![A mother’s taweez and the Cape’s interfaith traditions [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Michael-Weeder-Book-Launch-9May26-360x180.webp)
Cuito Cuanavale was a turning point in southern Africa’s liberation struggle, yet remains under-recognised in South Africa’s heritage narrative.
By SAALIEGAH ZARDAD
APRIL in South Africa (SA) carries a particular weight. Freedom Month is the annual moment of collective remembrance that anchors our democratic identity around 1994: the unbanning of liberation organisations, the release of political prisoners and the long walk to the ballot box. As a heritage practitioner, I am compelled each year by what our official commemorative narrative omits: the external geographies where apartheid’s military power was confronted, contained and ultimately defeated. Chief among these is a small town in the south-eastern interior of Angola, whose name every South African should know, but does not.
It is called Cuito Cuanavale.
What happened at Cuito Cuanavale
From August 14, 1987, to March 23, 1988, the largest conventional military engagement on the African continent since WWII was fought in this Angolan town. Angolan and Namibian forces, supported by Cubans and the Soviet Union, faced the apartheid South African Defence Force (SADF) and its ally Unita within a wider Angolan Civil War. It shaped the fate of an entire subcontinent.
The strategic consequences of the battle precipitated the New York Accords of December 1988, requiring the full withdrawal of South African forces from Angola and Namibia, and setting in motion Namibian independence on March 21, 1990. The ultimate defeat of apartheid’s military machine in Angola fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. The path to the negotiating table, and to the democratic elections of April 1994, was shaped in part by developments in Angola, alongside intensifying internal and shifting global Cold War dynamics.
While widely regarded in liberation historiography as a strategic turning point, the battle remains contested in military scholarship. Some former SADF analysts and historians characterise the outcome as a stalemate, even as its consequences reshaped the broader regional dynamics.
For Ronnie Kasrils, former intelligence minister and anti-apartheid veteran, the ‘acid test’ was always what came next: the withdrawal of SADF troops from Angola and Namibia, Namibian independence and ultimately SA’s own democratic transition. By that test, Cuito Cuanavale broke apartheid’s regional hegemony as surely as a decisive victory would have. In other words, a stalemate on the battlefield can still be a strategic defeat at the negotiating table.
These differing interpretations underscore the complexity of translating battlefield outcomes into historical meaning.
Three interdependent fronts of resistance
The negotiations that produced SA’s democratic transition were made possible by the convergence of three interdependent fronts: internal resistance; international solidarity; and the defeat of apartheid’s military in Angola. Remove any one and the transition to 1994 becomes difficult to imagine. The African Frontline States, recognised by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1975, absorbed extraordinary costs, including raids that killed civilians and destabilised economies. Their sacrifice is as absent from our commemorative landscape as it is essential to our liberation story. Cuito Cuanavale was where the third front reached its decisive moment.
The legislative case: section 3 of the NHRA and UNESCO 2003
SA’s National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA, Act 25 of 1999) provides the legislative basis to formally recognise Cuito Cuanavale, not as jurisdiction over Angolan soil, but as a profound assertion of shared heritage. Section 3(3) assesses heritage significance through criteria untethered from territorial borders: historical importance, associative value, social significance and symbolic meaning. Cuito Cuanavale satisfies all four. NHRA Regulation 43(1) defines a Grade 1 resource as one whose loss would significantly diminish national heritage. By that standard, the absence of March 23 from our public holiday calendar already constitutes precisely that diminishment — not only for South Africans, but for the Frontline States whose solidarity and sacrifices made our own liberation possible.
The UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Article 2) offers a parallel framework, as does the NHRA’s own definition of ‘living heritage’ (Section 2). Both recognise oral traditions, commemorative practices and solidarity transmitted across generations. Cuito Cuanavale is exactly this: sustained in the testimonies of veterans, the rituals of liberation movements and the memory of African frontline solidarity with SA’s anti-apartheid struggle. Angola has already accorded formal public holiday recognition. SA, a principal beneficiary of that battle’s outcome, has not.
Establishing March 23 as Cuito Cuanavale Day or Southern African Liberation Day would remedy that gap. It would anchor in law what memory already knows: that our freedom was won not within our borders alone, but on battlefields shared with Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique. Under the NHRA, such a day becomes a Grade 1 commemorative act. Under UNESCO 2003, it becomes the safeguarding of living heritage. Both frameworks affirm that to remember Cuito Cuanavale is to honour the African Frontline States and Cuba, who carried our struggle as their own.
Decolonial heritage, Castro’s centenary and the partial archive
Decolonial heritage scholarship asks us to interrogate which stories are told, which landscapes are protected and which sacrifices are remembered. SA’s official heritage landscape is rich in sites of internal resistance such as Robben Island. However, it narrates freedom as a domestic achievement when, in truth, it was a regional and transnational one.
You may also want to read
This year’s centenary of Fidel Castro (born August 13, 1926) offers a sharp reminder. Some 55 000 Cuban soldiers served in Angola alone, not as occupiers but as comrades, driven by the conviction that Cuba owed Africa a debt rooted in their shared history of slavery. Castro understood that the liberation of one people is the unfinished business of all.
