GUINEA-BISSAU: Handing over mediation to Diomaye Faye's Senegal is like asking a pickpocket to keep our wallet!

Adriano S. Kansala"

From Cheikh Niang's mediation to the interests that threaten a free and independent Africa — and the historical responsibility of the FARP in defending the homeland.

Diplomacy cannot become tutelage.

In the context of Pakistan's attempts to mediate the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran in 2026, a phrase attributed to retired US Colonel Douglas Macgregor circulated, although its literal authorship has not been confirmed: "Making Pakistan a mediator in the above conflict is like asking a pickpocket to hold our wallet while we tie our shoelaces."

Applied to the political crisis in Guinea-Bissau, the metaphor takes on a particularly unsettling dimension:

"Making Bassirou Diomaye Faye, Senegal's president, a mediator in the crisis in Guinea-Bissau is like asking a pickpocket to hold our wallet while we tie our shoelaces!"

We are not dealing with a literal accusation of theft. We are dealing with a political metaphor about the trust and credibility of those who present themselves as mediators.

And the question is simple:

How can someone credibly mediate a crisis when their own impartiality raises serious questions?

Mediation is not legitimized solely by an institutional decision. It requires independence, impartiality, transparency, respect for sovereignty, and, above all, trust from the parties involved.

Guinea-Bissau is not a trust territory.

It's not a protectorate.

It is not a negotiable asset between governments, political groups, economic interests, and networks of influence.

It is a sovereign Republic, achieved through the sacrifice of thousands of combatants and citizens who fought for freedom and national dignity.

The sovereignty of Guinea-Bissau cannot be turned into a portfolio handed over to third parties to decide what to do with our future.

DIOMAYE FAYE'S SENEGAL AND CHEIKH NIANG'S MEDIATION

 

ECOWAS has formally entrusted Senegal with mediating the political crisis in Guinea-Bissau.

 

Under the authority of President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, Minister Cheikh Niang assumed direct responsibility for conducting diplomatic consultations.

In October 2026, the Senegalese mediation mission returned to Bissau to meet with authorities, political parties, and representatives of civil society.

In institutional terms, the stated objective was to contribute to the restoration of constitutional order through a peaceful and inclusive political process.

But there is a fundamental difference between a formal mandate and the actual credibility of a mediation.

Institutional legitimacy does not eliminate the obligation to demonstrate impartiality.

The problem is not the fact that Senegal is our neighbor.

The problem is the possibility that geographical, political, and strategic proximity may compromise the necessary distance between the mediator and the interests in dispute.

It is legitimate to question the political relations between Umaro Sissoco Embaló, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, and those responsible for the mediation led by Cheikh Niang.

It is legitimate to demand clarification regarding the interests that guide Dakar's diplomatic choices.

It is legitimate to ask whether the solution sought corresponds to the democratic aspirations of the Guinean people or whether it aims to accommodate a political situation produced by force.

And it is especially legitimate to reject the idea that regional mediation should become a mechanism for legitimizing accomplished facts.

It is not enough to bring together political parties and civil society organizations.

These consultations need to have real consequences.

Announcing a new election calendar is not enough.

It is necessary to ensure the conditions of freedom, transparency, security and credibility required for its implementation.

Invoking stability is not enough.

Stability without constitutional legality can only represent the institutionalization of arbitrariness.

The "proxies" of a crime against a free and independent Africa.

The Africa for which Amílcar Cabral, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, and so many other leaders of national liberation fought was not born to exchange one form of dependency for another.

 

Political independence cannot become a mere constitutional formality while fundamental decisions about the destiny of nations continue to be conditioned by external interests or internal networks of complicity.

It is in this political and moral sense that the expression should be understood:

"The Proxies of Crime Against a Free and Independent Africa."

These are individuals who, when their actions demonstrate it, act as intermediaries in systems of domination, institutional capture, strategic dependence, or economic exploitation that are contrary to the interests of the population.

Guinea-Bissau knows all too well the effects of institutional fragility.

He is aware of the dangers of external interference.

He understands the costs of political and military conflicts.

And he understands the risk posed by drug trafficking networks, transnational drug cartels, and their potential infiltration of public institutions.

We cannot allow the fight against drug trafficking to become a mere buzzword, repeated at international conferences, while the mechanisms for investigation, accountability, and protection of sovereignty remain weak.

But it is important to rigorously distinguish between proven facts and political suspicions.

Questioning the role of Umaro Sissoco Embaló, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, or Cheikh Niang is not equivalent to demonstrating that any of them belong to a drug cartel or participate in criminal activities.

These allegations require verifiable evidence and an independent investigation.

What is required is transparency and scrutiny regarding any potential conflicts of interest, complicity, or undue interference.

Diplomacy cannot serve as a shield against legitimate investigations.

And invoking sovereignty cannot be used to protect organized crime networks.

Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to interests that might capture the State.

Ousmane Sonko is not Sheikh Niang. And the Senegalese people are not his government!

There is an absolutely essential distinction.

This criticism is not directed at Ousmane Sonko, to whom we do not attribute, in the absence of evidence, any participation in the practices or interests questioned here.

