Burundi: what can actually be done?
Posted on January 27, 2016
<http://africanarguments.org/2016/01/27/burundi-what-can-actually-be-done/>
by Benjamin Chemouni <http://africanarguments.org/author/benjamin-chemouni/>
*There are few tangible solutions to Burundi’s crisis in sight. But there
are some positive actions regional and international actors can take.*
[image: President Pierre Nkurunziza talks to the press following his
meeting with a UN Security Council delegation. Credit: MONUSCO/Papy AMANI.]
<http://africanarguments.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/burundi-what-can-be-done.jpg>

President Pierre Nkurunziza talks to the press following his meeting with a
UN Security Council delegation. Credit: MONUSCO/Papy AMANI.

The violence in Burundi is evolving and getting worse.

Challenges to President Pierre Nkurunziza’s rule are becoming
professionalised, as demonstrated by the attacks on two military camps
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35070154> in Bujumbura last
December. Godfroid Nyombare – Nkurunziza’s former chief of secret service
and main plotter of the failed coup last May – has reportedly created an
armed rebellion. And security forces have started using rape
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/world/africa/burundi-forces-gang-rape-united-nations.html?_r=0>
as a weapon of war, signalling their intent to break Bujumbura’s *quartiers
contestataires* psychologically as well as physically.

This evolution is all the more worrying given that there are few tangible
solutions to the crisis in sight. As summarised
<https://news.vice.com/article/burundi-is-going-to-hell-says-us-ambassador-to-united-nations>
by Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN Security Council, Burundi
“is going to hell” and there is “no contingency planning, no UN presence,
no dialogue”.

But what could be done to genuinely improve the situation in Burundi? And
by whom?

*Give Magufuli a call?*

Diplomacy has so far yielded meagre results. The current crisis originated
from Nkurunziza’s decision to run for a third term and the fact that most
of the leaders in the surrounding region are similarly clinging to power
does not position them well as potential mediators. Yoweri Musevini, who
has been Uganda’s president since 1986, has shown little enthusiasm in his
role as mediator so far. A diplomatic champion with the stature and skill
to broker meaningful talks has yet to be found.

South Africa
<https://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/burundi-crisis-time-for-south-africa-to-lead>
may seem a natural fit for this role. The country was pivotal in ending the
previous civil war in Burundi through Nelson Mandela who was the lead
mediator behind the Arusha Agreement. By taking the diplomatic lead on the
current crisis, President Jacob Zuma would honour this legacy. However,
given the myriad domestic concerns
<http://africanarguments.org/2016/01/26/aap9-gloomy-outlook-for-south-africa/>
facing the country, Zuma seems unlikely to get involved.

After South Africa, Tanzania might be the next best candidate. The
energetic commitment
<http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/14/africa/tanzania-president-john-magufuli/>
of its new president John Magufuli to reform the country has made him
popular in the region, and taking the lead on Burundi would be the perfect
opportunity for him to gain standing on the international scene too. If he
did this, he would also be following in the footsteps of Julius Nyerere,
who was the facilitator of the Arusha negotiations before Mandela.
Furthermore, Tanzania’s well-established tradition of presidents stepping
down as well as the presence of 140,000 Burundian refugees
<http://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/burundi-humanitarian-snapshot-14-january-2016>
on its soil would give it the legitimacy to lead diplomatic efforts.

*Target sanctions at the right people in the right places*

Economic sanctions are likely to be limited in their effectiveness.
Nkurunziza is following a short-term logic whereby he intends to crush the
opposition while surviving long enough to make his staying in power a *fait
accompli*. Despite the dismal state of the economy, economic sanctions can
produce at best mid-term pressure. Furthermore, they are likely to hurt the
population before the ruling elite.

The best way economic sanctions could work, however, would be if they
targeted the leaders of the repression – i.e. the top brass of the
Burundian security apparatus. Currently, Nkurunziza reigns but does not
govern. Afraid for his security, he is hardly in Bujumbura as his recent
meeting
<http://www.voanews.com/content/burundi-leader-firm-no-african-union-troops/3159471.html>
with delegates of the UN Security Council in the town of Gitega rather than
the capital testifies. The day-to-day repression is therefore organised by
the military and party big men in Bujumbura.

Some of these figures have already been sanctioned, but only timidly and
ineffectively. The EU <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34428832> and
US
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/obama-burundi-sanctions-security-officials>
have banned certain leaders from travelling to their territories and frozen
their assets. However, while this may have symbolic significance, it does
little to change matters on the ground. These men do not have strong links
with the US or Europe and their respective banks. Instead, their money is
in Kenyan or South African banks and for sanctions to be effective, they
should target regional visas and assets.

*Leverage Burundi’s own peacekeepers*

On 17 December, the African Union (AU) approved the deployment of a 5,000
peacekeepers to Burundi. The government responded
<http://africanarguments.org/2015/12/23/are-international-actors-steering-the-right-course-in-burundi/>
by saying it would see it as an invasion and that Burundian forces would
fight such a force. Intervening against the wishes of the host country
would be a first for the AU and the willingness for the regional leaders to
set such precedent is unclear. Furthermore, an operation of this size would
probably be too small to protect the population outside Bujumbura.

An AU intervention in the military sphere could however take another form.
Threatening to remove Burundian troops from the African Union Mission in
Somalia (AMISOM) could be an effective way to twist the arm of the
Burundian government. In a context of shrinking resources and rampant
divisions in the army, AMISOM’s generous wages go a long way in stabilising
the Burundian military. Threatening to suppress this source of revenue is
unlikely to fall on deaf ears.

*Keep a close eye on Rwanda*

Recent allegations
<http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/14/burundian-refugees-face-forced-recruitment-in-rwandan-camp.html>
that Rwanda is recruiting and training Burundian refugees to fight in
Burundi are alarming. If true, they could signal danger for both Burundi
and Rwanda itself.

After all, a Rwanda-sponsored rebel movement would give the Burundian
government the perfect opportunity to portray opposition as the lackeys of
a Tutsi-led Rwanda. For Burundian politicians who have occasionally resorted
<http://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/burundi-le-pouvoir-multiplie-les-d-clarations-incendiaires-aux-relents-ethniques>
to ethnic discourse since the beginning of the crisis, such a confirmation
would be a blessing.

In the longer term, questions also arise over what would happen if a
Kigali-backed rebel group actually fought its way to Bujumbura. If the
Burundian government were overthrown, this group would not be the only
rebels in town and in a contest for power, being able to paint the
Rwandan-backed rebels as puppets of the “Rwandan Tutsi” would be a tempting
strategy for any competing armed group looking to foster popular support.

It makes sense for Rwanda to want to be proactive regarding Burundi. The
country’s leadership derives its legitimacy from having stopped a genocide
in 1994. There are more than 70,000 Burundian refugees on its soil. And
members of the ruling elite in Kigali have family connections in Bujumbura.
Nonetheless, clandestine support from Kigali to an armed group risks
further jeopardising the stability of the region. If Rwanda wants to
intervene, it would be in its own interest to do so through a multilateral
approach.

*Get independent radio stations back on air*

The re-opening of independent radio stations would probably be the most
important, immediately tangible and easily-defined objective of any initial
negotiations with Nkurunziza. Independent radio shows are the best way to
debunk ethnic discourse and wild rumours. A free media would also ensure a
better knowledge of what is happening outside Bujumbura. Given the media
blackout in the country, if mass killings were to happen in the
countryside, it would be hard for the world to know.

The Burundian government is playing for time and has few reservations in
using violence as it tries to keep hold of power. There are no easy or
quick solutions, and external actors may only have a limited scope to help
resolve the escalating situation. Nevertheless, they cannot ignore any
leverage they may have and, while partial and limited, some of the above
suggestions could make a positive difference and open up productive avenues
for engagement in resolving Burundi’s deepening crisis.

*Benjamin Chemouni is a PhD candidate in the Department of International
Development of the London School of Economics and Political Science
(LSE). **His
research* <http://personal.lse.ac.uk/chemouni/>* focuses on Rwanda and
Burundi. Follow him on twitter at @BChemouni
<https://twitter.com/bchemouni>.*

*For more on this subject, see:*

   - In the shadow of genocides past: can Burundi be pulled back from the
   brink?
   
<http://africanarguments.org/2016/01/22/in-the-shadow-of-genocides-past-can-burundi-be-pulled-back-from-the-brink/>
   - Are international actors steering the right course in Burundi?
   
<http://africanarguments.org/2015/12/23/are-international-actors-steering-the-right-course-in-burundi/>
   - Burundi must avoid repeating the mistakes of Arusha
   
<http://africanarguments.org/2015/11/25/burundi-must-avoid-repeating-the-mistakes-of-arusha/>
   - What lies at the core of Burundi’s crisis?
   
<http://africanarguments.org/2015/11/06/what-lies-at-the-core-of-burundis-crisis/>

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment
<http://africanarguments.org/2016/01/27/burundi-what-can-actually-be-done/#comments>
or subscribing to the RSS feed <http://africanarguments.org/feed/> to have
future articles delivered to your feed reader.
This entry was posted in African Politics Now
<http://africanarguments.org/category/politics-now/>, The Central Africa
Forum <http://africanarguments.org/category/the-central-africa-forum/>.
Bookmark the permalink
<http://africanarguments.org/2016/01/27/burundi-what-can-actually-be-done/>.

One thought on “Burundi: what can actually be done?”

   1. Bert <http://africanations.wordpress.com> says:
   January 27, 2016 at 2:03 pm
   
<http://africanarguments.org/2016/01/27/burundi-what-can-actually-be-done/#comment-79520>

   Benjamin,

   As you know, and as we all know, the people who live in Burundi are not
   so different from those that live in Rwanda or indeed in the Kivu area of
   Eastern Congo.

   Isn’t it time to look at the entire problem space and to question the
   entire way the territory is organized? The current setup seems to be a
   recipe for a recurring disaster that has been and will continue to repeat
   itself over and over again.

   What always surprises me is how different the debate is about the Hutu
   and Tutsi, on the one hand, and the Serbs and Croats on the other hand.

   Like the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Serbs and the Croats essentially speak
   the same language. Like them, they suffered tremendously from ethnic
   conflict. Like them, this conflict caused trauma for the survivors, making
   it very hard for the two groups to live together in peace.

   But unlike the Hutu and Tutsi, in Europe, separate countries were
   created, one for the Croats and one for the Serbs. It was a problematic
   process in itself – but it seems to have led to a more or less stable
   solution.

   Why is such a solution not even being suggested or discussed for the
   Hutu-Tutsi problem? For myself, I have tried to analyse the causes of this
   – check out
   
https://africanations.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/african-identities-a-new-perspective/
   .

-- 
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob
View this message at 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/southsudankob/topic-id/message-id
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14oqCpuGGjWGV8ZLuU%3DeNGV1%3DXPLJLsijGkzdCr_h1_zTdg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to