In the wake of peacebuilding missions in Namibia and Mozambique, the danger of resurgent conflict in both countries appears remote. Namibia has enjoyed more than a decade of domestic peace with little internal unrest, and at the time of this writing, there are no signs of renewed insurgency or intergroup violence. Although the durability of peace in Mozambique seems less secure than in Namibia, Mozambique has enjoyed the longest period of peace and stability in its history since its conflict came to an end in 1994. Yet the apparent success of Wilsonian peacebuilding policies in these two countries is not without qualification: Like Croatia, both countries offered unusually propitious conditions for postconflict liberalization, not least because major parties to their conflicts were external parties who effectively withdrew from the countries when the wars ended, thereby reducing the risks of rapid liberalization exacerbating tensions among formerly warring parties within these states. Indeed, neither the conflict in Mozambique nor that in Namibia was primarily indigenous or “homegrown” because both wars were instigated and sustained by external actors, and when outsiders abandoned the conflicts, there was little “demand” for continued fighting.

Namibia

South West Africa, as Namibia was previously known, was colonized by Germany in 1884, and it remained a German possession until World War I, when South African troops seized control of the territory and imposed military rule for the duration of the war.