FNLA collapses, southern battles intensify

Imperialism. shudders at MPLA gains

Liberation fighters of the Po-
pular Movement for the Libera-
tion of Angola (MPLA) pushed
the National Front for the Lib-
eration of Angola (FNLA) into
Zaire last week, all but defeat-
ing that group.

In a northern offensive, MPLA
troops took the headquarters of
the FNLA and forced them to

' Tetreat from-the country. FNLA

now has its headquarters in Kin-

_ shasa, Zaire.

In a statement after suffering

the crushing defeat, an FNLA
spokesman said the group would
turn to “international terrorist”
methods to continue its attempts
to take power in Angola. It
threatened to bomb foreign em-
bassies of the countries who
support the MPLA. To date, 40
nations have given their recog-
tion to the MPLA declared
Peoples’ Republic of Angola. No
country has recognized the
FNLA or its ally, the Union for
the Total Independence of An-

CIA undervalued

WASHINGTON — In case you actually believed the
United States government’s claims that the CIA had only
sent $31-million in aid to FNLA and UNITA since January
1975, a report of the House Select Committee on Intel-
ligence should dispel any such misconceptions.

The report states that the Central Intelligence Agency
systematically underestimated the value of military equip-
ment it was sending to the Angolan groups.

CIA accountants undervalued equipment by at least half,
the report says, including pricing .45-calibre pistols at $5
and .30-calibre semi-automatic carbines at $7.55.

arms to Angola

gola (UNITA).

The government of Zaire,
whose President Mobutu is the
brother-in-law of FNLA leader
Holden Roberto, has threatened
to declare war on the People‘s
Republic of Angola, although it
has been involved in the war
since its conception, aiding the
FNLA with troops, arms and
capital.

During the MPLA northern,
offensive, hundreds of FNLA
troops and supporters, including
white mercenaries, “fled the
country by boat. They sailed to
South Africa, seeking refuge,
but the Vorster government
would not allow them to land. ,
The government has informed
the refugees now docked off the
South African coast, that only
the whites will be allowed into ©
South Africa.

In southern Angola, aided by
Cuban regulars and Soviet mili-
tary equipment and advisors,
MPLA troops are advancing on
strongholds of the combined
forces of UNITA and South Af-

rica. Major gains have been
made in the last few days, with
the taking of towns that provide
rail connections to the coast.
Tass, the Soviet news agency,
reported Jan. 19 that MPLA
forces had surrounded the south-
ern town of Kela, a large supply
base for South African troops.
Opposing forces were retreating
under heavy fire and more South
African troops and_ supplies

were being rushed to the south- .

ern front, Tass said.

The news agency also report-
ed that U.S. and South African
military personnel were training
UNITA forces at 15 camps.

Reports from UNITA sources
say an airlift of about 2,000 men
is being planned to northern
Angola, which is now under
MPLA control.

Cuban airlifts into Angola
have resumed, it was reported
from Lisbon, Jan. 17. The Cuban
planes are flying by way of the
Azores, although the govern-
ment of Portugal ’has officially

. declared itself neutral. A strong

Interview given by Boris
Shumlin, Deputy Minister of In-

} ternal Affairs of the USSR, to

Avtandil Rukhadze, APN corres-
Pcndent,

* Ba

Q. Are there any rules deter-

/ Mining the eniigration procedure
_ of Soviet citizens?

A. Yes, of course. The rules

‘for exit from the USSR and

entry to the USSR were approv-
) ¢d by the USSR Council of Min-

- isters on Sept. 22, 1970 (Decree

_No. 801). They were published
I the collection of the govern-
'™Ment’s decisions and have re-
_ cently been complemented by a
/ number of new clauses simplify-
ng the emigration procedure.

Q. Which documents, and to

1 whom must a citizen asking for
migration submit?

A. Those who want to leave

_ the Soviet Union hand over their

@pplications and completed ques-

_Uonnaires to local bodies res-

‘(On emigration

POnsible for internal affairs.

Q. Are there any restrictions
in the Soviet

" Union?

A. Soviet legislation and rules

/of departure from the country
/ are in full accord with the Inter-
/Mational Convenant on Civil and
/Political Rights adopted by the

N General Assembly on Dec.

16, 1966. Restrictions which we
/SOmetimes impose directly pro-

ceed from the clauses of the
Covenant. It provides that the

Tight of a person to leave his

country to become a permanent
Tesident of another country can
be restricted in cases connected
With the protection of state se-
urity, order, health or moral
Standards of the population or
the rights and freedoms of
Others,

_Q. What does it mean in prac-
tice? ‘

A. Practically, this means that

4n individual cases we postpone .

decision on the question until

Close relatives settle their rela-_

‘ons, in particular, material
nes. The decision to grant an
£Xist visa can be delayed if per-
Sons possess information which
ONstitutes state secrets or have
recently undergone military

‘ rangement

training in major military profes-

sions.

Q. Is this category large?

A. If we take, for instance, the
the most numerous category of
applicants — Soviet Jews — as
of Jan. 1, 1976, we have post-
poned our decision only for 1.6%
of the overall number of appli-
cants.

Q. Who makes the decision on
emigration?

A. It is made by the local bo-
dies responsible for internal af-
fairs. If the applicant disagrees
with the. decision, he can apply
to a higher body, for instance, to
the republic or all-union author-
ities.

Q. If a person hasn’t received
permission to leave the country,
dces this mean that he is forever
deprived of the possibility of
leaving the USSR?

A. No. After the expiration of
a certain time linked with his
knowledge of state secrets and,
as I have already pointed out,
after settling his relations. with

close relatives, the situation is

revised. For example, in 1975
alone, more than 300 people who
had earlier been refused permis-

sion to emigrate, received per--

mission.

