To stop genocide in Burundi

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution strongly condemning the escalating violence in Burundi. It paves the way for the UN to send in thousands of blue-helmeted peacekeepers.

The resolution condemns the wave of killings, arrests and human rights violations; it requests that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon report within 15 days, i.e., on Friday of this week, on options for increasing the UN presence in Burundi.

There are fears of a Rwandan-style genocide in Burundi which, like Rwanda, has a long history of tribal distrust and, on occasion, hatred, although there are many intermarriages.

At least 240 people have been killed there since protests began in April.

Since independence from Belgium, in 1962, Burundi has been plagued by tension between the dominant Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority.

The ethnic violence sparked off in 1994 made Burundi the scene of one of Africa’s most intractable conflicts. However, this was overshadowed by the genocide of Tutsis by Hutus in neighbouring Rwanda, where around 800,000 people were massacred in a matter of a few weeks.

President Bill Clinton’s government (with the support of the UK) stymied all attempts to get the UN Security Council to mandate the deployment of a significant peacekeeping force.

Now many fear it is the turn of Burundi to be the site of large-scale pogroms.

Diplomatic and media reports agree that the country has become a tinder box.

The cycle of violence began with demonstrations against President Pierre Nkurunziza’s bid for a third term.

He argued that his first term as president did not count towards the constitutional two-term limit as he was chosen by MPs the first time.

Despite the criticism, in July, Nkurunziza was re-elected with 70 per cent of the vote.

The ethnic division runs deep today. There is real fear, expressed openly on social media (the press is censored), of what could happen if the spiral of violence is not stopped.

Ethnic hate speech is starting to emerge from the shadows, the language of “us” and “them”. It is reminiscent of what happened in Rwanda.

Terror is widespread. Politicians have been assassinated. The president’s most powerful security figure was killed and the country’s best-known human rights campaigner barely survived after being shot in the face.

In 2015, the political climate in the US is pro-UN peacekeeping, the opposite of what it was in Clinton’s time.

Clinton falsely accused the UN of badly failing in its operation in Somalia. In fact, it was the US panic when three of its soldiers were murdered that precipitated first a US (it was part of the UN force) and then a full UN withdrawal. 

The atmosphere in the White House is totally different today.

During the presidency of Barack Obama the Security Council has authorised more peacekeeping ventures around the globe than ever before.

Russia and China have voted for them alongside the Western nations.

UN troops are the largest deployed military force in the world. The UN has 100,000 personnel in 16 missions.

In recent years, China joined Britain and France, fellow members of the Security Council, in deploying significant numbers of its soldiers as blue-helmets.

The US, which rarely supplies troops, provides the biggest share, 28 per cent, of the UN’s peacekeeping costs.

The UK, France, Germany and Japan provide a large part of the rest of the budget.

Last year, Obama announced the so-called African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership, which commits $110 million per year for three years to build the capability of six leading African militaries to deploy peacekeepers rapidly in response to emerging conflict.

In September, Obama hosted a summit on UN peace operations. He said in his speech: “We know that peace operations are not the solution to every problem, but they do remain one of the world’s most important tools to address armed conflict.”

He promised that his administration would build up its capacity to support UN peacekeeping operations.

How different is Obama’s attitude from his two immediate predecessors!

Polls show that US public support for UN peacekeeping is a reasonably satisfactory 60 per cent — six times the rating for the US Congress.

In this time of Middle Eastern and Ukrainian conflict, we should note more than we do the success of the international community in this collective endeavour.

Congo now is almost quiet after two generations of murderous conflict. (Unfortunately a cloud hangs over the operation because of the many reports of rape by UN soldiers.) And the UN has many other successes under its belt.

The decision at the Security Council on whether or not to send into Burundi large numbers of troops will be important; it will decide whether the UN goes into a country not because large-scale violence is happening but because it is anticipated.

Remembering Rwanda and Somalia, the decision has to be for it.