The International Community in Mozambique

The role of foreign actors in Mozambique has largely had a negative effect on the African country. This relationship began with colonialism. FRELIMO led the independence movement to throw out the reluctant colonial power, Portugal, in 1975.

That colonialism is a repressive and violent system has been well-documented, but its legacy lasts longer than its lifespan. FRELIMO ousted the Portuguese which gave the freedom fighting organization enough political capital to run Mozambique without the normal checks that a government faces. FRELIMO became a repressive one-party state. This phenomenon took place in other places that I have discussed, such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania.

Towards the end of the long civil war between FRELIMO and RENAMO, unintended international occurrences brought the two sides to the negotiating table. FRELIMO advocated scientific socialism which was sustained by Eastern European aid. That aid naturally dried up following the liberalization of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. RENAMO could no longer retain hopes of becoming the benefactor of American Cold War support. In addition, F.W. de Klerk took over power from P.W. Botha in South Africa, and scratched the latter's policy of destabilization in Mozambique by funding RENAMO (revenge for Mozambique's support of the ANC). While the convergence of international events created the positive result of forcing the two hostile sides to negotiate peace, the international community never took an active role in attempting to halt the violence.

During negotiations in the early 1990s, ONUMOZ, a United Nations organization, essentially took over sovereignty of Mozambique. The UN's presence created a disproportionate spike in cost in certain areas; for example, the price of accommodations skyrocketed. More significantly, ONUMOZ's departure, following the peace agreement, left a huge void.

The international community expected Mozambique to democratize following the peace agreement. However, a culture of democracy had not been established in the country. It was unreasonable for anyone to expect that two warring organizations could instantaneously create a burgeoning democracy. That the two sides have acted so valiantly is a credit to Mozambique and its people. But the elections of the 1990s were not based on issues; they were informed by ethnic and regional divides. The idea of a loyal opposition was understandably a foreign concept. People were reluctant to betray those in power.

Mozambique's liberalization has forced the country to become subservient to the IMF and the World Bank. Consequently, Mozambique's debt has increased drastically. NGOs do the work of the government. Foreign donors fund emergency relief instead of projects that would allow for sustained development. Thus, the cycle of borrowing never ceases. Mozambique is essentially run by foreign money. It is neo-colonialism in the guise of humanitarian aid.

Mozambique's interactions with the international community have not been the sole reason for its impoverished state. A 17-year civil war and corruption are also important factors. However, the relationship between the international community and Mozambique must, in the future, be one of equality, not dependency. Any foreign funds must focus on long-term development, while Mozambicans must be allowed to run their own country.