| UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER |
FROM THE "MOZAMBIQUE PEACE PROCESS BULLETIN" ISSUE 15, APRIL 1995: TEMPORARY THUMBS UP
Donors are generally pleased with the new government and seem prepared to give it cautious support for the rest of this year -- putting Mozambique on a longer leash without permitting it free rein.
This consensus emerged at the annual Consultative Group (donors') meeting in Paris on 14-15 March. It was an explicit rejection of United States attempts to win support for its continued vendetta against Frelimo.
Before the meeting the US circulated a statement, backed by Britain, demanding steps "to advance national reconciliation [and] strengthen democratic institutions", including a greater role for Renamo and a "resumption of President Chissano's dialogue with Renamo leader Dhlakama."
On 13 March, the US called a special pre-meeting of donors in Paris to press its case that the new government was really no different than the pre-election one, that during the war and the peace process Frelimo had been allowed by donors to get away with anything it wanted, and that the donors must now tighten the screws and impose heavy new conditions. "The easy times are over," said one US official. This view was backed by Britain and Germany. But, according to one donor representative present, the three were "totally isolated" by the other donors who opposed the US analysis, style and strategy.
Most donors accept that Frelimo has been democratically elected by a much higher proportion of voting age adults than either the British or the US governments. Further, they feel that the government has changed. Prime Minister Pascoal Mocumbi as well as Finance & Planning Minister Tomas Salomao and his deputy Luisa Dias Diogo won high praise from donors for their performance in Paris.
The March meeting was described as the most political Consultative Group meeting on Mozambique ever, but it became political in a positive way with support expressed for the new democratic institutions such as parliament, local government and the independent media.
Although donors are not prepared to give Mozambique a free hand, they want to take a lower public profile and give the government more space and flexibility to try to find national solutions to the country's many problems and not impose too many detailed answers. In exchange, however, there are demands for even more detailed donor intervention than in the past to keep a much closer watch on what the government is doing; one donor warned of the danger of trying to "co-govern with Frelimo".
The main donor line of giving Frelimo more freedom while watching very closely what it does contrasts sharply with US stridency and demands for rigid pre-conditions. Many donors privately talk of trying to support what they call "progressive technocratic factions" within Frelimo, represented particularly by Salomao, rather than trying to curb the old guard. They argue that US stridency encourages hostility instead of cooperation, and plays into the hands of the old guard. And they point out that the government had already promised several of the things the US was demanding, including cuts in military spending, money for opposition parties and a special status for Renamo leader Afonso Dhlakama as leader of the opposition.
Most donors say there must be a balance of carrot and stick, with a carrot for the new government and a big stick reserved for the December 1995 donors' conference if Frelimo fails to fulfil promises made in March.
The main benchmarks for December will be:
1) on governance, a local government election law and
beginnings to improve the police and judiciary
2) on economic reform, a sharp increase in customs revenue
and continued privatisations including moves to sell or
reform BCM (Commercial Bank of Mozambique).
So far, the governance group has stressed decentralisation and civil service reform, but it will probably expand into looking at parliament, local elections and corruption. At least one member of the group feels that the Minister of State Administration does not have high enough status, and wants the working group to meet with someone of higher standing in Frelimo.
In addition, there is the more widely-based Aid for Democracy (AfD) donor group convened by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) which provided support for the elections last year. AfD is still trying to find a post-election role, but it will be one of the forums where donor ambassadors discuss policy and strategy on governance issues.
AfD seems likely to support parliament, the justice system and local elections. There are proposals circulating for up to $20 million to support the local election process, with a UNDP technical assistance programme similar to the one which assisted the STAE in the national election.
US influence in Maputo has fallen with the end of the United Nations presence, with the unacceptability of its line, and especially with loud statements in Washington that aid is to be cut. Some donors accuse the US and Germany of trying to impose unacceptable conditions on Mozambique to try to camouflage their own aid cuts.
A representative of one of the larger donors said the US only kept its influence because it controlled World Bank spending here. One mark of reduced US influence is that it was single- handedly able to force the postponement of the donors' conference from December 1994 until March 1995, but an April call by US embassy officials to delay the December 1995 donors' meeting drew no support.
Several donors told the Bulletin that even where they agreed with parts of US policy, they could not be seen to support the US because it is perceived as so hostile to the government.
The recently issued US report on human rights in Mozambique details many alleged government violations, while glossing over Renamo violations of the peace accord and of rights.
And US officials in Maputo remain caustic in private. One said that the US was seen as pro-Renamo only because "we have been trying to level the playing field too openly". The same official went on to comment that "Frlimo has delivered so little to the people of this country."
US officials are demanding local elections in the entire country in 1996 because "Frelimo does not want decentralisation because they don't want to lose control."
A key element of US policy is continued backing for Renamo. The US feels that Frelimo believes that Renamo will crumble or be co-opted. The US feels this must be prevented and Renamo needs to be supported as the only viable opposition party. One official said: "We will continue to object to the marginalisation of Renamo".
* "We are only giving advice now. But if that advice is not taken, the bill will be presented in Paris in December."
* "Donors were very late in realising the importance of local government. The law passed last year was very much a Mozambican project. It was not imposed by donors, so it was not discussed at diplomatic cocktail parties, and was largely ignored at first. One embassy did not even report the law to their foreign ministry."
For additional information: Washington Office on Africa 110 Maryland Ave. NE, #112 Washington, DC 20002. Phone: 202-546-7961. Fax: 202-546-1545. Email: woa@igc.apc.org. Message-Id: [199505160258.TAA13423@igc3.igc.apc.org] From: "Washington Office on Africa" [woa@igc.apc.org] Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 22:57:23 +0000 Subject: Donor Politics and Mozambique
Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar
| Previous Menu | Home Page | What's New | Search | Country Specific |