[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7573-S7574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 IS BURUNDI THE NEXT RWANDA? NEED FOR A STRONG UNITED NATIONS RESPONSE

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we all witnessed from afar the 
horrors perpetrated in Rwanda a year ago when mostly Hutus massacred an 
estimated half million Tutsis. Just this past month, there was renewed 
violence in that country, including the deaths of Hutus implicated in 
the genocide. I believe many of the deaths in Rwanda during the past 
year could have been prevented if the international community had acted 
sooner to protect the thousands of innocent civilians who were 
mercilessly slaughtered.
  Today, a similar situation is brewing in Rwanda's neighboring 
country, Burundi, where hatred and violence between Hutus and Tutsis 
over the past several years has intensified and caused tremendous 
turmoil and death. We regularly receive reports of killings of dozens, 
hundreds, even thousands of innocent men, women and children. Once 
again, we face the difficult question of how to respond.
  After the catastrophe in Rwanda, inaction now by the international 
community would amount to nothing less than an assurance to people 
anywhere who would commit genocide that they need not fear being held 
to account.
  Mr. President, the Central African country of Burundi has a history 
of ethnic tensions. However, the tensions between the two ethnic 
groups, Hutu and Tutsi, has more to do with economic status than 
ethnicity. While the Hutus represent 85 percent of the population, they 
are primarily impoverished, subsistence farmers. The wealthier, 
minority Tutsis, raise cattle.
  Tensions intensified during German, and later Belgian colonialism. 
These Western powers allied themselves with the more European-like 
Tutsis to help manage the colonial government, fortifying Tutsi power. 
Since Burundi's independence in 1962, the Tutsis have maintained 
control of the country's wealth, politics, and the military, creating 
friction between Hutus and Tutsis. These tensions have been used 
periodically by extremist elements to divide Burundis, causing violent 
eruptions that pit the two ethnic groups against each other.
  In 1993, the assassination of the first democratically elected 
President, Melchior Ndadaye, a Hutu, plunged the country into chaos. 
Hutus seeking revenge for the assassination ignited a cycle of 
violence. During the 10-month period following the assassination, 
nearly 50,000 Burundis were slaughtered, and the Tutsi-dominated 
military seized power. The slaughter has bred intensified distrust and 
fear, and further violence on a similar scale is a real possibility.
  The President was murdered by Tutsi military extremists who refused 
to accept the election results. They also were angered by Ndadaye's 
sensible policy of balancing Hutus with Tutsis in the military. The 
brewing unrest in Rwanda further contributed to the Burundi Tutsis' 
fear of losing their identity and power, and led to the coup. The army 
has propped up Tutsi power in the recent past, and is a key element in 
deciding Burundi's future. The army is now acting as a de facto 
government and is becoming increasingly politicized and radicalized.
  Extremists on both sides are using the ethnicity card to spread fear 
and distrust and consolidate their power, making reconciliation more 
difficult. Former Texas Senator Robert Krueger, now the U.S. 
ambassador, says Burundi is the most fearful society he has ever 
witnessed.
  The trouble is not limited to Burundi alone. The conflict is a 
regional crisis. The renewed violence in Rwanda, which we thought was 
behind us, is spilling over into Burundi, Zaire and Tanzania, which are 
flooded with refugees. Recently, 70,000 Rwandan refugees and displaced 
Burundi civilians fled to the borders of Tanzania. Tanzania, already 
overwhelmed with refugees and displaced persons, closed its borders. 
Because of the international community's tenuous support, the Tanzanian 
Government feels it cannot handle the new influx of refugees without 
more help. Ngara, across the border from Tanzania, is now home to 
450,000 refugees, more than double the local Tanzanian population. 
These camps area a humanitarian nightmare, with disease, massacres and 
riots a constant threat.
  Delays of aid by some donor countries are causing refugee unrest and 
accusations that the reduced rations are part of a conspiracy by the 
United Nations and other relief organizations. This type of paranoia is 
fueling the hardliners' efforts to spread fear and destabilize the 
country. Even the Central African governments are becoming impatient 
with the donor community. Citing last year's failure of the 
international community to stop the Rwandan genocide, some have 
suggested scaling back the UN presence in Rwanda. Millions of Central 
Africans displaced by the violence depend on this assistance. The 
recent seizure of World Food Program trucks headed for Rwandan refugee 
camps in Burundi illustrate how serious the situation has become.
  Despite the sickening brutality, the situation in Burundi is not 
hopeless. Although little public attention has been given to the 
frightening developments there, the administration and many 
humanitarian groups are working to encourage preventive measures to 
deter another calamity. It is imperative that the United States turn 
its full attention to Burundi, facilitating strategies to prevent 
genocide and regional instability.
  Ambassador Krueger deserves great praise for reporting the 
atrocities, at considerable risk to his own safety. The world needs to 
know the truth about what is happening. We must also
 promote a sense of hope, confidence, and the possibility for 
overcoming the fear that threatens to explode into a spiral of 
violence. The atrocities must be exposed, but we must also put our 
energies into developing preventive and rehabilitative strategies, to 
counter the extremists and defuse tensions, and move beyond a short-
term relief mentality. The Africans must be centrally involved in this 
process.

