The media reports of a rumoured decision by the European Union not to renew support for Rwanda’s security deployment in northern Mozambique should if true be seen for what it is: a choice whose harshest consequences will not be felt in Kigali, but in Cabo Delgado. According to recent reporting, the EU’s current support is due to expire in May 2026, with no extension planned, even as Rwanda says predictable funding is essential to sustain the mission. For the people of northern Mozambique, this is simply a matter of daily safety. For years, communities in Cabo Delgado lived under the terror of attacks by an Islamist insurgency that killed civilians, displaced families and crippled normal life. Rwanda’s deployment, launched in 2021 at Mozambique’s request, helped recover and stabilize areas that had been overrun. Whatever political calculations may be taking shape in Brussels, the first losers in this decision are ordinary Mozambicans who had finally begun to enjoy the return of peace, security and hope. The second losers are the European investors whose billions are tied to stability in the region. Cabo Delgado is not just a conflict zone; it is also home to strategic gas projects with enormous economic value. TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG alone is a roughly $20 billion project, while the broader LNG ecosystem includes other major investments linked to ExxonMobil and Eni. These companies, and the European economies connected to them, benefit directly from improved security in the province. To undercut support for the force that has helped secure that environment is to gamble recklessly with both regional stability and Europe’s own commercial interests. Rwanda, by contrast, will be the least affected. Kigali has already made clear that the EU contribution covers only a fraction of the actual cost. Officials say the mission has cost Rwanda at least ten times more than the roughly €20 million disbursed by the European Peace Facility. In other words, Rwanda has not been in Mozambique because it is profitable. It has been there because insecurity in Cabo Delgado demanded action and because African lives were at stake. That is why this moment demands more than silence from the continent. The African Union and African states should state their position clearly. If an African force has helped restore stability where terrorism once thrived, Africa should not wait for outside powers to decide whether that effort deserves backing. The AU must defend the principle that African security interventions serving African people should not be left vulnerable to shifting political moods elsewhere.
