008.]

But asked if Mr. Savimbi could stand as a candidate, Mr. Schneidman is equivocal.

“That would be up to the Angolan people to decide.”

In a new communiqué, UNITA says there can be no elections unless there are negotiations to end the civil war. But the senior State Department official says Mr. Savimbi should not hold out hope for fresh negotiations to revise the terms of Angola's 1994 United Nations-backed peace agreement, known as the Lusaka accord.

“You know, I don't think anybody wants to revive the peace process per se in terms of going to another round of negotiations where we invest a lot of diplomatic energy onsomething... that Savimbi won't honor in the final analysis. There's a clear path that's spelled out of what Savimbi needs to do, of where Angolan society should head, and I think there's complete agreement on that...”

The peace process in Angola collapsed, and full-scale fighting resumed two years ago, after UNITA failed to implement provisions of the peace pact. The government ruled out any further negotiations with Mr. Savimbi, and launched a major offensive aimed at wiping out the rebel movement.

But the rebels continue to wage a guerrilla struggle. In a telephone interview last week, a top UNITA official said government forces will never succeed in destroying the rebels.

US authorities have rejected Angolan government requests for assistance in helping locate the fugitive rebel leader, who has been forced from UNITA's traditional strongholds in the country's Central Highlands.

In his interview, Mr. Schneidman says the United States remains convinced there cannot be a military solution to the conflict.

Angola has been ravaged by fighting almost continuously since its independence from Portugal in 1975. Although rich in oil, diamonds and other resources, analysts say most of the profits have been spent on military hardware or diverted by corrupt officials. Most ordinary Angolans are mired in poverty.

MPRI: Giving Up On Angola

A private US defense consulting firm says it has all but given up hope of concluding a contract with Angola despite five years of effort and the backing of the Clinton administration. I had this report in late October 2000:

With reports circulating of field troops going unpaid and unsupplied while generals enrich themselves on lucrative arms sales kickbacks, it is little wonder that US military experts say Angola's armed forces need reform.

But Ed Soyster, spokesman for a Washington-area consulting firm that hoped to lead just such an overhaul, says his company, MPRI, has virtually abandoned all hope of ever concluding a firm contract with Angolan authorities. He says that after five frustrating years, MPRI which stands for Military Professional Resources Incorporated -- will spend no more money trying.

Mr. Soyster puts the blame on Angolan authorities for declining to pay for the firm's services after initially approving its proposals. He says the company's experts were to conduct a thorough revamping of Angola's armed forces, with the goal of bringing transparency to military administration and financing. MPRI would have also conducted officer training, English-language training and special training for engineers involved in bridge and road repairs -- something urgently needed in war-ravaged Angola.

The package was approved by the Clinton administration, which granted MPRI a formal license for the project. But that license expired last December with the program unimplemented. Mr. Soyster says subsequent efforts to revive talks on a modified contract have gotten nowhere.

An Angolan general (Military intelligence chief General Cirilo de Sa) who was in Washington this month as part of a delegation invited for bilateral talks at the State Department even declined an invitation to meet with MPRI officials.

Mr. Soyster says it does not appear that financing was the problem for Angola. Instead, he suggests a lack of payoffs for the officials involved in contract negotiations may have played a key role.

According to the US Department of Energy, oil-rich Angola received 900 million dollars last year alone in bonuses paid by foreign oil companies operating in the country. The money was not recorded in Angola's government budget although it is widely believed to have gone to finance arms purchases and military operations.

MPRI is currently working in Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria as well as countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. The firm is made up of former military personnel who work under contract for the US government or, with official US approval, for foreign countries.