African Union cannot afford to fail in Burundi

There is no doubt that the rhetoric of sovereignty has been employed to hide atrocities and abuse of human rights.

Here in Kenya, it has been one of the key points in efforts to deflate the intervention of the International Criminal Court after the 2007/8 post-election violence, even though the Kenyan state did nothing to investigate and bring to book the perpetrators or undertake any meaningful national healing process.

Most treaties and other instruments of international law recognise the sovereignty of nation-states.

In a way, the proclamation of state sovereignty is the foundation of international law.

However, the tension between morally guided international law principles and realist/statist oriented notions of sovereignty persist.

And it is within this tension that the ongoing crisis in Burundi is now pitched.

As expected, Mr Pierre Nkurunziza has signalled that any deployment of African Union (AU) peacekeepers will go against the sovereignty of his country and amount to interference.

He has threatened to fight the AU force if it is deployed.

It is possible of course that Mr Nkurunziza craves an external “enemy” to help galvanise the Burundi population, hence the current rhetoric.

This is happening at a time when an insurgency against his regime seems to be taking shape and even as killings, especially of young men, blamed on the regime, continue in key Bujumbura suburbs.

The AU is now faced with the daunting task of deploying peacekeeping troops in a country where the regime has already declared such personnel an invading force.

LITMUS TEST

How the AU deals with this will determine the future of the vaunted but largely untested mantra of “African solutions to African problems”.

The dilemma the AU faces is underscored by attempts made last week by Commission Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to reassure the “born again” Nkurunziza that the AU mission was only aimed at bringing peace to Burundi and not to pursue any “other agenda”.

The legitimacy of the intervention is anchored in the Constitutive Act, which mandates the AU to intervene in situations such as Burundi’s.

The power to intervene in the “internal” affairs of states was indeed a key departure from the former OAU.

The historic mission of the OAU was decolonisation and safeguarding of African states against aggression within that context.

Both the Constitutive Act and the Peace and Security Protocol of the AU provide for such intervention.

Article Four of the Constitutive Act asserts the right of member states to intervene in case of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

These provisions are also borrowed by the Peace and Security Protocol.

MANDATORY SUCCESS

This should be read together with the provisions of the Non-Aggression and Common Defence Pact of 2005, which commits states to “prohibit and prevent genocide, other forms of mass murder, as well as crimes against humanity”.

The Peace and Security Council has made various decisions regarding situations of conflict.

The lessons it has learnt from Darfur, Somalia, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ivory Coast will be important in resolving the current dilemma.

Needless to say, failing in Burundi is not an option for the AU.

Source:Daily Nation:African Union cannot afford to fail in Burundi