  Efforts to support and reassure moderate elements in Burundi is 
essential. The U.N.'s Special Representative Ould-Abdallah is calling 
for strengthening the nationwide reconciliation campaign launched a few 
weeks ago. Moderates including the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet 
Members, Members of Congress, and party leaders are all actively 
involved in this campaign. We need to give these leaders political, 
moral and financial support. [[Page S7574]] Visits to the region by top 
U.S. officials are a good start. Party leaders have already denounced 
extremists in their parties.
  These efforts at strengthening reconciliation will help focus the 
peoples' attention on the national debate set to take place in June or 
July. The debate is an open forum to address the complex issues of 
promoting and sustaining Burundi's democratic process and government. 
The National Debate has already begun with the establishment of its 
Technical Committee. Our strong, visible support for this forum will 
help discourage and deter the extremists and their hate press from 
inciting violence and gaining credibility.
  We must continue to support the creation of a judicial commission to 
prosecute human rights violators. We need to help ensure that the army 
and others are accountable for their actions. We must strongly condemn 
all violence and assassinations.
  We must also support the private voluntary organizations that are 
doing the lion's share of delivering relief aid. These groups need 
sufficient personnel, funding and political support to continue their 
work. Groups such as Parliamentarians for Global Action have helped to 
facilitate dialogue and begun the reconciliation process. Refugees 
International has done a tremendous job in focusing public attention on 
the crisis in Central Africa.
  Mr. President, ever since former President Bush spoke of a new world 
order, the world has been anything but orderly. The threat of Communism 
has been replaced by shockingly brutal, ethnic conflicts that threaten 
to spread in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Africa and 
elsewhere. In every case, innocent civilians bear the brunt of the 
violence.
  The international community faces a profound, moral choice, in a 
world in which future man-made catastrophes are inevitable. Preventive 
measures are always preferable. But if they fail, and the violence in 
Burundi takes on the character and magnitude of what we witnessed in 
Rwanda, what will our answer be? Will we
 stand by in the face of genocide, or will we act to try to stop it? 
Will we watch passively and cast blame after the blood stops flowing, 
or will we and others intervene to save innocent lives?

  After Somalia, there is no enthusiasm in the Congress for sending 
large numbers of American troops into the midst of a bloody conflict in 
Africa or anywhere else, where U.S. national security interests are not 
obviously threatened. On the other hand, to do nothing is to invite 
genocide. That is also unacceptable. Our security is our interest. But 
genocide is everybody's interest, wherever it occurs.
  Mr. President, I believe the Rwanda experience compels us to respond 
differently to future crises of this sort, whether in Burundi or 
elsewhere. In Rwanda, 5 months after receiving a mandate to act, the 
U.N. still had no budget, no equipment, no humanitarian coordinator, no 
political strategy, and no logistical capability to rapidly deploy and 
sustain a peacekeeping force. As in past peacekeeping operations, the 
U.N. started from scratch. An estimated $200 million was needed, but 
only a fraction of that was raised. In the meantime, hundreds of 
thousands of people were slaughtered, and the international community 
is now spending hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to feed 
and care for refugees, and to deal with the myriad of difficult 
problems Rwanda faces in the wake of the genocide. Not until the 
arrival of a small contingent of well-armed French troops, did the 
mayhem wane.
  Peacekeeping, or some combination of peacekeeping and peacemaking, 
which in Rwanda-like situations I would prefer to call peacekeeping 
with muscle, could not only have saved thousands of innocent Rwandan 
lives, it could also have saved money. These should be our goals in the 
future.
  To that end, the United States should vigorously seek international 
support for establishing a properly trained, fully equipped, U.N. force 
that can be deployed quickly to provide protection to civilians in 
Rwanda-like crises. The U.N. is the only overtly neutral organization 
that can fulfill this responsibility. I am not talking about a standing 
army, but rather small contingents of troops from a wide range of U.N. 
member states, specially trained, coordinated and equipped and ready to 
assemble quickly to respond with overwhelming force in humanitarian 
emergencies.
  The role of such a force would not be nation-building. That is not 
the work of armies. Its mission would be humanitarian and deterrence. 
By preventing those who would slaughter thousands of innocent people 
from access to the targets of their hatred, and by offering those who 
might be coerced into taking part in genocide a safe haven if they 
refuse, tensions can be defused and crises averted.
  The U.N. Secretary General should have sufficient funds at his 
disposal to support the early deployment of such a force. It should be 
further buttressed with a U.N. media capability to publicize its 
activities, and to counter the kinds of inflammatory radio broadcasts 
that incited Hutus to commit genocide in Rwanda.
  The United States should be prepared to contribute its equipment, and 
even its troops to participate in such a force, although I believe it 
is preferable if the troops of the major powers are used in these 
situations only as a last resort. Nevertheless, there are financial 
costs and human risks involved, and the United States has an 
obligation, as the most powerful country, to do its part. That is the 
price of world leadership.
  Mr. President, I am not the first to suggest the establishment of 
such a U.N. capability. It is not peacekeeping. It is not peacemaking. 
It is life saving. And it is urgently needed in today's violent, post 
cold war world.


                          ____________________