PARTIES.
The announcement by The National Council for The Defense of Democracy – Forces for The Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) of its decision for President Pierre Nkurunziza’s to seek reelection for a third term in office ignited a crisis within Burundi that has seen to intervention attempts by various parties. The primary parties directly involved in the crisis are The Government of Burundi and Opposition. The principal/secondary parties involved in talks with President Nkurunziza are: – The African Union (AU), The United Nations (UN) and The East African Community (EAC). By seeking a third term, the President was essentially setting aside the constitution and pursuing his own agenda which was met with stiff opposition as evident in a resulting civil unrest an attempted coup, mass protest, opposition attacks etc. Amidst claims of human rights violations based on Government’s desire to force, other secondary stakeholder involved in the process are factions and agents of the larger organization in the case of the AU; The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR), The Peace and Security Council (PSC), African Prevention and Protection Mission in Burundi (MAPROBU) and in that of the EAC there is the The National Council for The Restoration of the Arusha Agreement and The Rule of Law (CNARED), The National Council for The Defense of Democracy- Forces for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD); These are agents that aim to achieve the desired goals of the larger body. The Government of Burundi possesses more power over the Opposition in the areas of military (the states security agents are at its disposal) and economics while on a political note the power levels may be polarized. In terms of international status, legitimacy, popular support and allegiance it can be inferred that both may be at par; there is no legitimacy in Opposition, the Government’s third term bid has been deemed unconstitutional and condemned as such support is lacking on both parts. With all of the resources available to the Government, power is definitely asymmetrical with the Government having more.
CONFLICT ISSUES.
Several varying but correlational issues are at stake given the crisis in Burundi, with the primary issue being the President’s incumbency which has caused the crisis within. The magnitude and the potential extent to which the crisis could further escalate to translates into the need for intervention to reign in the situation which highlights the second issue, the process of conducting intervention which is apparently flawed by technicalities like a lack of proper definition for “unconstitutional change of government” by the AU which is enshrined in its mandate to prohibit such action. Thus, the AU has been unable to practice its theory. While efforts have been made by the AU to intervene, it has been unsuccessful in its attempts because of division within the AU and the AUC, while the AU member states prefer a less confrontational approach over the AUC’s interventionist approach. has been unable to practice its theory. Also important, the AU, EAC and the UN have been unable to align their positions and interests causing uncoordinated approaches and therein President Nkurunziza has gained leverage by exploiting the division within and between the AU, UN and EAC which has the responsibility of leading the negotiations with President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda as head Negotiator who in turn delegated responsibility to Defense Minister Crispus Kiyonga. Hence, the Government of Burundi has been able to reject Negotiation attempts and forestall the deployment of AUC – authorized human rights and military observers (MAPROBU) as well as UN Security – sanctioned police. It is noteworthy that while other secondary Parties like the AU and UN, have publicly condemned the occurrences in Burundi, the EAC has been unable to do so as an organization which in part could be because at least three of the six member states have found themselves in the similar position of retaining power.
CONFLICT BEHAVIOUR
Behaviors emanating from this crisis were characterized by a progression from Non-violence to violence carried out by and between Burundians, Rebel Groups and the Burundi Government while other citizens caught between the cross fire fled the country for their own safety. The Government in its bid to reign supreme has carried out extreme crack down missions and measures lending to alleged accusations of war crimes against suspected rebels. These crack downs are hinged on ethnic profiling which is suggestive of past atrocities and raises concerns of potentially leading to a genocide if allowed to fester. There has been an increase in sexual and gender based crimes and violence as a whole and the civilians receiving the brunt of it. There was an exodus of journalists and ngo workers as a resulting of the escalating violence and a shutdown of the radio station.
The PSC on its part reacted by threatening the Government of Burundi by issuing it 96hours to accept 5000 MAPROPU agents to assist in protecting civilian lives and creating a conducive atmosphere required for dialogue to ensue or invoke Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act, which permits intervention in extreme situations with war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity specifically outlined. This act, was only a strategy and it failed resulting in counter behavior from the Government by out rightly rejecting to let the MAPROBU into its territory.
ATTITUDES
There is a strong sense of negativity emanating from the parties directly affected by the crisis. Burundians have clearly exhibited their anger. They feel a sense of betrayal especially with regards to the contravention of the 2000 Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement which stipulates power sharing. They fear also the possibility of a genocide as attacks by Government’s security agents have seemed to be carried out along ethnic lines even though the crisis is political in nature. These attacks by security force have reflected cognitive bias issues on Government’s part as they are seemingly prejudicial and stereotypical as claims have been made of more frequent attacks in Tutsi communities of which the President is Hutu making it seem systematic and targeted. There is also confusion due to the lack of information. The Government has exhibited traits of prejudice and stereotyping based on the Government issued crackdown.
