Nearly a fortnight ago, the UN Security Council diplomats travelled to Burundi and met with Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza and other senior government officials, for the purpose of finding a lasting solution to the current political turmoil that is characterised by cases of extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment, arbitrary arrests, illegal detentions, harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and journalists. The UNSC delegation exhorted all parties to pursue an inclusive dialogue process that would help end months of political turmoil.

A question can, however, be asked: how many times will the UNSC ask the antagonistic parties to engage in inclusive dialogue? This is too much of lip service! This is not the first time the UNSC has condemned, in the strongest words possible, the appalling situation in Burundi but without action. For example, the UN Security Council, in its resolution 2248(2015), strongly condemned the Burundi crisis and considered a possible extension of MONUSCO’s mandate to halt humanitarian catastrophe there, but no action was ever taken. 

In the closing days of last year, AU authorised the deployment of an African Union peacekeeping mission, known as ‘African Prevention and Protection Mission in Burundi (MAPROBU)’, and, as ever, UN Security Council hugely supported that endeavour but when Burundi rejected the move (as it claimed that it violates its sovereignty), the UN Security turned a deaf ear. Turning to the AU particularly, generally speaking, it hasn’t asserted its authority as contained in its statutory framework. There are possible measures that could be taken at AU level, including threatening to impose economic sanctions, in any event political dialogue would fail. At this point in time, one would say AU has been persistently reluctant to take any tough action about Burundi crisis. Considering the reaction of AU following the military coup in Burkina Faso, where it stood up in ‘one voice’ and demanded coup plotters to restore the civilian rule until it so happened. So, why not do the same to Burundi?

In the same UNSC 2248(2015), UN Security Council had similarly supported mediation efforts led by President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda on behalf of the East African Community (EAC) which subsequently turned out to be fruitless, but no more action was ever taken at the UN level. At the EAC level, it seems member states are obsessed with their own internal matters, hence unwilling to interfere in matters of another country. In fact, EAC member states are not in a better position to work out the situation in Burundi. Rwanda, for example, is at loggerheads with Burundi, where Burundi accuses Rwanda of fomenting what’s going on there, as a result Rwanda would be unwilling to play any mediatory role. For Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni who was leading mediation effort on behalf of the EAC is very much dived in election campaigns. Besides, the opposition group in Burundi, at one point, disregarded Ugandan President that he’s not the right person to lead mediation due to his overstay in power (not setting the right example). For Tanzania, ever since President John Pombe Magufuli ascended to power, he’s squarely committed to fixing things going wrong internally. Seemingly, he’s not interested to hearken to Burundi issues as his predecessor did. Kenya alone can hardly afford to deal with Burundi crisis due to lukewarm support from other partner states.

Interestingly, if Burundi says ‘no interference to internal matters’, obviously the regional powers would be undercut. Though Burundi can likewise use the same language (no interference to our internal matter) to the UN Security Council, it may not be absolute, and can never have the same impact as it may have to regional powers.

UN Security Council is vested with powers, under compelling circumstances that pose threat to international peace and security, to take measures against a certain state, regardless of its will, if it breaches international law.

Here, I want to underscore that UNSC is in a better position to resolve the Burundi political turmoil because it has, at its disposal, authority to take appropriate measures deemed necessary depending on the nature of the crisis. It can take binding measures on Burundi situation by authorising a peacekeeping mission, especially the one initiated by AU abbreviated as MAPROBU. Alternatively, UNSC can appoint a new mediator who is accepted by both Government and the opposition to pursue the path of political dialogue that will lead to formation of an inclusive government. UNSC’s exhorting all parties to pursue an inclusive dialogue process isn’t enough at all; significant support is highly needed to get political process through.

Since all regional avenues have apparently been fruitless, this is the eleventh hour for UN Security Council to take action that can yield a sustainable solution. The reluctance to take action bespeaks the division between UN Security Council members over the issue. There’s no doubt that UNSC members are not knowledgeable of what’s happening in Burundi. There’s no point for lack of political will to react. This is a critical moment to show empathy to the appalling situation Burundians face.

The writer is a lecturer and international law expert.