Burundi & Rwanda: A throwback to 1994?

When in December 2015, the African Union announced that it would send about 5000 peacekeepers to Burundi with or without the government’s permission to stem the tide of violence in the country and prevent a return to another round of civil war and ethnic cleansing, the world took notice.  At last, most analysts and watchers of international events thought, the largely ineffectual continental body is finally beginning to flex its muscles. Still sounding tough, the AU warned then that it and the rest of the international community will not sit by and watch the escalation of violence and human rights violations and abuses continue in Burundi. The Burundi regime responsible for the violence vehemently opposed the move declaring that the AU peacekeepers would be considered “an invasion and occupation force.”

However, in January 2016, leaders attending the AU Summit made an about turn and declared that no troop will be deployed without the express consent of the Burundi regime. Instead, the continental body will be sending only a high-level delegation to negotiate a solution obviously acceptable to President Pierre Nkurunziza. The consensus obviously collapsed after member states, especially Tanzania, considered Burundi’s big brother – opposed the move. There were also fears that the move, if successful, could set a precedent in an organisation known for its culture of non-intervention in the international affairs of member states. Thus the AU lost a golden opportunity to assert itself and prevent a bloodbath that may likely be the outcome of the current crisis even as the United Nations pointedly declared it was in a weaker position than it was in 1994 in the region and may be unable to prevent a return to violence in the region.

Burundi descended into another circle of violence last year after President Nkurunziza decided to jettison the constitution and run for a third term as president – a move political opponents and other watchers said was illegal. The violence has raised concerns of a bloody ethnic conflict in a region where memories of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide and similar killings and civil war running from 1993 to 2005 in Burundi are still fresh.

The two former Belgian territories have been plagued by perpetual tensions since independence between the usually-dominant Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority. While the Tutsis led by Paul Kagame took firm control of Rwanda after stopping the genocide in 1994 and had run the country as an authoritarian state allowing for little or no dissent, Burundi, on the other hand, settled for a very complex system of power and position-sharing between the two groups that threw up Nkurunziza, a former Hutu rebel leader, as President in 2005.

What was more, a confidential United Nations report that became public in the first week of February, accused the Rwandan government of secretly training mainly Tutsi rebels to overthrow the government of President Nkurunziza, confirming fears in international circles of a possible return to ethnic violence and even war between and among the two countries if nothing is done to stop the current violence in Burundi.

Sadly, situations have not changed since 1994 and despite Western countries and the UN expressing deep regrets for their failure to stop the conflicts and genocides between 1993 and 1994, indications thus far show that these powers are still neither interested nor willing to intervene to stop a repeat of another circle of violence. The task therefore should have been taken up by the AU, which many have accused of being a mere talk shop. Instead of using the opportunity to burnish its image, the AU has again shirked that responsibility and is prepared to watch as the two countries gradually descend into another circle of violence.

Rwanda also may be in the process of unravelling as its strongman – Paul Kagame – has also manipulated the country’s institutions into abolishing term limits placed in the constitution and guaranteeing himself life presidency.

Interestingly, these two countries represent contrasting ways of post-conflict nation building. While Rwanda choose the dictatorship-driven development model, largely funded by Western donors though I must add, Burundi choose the democracy model, which many critics see as being too complex and fractious for a nation just emerging from conflict and always contains the danger of a relapse into another round of conflict. While Rwanda has achieved a great feat of economic growth and development and is now seen as one of the success stories of the continent, Burundi is still a highly impoverished country – one of the world’s poorest – with terrible socio-economic indices. However, economic prosperity in Rwanda hasn’t given way to democracy. Paul Kagame has continued to circumscribe the political space, silence dissent and opposition and, with his current move, threaten to undo all the progress the country has made since 1994.

Africa has come of age and must be able to resolve some of its teething problems. Until the AU is able to confront situations like these, it will continue to be seen and regarded as a mere talking shop. The time to act is now.

 

Christopher Akor