OPINION | Focus on fighting 'terror' in Mozambique ignores humanitarian needs
Three important developments took place in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado province in less than six weeks, all of which will have a significant future impact on human lives.
First, in mid-March the US government designated an armed opposition group operating in Cabo Delgado as a “terrorist” organisation and sent military advisers to train the Mozambique army on counter-terrorism measures.
A fortnight later, the town of Palma – close to a multi-billion dollar gas project run by the French company Total – was attacked by an armed group in a high-profile and brutal assault that killed and displaced a still unknown number of people.
Trauma, fear and a lack of access to the basic needs for survival, including food, water, shelter and urgent healthcare, are the consequences of the violence
Early this month, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries “condemned the terrorist attacks in the strongest terms; and affirmed that such heinous attacks cannot be allowed to continue without a proportionate regional response”.
The regional SADC bloc deployed a “technical mission” to Mozambique that will announce its findings this week (April 29) and which could include direct military action.
Much of this recent attention on Cabo Delgado was fuelled by the claims of the opposition group’s link to the Islamic State (IS) and the killing of foreigners in the attack on Palma.
While the conflict has been going on since 2017, it has received very little political attention from regional governments or international actors – except those interested in Mozambique’s gas reserves or private military contracts. Much less attention has been given to the growing number of displaced people – now more than 700,000 – and the critical humanitarian crisis facing the province.
Cabo Delgado might not be a forgotten conflict, but it certainly is a neglected humanitarian crisis. Now, with attention from the SADC region and the Mozambican government’s international backers fixed almost exclusively on “fighting terrorism”, the solutions being proposed may once again overlook the urgent need to save lives and alleviate the suffering of scores of conflict-affected communities.
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled violence and insecurity and ended up living in over-crowded camps or being hosted by local communities with already limited resources.
People have experienced significant trauma: a decapitated husband, a kidnapped wife, a son or daughter from whom they have no news. Many walk for days to find safety after hiding in the bush, often without food and water. Others remain in locations where humanitarian actors cannot reach because of the ongoing insecurity.
While the reasons for this conflict might be multifaceted and complex, the consequences of the violence are strikingly simple: fear, insecurity and a lack of access to the basic needs for survival, including food, water, shelter and urgent healthcare.
Meanwhile, significant restrictions are placed on the scale up of the humanitarian response due to the ongoing insecurity and bureaucratic hurdles impeding the importation of certain supplies and the issuing of visas for additional humanitarian workers.
Having recently returned from Cabo Delgado, I have seen first-hand how the scale of the humanitarian response in no way matches the scale of the needs.
What does seem set to scale up is the regionally supported and internationally funded counter-terrorism operation that could further impact an already vulnerable population. In many conflicts, from Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen how counter-terrorism operations can generate additional humanitarian needs while limiting the ability of humanitarian workers to respond.
Firstly, by designating an enemy as “terrorists”, we often see the armed opposition groups in question are pushed further underground, making dialogue with them for humanitarian access more complex.
Being aligned to a state that is fighting a counter-terrorism war can reduce our ability to reach the most vulnerable communities
While states can claim they “don’t negotiate with terrorists”, humanitarian workers are compelled to negotiate with any group that controls territory or that can harm our patients and staff. Preserving a space for dialogue entails building trust in the fact that our presence as Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in a conflict is for the sole purpose of saving lives and alleviating suffering with impartial medical care.
Yet, counter-terrorism operations also often try to bring humanitarian activities under the full control of the state.
This is because there is a desire to boost the government’s credibility through the provision of aid and to deny access to assistance for communities that may sympathise with an opposition group.
The problem for humanitarian workers is that often states and those affiliated with them are clear targets of armed opposition groups. Being aligned to a state that is fighting a counter-terrorism war can reduce our ability to reach the most vulnerable communities to offer independent and impartial medical care.
At MSF we know this can come at a time when we are needed the most. In counter-terrorism wars we often see civilian casualties being justified due to the presence of “terrorists” among a civilian population.
Entire communities can be considered as “hostile”, leading to a loosening of the rules of engagement for combat forces.
It is in these situations that we have often seen hospitals destroyed and entire villages razed to the ground in attacks that fail to distinguish between military and civilian targets.
Communities are often trapped between indiscriminate violence by armed groups and the counter-terrorism response from the state.
The current focus on “terrorism” clearly serves the political and economic interests of those intervening in Mozambique. However, it must not come at the expense of saving lives and alleviating the immense suffering facing the people of Cabo Delgado.
Jonathan Whittall is director of the analysis department at Doctors Without Borders.