As is well known, the current state of volatility in Burundi was fairly and squarely sparked off by President Pierre Nkurunziza’s run for a controversial third term in office. The crisis that followed has been characterized by senseless killings, torture and unwarranted imprisonments of those who vehemently opposed President Nkurunziza’s run for a disputed third term. Since then, no let up on targeting those who are averse to the incumbent president. To make matters worse, for example, a week ago, at least 13 people were killed in Burundi’s capital, including nine shot at a bar, as President Pierre Nkurunziza’s deadline for opponents to disarm lapsed. As such, a question one can ask, how many people must die for the international community to intervene? This question remains, however, unanswered. Since the chaos started in Burundi, the EAC regional leaders assigned the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni to lead the negotiations between President Nkurunziza and opposition groups but negotiations had little headway, or reached an impasse if you like. In fact, as the situation unfolds, the future remains fluid. What is the AU or the UN doing to save the innocent people who are, day by day, killed indiscriminately? It is quite unfortunate to see that international community, as ever, is merely spectating without action. The 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda is a striking lesson where people were killed indiscriminately and, more sadly, perpetrators would go unpunished until it culminated in a full genocide. What is happening in Burundi today resembles more or less what happened at the embryonic stage of the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda. It is indeed unfortunate that, at the AU level, nothing, at all, has been endeavoured to resolve the Burundi crisis. AU simply paid lip service by declaring its support to the EAC regional efforts to resolve the situation. Such inaction doesn’t reflect AU’s obligation under its own Constitutive Act, which provides for intervention inside AU member states against genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This is a cosmopolitan ideal of protecting people inside states against mass atrocities as a matter of common obligation. The unanimous adoption of the AU’s right to intervention is a deviation from longstanding strict adherence to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention by African states. AU ought to take a tough action as it did for the Burkina Faso crisis until the coup leaders returned the interim government to power. As a matter of principle, a state shoulders the primary responsibility to prevent and protect its own citizens against horrific acts, but if it is unable or unwilling to prevent and protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the responsibility is thus shifted to the international community. And this can, however, be discharged either as a collective action or through regional agency or arrangement. Nonetheless, any such action must have a carte blanche of the UN Security Council. Likewise, the United Nations hasn’t done the merest gimmick to the raging crisis in Burundi. Most recently, the United Nations celebrated its 70th anniversary. This was a momentous occasion, by UN Member states, to look back on its achievements, inadequacies and failures in maintenance of international peace and security as the principal mandate of the organization. In considering the UN Charter’s first and most essential aim is to “maintain international peace and security”. However, when the UN was first created, it was an enormous undertaking based on hope. The most immediate motivation for the creation of the UN was to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, just the kind of war in which Allied powers were then embroiled, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights which were being so fragrantly and brutally violated by the axis powers. Today, one critical question on everyone’s lips is whether the United Nations is living up to its mandate, more particularly, of maintaining international peace and security. If one takes a closer look around the world, there are many appalling crises in which UN has been reluctant to act apart from symbolically condemning them but short of action (commonly known as ‘all bark and no bite’). Thus, it is perplexing to figure out the responsibility of the UN, amid ongoing crises in Burundi, Syria, Yemen to name but a few. Nevertheless, it is not too late to act. For Burundi crisis, two ways can be helpful in restoring peace and stability. First, either through at the AU level, or at the UN level, to designate a special mediator, accepted by both the current regime and opposition parties, to mediate on forming an inclusive government in which the views and needs of parties are fairly represented. Second, if it deems appropriate, the UN Security Council can authorize deploying a UN Peacekeeping operation as it did in the Central African Republic (CAR) or South Sudan or elsewhere. Fred K. NKUSI is a lecturer and international law expert frednkusi88@gmail.com
