Mozambique and the Commonwealth: The Anatomy of a Relationship (original) (raw)
Related papers
Brazilian Journal of African Studies, 2021
The article analyzes diplomacy and foreign policy in the first independent Government of Mozambique. In the theoretical analysis, the perspective of concentric circles moved, seeing the internal, regional and international dimensions as interconnected and mutually influenced. As a methodology, bibliographic surveys and documentary research were used. Internally, the performance of the Samora Machel Government in the construction of the nation-state and responses to domestic conflicts were evaluated. At the regional level, Mozambique's relations with border countries were verified. Finally, the state's foreign policy on the continent and its international performance were observed. The Samora government adopted a Marxist-Leninist nationalist policy defined by the party-state and the country was experiencing armed RENAMO attacks that turned into civil-military war. In Southern Africa, Mozambique was a Frontline State (FLS) and founder of SADC, showing solidarity with neighboring peoples, supporting politically and militarily its African nationalist movements in the fight against white domination. In the international arena, the state opted for non-alignment and developed international activism against colonization and apartheid. Mozambican foreign policy and diplomacy have been proactive in the region and internationally, managing to move their soft power. However, the Executive Government faced internal difficulties, with political and economic failures due to the systematic destabilization promoted by neighboring South Africa and South Rhodesia, as well as refusing to recognize the state of war and to negotiate with RENAMO, seen as an extension of the regime's minority interests in the region.
The Commonwealth, ‘development’ and post-colonial responsibility
Geoforum, 2009
One important (though often neglected) part of the 'development business' committed to principles of partnership is the Commonwealth, a voluntary association of 54 independent countries, almost all of which were formerly under British rule. This paper focuses on the Commonwealth's contemporary sense of 'responsibility' for shaping African development through 'partnership' and by promoting 'good governance' and examines the particular example of Mozambique, which joined the Commonwealth in 1995. In exploring exactly what membership of this post-colonial 'family' has meant for Mozambique the paper explores the neocolonial paternalism and sense of trusteeship that the Commonwealth has articulated in its often very apolitical vision of African development which seems to lock the continent into a permanent stage of tutelage and to repetitively reduce Africa to a set of core deficiencies for which externally generated 'solutions' must be devised. More generally, the paper also examines the wider context of the Commonwealth's involvement in Africa by looking at the connections it has made to British industry, British charities and the British Department for International Development (DFID). The paper concludes with an assessment of the 'showcase' potential of Mozambique and its importance to Commonwealth and DFID narrations of an African 'success' story of peace, stability and growth since the end of the country's devastating civil war in 1992.
Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations, 2022
The article analyses Mozambique’s foreign policy during the governments of Samora Machel (1975-1986) and Joaquim Chissano (1987-2005), the first two governments in the post-independence period. Mozambique is a peripheral country in the hierarchy of the international capitalist division of labour, specializing in the production of raw aterials, with a poorly diversified economy that exports primary products. In the hierarchy of the international system, it can be classified as a vulnerable or fragile State, with a tendency towards authoritarian regimes, experiencing conflicts and violent wars of groups that compete with the State. Despite being from the same party, the Samora and Chissano governments had different politicaleconomic and ideological characteristics that are reflected in Mozambican foreign policy, being influenced by the fate of the Cold War. In the foreign policy decision-making process in Mozambique, the State responded more to external and international pressures than to internal inputs. Foreign policy was rarely the result of or influenced by demands from Mozambican civil society, even though most decisions were taken on behalf of the people.
