When 'Peacekeeping' Becomes a Convenient Fiction
Mainstream outlets report Indonesia's military readiness to deploy 8,000 personnel for a UN-backed peacekeeping mission to Gaza. This overture follows mounting international pressure for a ceasefire and the potential transfer of authority from what The Independent cautiously terms the 'current administration' — a curious euphemism given the explicit nature of the ongoing military occupation and
bombardment. Yet, the selective enthusiasm for such 'peacekeeping' missions demands scrutiny. When Indonesia, a nation with a 90% Muslim majority and no diplomatic ties to Israel, proposes intervention, it aligns with a Global South increasingly vocal against the Gaza slaughter. This contrasts sharply with Western responses to similarly grave, externally-imposed humanitarian crises, such as the
1994 Rwandan genocide, which saw UN peacekeeping forces withdrawn, not augmented, leading to over 800,000 deaths. This willingness to entertain a 'peacekeeping' force now, after months of documented atrocities and nearly five percent of Gaza's population killed or injured, according to the Lancet, highlights the geopolitical calculus at play. Had any nation other than a Western ally proposed
similar intervention against a US-backed proxy in previous conflicts, like the 1973 coup in Chile or the 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela, the proposition would have been dismissed as an act of aggression. It's a transparent system: 'humanitarian' intervention is only truly legitimate when it serves NATO's interests. What's actually happening: The conversation about international forces only gains