South Africa’s involvement in humanitarian assistance in Africa is still under discussion, reports Stefaans BrUmmer
THE Ministry of Foreign Affairs this week gave mixed signals whether South Africa would consider contributing troops to a multi-national peace force for Burundi.
Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad appeared to contradict President Nelson Mandela this week when he told the Mail & Guardian South Africa would study requests for troops in multi-national peace operations “on a case-by-case basis”, but that “we have not ruled out troops in this case”.
The worsening civil war in the tiny Central African country has highlighted South Africa’s dilemma — and apparent differences in government thinking — over what role to play in peace operations on the continent.
Humanitarian organisations have warned for months that Burundi is inching towards the fate of neighbouring Rwanda, where at least 500 000 people, mostly Tutsis, were slaughtered in 1993 by Hutu extremists. Both countries have the same ethnic make-up: about 85% Hutu and 14% Tutsi. Over 100 000 Burundians, mostly civilian, have died in three years of instability.
Three months ago the United Nations (UN), much lambasted for its non-response to the Rwanda genocide, started mooting military intervention in Burundi, followed by similar discussions in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
Mandela quashed hopes of active involvement in such a force on the eve of his visit to Britain, when he told foreign correspondents: “We have been approached by the UN but we have to be very cautious about our background where our army destabilised the neighbouring countries … We are prepared to supply humanitarian assistance … but the military, I will resist that.”
But Pahad told the Mail & Guardian: “Personally I don’t think we should harp too much on our past. I don’t think we must ignore it, but it must not be a key factor in determining when we get involved, especially in relation to sending troops.”
He said South Africa was one of 21 countries invited by the UN about three months ago to discuss multi- national intervention in Burundi under the UN Mandate Chapter VII, which authorises peace enforcement to prevent genocide. Peace enforcement, unlike peacekeeping, does not require the consent of warring parties and increases the danger of exposure to enemy fire.
Pahad said South Africa disagreed with the UN proposal, feeling any peace operation needed the support of Burundians, “otherwise we have a situation like Somalia [where the United States peace enforcement operation of 1992/1993 collapsed after casualties among soldiers]”.
But he said “in principle South Africa cannot reject involvement” in Burundi because of its obligations to the UN, the OAU and SADC.
Later, he told SAfm radio: “We don’t think it is right yet in terms of [the SANDF’s] experience to send troops… At the moment we are not looking at troops.”
Pressed for an explanation on the apparent difference to what he had earlier told the Mail & Guardian, he would only say: “In principle we have not ruled out the participation of South African National Defence Force (SANDF) troops in peacekeeping operations. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
Pahad’s apparent contradiction of Mandela mirrors divergent statements last year when Mandela called for oil sanctions against Nigeria from the Commonwealth heads-of-state summit in New Zealand. Pahad, addressing an almost simultaneous media briefing in Pretoria, said he could envisage no more than minor sanctions.
Meanwhile, calls for decisive action in Burundi intensified this week. Kathi Austin, policy adviser of EarthAction, an international network of more than 1 500 peace, justice and environmental organisations, argued that “only robust international intervention can save Burundians from a further bloodbath” — and that the UN had no choice under Chapter VII but to intervene.
An East African summit under the auspices of the OAU, led by Tanzanian elder statesman Julius Nyerere, last month elicited a request from Burundi’s Hutu President Sylvestre Ntibantuganya and Tutsi Prime Minister Antoine Nduwayo for an African peacekeeping force. But a technical team to work out the details was refused entry, and now elements of the Tutsi-controlled army — responsible for much of the violence — has backtracked on the request. Now Nyerere has threatened an “invasion” of Burundi by East African troops (see story on page 17).
Both the OAU summit in Cameroon earlier this month, and an SADC summit in Gaborone a fortnight ago, backed the call for a peace operation.
While the US and the UN have made it clear they want South Africa to contribute to peace operations on the continent, South Africa has steered clear of the potentially awkward decision. Factors counting against it include concerns over South African dominance of the region and questions whether the SANDF integration process has progressed far enough.
Greg Mills, the national director of the South African Institute of International Affairs, pointed out that almost two-thirds of respondents in a poll last year favoured peace operations, but cautioned that South Africa will expose itself to a situation “like the US in Somalia” — especially acute if there is no clear distinction between “the good guys and the bad guys”.