SA's troops get thumbs up

Despite a few teething problems over the last six months, the South African "peacekeeping mission" in Burundi on Thursday was given a nod of approval from government officials and political analysts. The government last week announced that its 700-strong military outfit would remain in the country for a further six months, to protect exiled Hutu leaders returning home to take part in the transitional government. The interim government was inaugurated in November 2001 as part of efforts to end eight years of civil war between rebels from the majority Hutu ethnic group and the Tutsi-dominated government. Under an agreement mediated by former South African president Nelson Mandela, political power is to be shared between the ruling Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority. President Pierre Buyoya, a Tutsi, is to stay in power for 18 months with Domitien Ndayizeye, a Hutu, as his deputy, after which they will swap positions. A multiparty Burundian security force was supposed to provide protection for members of the transitional government, but the parties had not been able to agree on the composition of the unit. As a stopgap measure, South African soldiers were deployed in November last year to provide security for the transitional government. But despite the glowing report card and the good intentions behind the mission, the Burundi force has drawn domestic criticism about the level of preparedness and discipline of the troops. A South African soldier serving in Burundi was shot dead after a row broke out between members of the peacekeeping force in the capital, Bujumbura. An analyst on Burundian affairs, Jan Van Eck, told IRIN: "The criticism that the mission in Burundi was ill prepared or that the troops lack discipline is unsubstantiated in light of what the mission really is. It is important to note that this is not a peacekeeping mission but rather a protection mission." "The idea is totally unique to South Africa and one would be hard pressed to find the concept in any conflict resolution manual. So I am not quite sure what detractors of the mission are using as criteria to say that the troops were not prepared. Apart from a few unfortunate incidents, there is no evidence that suggests that the South Africans are incapable of performing their primary function." Van Eck added that it was a misconception that the battalion was sent to Burundi in order to restore peace to the country. He said: "The Burundi force is there to protect individuals and not to get involved in the conflict. If a ceasefire agreement is not found, there is an exit plan. The South African government will then have to decide if it wants to get involved militarily, and that involves enforcement troops and a new mandate." Another South African based analyst, from the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), pointed out that Mandela was successful in bringing together warring parties because "Burundians believed they owned the reconciliation process. For South Africa to get involved military would undo all of the hard work". South Africa has since 1994, been reticent to take on the regional peacekeeping role as many had expected it to do. The country's involvement in Burundi is seen as the most significant peace intervention since democracy. Head of the peacekeeping programme at a South African based think-tank, Kwezi Mngqibisa, said: "NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development) is as much about peace and stability as it is about good governance. By assuming a leading role that is credible, South Africa had to get its hands dirty, albeit to a limited extent." But South Africa's involvement on the continent has at times been received with scepticism. Allegations that the country has assumed a sub-imperial role is something Van Eck shrugged off as "inevitable because of the country's advanced economic system and perception that the country is a latecomer to continental politics". "It is no secret that peace in any country attracts investment and economic growth. South Africa has the economic wealth to pursue these opportunities. This does not mean that there is some hidden agenda," he said. Van Eck, who in the past voiced concern over the committment of rebel leaders to the peace process, had unreserved praise for the South African initiative. "Despite ongoing accusations from one of the major Burundian rebel groups that the mediation of South African Vice President Jacob Zuma favoured the government, and a number of groups viciously opposed to any foreign presence, there has not been a single incident of confrontation between the Burundians and the South Africans. If the South Africans were not welcome Burundians would make it very clear," Van Eck added. Meanwhile, the peace process in the country has stalled and the transitional government has yet to train local troops to protect their own leaders. Despite the installation of the government, fighting has been going on in parts of the country and resulted many deaths and the displacement of thousands. Fighting intensified between rebels and government troops on 11 March, in Bujumbura Rural Province, just outside the capital. Attempts to have delegations from the Burundi government and a rebel wing of the Forces for the Defence of Democracy (FDD) for talks in Pretoria, South Africa, flopped in April because many of the belligerents did not attend. The ongoing fighting has claimed more than 250,000 lives and has created thousands of refugees who have fled to neighbouring Tanzania. In February, the UN Security Council gave Burundi rebels "a final warning" to respect the peace process.