CONFLICT DYNAMICS
The crisis began with a protest that lended itself to violence, protesters barricaded the roads, lives were lost, there was a grenade attack and reports of police brutality as arrests were made of protesters. Subsequently the protest was more peaceful, but eventually the severity of the violence escalated in leaps and bounds. A failed coup d’état was orchestrated by Major General Godefroid Niyombare which resulted in “heavy gunfire” around the Radio Station Complex where the Coup was announced. Beatings were reported of protesters who had been arrested and also coup plotters who surrendered. Despite the breakdown of law and order, the President still set a date for his reelection which saw to further breakout of violence, the leader for the opposition group Union for Peace and Development was shot and killed which caused opposition parties to refrain from continuing already initiated negotiations with the government. The second Vice President and a member of the ruling party Gervais Rufykir alongside the President of the National Assembly fled to Belgium both insinuating their advice to the President not to run for office. The aftermath of the election was still afflicted by more violence. Although the main opposition leader encouraged dialogue and cautioned against the use of violence, the chief of presidential security was assassinated, a human rights activist was shot, and a former leader of the military during the civil was also assassinated among other deaths of notable people seemingly targeted. Low intensity warfare persisted amidst the disappearance of people.
The government shut down the radio station and blocked instant messaging and social media sites, citing them as tools of mobilization. Restrictions were placed on press and citizen communication and tertiary institutions were shut down. President Nkurunziza described the protests as illegal and an uprising against the state.
The AU in an effort to quell the crisis was quick to condemn and intervene with a definite position against the political atmosphere in Burundi. Its Political Affairs Commissioner and Chair Person visited Burundi and asked the president to stick to the Arusha Accord and the Constitution.
The UN has also been actively involved in an attempt to broker peace between the Government, Opposition and Civil Societies. There have been three visits by the UN representatives, two by security councils and one by the Secretary General. With the presence of the AU, the UN attempted to go by its lead but the division within the AU makes it impossible. Dissensus in ways to handle the crisis within the UN also posed a problem for having a unified decision.
The EAC on its part has only stuck exclusively with its responsibility of Negotiating the crisis.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
The resolution of this crisis has reached a deadlock. The Government of Burundi has demonstrated that it is capable of resisting intervention on both continental and international levels. The AU as a supposed continental conflict resolution/management institution have been unable to adequately intervene not to mention resolve the conflict. The EAC which has been saddled with the responsibility of initiating and brokering negotiations with the Burundi Government have also been unable to do so effectively. Hence, there hasn’t been a wholesome approach towards managing the crisis. However, by the Burundis Government defiance against the threats of the AUC with regards to the deployment of the MAPROBU citing it as “an invasion and occupation force” it is exhibiting its own strategy for managing the crisis within. It has exhibited the mechanism of horse trading by replacing the issue at hand being the crisis with another issue i.e. a threat to its sovereignty. President Nkurunziza has been able to isolate Burundi off from the world, protect its boarders and wield more power over control of the crisis.
RECCOMENDATIONS
The effects caused by President Nkurunziza’s third term Presidency cannot be ignored. Lives have been lost and war crime allegations have been made. Moving forward, it is imperative that in order to protect lives and restore peace, law and order to Burundi, Negotiation channels will have to be reopened. To achieve this, the AU, UN and EAC would have to realign themselves, speak with one voice and coordinate approaches for effective Negotiations to commence. The lead of the EAC Negotiations, President Yusveni will need to be fully committed and take full responsibility of his role as lead Mediator, engage and actively foster a way forward by focusing on the task at hand and reigniting the Negotiation Process with the Government and Opposition engaging both in dialogue.
The AU should implement sanctions and disciplinary measures within its constitution against rebuttals of its principles by Governments/Leaders of member states so that it is taken seriously and define its guiding principles with clarity.
The AU and UN should also share data and analytical reports and put together a team of human rights watchers and observers to monitor and evaluate the situation in Burundi.
The Government should allow media and journalists do their job by so doing propagating information and also engage in dialogue with the Opposition.
The Opposition should also accord the Government the courtesy of engaging in dialogue and putting down their arms.
As a result of the contravention of the Arusha Agreement, the CNARED and the CNDD-FDD should revisit the accord to find ways to make it suitable for all groups.
The UN can also take measures in deploying nearby available troops with regards to urgency of need.
Also a lot of readjustment will have to be made within the AU in terms of policies and adequate funding.