A commentary entitled "Peacekeeping mission: The other means to neo-colonialism," published by the Eritrean Ministry of Information's official Shabait newspaper, via AllAfrica:

Western countries, especially USA have been putting extensive pressure, so that the peacekeeping mission of the African Union (AU), which is deployed in Sudan, Darfur region, be replaced by UN peace keepers in a much outnumbering figure. To make this idea acceptable by all international organizations, extensive public relations campaign have been conducted with regards to how much the AU peacekeeping mission lacks material and financial backing. Hence, by deliberately exaggerating the threat of genocide and giving the duty of the international community undue emphasis, much is being tried.

Western countries, especially USA have been putting extensive pressure, so that the peacekeeping mission of the African Union (AU), which is deployed in Sudan, Darfur region, be replaced by UN peace keepers in a much outnumbering figure. To make this idea acceptable by all international organizations, extensive public relations campaign have been conducted with regards to how much the AU peacekeeping mission lacks material and financial backing. Hence, by deliberately exaggerating the threat of genocide and giving the duty of the international community undue emphasis, much is being tried.

Observing western countries and specially the United States make haste to deploy peacekeeping mission in any conflict torn area and observing them make much pressure more than the concerned people raises a dubious question: "Is it really an honest concern for the people at risk working for peace and reconciliation?" especially nowadays, when peace processes instead of moving towards a just solution are being stuck on media counteroffensives and endless diplomatic journeys; and instead of unwinding conflicts complicating and elongating them is being taken as a fashion. Hence, observing much emphasis and pressure being employed to deploy peace keeping mission does really tower the evolving scepticism.

According to the international conventions of the United Nations, military intervention should be the last choice. All political, diplomatic and other means need to be exhausted first to contain conflicts, and military intervention can only be the last option. However, what we are observing in reality is arresting peace process by different complex and subtle diplomatic means and then directly jumping to military intervention. In this regard, the issue of Darfur is not a different matter. The utter pressure being exerted to deploy huge numbers of UN peacekeeping soldiers is a continuation of the evil plot being devised to frustrate the issue and prevent it from gaining general consensus. This has been clearly observed in the non-materialized effort concerning the Abuja agreement.

There is a saying that goes like "if you want to make history then you must first refer to past history". Thus, it would be more effective to evaluate the effectiveness of previous UN peacekeeping missions before deploying more peacekeepers. Although the practice of deploying peacekeeping missions has gone on for more than half a century now, they have yet to succeed in securing comprehensive peace. Failing to secure peace everywhere they go, UN peacekeepers in different conflict areas of the world, who are only intent in prolonging their job contract, have only succeeded in perpetuating conflict and making the peoples in the conflict areas hostages of war and unrest. Consequently, sending peacekeepers to conflict areas has become a lucrative business to some quarters and taking war and genocide as a form of trade has become the order of the day. Contrary to the zeal with which and the pressures under which UN peacekeepers are deployed, there are no rules that regulate the duration of their stay nor are there any serious initiatives taken to terminate such missions once they have overstayed their welcome. This only reveals that there is a hidden agenda behind deploying peacekeeping missions. This hidden agenda is not so hidden that it isn't difficult to see that peacekeeping forces have become tools for perpetuating unrest and conflicts as well as a source of information and espionage. In short, peacekeeping missions have become the means to neo-colonialism, and it is not hard to imagine what their missions will entail in the future.

Hence, it is time to remind the people and political forces of Sudan to adopt a unified stance with regards to rejecting the deployment of the so called peacekeepers. Because the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sudan is not only a concern for the National Congress Party but is also a concern of the entire people of Sudan and all the political forces in the country.

The lines are drawn pretty clearly in the African Horn proxy war: Ethiopia with the US, Eritrea with Sudan. Whatever neo-colonialist agendas may be at work in the drive for intervention in Darfur, rhetoric like "deliberately exaggerating the threat of genocide" is pretty abhorrent. It's that kind of talk that gives anti-colonialism a bad name, and makes it smell like Eritrea is just playing its own geopolitical angles rather than standing up for principle. The Fur, in their teeming refugee camps, certainly don't seem to think the talk of military intervention is premature, or that diplomatic efforts have not been given their due—and then some...

See our last post on Eritrea and the politics of the Sahel.