Mozambique: The Latest Front in the West's Resource Colonialism

The Strategic Importance of Mozambique’s Resources

Mozambique, nestled along Africa’s southeastern coast, represents a classic case of geopolitical interest following resource discovery. The country controls the vital Mozambique Channel, a crucial shipping corridor stretching between the mainland and Madagascar that has gained increased importance as commercial vessels seek alternatives to the pirate-ridden Red Sea. More significantly, Mozambique sits atop vast reserves of hydrocarbons and critical minerals that have attracted intense Western interest, particularly from the United States.

The 2010s gas discoveries in northern Mozambique catapulted the country into the top ranks of global gas producers. The US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) have invested heavily in developing Mozambique’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) reserves, with combined commitments from ExxonMobil’s Rovuma Basin LNG project and TotalEnergies’ investments exceeding the country’s entire gross domestic product. Beyond hydrocarbons, Mozambique hosts the Balama mine—one of the world’s largest graphite mines—along with several other emerging critical minerals sites essential to the US industrial base for steelmaking, nuclear reactors, lithium-ion batteries, and industrial lubrication.

The Security Challenge in Northern Mozambique

The concentration of these valuable resources in northern Mozambique coincides with the operational area of the Islamic State affiliate ISIS-Mozambique (ISIS-M), which began terrorist attacks in 2017. This convergence creates a complex scenario where economic interests collide with security realities. According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, Mozambique has witnessed 2,162 political-violence events and 6,165 total fatalities since 2017—2,554 of them civilian. This violence directly threatens major US energy and critical minerals investments in Cabo Delgado province, disrupting local governance and causing mass displacement.

In response, the Rwandan Defense Forces deployed to Mozambique in 2021 as part of the Southern African Development Community mission, helping reduce violence to the point that the TotalEnergies–ExxonMobil consortium recently lifted its force majeure declaration that had frozen its Cabo Delgado LNG project. This mission reflects the principle of “African solutions to African problems” that the international community frequently promotes but rarely adequately supports.

The Flawed Framework of Western Engagement

The United States has identified Mozambique as a priority country under the Global Fragility Act, yet meaningful policy attention and funding have not materialized. The current administration even rescinded $200 million in GFA funds that would have been shared among Mozambique and eight other countries to promote stability near LNG and mining projects. This stands in stark contrast to the nearly $820 million in development assistance Mozambique received in FY 2024, mostly for health programming—a classic case of treating symptoms while ignoring root causes.

The Western approach to Mozambique exemplifies the persistent neo-colonial patterns that have characterized North-South relations for decades. The framework of engagement prioritizes resource extraction over genuine development, security for assets over security for people, and corporate profits over national sovereignty. The language used in policy discussions—“critical minerals,” “vital shipping corridors,” “US industrial base”—reveals the underlying motivation: securing resources for Western consumption rather than fostering sustainable development for Mozambicans.

The Disguise of Development Assistance

The massive investments in Mozambique’s energy sector, while framed as development assistance, primarily serve Western interests. The EXIM’s $4.7 billion loan for LNG equipment and services and DFC’s projects ranging up to $1.5 billion aim to “bolster energy security for large LNG ventures and the surrounding communities.” However, this phrasing obscures the reality that these investments first and foremost ensure “a stable supply of non-Russian LNG for the United States and its allies” while only secondarily contributing to local development.

This approach continues the historical pattern where international financial institutions and development agencies serve as instruments of economic imperialism, creating debt dependencies and ensuring that resource-rich Global South countries remain providers of raw materials rather than becoming industrial competitors. The investments in Mozambique’s LNG sector effectively mortgage the country’s future resource revenues while providing immediate benefits to Western corporations and consumers.

The False Promise of Counterterrorism Cooperation

The proposed security cooperation framework reveals the cynical calculus underlying Western engagement. The recommendation that “US Special Operations Forces, with their unique capabilities in counterterrorism training and civil-military operations, could strengthen Mozambican and regional forces” represents the militarization of development policy. This approach prioritizes securing extraction sites over addressing the root causes of extremism—poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity.

The suggestion that maritime forces from the United States and partners such as India should “conduct freedom of navigation operations in the Mozambique Channel to preserve open access to this vital trade artery” frames what is essentially resource protection as a noble international mission. This rhetoric mirrors historical justifications for colonial interventions under the guise of maintaining trade routes and combating piracy.

Alternative Framework for Ethical Engagement

A genuinely equitable partnership would begin with recognizing Mozambique’s sovereign right to determine how its resources are developed and for whose benefit. Rather than prioritizing extraction, true partnership would focus on building local processing capacity, ensuring that value addition occurs within Mozambique rather than exported along with raw materials.

Security cooperation should prioritize protecting Mozambican citizens rather than securing corporate assets. This requires addressing the governance deficits and economic inequalities that fuel extremism, not merely deploying training missions to protect extraction sites. The modest economic projects mentioned—ranging from less than $175,000 to $1.5 billion—pale in comparison to the billions invested in extraction infrastructure, revealing the imbalance in priorities.

The Path Forward: Sovereignty Over Submission

Mozambique stands at a crossroads, facing the familiar “resource curse” that has plagued many African nations. The country’s leadership must resist the temptation of quick investment dollars that come with strings attached and instead pursue a development model that prioritizes national interests over foreign demands.

The international community, particularly former colonial powers like Portugal and current investors like the United States and France, have a moral obligation to support genuinely equitable development. This means providing technology transfer, supporting local content requirements, and ensuring that resource wealth benefits Mozambicans first rather than being exported to enrich foreign corporations and consumers.

The principle of “African solutions to African problems” must extend beyond security cooperation to encompass economic development models. Regional organizations like the Southern African Development Community should take the lead in formulating development frameworks that prioritize regional integration and value addition rather than raw material extraction for global markets.

Conclusion: Beyond Extractivism

Mozambique’s predicament represents a microcosm of the broader challenges facing resource-rich Global South nations in a world still structured by colonial patterns of extraction and dependency. The Western approach to Mozambique—combining security cooperation with resource extraction—represents the latest iteration of neo-colonialism, updated for the 21st century with the language of counterterrorism and development partnership.

True progress requires fundamentally rethinking these relationships, moving beyond extractive models toward genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared benefit. This means prioritizing Mozambican development needs over Western resource security, supporting regional integration over dependency creation, and addressing root causes of instability rather than merely securing extraction sites.

The people of Mozambique deserve better than to become another chapter in Africa’s long history of resource exploitation. They deserve a development model that prioritizes their prosperity, their sovereignty, and their future—not merely their function as suppliers of raw materials for the industrialized world. The international community must choose whether to continue extractive patterns or support a new model of genuinely equitable partnership.