Eleven years ago, a peace treaty that formally ended 16 years of the southern Africa bush conflicts was signed. This agreement between leaders of the Mozambique government and the rebellion was drawn out to initiate a cease fire in order to help aid the millions of starving people throughout the region. However, The Mozambique National Resistance, otherwise known as Renamo, continued to widen their influence. Tensions between the Renamo and the Mozambique government remained high even in lieu of the agreement. As we read in Werner and Yuen, compliance occurs with joint ratification, unless a third party is involved. Although these two groups do not belong to separate states, I would argue this concept could be applied in this situation. Typically, the third party would be another state or government putting pressure on two states to form an agreement. In this situation, the third party was the civilian situation. The government and the rebellion did what was in the best interest of the civilians at the time and established a peace agreement, regardless of unsettled tension between them. This agreement was able to last in order to provide citizens with food and water without fear of violence.
Now that the civilian situation is not as severe, the Renamo does see any benefit in maintaining the agreement, especially after the government seized a base where their leader, Afonso Dhlakama was residing, according to BBC News. A Renamo spokesman, Fernando Mazanga is quoted in a recent New York Times article stating that “peace is over in this country…the responsibility lies with the Frelimo government.” Even though civilians themselves were not able to put significant pressure on the government for peace, they were enough of an influence to force compliance between two opposing forces. This compliance was bound to collapse at some point. In a 1992 article in the New York Times published soon after the initial agreement, it is acknowledged that “neither the Government nor the rebel leaders fully control their forces, so it is impossible to say when the agreement will translate into a solid peace.” Although this somewhat shaky peace was maintained for 11 years, it is clear that hostility between the two groups will remain until a true cease fire can be maintained and enforced.
This is an interesting comparison to Warner and Yuen’s definition of joint ratification, showing that, in this case, that it somewhat worked for a time to produce a greater good. But it also proves the point that you never know the full intentions of the other party, such as in this case when the government stole the base of the Renamo leader. As quoted in this blog that “neither the Government nor the rebel leaders fully control their forces” supports Morrow’s document saying that individuals are able to “commit violations on their own against state policy”. This happened in Mozambique, which lead to the shattered peace. Interesting comparison.
ReplyDeleteVery informative post. I was not aware of this current issue in world relations. I find it very surprising that the cease fire is even lasting as long as it has which really shows how much of an impact the civilians have on the Renamo and the Mozambique government. If violence and fighting were to occur again, I feel the citizens could step in to try and bring things back to a peaceful state given their high impact to the feud related violence. I wonder what is going to happen with this building tension, it if will actually come down to violence again or if further treaty agreements will bring them to a resolution. Good exemplification of joint ratification from our discussions and readings in class, I think this is a perfect example of it.
ReplyDeleteThe current situation in Mozambique demonstrates the failure to solve ideological ideals. There is failure between the Mozambique government and the Renamo to follow through with the treaty they signed due to Renamo saying there is not purpose of having the treaty since the civilian situation isn't as severe as it was to the past. This demonstrates that peace agreements do not always hold up due to circumstances changing (civilian situation not being as severe.) Peace agreements are connected to institutions, and no one can exactly punish a group/individuals if they do not carry through with their part of the agreement. This makes it difficult for the Mozambique government to punish the Renamo, but sends terror and fear of violence breaking out again if there is no protection of a peace agreement.
ReplyDeleteTo be completely honest, I was unaware of this issue. It seems to me that the citizens are king a good job of being able to make their presence known and have an impact on what is occurring around them. It seems like citizens have a way of being able to calm a violent situation into a peaceful-esk time. It'll be interesting to see what happens as tension continues to build and what kind of results will come of it.
ReplyDeleteMozambique seems to be in an unfortunately precarious position. The ceasefire agreement is definitely a benefit to the citizenry, but there is little incentive on either side of the fighting to keep the peace much longer. This seems to be a domestic affair, so there is little cause or justification for international intervention, and therefore Peace in Mozambique must fend for itself. If the country can stabilize, and begin to better employ those in rebellion, there is hope for the rebellious steam to die out, along with the violence.
ReplyDeleteWhen domestic peace treaties do not work, and tensions are still high between countries and their people, we often see a complete extinction of either party or a complete separation of the state as a whole. As this conflict has been dragging on for some time I very much believe that the state will divide and cease to exist as a whole, but rather two divided states in the future. This outcome offers a solution to both parties involved, and since the conflict has not yet ended in an all-out war with one country prevailing than peace and separation is the most viable option for this state. In the future this could mean tensions between the states, or possible interstate war, but I firmly believe this is the solution that would offer the most peace and the least amount of battle field deaths.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment above but we have to consider that the two parties will not let separation occur and will be greedy in this case, fighting to obtain full control over the state. I do agree the best solution to this problem is a peaceful separation of the two parties to having their own state. However two non-democracies are more likely to fight each other rather than try to talk it out in a peaceful manner, in the end, before a peace agreement can be fully made. I believe they will take up arms against each other and try to rid the other party from the state.
ReplyDelete"Shattered" seams to be a bit extreme for a country that's only been independent from the 80's onwards and regularly sees rioting over a number of reasons. Just in 2008 (http://www.economist.com/node/16996835) there were riots over staples: gas, food, water and the like. Much like Pakistan, a relatively new democracy, Mozambique will see struggles in developing reliable, non-corrupt government institutions and policies for promoting democratic functions like representation and not "borderline" abuses of human riots. (I reference how police have dealt with rioters in past occurrences). There is not a successful way to create peace between cultures or ethnic groups if the government sees no incentive to cooperate. Why lift a finger if on their end there would be more cost, more resources (military/police as well as resources needed to run them), as well as a shaky resolve because of unreliable second parties? Solid commitment, at the core of all these theories (of cooperation, of third party intervention and so on) is a necessity for a country trying to assuage rioting and human needs.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree that the word "shattered" seems to be extreme for this situation. However, the peace has definitely been compromised because of this conflict. This is really interesting in terms of what we learned this week with civil wars. Being one of the longer lasting conflicts as Fearon describes, this conflict will be a difficult one to resolve. Because the tensions have been so high even through the duration of the agreement, separation is probably the best option for many of the reasons previously posted about.
ReplyDeleteI like to see that countries are able to come together in order to look at the greater good for the region and helping the people as a whole! It will be interesting to see how long the peace lasts and how long has it lasted in the past?
ReplyDelete