Dialogue must complement military action in Cabo Delgado
Rather than focusing on counter-terrorism operations, dialogue should be supported as a way to tackle local dynamics sustaining the insurgency.
Despite sustained counter-insurgency operations and foreign troop deployments in Mozambique’s north, armed groups remain active and capable of adapting to evolving security pressures. This persistence underscores the limitations of a security-first approach and highlights the need to reconsider dialogue as a core component of conflict resolution.
Since taking office in 2025, President Daniel Chapo has largely maintained the anti-terrorism strategy pursued by his predecessor Filipe Nyusi, emphasising military cooperation with regional partners with limited attention to political and social tools.
During the electoral campaign, Chapo acknowledged that wars ultimately end through dialogue, raising expectations of a more comprehensive approach. However, nearly a year later, dialogue to address the conflict’s underlying drivers remains marginal and lacks institutional support.
Military interventions have delivered some measurable gains. Rwandan forces and the Southern African Development Community Mission in Mozambique have reduced the frequency of large-scale attacks and limited the insurgency’s geographic expansion. These efforts also facilitated the return of some internally displaced populations to previously inaccessible areas.
Yet, these outcomes have not translated into a lasting decline in violence. Armed groups have adapted by fragmenting into smaller units, expanding operations into new districts, including parts of Niassa province, and increasing attacks along maritime routes.
An exclusive focus on transnational terrorism obscures the local dynamics that sustain the conflict
A central limitation of Mozambique’s current response lies in how the conflict is framed. It is predominantly portrayed as an extension of international terrorism linked to the Islamic State. While these links are real and relevant, an exclusive focus on transnational terrorism risks obscuring the local dynamics that sustain the conflict.
Leaders and members of the armed groups are overwhelmingly Mozambican, and their mobilisation is shaped by grievances rooted in local political, economic and social conditions.
By framing the insurgency as faceless and externally driven, the government reinforces the argument that there is no viable interlocutor for dialogue. This position narrows policy options and sidelines non-military responses that could address community-level drivers of violence.
Institute for Security Studies (ISS) research in Cabo Delgado suggests that armed groups rely on local tolerance or acquiescence. Such support is influenced by perceptions that communities suffer marginalisation by government, abuse by security forces and exclusion from economic opportunities.
Calls for dialogue extend beyond civil society. Several prominent political and public figures in Mozambique have acknowledged the need for dialogue to resolve the violence in Cabo Delgado. Former president Joaquim Chissano has publicly argued that military action alone cannot end the insurgency and that dialogue is inevitable in any protracted conflict.
Several prominent political and public figures in Mozambique have acknowledged the need for dialogue
Opposition parties, including the Mozambican National Resistance and Mozambique Democratic Movement, have also defended engagement as a way to address the conflict’s underlying drivers.
These positions suggest that dialogue is neither marginal nor radical within Mozambique’s political landscape, but rather a recurring and cross-cutting response to the limitations of force-based strategies.
In this context, dialogue should not be understood solely as negotiations between the government and insurgents. Rather, it encompasses broader processes aimed at rebuilding trust, restoring social cohesion and creating channels for non-violent engagement.
Horizontal dialogue within and between communities can help address internal tensions linked to ethnicity, religion and displacement. Vertical dialogue between communities and state institutions can improve responsiveness and accountability, while carefully managed talks with insurgents may create pathways towards de-escalation.
ISS research highlights recurring grievances that contribute to the persistence of the insurgency. These include youth unemployment, perceptions of exclusion from natural resource benefits, discrimination against Muslim communities, defence and security force abuses, and the marginalisation of internally displaced persons and returnees.
Such drivers are highly localised and context-specific, limiting the effectiveness of uniform, centrally designed security responses.
Several dialogue initiatives have emerged in response to Cabo Delgado’s challenges, led by religious institutions, civil society organisations and regional actors. Interfaith platforms in Pemba, civil society-led consultations, and regional efforts such as the Peacemaking Advisory Group indicate a degree of societal readiness for dialogue across different sectors.
Dialogue is not just about talks between government and insurgents, but rebuilding trust and social cohesion
However, most initiatives have struggled to move beyond the exploratory stages. Limited political backing, weak coordination and in some cases, repression of those involved in dialogue have constrained their impact.
Concerns about dialogue are not unfounded. Fragmentation among the insurgents complicates representation, secrecy can undermine accountability, and elite-driven processes risk disconnecting dialogue from community priorities.
But these issues underscore the importance of inclusive design, local ownership and credible mediation, rather than justifying the abandonment of dialogue altogether.
Mozambique’s experience reflects a broader pattern observed in conflicts driven by violent extremism. Military pressure can contain violence temporarily but rarely addresses the structural conditions that sustain mobilisation. When dialogue and political engagement are absent, insurgencies tend to adapt rather than disappear, prolonging instability and undermining human security.
For Mozambique, integrating dialogue into the response in Cabo Delgado does not require abandoning military measures. Instead, it requires recognising their limits and complementing them with political and social tools capable of addressing local grievances. Without such an approach, the conflict will unlikely be resolved, regardless of its scale or duration.
For more on this topic, read the ISS policy brief: ‘Inclusive dialogue: a priority for resolving the Cabo Delgado insurgency’.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
