In the 1970s a Mecca for Western intellectuals antagonistic to modern capitalism, Mozambique today is supported by what at first sight appears to be an unlikely group of symphathizers. Notwithstanding the tenets of the Reagan Doctrine, which vows to aid anticommunist insurgencies fighting incumbent Marxist regimes, the U.S. State Department has, since the mid-1980s, spearheaded Western initiatives in Mozambique, joining Britain, Italy, and the Scandinavian countries in providing emergency aid for the drought-and conflict-ridden rural populace, and diplomatic support for the Frelimo government against South Africa and the Renamo insurgency movement.
For its part, the Soviet Union continues to play the role of armorer to the Mozaambicans, in addition to supplying emergency aid and the bulk of the country's fuel needs. Given Frelimo's longstanding militant and pro-Soviet alignment in international affairs, and its attempts at home to restructure the economy and policy along Marxist-Leninist lines, how and why have the United States, Britain, and other Western countries come to support Frelimo in preference to Renamo, a Mozambican rebel movement that claims to be anticommunist? Is not Renamo perhaps a better candidate for Western support? Certainly this is the opinion of conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation in the United States, which has frequently asserted that Renamo should be included under the Reagan Doctrine.
The basis of growing Western support for the Frelimo regime is two-fold. It lies primarily in Western perceptions of the changing nature of the Mozambican ruling party, specifically the belief that there are increasing signs of Frelimo's disillusionment with socialism and a concomitant turning to the West. Frelimo's cause is, however, strengthened in the eyes of Western policymakers by the assumption that no liable alternative to dealing with the regime in power in Maputo exists, that Renamo is unworthy of western support. This, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs declares, is why the United States supports the UNITA insurgency movement in Angola, but not Renamo. How accurate are the assumptions upon which current Western policy toward Mozambique is founded? What are the West's policy options? And what is the possible outcome?
At independence in 1975, Freelimo, the avowedly Marxist-Leninist ruling party, exhibited all the signs of commitment to the realization of its ideological agenda. It set about establishing a one-party socialist state, and proceeded to reorganize the economy along East German lines. Emphasis was placed on creating and centrally planing an economy dominated by large-scale industrial projects and state farms--objectives quite out of keeping with the post-colonial economic reality that was Mozambique. At the 1977 3rd Party Congress, Frelimo was reconstituted in to a vanguard party composed of cadres whose ideological loyalty was beyond doubt. The ruling party was henceforth to be the only legal center of political activity in Mozambique; "reeduction camps" were set up for political dissenters.
As part of its campaign to create a socialist "new man," the regime initiated a strong anti-religion drive, closing down or confiscating church properties and attempting to eradicate traditional tribal practices such as polygamy and animist worship. Health and education services were nationalized, as was rented property. In 1978, the government nationalized all
...
Read Full Article
|