Q. Does applying for emigra-
tion affect the person’s job or
social status? ‘

A. As a rule not. The applic-
ants engaged in defence enter-
prises and offices linked with
state secrets constitute a small
exception. In such cases, on ar-
with their trade
union organizations and in keep-
ing with the Labor Code, they
can be relieved of their jobs and
given jobs of lesser importance.
However, such persons usually

take measures to change their

jobs beforehand, prior to the ap-
plication. Our country has a
shortage of manpower and to
change your job presents no
problem.

Q. Who emigrates from the
Soviet Union and why?

A. There is no social basis for
emigration from the USSR. We
have no unemployment, there is
no poverty in the country. The
Soviet Constitution guarantees

other

all citizens vital social rights.
Living standards are constantly
rising. The Leninist national
policy ensures equal develop-
ment of all nations and national-
ities of our country. Small won-
der that the bulk of applications
for emigration are linked -with
the reunification of families. It
is natural that most applications
of this kind come from Jews
whose families were split during -
the Second World War and the |
nazi occupation. Reunification of
families is the predominant mo-
tivation for emigration.
Marriages to foreigners is an-
reason for emigration.
Over the past few years, for
these reasons, 5,500 Soviet citi-
zens, all who wished to do so,
left with their families for 110
countries. About 2,000 Soviet

' citizens, married to foreigners,

so far haven’t expressed a wish
to emigrate, although they all
have opportunities to do so. Only

-a small number of applications

have other reasons. However, I
would like to stress that Jews
constitute the bulk of emigrants.

Q. How many Soviet Jews
have emigrated to Israel?

A. From 1945 to Dec. 31, 1975,
122,000 people emigrated — to
Israel and, before its formation,
to Palestine.

Q. Is this figure big or small?

A. Those who wished to leave
the country did so. This makes
up approximately 5% of Soviet
Jewry. If we take into account
that for the same period, 1.5
million Jews left for Israel from
other countries, the number of
Soviet emigrants looks insigni-
ficant.

Q. What are the trends of
Jewish emigration from the
Soviet Union — is it rising or
decreasing?

A. Judge for yourself: in 1975
emigration to Israel dropped
67% compared to 1973 and 50%
as against 1974. During 1975
only 11,700 people left for-Israel.

In this connection the Israeli
authorities and _ international
Zionist circles are trying to fan
passions, accusing the Soviet
Union of “artificial limitation” of
emigration to Israel. However,

the reduction of the emigration
rate to Israel is far from being
a purely “Soviet phenomenon.”
For instance, emigration to Is-
rael from the United States,
whose Jewish population is 6
million, three times greater than
in the USSR, in 1974 dropped,
according to the American press,

by 60% compared to 1971 and-

by about 50% compared to 1972.
Moreover, Israeli authorities
themselves have reported that
in 1975 the number of immig-
rants arriving in Israel dropped
by 50% compared to the pre-
vious year, and in 1974 by 42%
as against 1973. That is why the
attacks on the Soviet Union for
reducing the emigration rate of
Soviet Jews to Israel are no-
thing but another graphic exam-
ple of the anti-Soviet bias of the
Israeli authorities and Zionist
circles.

Q. What is, in your opinion,
the reason for the decrease in
the emigration to Israel?

“ A. As far as the Soviet Jews
are concerned, this question can
be easily answered. As is evident
from letters by former Soviet
citizens who have left for Israel
in which they ask for permis-
sion to return to the USSR, (in-
cidentally, the number of such
letters has considerably increas-
ed), the main reason given is
the social incompatibility of
people who have grown up and
lived under socialism with con-
ditions of the opposite econo-
mic and socio-political system,
and with the way of life in Is-
rael. In the first place, they point
to a lack of the feeling of sta-
bility and security, the absence
cf vital privileges enjoyed as
Soviet citizens: the guaranteed
right to work, free medical ser-
vice, low rent, free education,
etc. oe

Q. What are the main prob-
lems existing in settling emig-
ration issues?

A. Emigration affects many
human destinies and, naturally,
leads to a lot’ of problems. I
would like to mention two of
them.

First, the reunification of fa-
milies. Not infrequently, we have

AGUSTIHNO NETO
President of the People’s
Republic of Angola

pro-MPLA sector in that gov-
ernment is led by Foreign Minis-
ter Ernesto Antunes.

While daily reports in the
press expose the antagonistic
role of the U.S. and South Af-
rica in Angola, the imperialist
world is growing increasingly
aware that the MPLA will re-
tain the reins of government in
the People’s Republic and that
an MPLA military victory is
imminent.

enccuntered the problem of
those who wish to leave the
country to “reunify themselves
with relatives” leading actually
to the disintegration of existing
families. and relations between
relatives. Children leave parents,
parents leave children, husbands
divorce wives and vice versa.
How should we act in such
cases? Naturally, we guard, first
of all, the interests of Soviet
citizens who remain in the coun-
try: It is not easy to find the
right criterion of objectivity and
justice in solving such complic-
ated and delicate questions as
family relations and relations
between relatives.

Secondly, recently many Sov-
iet citizens who have absolutely
no intention to emigrate have
been. receiving “invitations”
from Israel- from non-existent
relatives or even unknown per-
sons. We have many examples
of this, including indignant let-
ters from recipients. These invi-

tations arrive from “respectable”

Israeli governmental and admin-
istrative agencies — consular
departments of foreign ministry,
justice bodies etc.

Thus, the highly humane idea
of reunifying families for which
the UN Covenant on Human
Rights and the Final Act of the
Helsinki Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe call,
is becoming an object of specula-
ticns. Such actions cannot be
seen other than attempts to
abuse the humane attitude of the
Soviet state to the problem of
the reunification of families.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 23, 1976—Page 7