GUINEA-BISSAU: CPLP, BEWARE OF CONTAGION THROUGH PROXIMITY!

Adriano S. Kansala"

Diplomatic credibility cannot be borrowed. It is earned through independence, consistency, and the courage to defend principles.

The announced mission of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP) to Guinea-Bissau deserves to be welcomed with interest, but also with a serious warning: the CPLP must avoid its approach to ECOWAS mediation from compromising its own credibility and political independence.

Guinea-Bissau does not need another diplomatic pilgrimage. It needs credible, independent mediation oriented towards concrete results: the restoration of constitutional legality, respect for the popular will, and the return of power to democratically legitimized institutions.

The danger of contagion through proximity.

In diplomacy, political proximity can produce effects as compromising as a formal partnership. When a respected organization gets too close to a process whose impartiality is questioned, it risks inheriting the distrust that process generates.

This is precisely the danger that the CPLP must avoid.

The mediation led by the Senegalese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cheikh Niang, cannot be analyzed in isolation from the regional political context.

The political and diplomatic relations between Cheikh Niang, former Senegalese President Macky Sall, current President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, and Umaro Sissoco Embaló warrant close scrutiny, especially given doubts about the independence and effectiveness of the mediation.

It is not a matter of asserting, without evidence, that everyone is part of a clandestine structure or acting in concert to serve foreign interests. It is a matter of demanding transparency regarding the relationships, influences, and interests that could compromise the impartiality of a diplomatic process.

The perception of a network of political connections, fueled by personal relationships, diplomatic continuities, and potential convergences of interests, is sufficiently concerning to warrant clarification.

The CPLP should not allow its presence to be interpreted as an automatic validation of these relations or of ECOWAS's political choices.

Cheikh Niang and honey pot diplomacy

Diplomacy, or "honeypot diplomacy," can be useful when it facilitates dialogue between adversaries. However, it becomes problematic when diplomatic gentleness serves to avoid difficult decisions, downplay responsibilities, or prolong constitutionally unsustainable situations.

The question is not whether Cheikh Niang is cordial, experienced, or skillful. The question is what concrete results his mediation has produced for the benefit of Guinean democracy.

A mediation should not be judged by the number of meetings held, the quality of the formal receptions, or the elegance of the final statements.

It should be judged by its results.

And mediation that does not establish consequences for non-compliance with commitments risks transforming dialogue into a mechanism for managing and prolonging the crisis.

Senegal is neither Cheikh Niang nor Macky Sall.

It is essential to make a political and moral distinction.

The Senegalese people are brothers and sisters to the Guinean people. Our history, our families, our cultures, and our struggles for African dignity are deeply intertwined.

Criticizing Cheikh Niang, Macky Sall, or certain choices made by Senegalese diplomacy does not mean criticizing Senegal, much less its people.

It also does not automatically mean assigning personal responsibility to President Bassirou Diomaye Faye for all the choices of his diplomatic representatives.

This means, rather, recognizing that the decisions of leaders must be examined in light of the interests of the people they represent.

Africa cannot continue to accept that personal affinities, diplomatic conveniences, or geopolitical interests prevail over popular sovereignty.

It is in this context that a figure like Ousmane Sonko deserves consideration as a possible mediation alternative, due to his image of breaking with traditional political practices and the discourse of African sovereignty he represents. However, this alternative would also have to be evaluated according to objective criteria of independence, acceptance by the parties, and capacity to produce results.

The CPLP is not ECOWAS.

The CPLP has its own identity, principles, and responsibilities.

You should not accept the role of a mere formal observer in a mediation conducted by third parties.

Your participation should add something substantially different: independence of judgment, unequivocal defense of the constitutional order, inclusion of political and social actors, and commitment to the popular will.

Therefore, before any mission, a fundamental question must be asked:

Where are the Terms of Reference?

What is the specific mandate of the CPLP? Who defined its objectives? Which stakeholders will be consulted? What concrete results are expected? Who will evaluate the implementation of the recommendations?

Without clear answers, there is a risk of yet another diplomatic visit, more photographs, more circumstantial statements, and no real progress.

The Terms of Reference are not an administrative formality. They are a guarantee of institutional accountability and a safeguard against the political instrumentalization of the mission.

The CPLP should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The CPLP should remember that its legitimacy also stems from its ability to defend principles when these are politically inconvenient.

The restoration of constitutional order cannot be replaced by a diplomatic normalization of the existing situation.

A truly credible transition must be based on clarifying the events that interrupted the electoral process, protecting fundamental freedoms, ensuring the inclusive participation of democratic forces, and establishing a verifiable timetable for restoring popular legitimacy.

The CPLP should work with ECOWAS whenever such cooperation favors these objectives. But it must preserve the right—and assume the duty—to disagree when it believes the process is deviating from them.

Cooperating is not the same as being subordinate. Dialogue is not the same as legitimizing. And being present does not mean consenting.

A fraternal warning

The CPLP cannot ignore the risk of reputational contagion arising from its proximity to processes and key figures whose actions raise legitimate doubts.

Credibility is a precious institutional asset. It is lost when the proclaimed principles cease to guide the decisions made.

Guinea-Bissau does not need a CPLP that is merely trailing behind ECOWAS. It needs a CPLP with its own voice, a clear mandate, political independence, and diplomatic courage.

If the CPLP (Community of Portuguese Language Countries) comes to contribute to the restoration of popular sovereignty and constitutional legality, it will be welcome. If it comes only to accompany, guarantee, or embellish a mediation without results, it will have missed a historic opportunity.

Diplomacy should serve the people, not indefinitely protect the balance of power.

And Africa deserves institutions capable of defending its citizens with the same determination with which they defend their states.

The CPLP must carefully choose its diplomatic companions, but above all, it must unequivocally choose the principles it intends to defend.

2025/12/3