People-centred heritage, as articulated in both the NHRA and the UNESCO 2003 Convention, serves communities by giving an accurate account of the struggles that shaped their world. For the liberation veterans of Angola, Cuba, Namibia, South Africa and Russia who carry the memory of Cuito Cuanavale, formal recognition would be an act of justice. For the younger generations who inherited the democracy those veterans made possible, it would be an act of education.
A regional foundation: SADC liberation day and the case for a public holiday
Education: Formal recognition of Cuito Cuanavale within SA’s heritage framework need not be constituted as a domestic heritage declaration over foreign soil. The NHRA does not require this. What it does permit and encourage is the recognition of associative, symbolic and social significance. In 2018, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) approved the integration of Southern African Liberation History into the school curriculum across its 16-member states. It is worth noting that SA’s National Curriculum (CAPS) already includes the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale as a named case study in the Grade 12 History curriculum, within the topic of Africa in the Cold War. This is a meaningful foundation. The task now is to extend that educational acknowledgement into a broader commemorative and heritage landscape.
Public holiday: A public holiday is the most direct mechanism available to the state for embedding memory in the rhythms of daily life. The most immediate and visible step would be the formal designation of March 23 as a public holiday, anchored within Freedom Month or on March 23, and aligned with the SADC Liberation Day framework endorsed at the 2018 Windhoek Summit.
March 23 is already formally designated as a Day of Reflection in SA, and a government department marks it annually. But a Day of Reflection, by its very nature, is a quiet and official observance. It does not close schools, stop commerce or give communities a shared reason to remember. It has not entered the national consciousness precisely because it has not been given the institutional weight that a public holiday carries. However, consideration would need to be given to an already dense public holiday calendar and to ensuring broad societal resonance across diverse historical constituencies. A regionally framed liberation day carries a different weight than a purely domestic commemoration: it is shared with Angola, Namibia, the broader SADC community and Cuba.
The recommendation here is to elevate what already exists, i.e. a Day of Reflection, into a form that can reach every South African.
Cuito Cuanavale matters. It is long past time that our calendar reflected this.
Support for Angola’s UNESCO World Heritage List
In 2024, the National Heritage Council of SA, Freedom Park Museum and the Dr Agostinho Neto Foundation signed a tripartite agreement formalising collaboration on liberation heritage between SA and Angola. SA should co-endorse or support Angola’s existing nomination of Cuito Cuanavale to UNESCO’s World Heritage List, submitted in 2017 under the 1972 Convention.
This should be accompanied by a parallel joint nomination with Angola, SADC and Cuba under the 2003 Convention to recognise the living oral histories and commemorative traditions the 1972 Convention cannot capture. Together, these two pathways would give Cuito Cuanavale full heritage recognition: as landscape and as living tradition.
Annual Cuito Cuanavale memorial lecture
Alongside these formal recognition pathways, the establishment of an annual Cuito Cuanavale Commemoration Lecture, hosted on a rotational basis by South African universities, would translate institutional acknowledgement into living intellectual culture. Held on or around March 23 each year, and drawing on scholars, veterans, diplomats and community memory-holders from across the region and the Global South, such a series would give sustained academic and public depth to what the CAPS curriculum has begun.
Conclusion: completing the archive
Nelson Mandela was unambiguous. Speaking in Cuba in 1991, he declared: ‘Cuito Cuanavale marks the divide in the struggle for the liberation of southern Africa.’ He was speaking as a historian of his own freedom, naming a geography that had made his presence on that platform possible. Without the outcome of Cuito Cuanavale, the ANC and PAC would not have been unbanned. Without the unbanning, there would have been no negotiated settlement. Without the settlement, no 1994.
The SA government officially commemorates March 23. President Ramaphosa issues statements. SADC has declared it Southern African Liberation Day. And yet, despite this formal recognition, Cuito Cuanavale has not entered our national consciousness. It does not resonate in the way Sharpeville or Freedom Day does. Our Freedom Month commemorations will remain incomplete until this changes.
The NHRA gives us legislative tools. The UNESCO conventions give us the international frameworks. The SADC endorsement gives us the regional mandate. What remains is the political and institutional will to complete the archive of our liberation. To acknowledge that SA’s freedom was won not only in Sharpeville and Bonteheuwel, but also on the banks of the Cuito River, by people who owed us nothing and gave us everything. The memory of the Border War remains uneven within SA, with differing interpretations persisting across communities and former combatant constituencies. Any effort to elevate Cuito Cuanavale within the national consciousness must therefore engage these layered and sometimes contested memories.
The four recommendations in this article are not grand gestures. The story of our freedom is bigger than our borders. Cuito Cuanavale deserves its place in our national account. Freedom Month 2026 is the moment to begin giving it one.
SAALIEGAH ZARDAD is a heritage practitioner based in Cape Town, South Africa. She is an executive committee member of the Friends of Cuba Society – Western Cape.
