IRIN Interview with Peace Process Minister Ambroise Niyonsaba

On 23 July, after two and a half years of negotiations, Burundi peace facilitator Nelson Mandela announced that agreement had been reached on the presidency and vice presidency for the first half of a three-year transition period, scheduled to start on 1 November. However, there is still no ceasefire in the civil war, attempts to negotiate with Hutu rebels outside the Arusha peace process have failed and the economy is in tatters, as the International Crisis Group (ICG) reported on Tuesday. Two apparent coup attempts in just over three months highlight divisions in the armed forces, and Tutsi extremists also threaten to derail attempts to build new institutions, ICG noted. Yet the Brussels-based think-tank maintained that, for the first time since 1993, there was a real chance for peace in Burundi. While the Arusha component of the country's peace process had come to a completion with the "fragile agreement" of Buyoya as leader of the first half of the transition period, the so-called Libreville process allowing armed groups to participate in the negotiation of a ceasefire is just starting, according to regional analyst Jan Van Eck. It was encouraging that "the armed groups are expressing a desire to meet", he said, adding that "a ceasefire is the most critical item needed." In light of the current cautious optimism for peace prospects and serious issues yet to be overcome, IRIN interviewed Burundi Peace Process Minister Ambroise Niyonsaba in the capital, Bujumbura. He spoke about the transitional period, negotiations with the rebel groups, the links between the Burundi and DRC conflicts, and the prospects for peace and economic recovery. QUESTION: There are divisions within the main Burundi rebel group, the CNDD-FDD [Conseil nationale pour la defense de la democratie-Forces pour la defense de la democratie]. How will that affect the peace process, notably the discussions on the ceasefire? ANSWER: We are not aware of misunderstandings within the CNDD-FDD. We still rely on the mediator [Nelson Mandela] in our efforts to get in contact with the movement and reach a ceasefire. If there are internal problems, then they will solve them themselves. Q: The rebels do not recognise the Arusha agreement and would like to negotiate directly with the government and the army. What exactly do they want to negotiate with you? A: We negotiated the Arusha peace agreement with most of the political parties. We were not able to negotiate with the [rebel] movements which were not in Arusha the ceasefire and the end of the war. These movements say they did not take part in the Arusha talks and have political claims to make. We are not opposed to that and our position is that we are ready to discuss anything they want. However, it is clear that none of the 19 partners who were in Arusha can unilaterally change measures which were agreed upon. Therefore, if there were any contradictions we would only be able to make progress after they have been discussed between all the participating parties. Soon there will be a transitional government based on the Arusha agreement. That government will represent all the signatories and will have the power to negotiate with the armed groups on anything. Q: If the first 18 months of the transitional period ended before a ceasefire was in place, would President Pierre Buyoya hand over power to Ndayizeye? [Buyoya will be assisted by Hutu Vice-President Domitien Ndayizeye for the first half of the three-year transition period, after which the roles are due to be reversed.] A: We have opted for a different move from your question. We believe that everybody would like to see the war end as soon as possible. Therefore, all the partners who will be part of the institutions should work for the end of the war. Without even taking into account the 18 months, Burundians have the right for peace as soon as possible. There is no reason for the war to continue. We shall work in that line. There are already signs that most of the main partners will work to that end, and there are chances that the war may end. We cannot build the country only on "if" [the war ends]. It is clear that if serious problems came up during the transitional period, the partners would solve them. I can't say how but they will have to solve them. Q: The local media said the government would be formed on 1 September. Will all the signatories be represented? A: It was said during the recent Arusha summit that the government should be formed by 1 November. We should do everything possible to ensure all the signatories are in the government. If anyone wants to stay out of it, it would have been on their own initiative since the plan is for everybody to participate in the government. Q: A Bujumbura newspaper has said that President Buyoya did not sign the document on "the guarantees and commitments of President Buyoya" which, most notably, says that he will end his functions at the end of the first transitional phase. How will that affect the implementation of the Arusha agreement? A: That newspaper lied. The president signed the document before [in full view of] everybody. There were important observers, heads of state and the mediator himself. That a small newspaper reports now that he did not sign is a big lie. Q: Some people here believe that the peace agreement offered progress for politicians but sacrificed the people since they continue to die. What is your comment on that? A: We are in a complex process. What we would have wished is part of the elementary logic: that we negotiate peace, stop violence and put in place a ceasefire so that the farmer, and citizens in general, go about their lives with security guarantees and the hope that human rights will be respected. That is what we would have wished to achieve. The government has always been in favour of that. All the partners did not see things that way. Armed groups did not react in favour of that. Now, we accepted the formula of the setting up of the transitional institutions with the hope and assurance from the other partners that they will work together in the search for peace. Therefore, we did not really sacrifice the people. We were under difficult circumstances and had to accept a path much longer than the one we would have wanted. Currently, all the partners who will take part in the institutions say they will work for peace. We hope matters will happen that way and we shall make sure it happens. Q: What is the next step in the search for the ceasefire and when will you officially meet the FNL [rebel Forces nationales pour la liberation]? A: We have established indirect contacts through South African Vice-President Jacob Zuma. A [Burundi] government delegation was in South Africa at the same time as the FNL's. They did not meet, but each side spoke to Vice-President Zuma, who is like the deputy of the mediator [Burundi peace mediator Nelson Mandela] on the question [of the ceasefire]. Besides the indirect contacts, the [Burundi] government has already written a letter to Vice-President Zuma asking that he organises - as soon as possible - a meeting between the two sides. Q: It is difficult to build peace in such a difficult economic situation. What are you doing to improve the country's financial situation in order to convince people that there is a real chance for peace? A: It is like the problem of the chicken and egg: can one start building a strong economy while there is war, or should one first end the war and build the economy afterwards? We are in a vicious circle. The country did not collapse despite the war. We can see clear signs that the people are still living: the teaching [in schools] continues; medical services continue to be rendered; construction continues in the country, in Bujumbura, Ngozi and other places. The continuation of these activities shows that, despite the problems, the economy is still surviving. The day the violence ends - and if the massive support promised by the donors in Paris last December is given - we shall really have a booming economy and an important recovery, and we shall be able to rebuild the country. The repatriation process is also an activity which will need a lot of reconstruction and could bring about an economic recovery. There are interesting economic prospects but we have to work hard to stop the war. I believe we have already done a lot in that line: We have solved the most important political issues behind the war. Currently, armed groups do not have a lot of political arguments because we have solved the most important matters. The claim that they were not involved in the Arusha talks is no longer valid because we are stretching our hands to them, telling them that we are ready to hold dialogue with them so as to stop the war and even find solutions for other related issues. Q: The government and some of its partners recently linked the resolution of the Burundi crisis to that of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Do you still hold the same views? A: It is clear that there is a relationship between having peace in Burundi and in the DRC since they are neighbours. Burundian armed groups are in the DRC and have been attacking Burundi from there. The relationship is obvious, no one can deny it. It is a reality. That aspect will have to be taken into account later in the peace process. One can say that the restoration of peace in the DRC would have a positive impact on Burundi, and that peace in Burundi will have a positive effect on the DRC. The relationship is obvious and all those who want peace should work on it. Q: Some parties in the international community have suggested holding a conference on the crisis in the Great Lakes. What do you think of that? A: I have heard about the idea. However, people should not think the mere holding of a conference is a solution. I think we should work out solutions in each country and after that bring together elements in a conference so as to harmonise them. But one should not expect miraculous solutions from a conference. We should have ideas on [possible] solutions, study the relationship between those questions and the problems of our neighbours, go to the conference with worked-out ideas - but not believe that a conference is the only solution.