BURUNDI: Litmus Test For African Union's Intervention Policy

Post Rwanda 1994 genocide; the world said never again!

The creation of the position of a UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide directly under the United Nations Secretary-General was like a watchdog for immediate decisive action.

But, barely 10 years later, the Janjaweed, ruthless horse riding Arab militias, god-fathered by the Sudanese Government of Omar El Bashir, virtually ethnic cleansed over 200,000 black Sudanese in the Darfur region of Sudan, where, apparently, the colour of a man's skin is passport to heaven or to hell!

The usual bickering and swashbuckling began as to whether Bashir and his partners in crime in Government should be held to account, whether the said atrocious acts amounted to genocide, and why only African leaders are being scape-goated by the international community or what Kingsley Moghalu terms 'society of States.'

Fortunately or unfortunately, Darfur came to the fore when the International Criminal Court, ICC, had already taken form, shape and content with an African as chief prosecutor to boot.

However, while the African Union, AU,) under Jean Ping, spent time fuming over the victimisation of African leaders by the international court, Darfuris were being slaughtered under the watch of Bashir and the AU.

It is one thing crying victimisation of potentates who voluntarily signed up to the ICC treaty, and another witnessing the quasi-extermination or slaughter of peoples by irresponsible regimes. Back then, the AU (not a unanimous decision though) seemingly opted for the former and thus all but cautioned dictators and dictatorship in Africa!

This partially explains Bashir's fugitive-like status when he dares move out of Khartoum! Thanks to a last-minute stratagem by the South African Government, he was almost picked up in South Africa during the 2015 AU summit in Johannesburg.

The AU gave the impression that it speaks with both sides of its mouth! It brought back memories of the Organisation of African Unity’s ‘siddon look’ attitude faced with atrocities committed by African leaders, against their people, such as Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Macias Nguema of Equatorial Guinea, Hissene Habre of Chad, Omar El Bashir of Sudan and a host of others.

Recently, when certain key political actors in Burundi decided to torpedo the 2000 Arusha Accords with the attendant attempted unconstitutional overthrow of President Pierre Nkurunziza and the consequent bloodbath (an avant gout to an impending genocide), the AU, acted decisively by evoking Article 4 of its Constitutive Act:

- "(h) the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, [as well as a serious threat to legitimate order to restore peace and stability to the Member State of the Union upon the recommendation of the Peace and Security Council (amendment adopted in 2003)]"; and

- "(j) the right of Member States to request intervention from the Union in order to restore peace and security."

What are the ingredients that warrant the ‘right’ or ‘duty’ of military intervention in Burundi by the African Union? Article 4 (h) of the AU Constitutive Act provides for “grave circumstances” and “serious threat to legitimate order to restore peace and stability.”

It enumerates the grave circumstances i.e. war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

So far, Burundi has not met the first three criteria but it faces ‘a serious threat to legitimate order to restore peace and stability’ for this that over 200,000 Burundians have fled to neighbouring DR Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda due to insecurity occasioned by the flouting of the 2000 Arusha Accords and the Burundian Constitution by President Nkuruzinza and his acolytes, a botched coup d’état of May 13, 2015, wanton killings and arbitrary arrests, large-scale violence and repression, a divided army, risk of a Hutu-Tutsi confrontation, formation of a rebel group, Forces Républicaines du Burundi (FOREBU) that launches incursions into Burundi as well as failure to resume talks by actors in the conflict on January 6, 2016 in Arusha, Tanzania, despite threats by the AU Commission President, Nkuzizana Dlamini Zuma, to sanction those who compromise dialogue and refuse to respond to the invitation of the mediator.

All these in a sense constitute ‘conscience shocking situations’ since thousands of Burundian refugees are ‘exposed to starvation’, epidemics and there is the likelihood that the country might slide into a civil war.

For the first time the AU is sending a strong message via its Peace and Security Council by creating in mid-December 2015, a-5000-man-strong African Prevention and Protection Mission for Burundi (MPAROBU).

Though MPAROBU boots are not yet on the ground in Burundi due to procedural and technical hitches within the AU system as well as resistance from the Burundian government that views the deployment of AU troops as an act of invasion and aggression, it is an indicator of the AU’s determination according to Ben Kioko in THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION UNDER THE AFRICAN UNION’S CONSTITUTIVE ACT: FROM NON-INTERFERENCE TO NON-INTERVENTION (2003) for “all member States of the Union to observe certain fundamental values and standards, including respect for human rights, democratic governance, and the condemnation of unconstitutional changes of governments.”