‘If you have nothing sensible to say, best keep quiet’, so goes the adage. This applies not only to the Government of Angola’s tactic with regard to Cabinda but also to the international silence on the subject. This strategy is backed by a less pleasant strategy: If you have nothing sensible to say, reduce your opponent to silence.

The Angolan Government has frequently claimed that it has no valid partner for dialogue regarding the Cabinda question: a statement aimed at delegitimising FLEC. Yet it has similarly turned its arms on civil society movements. On the 8th to 9th of July, a conference entitled ‘A Common Vision for Cabinda’ was held at the Chiloango Cultural Center, sponsored by the Open Society Foundation. One thousand, five hundred youths held a demonstration, which was brutally dispersed by the police and troops. Since then, ‘anti-mutiny’ forces have bolstered the military presence in the capital, intimidating the civilians. How can the Government find a ‘legitimate’ partner for dialogue when citizens are deprived of their right to self-expression and to their civil and political rights?

The double standards and complicit silence in the developed world has become more obvious since the collapse of the WTO talks at Cancun. Whether human rights are consciously tied to geostrategic and economic interests or not, for Governments, certain human rights violations seem to deserve more attention than others. While ‘borrower dictatorships’ are no longer installed and propped up, as they were during the Cold War, there are many issues which are still off the discussion agenda. Unfortunately, this has repercussions in the NGO world, where some issues are easier to plug, easier to investigate and easier to publicise than others.

If there is a doubt in the public mind as to whether the US invaded Iraq for oil or for reasons of security and human rights, a certain scepticism inevitably sets in when governments facilitate enterprises in benefiting directly from cooperation with other Governments who perpetrate human rights violations. Francisco Luemba, a human rights lawyer, identifies two main preoccupations of multinationals’ presence in Cabinda as, ‘the permanent fight against democracy and human rights and the strategic alliances and partnerships with the regime.’ Such complicity, he argues, can end up in a complete reversal or contradiction of values and ideals:

‘If all that it represents in terms of prestige, technology and values suggests the “American way of life" and carries the so-called American dream, ChevronTexaco’s presence in Cabinda is still not an opportunity or a blessing to the Cabindas; for instead of the "American way of life", it imposes what is perhaps an "American way of strife", which has transformed the “American dream” of liberty, of equality of rights and opportunities, of justice and dignity, into a nightmare.’

There needs to be dialogue on Cabinda, in Cabinda and outside. A ‘dialogue’ cannot exclude interlocutors or issues. It cannot be subject to censorship or preconditions, for ideas need to be exchanged openly and disagreements need to be aired. People need to convince and be convinced. The past cannot be erased, the exchange of memories and evaluation of events, even if painful, is essential to the process of reconciliation. And there is much to be investigated, analysed, publicised and thought about. It is not just a case of the Angolan government being ready for dialogue. Is Portugal ready to review its conduct during decolonization? Is the developed world ready to face the possible results of dialogue? Is the UN ready to consider new solutions? A dialogue on Cabinda and a dialogue in Cabinda would have global consequences far beyond that of bringing justice to a people in a silenced corner of Africa. Yet the future of a people needs open debate and open negotiation and should not be mortgaged; Silence is its worst and most destabilising enemy.

Silence allows for Angolan army presence in Kidomango, in Boma and in Tshela in Congo (Zaire), years after their supposed complete withdrawal. Silence allows for the gang rape and forced prostitution of the women of Buco Zau. Silence allowed the forced marriage of Ana Mabiala in Chienze Lito, Marta Bissema in the village of Catabuanga I, Pascalina Pemba in the village of Buco Cango, Cecilia Macaia, in the village of Conde Malonda, Adenicia Pola and Alicia Mayundo in the village of Caio II. Silence allows rape to spread HIV. Silence allowed the extra-judicial execution of Sebastião N’Golo, 63 and Teresa Martins N’Zaki, 49, from Buco Cango…Silence matters.