 

Until proven otherwise, there is no basis for including him among the political figures targeted in this reflection on the conduct of the mediation.

And there is another, even more important distinction.

This criticism is in no way directed at our brotherly people in Senegal!

The peoples of Guinea-Bissau and Senegal share a history, families, communities, traditions, cultures, trade, solidarity, sacrifices, and common aspirations.

No disagreement with a government can erase these ties.

We are not against Senegal.

We are against any form of tutelage over Guinea-Bissau.

We do not reject regional cooperation.

We reject political subordination.

We do not reject friendship between states.

We reject the use of this friendship as justification for interference incompatible with national sovereignty.

With our brotherly people of Senegal, we have everything else in common. What we do not have, nor can we accept, is a relationship of political tutelage!

Senegal is much bigger than any single government.

And Guinea-Bissau is much bigger than any regime.

ECOWAS cannot confuse subsidiaries with a blank check.

The principle of subsidiarity is an instrument for organizing regional and international cooperation.

It's not dogma.

It's not religion.

It's not a silver bullet.

And even less can it constitute a license to hand over the solution to a national crisis to a mediator whose impartiality is seriously questioned.

ECOWAS must demonstrate that its primary objective is the restoration of constitutional order, and not the construction of compromises aimed at accommodating situations imposed by force.

 

Guinea-Bissau needs an inclusive political process, the restoration of constitutional guarantees, functioning democratic institutions, a credible electoral calendar, and effective conditions for citizens to freely express their will.

A solution based on exclusion, intimidation, or institutional manipulation will not be lasting.

This will only be preparation for the next crisis.

The international community should support, not replace, the sovereign will of the Guinean people.

The African Union, the CPLP, the United Nations, and other credible partners can contribute to a more balanced mediation architecture, respecting the principles of the UN Charter, the sovereign equality of States, and the right of peoples to self-determination.

Guinea-Bissau needs partners who can help restore the power of the people.

YOU DON'T NEED TUTORS WHO INTEND TO SPEAK ON YOUR BEHALF!

AMÍLCAR CABRAL AND THE CREATION OF THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF THE PEOPLE

It is precisely at this moment in our history that we must remember the origin and mission of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces — FARP.

The FARP were not created to serve a president.

They weren't born to defend a government.

They were not created to protect parties, families, economic interests, or networks of influence.

They were born to liberate the homeland and defend the people!

Under the leadership of Amílcar Cabral, the national liberation struggle progressively assumed a political and military organization aimed at achieving the independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde.

The Cassacá Congress, held between February 13 and 17, 1964, was a decisive moment in the reorganization of the PAIGC and the armed struggle.

Among his main decisions was the creation of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces, articulating guerrilla structures, popular militias, and the People's Army.

It wasn't simply a matter of organizing a military force.

The aim was to build an institution of liberation, linked to the population and subordinate to the higher objectives of the national struggle.

For Cabral, the force of arms could not replace political awareness, discipline, responsibility, and respect for the people.

Military authority should not become an instrument of intimidation against the population.

The fighter did not own the communities he helped to liberate.

 

He was a servant of his freedom.

This principle remains essential.

The weapons that helped win freedom cannot be transformed into instruments to take it away from the people!

The mission of the FARP: To defend the homeland, the people, the territory, and national sovereignty.

The mission of the People's Revolutionary Armed Forces is not an arbitrary interpretation of history.

It is expressly enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic.

Article 20 defines the FARP as:

"an instrument of national liberation at the service of the people"

And it identifies them as the primary institution for the defense of the Nation.

It is their duty to defend independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, to collaborate with the competent services under the conditions established by law, and to participate in the tasks of national reconstruction.

The same article stipulates that the FARP (Armed Forces for Republican Action) must obey the competent sovereign bodies, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and establishes their non-partisan nature.

This mandate entails unavoidable responsibilities.

DEFEND THE HOMELAND.

National independence cannot be subordinated to foreign, private, or partisan interests.

To protect the people.

The security and dignity of citizens are fundamental to national defense, and military action must respect fundamental rights and constitutionally established competencies.

DEFEND THE TERRITORY.

Territorial integrity, land borders, maritime space, and other spaces under national sovereignty or jurisdiction must be protected against threats, in accordance with the law.

PRESERVE SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATIONAL RESOURCES.

Natural resources, maritime wealth, land, and other strategic assets must serve the interests of the Nation and the development of its people. Defending sovereignty over these resources does not replace the responsibility of civil institutions for their management.

DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

 

No institution can invoke the defense of the Fatherland to replace the popular will or arbitrarily suspend democratic mechanisms.

Respect the republican and non-partisan nature of the Armed Forces.

The military institution belongs to the Republic, not to any political figure.

Loyalty to the Constitution is inseparable from loyalty to the people.

And the mission of defending the homeland is incompatible with the use of weapons to control the political destiny of citizens.

FARPs should not be called upon to arbitrate partisan disputes.

They must maintain their institutional integrity, discipline, and independence from competing political interests.

This is how we honor the legacy of Amílcar Cabral.

2025/12/3