www.culturaldiplomacy.org, 2014
The CPMM, currently known as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), is an international summit conference and is part of a broader international organisation, the Commonwealth of Nations. In its early years, the CPMM at irregular intervals, but it changed to meet biennially from 1971 onwards. The leaders discuss international issues and key challenges relevant to them. Rhodesia, which was earlier known as Southern Rhodesia and is currently known as Zimbabwe, became the most significant item on the CPMM agenda in the mid-1960s. Indeed, it drew the world's attention as the conflict was between a white minority government and the black majority population of Rhodesia. This dispute was over whom should control the government and it took more than a decade (until 1980) to resolve. Rhodesia had a unique status under the British Empire. Before the break-up of Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Central African Federation) in 1964, Rhodesia was a self-governing colony with the right to hold elections based on minority white control. In November 1965, Ian Douglas Smith, who had succeeded as the Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1964, and his political party, the Rhodesia Front (RF), announced the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Rhodesia without any legal recognition by the colonial power, Great Britain. After the UDI, Britain and most other United Nations members insisted that Rhodesia could only become a sovereign and recognised state based on majority rule. Original research of this problem investigates and explores how the CPMM dealt with this divisive issue and worked to achieve a settlement. The originality of this research lies in its exploration of primary sources, especially from the Commonwealth Secretariat Archives. It is arranged according to a chronological structure and adopts an historical approach, reconstructing events in the past. This paper will focus on the problem in the late 1960s, when three CPMMs were held (two in 1966, one in 1969).
Mozambique: Post-war socio-economic and political challenges
Mozambique: Post-war socio-economic and political challenges
The current political context of Mozambique is informed by many factors, including changes in the ruling Front for the Liberation of Mozambique’s (Frelimo) political manifesto since 1983 and the civil war of 1977–1992. These two factors have resulted in a strategic shift in the country’s foreign and domestic policies.
Mozambique 16 years of War: Competing Narratives
Mozambique is an African country which came about and developed through experiences of two protracted wars. First, the 10 years of war against Portuguese colonial regime and then 16 years of war that started soon after the independence, in June 1975. While the former war is consensual, the latter is controversial due to competing narratives between the former belligerents -the Frelimo's government and the opposing movement known as RENAMO. The controversy is predominantly related to the nature of the war, parties, causes, goals and legitimacy of both parties at national and international level.
Although some research into the nature of the United Kingdom's involvement in the final years of Portuguese rule in Africa has been recently carried out, the British role in the hazardous transition to independence in some of the Portuguese colonies immediately after the Carnation revolution of 1974 has until now received little or no attention, at least as far as historical literature in English is concerned 1. This article seeks to fill that gap. It will start by sorting out the reasons behind the United Kingdom's policy of even-handedness with regard to the conflicts in Lusophone Africa up to 1974, which is essential to understand some of the limitations which the Labour government had to face in the period following the collapse of Portugal's colonial regime. After a brief description of London's expectations regarding the different 'roadmaps' for a transfer of power in Portuguese Africa, the article will focus on the two cases which possessed the greatest relevance to British interests: Mozambique and Angola. There was an interesting contrast in the way British diplomats and decision-makers assessed the implications of a 'Marxist' triumph in Maputo and in Luanda. Thus, while the FCO made a positive evaluation of FRELIMO's ascendancy in Mozambique, taking quick steps to establish friendly relations with Samora Machel's movement, it displayed a much cooler attitude vis-à-vis the MPLA 2 (a party which, since the 1960s, had kept a few links with the Labour party and allied organizations), and made significant overtures towards one of its main rivals, UNITA, 3 led by Jonas Savimbi, who by 1974 had acquired a somewhat dubious reputation among sectors of the European Left. 4 Drawing on recently released sources, this article will try to make sense of this dichotomy in the light of the analysis produced by British officials concerning: i) the leadership abilities of the main groups vying for power in Angola and Mozambique; ii) the implications of the situation in the two territories for the evolution of other Southern African conflicts (particularly the Rhodesian
Contested sovereignty in Mozambique: The dilemmas of aid dependence
2007
appears as many […] aid-dependent countries, with the government apparently believing that its undoubted reliance on foreign assistance means that it is not in a position to insist on its own priorities. While there is no avoiding the truth that the bargaining position of the government vis-à-vis its development partners is, and will remain, highly unequal, we would like to stress that aid dependency does not have to entail subservience, and that boldness by the government can go part way to redressing the asymmetry just mentioned.' (Killick et al. 2005:50)