Isaias Afwerki’s rebuke of the UN exposes deep fault lines in Horn of Africa diplomacy
When Eritrea’s longtime president, Isaias Afwerki, told the new United Nations special envoy for the Horn of Africa that the world body has “not been effective,” he did more than deliver a familiar rebuke. The comments — relayed by Eritrea’s information minister, Yemane Meskel — crystallize a growing regional narrative: international institutions, however well-intentioned, are increasingly seen as instruments that fall short of producing durable peace in a fast-changing neighborhood.
- Advertisement -
The meeting with Guang Cong, the UN’s newly appointed special representative, was one of those rare public-facing diplomatic moments for Afwerki, who has ruled Eritrea since independence in 1993 and is known for a largely private governing style. State statements said Afwerki urged “a new approach” to peace efforts in the Horn and warned that peacekeeping deployments carried out “without rigorous accountability modalities and holistic underlying frameworks” rarely yield lasting results.
Why this matters now
The Horn of Africa is a cluster of overlapping crises: Sudan’s devastating civil war that erupted in 2023, recurrent instability in Ethiopia after years of conflict, and chronic fragility across Somalia and parts of the wider region. Millions have been displaced, trade corridors disrupted, and humanitarian needs soaring. Against that backdrop, criticism of the United Nations is not simply a complaint about process — it is a signal that regional actors want different tools, different priorities and, perhaps, different patrons.
Afwerki’s comments also underscore how thin the margin of legitimacy can be for external interventions. He accused regional organizations of having their effectiveness “compromised” by “unwarranted external interventions,” arguing they have been turned into “vehicles for external agendas.” That critique echoes a broader anxiety across African capitals: that solutions fashioned in New York or Brussels rarely address local drivers of conflict and are often distorted by competing international interests.
History, skepticism and a changing diplomatic map
The UN’s record in the region is mixed. The world body has been involved in humanitarian relief, political mediation, and peacekeeping efforts — but it has also faced high-profile setbacks, from failures to prevent mass atrocities to peace missions that struggled to protect civilians amid complex local wars. For nations like Eritrea, which have in the past been accused of supporting armed groups and have had fraught relations with Western powers and international institutions, the UN’s limitations are more than a policy debate: they are confirmation of a long-held world view.
At the same time, the Horn is no longer a place where a single external actor can dictate outcomes. Gulf states, Turkey, Russia, and China have all expanded their footprint through investments, military ties and mediation offers. China’s growing diplomatic profile — underscored by Guang Cong’s appointment as UN envoy — adds another layer to the argument: if the architecture of global governance is shifting, who gets to rewrite the rules of engagement?
Sudan: a test case for local approaches
Afwerki used the discussion to reaffirm “historical ties and partnership” with Sudan and to revive an idea Eritrea floated in 2022: a “popular governance structure based on citizenship” as a vehicle for stabilizing Sudan. According to Eritrean officials, the initiative stalled because of “external interventions” that complicated political progress.
Sudan’s war has become the region’s clearest and most painful test. Local grievances, rival military networks, and foreign interests have combined to make traditional UN-led diplomacy difficult. Eritrea’s argument — that externally driven efforts can entrench divisions rather than resolve them — has resonance when mediation lacks both local ownership and credible enforcement mechanisms.
What regional and global trends does this reflect?
- Rising regionalism: African states are pushing for “African solutions to African problems,” seeking mediation and peacekeeping arrangements that reflect local political realities and legal frameworks. The African Union and regional bodies like IGAD have been central to many recent mediation efforts, though often hamstrung by limited resources and political divisions.
- Geopolitical competition: The Horn’s strategic location — at the mouth of the Red Sea and along vital trade routes — has attracted external players with differing agendas, from Gulf states to China and Russia. That competition can produce short-term deals but complicates long-term settlement strategies.
- Peacekeeping fatigue and reform debates: Globally, policymakers are wrestling with the limits of traditional UN peacekeeping: mandates that are too narrow, insufficient troops and funding, and the political will problem at the Security Council. Calls for new frameworks often collide with the realities of member-state rivalries and veto politics.
Questions the UN and regional leaders must answer
Afwerki’s critique prompts several uncomfortable but necessary questions. Can the UN be retooled to offer genuinely local, accountable, and adaptable modes of peacemaking? Are regional organizations willing and able to shoulder greater responsibility without becoming battlegrounds for external influence? And perhaps most urgently: how can mediation and peacekeeping be made attractive to the communities they are meant to protect, rather than seen as impositions?
For readers across the world, the Horn’s troubles are not someone else’s problem. A secure and stable Red Sea and Nile basin matter to global trade, food security and migration patterns. The failure to craft durable peace in the Horn has already had ripple effects — shipping choke points, refugee flows, and the spread of insecurity across borders.
Afwerki’s message to the UN envoy is not merely a rebuke; it is an invitation to rethink templates that have guided peace operations for decades. Whether that invitation will lead to creative partnerships between the UN, African institutions, and local actors — or deepen divides as competing powers press their own solutions — remains an open question. The answer will help determine whether the region moves toward lasting peace or further fragmentation.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
