roM! 12 IS. 1
5
O( 0
Behind the State Department report on
. , .
Late last month an United
Nations sponsored conference
on the South African backed
war against Mozambique was
held in the country's capital,
Maputo. The �nt, which took
place on April 26-Zl, was the
first international donors con­
fereece to be CODft ed in the
African Dation requesting assis­
tance, rather than in Europe and
North America.
Just prior to the conference
the United States Department
of State is ued a statement
which blamed the apartheid
regime backed Mozambique
National Resistance (MNR or
RENAMO) for the wanton
destruction IeYeUed against the
country. The statement further
accessed the MNR of respon­
sibility for the deaths of 100,000
I Mozambicans iD combat related
activities, massacres and result­
ing famine. However, the U.S.
State Department report never
mentioned the link between the
apartheid regime in South
Africa and the MNR's military
training, communication
facilities and logistical support
in carrying out a systematic cam­
paign of destruction against the
FRELIMO government in
Mozambique.
C tndidi s i. us, Policy I
The contradicatory stance of
the United States in regard to its
relationship to the FRELIMO
government in Mozambique is .
the result of several factors in
the overall geo-political situa­
tion in southern Africa. A con­
stant refusal to support man­
datory and comprehensive
economic sanctions against the
apartheid regime in south Africa
by the Reagan administration is
largely the result of the
monumental direct and indirect
imvestment by the U.S. cor­
porate community in the South
African and Namibian
economies.
Consequently, �y culpability
placed on the apartheid regime
in regard to its military and
political destabilization efforts
in the neighboring "front line
states", would require stronger
measures against the South
African government, a policy
which e Reagan administra­
tion has consistently resisted
A more deeper probing of
U.S. foreign policy history
would reveal that when
FRELIMO (acronym for
Mozambique Liberation Front)
was fighting for Mozambican in­
dependence against the Por�'
tuguese colonialists, during the
1964-1974 period, the Por­
tuguese were a part of the orth ..
Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) altiance which is
headed by the United States. As
a result, the United States offi-
. cial policy was supportive of the
colonial powers in oppossition
to the national liberation move­
ment. This was the situation in'
not only the former Portuguese
colonies of Mozambique, An­
gola, and Guinea-Bissau, but
also Zimbabwe (formeroly
Rhodesia) during the period of
armed str'Ugle for the national
VOT�S GUIDE
TO ntEo ��n.s MID IS\UE.S, SO fAA..
.� urr
.., Tf'U:� FOIt lMf BUffALO NEWS
I �
At the UN conference in
Mozambique the participants
pledged to grant $270 million in
assistance to the war torn nation
which would go toward health,
education, water supply and
agricultural projects. Many pre­
vious development projects in
the country were destroyed by
the RENAMO forces, who seem
to have but one program, and
that is the destruction of govern­
ment initiated projects.
RENAMO or MNR, which was
originally founded by Ian
Smith's Rhodesian Army to fight
against FRELlMO during the
Zimbabwean armed struggle,
has never put forward an alter­
native governmental program from the imposition of man­
for Mozambique. Irs actions datory comprehensive sanc­
�m to indicate that they view tions, the U.S. policy ha at­
the destruciton of Mozambican tempted to provide a
property and lives as ends in. smokescreen by pledging sup­
themselves. port to Pretoria's victim, the
It has been quite obvious and Mozambican people. However,
well documented by the these contradictory foreign
. FRELIMO government in policy initatives have only ex­
Moz!mbique that despite the aserbated the suffering and tur­
non-agression pact between moil in the region. The respon­
Mozambique and South Africa, sibility for the Mozambican
the apartheid regime has con- tragedy cannot escape the
tinued to finance RENAMO. au practiooers of coe­
While at the same time the structiYe engage nt
independence of the territory.
The willingness of the
Mozambican government to
sign a non-aggression pact with
the racist South African govern-
- ment in 1984 was the result of the
overwh Iming problems of
famine, destruction by. MNR
forces and economic con­
straints. The U.S. has officially
adopted a policy of support for
the FRELIMO �overnment
since 1984 and has refused to
provide direct aid to RENAMO
in their anti-government cam­
paign. Despite the prodding by
conservative Republican
Senators Jesse Helms of South
Carolina and minority leader
Bob Dole of Kansas, the
staUDChest dvocatyes of direct
military and political support for
RENAMO, the Reagan ad­
ministration bas refused to fol­
low the same path as they have
in Angola by aiding the South
African backed UNIT A forces
who are fighting the MPLA
government
Policy·
Ie di
ozambique
FRELIMO government has re­
quested the reduction of
African National Congress per­
sonnel in Maputo to a bare min­
imum. So why doesn't the U.S.
government use these acts of
deceit and treachery by the
apartheid regime against
Mozambique to justify man­
datory .economic sanctions
directed toward the Pretoria
racists? As it stands now the
policy contradictions play them­
selves out in favor of the racist
government in Pretoria.
The u.s .. is providing aid to a
country, Mozambique, which is
being literally ravaged by the
South African backed counter­
revolutiooaries who are waging
a genocidal war gainst the
pea of this underdeveloped
COUDby. At the same time, trade
with racist South Africa COD­
tin and any move designed to
impose an effective trade em­
bargo or economic blocade
. Pretoria is stifled in Con-
gres ad the White House
under the guise that it is the
African people who will suffer
the most from these "drastic
measures". However.jn the ab­
sence of effective an meaning­
ful sanctions, tho sands of
Africans continue to . month­
ly in Mozambique an Angola at
the hands of the apartheid
financed and trained forces. The
u.s. is still one of the largest
trading partners and foreign in­
vestor in the apartheid state.
Constructive engagement,
the foreign policy approach of
the United States in southern
Africa, has failed to come to
grips with the principle obstacle
to peace and development in the_
region, the apartheid regime. In
hekering the Pretoria racists