By Cornell Overfield
While the Syrian civil war, Russo-American standoff, and the bare-fisted brawl that is the American presidential campaign grab headlines, many of the world's other conflicts are unable to garner much attention in the press. One such strife-stricken state is Burundi, the less infamous, but equally riven cousin of Rwanda.
The 1994 genocide in Rwanda shocked the world, but it was hardly the first expression of ethnic violence to further political aims in either Rwanda or Burundi. Both nations have a Hutu majority and a Tutsi minority, and a history of recurring ethnic strife dating back to their independences in 1962. In 1993, Burundi descended into an ethnically defined civil war, which saw Tutsi's targeted in the country's second genocide (the first having occurred in 1972 when Hutus were targeted by a Tutsi military government), which fueled the explosion of violence that would wrack Rwanda the next year. While Rwanda's spasm of self-destruction ended swiftly, the Burundian civil war smoldered on until 2003, when more than a dozen warring factions formed a unity. In 2005, the government approved a new constitution, that de jure limited presidents to serving two five year terms.
Under the new constitution, in 2005, Pierre Nkurunziza was elected president of Burundi, and, in 2010, he won reelection. However, in late April of 2015, his ruling party, the National Council for the Defense of Democracy, announced that he would be the party's candidate for the 2015 election. Opposition parties protested and challenged the constitutionality of the move, while Secretary of State John Kerry said that seeking a third term flew “directly in the face of the constitution”. Nevertheless, a shrunken Constitutional Court ruled in favor of Nkurunziza, though it’s likely that intimidation, including death threats, influenced the May 5 ruling.
The announcement and subsequent ruling incensed the opposition, and protests broke out in Bujumbura, while the government was quick to call the protestors criminals and terrorists. On May 13, the military launched a coup that collapsed within a day due to a lack of support. Since then, low level violence has persisted, including a battle on December 11 in Bujumbura that left almost 100 dead. The Nkurunziza government has grown increasingly hostile to outside attempts to mediate or monitor the crisis, vehemently rejecting the African Union’s offer to supply peacekeepers. Similarly, the United Nations has been made unwelcome after a report noted human rights violations and possible crimes against humanity. Last week, Burundi announced that they would withdraw from the International Criminal Court. This move came in the wake of rumors that President Nkurunziza would be brought to trial at the ICC.
Political disputes and persistent violence in tiny Burundi is certainly not near the top, or even on the first page of any American president's to-do list. Nevertheless, American interests are threatened by both what has already occurred and what this unrest may easily devolve into. The UN estimates that, by the end of 2015, over 200,000 Burundian refugees had fled to Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Rwanda, and that number would soon grow to exceed 300,000. In past Rwandan-Burundian crises, refugees have proven a destabilizing force in the region, especially in the DRC, while civil conflicts have often become internationalized as other states in the region support favored factions. The East African Community was quick to convene a summit, but talks quickly stalled, and there has been little apparent interest on the part of Ugandan and Tanzanian leaders to reignite the search for a non-violent situation.
There are, however, actions that the American government can take to signal that the Burundian government’s repressions and violence are unacceptable. In fiscal year 2016, the State Department requested $0.4 million for International Military and Education Training for activities in Burundi. While the funds are aimed at professionalizing the Burundian military, they should be withheld as long as the military is used as a political tool against citizens. Furthermore, Burundi is a significant contributor to the AU's AIMSOM mission to combat Al-Shabab and conduct peacekeeping activities in Somalia. The exact uses and quantities of the State Department Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funds (distributed by the State and Defense Departments) are unclear, but cutting PKO funding used to support Burundi’s domestic initiatives would also be appropriate. Finally, our European allies contribute a significant sum to the AIMSOM budget, but this mission is set to expire in 2020, and Kenya has already signaled that they may withdraw earlier if funding gaps are not filled. While the mission persists, it would be contrary to American interests in a stable Somalia to have battalions of unpaid or under-trained Burundian soldiers. However, this training – necessary to conduct peacekeeping and counter-terror operations – can easily be applied to the suppression of protests at home. The State Department should thus encourage our European and African partners involved in AIMSOM to restructure the way in which the organization’s funds are used. Any training Burundian soldiers receive prior to deployment in Somalia could be conducted in another country, say Tanzania or Kenya, ensuring that skills learned could not be turned against the people of Burundi for at least 12 to 18 months. In the same vein, AIMSOM could cut funding and payments to Burundi that are not intended to help Somalia or to outfit soldiers currently deployed in Somalia. Likewise, this would aid in ensuring that European funds were not being used to finance political repression in Burundi.
The situation in Africa’s Great Lakes region pose significant challenges to democracy, rule of law and human rights. While the prospect of greater American involvement in brokering a peace is slim, it is possible to promote a non-violent solution to Burundi's latest crisis. The State Department should continue to highlight the deplorable actions of the government, as well as encourage leaders regional and African leaders to push for dialogue over violence, while also ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to violate governance and human rights norms.
Cornell Overfield is a junior at UPenn majoring in International Relations and History and minoring in Economics.
