Forty-three people killed – this is not Paris or Bujumbura, I am not there just yet. This is in Beirut where on Thursday, November 12, terrorists carried out twin suicide bombings in the Lebanese capital which left approximately 239 people injured. It was the deadliest attack of its kind since Lebanon’s civil war over two decades ago. 

24 hours later, in Paris, gunmen and suicide bombers hit multiple spots, including the usually heavily guarded Stade de France which was hosting a friendly football match between Les Bleus and Germany. And as dust settled, authorities confirmed that 129 people had died, while over 300 others were injured, with some sustaining life-threatening injuries.

Attacks of this nature require us to show solidarity with all those affected by the dreadful events whether in Beirut, Paris, or elsewhere. More importantly, tragic events galvanise humanity to come together to challenge acts of evil. In particular, the media plays a crucial role in conveying a message of how humanity can unite and defeat evil. This unity is normally crucial at the time of recovery because in many ways it can and usually does influence the course of action against those who are responsible for the atrocities.   

Sadly, however, increasingly, there has been a serious case of inconsistency on the part of the media in the way they choose to cover some tragic events. For instance, when you consider the two terror events in Beirut and Paris this week, you will notice that while the events in Paris received round-the-clock coverage, similar events in Beirut only 24 hours earlier were hardly mentioned. Even when they were, some headlines were so biased that even The New York Times, for instance, found itself on the receiving end of some well deserved criticism after its headline referred to the attacked neighbourhood in Beirut as a ‘Hezbollah stronghold’. The publisher changed their headline three times.

On social media, the bias was there for everyone to see. In fact, Facebook epitomised this bias after activating its Safety Check tool for Parisians to confirm their safety, an option that wasn’t afforded to people in Beirut only 24 hours earlier. Likewise, in another move to gather public sympathy for the French people, the social media giant encouraged millions of its users to change their profile pictures temporarily to red, white, and blue stripes, as a gesture of solidarity with France.

While this is a noble move, you would be hard pressed to argue against those who conclude that Facebook’s actions are representative of a selective-sympathy approach by Western media whereby it appears as if Western lives are more important than other lives. No one comprehends this type of treatment more than Rwandans do – victims and survivors of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi were left out to dry as they waited endlessly for the international community to intervene.

Nevertheless, if it is clear that the international media is too selective to value a Western life on par with the rest of us, what are we doing to make sure that we shine a light on places such as Burundi that are not so lucky to attract round-the-clock international media coverage which, in many ways, can trigger global solidarity as well as convince global movers and shakers into action?

For instance, for months now, Burundi has been embroiled in acts of violence which have left hundreds of people dead, including men, women, and children. Many others have fled to neighbouring countries, including Rwanda.

But, unlike in Paris or Beirut where the killings are believed to be the evil acts of terrorism, in Burundi, the killings are thought to be orchestrated reprisals carried out by militias against those who have disagreed in the past, or continue to disagree with President Pierre Nkurunziza’s third term in office.

In many ways, considering the lawlessness in the country since the beginning of this year, it is reasonable to assume that the Burundian government has failed to protect its citizens, including bringing to justice those who harm them. Will institutions such as the United Nations or the African Union act swiftly to intervene? While your guess is as good as mine, so far, the only form of action to emerge has been nothing more than sanction related rhetoric, as well as warning statements issued here and there.

Similarly, while I acknowledge the principle of state sovereignty, I am inclined to advocate that leaders, particularly African leaders, should publicly condemn the ongoing killing of civilians in Burundi, and also criticize the government for failing to hold anyone accountable for the ongoing atrocities. And while that happens, our leaders should also galvanise peaceful means of swift intervention.

To my knowledge, only President Paul Kagame has spoken out publicly against the ongoing violence in Burundi, which begs the question; if our leaders are part of the African Union’s leadership apex, which is tasked in part to promote peace, security, and stability on the continent, where are the rest of them at a time when they ought to stand up and be counted?

Or should we simply get used to our leaders rushing to Paris, as some of them did last January, to march in solidarity with the French people while their own backyard is on fire as if to validate the bigotry mindset that Western lives are more important than African lives?

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk