Burundi, 2000

On

behalf of the Burundi delegation and on my own

behalf, I first congratulate you warmly, Sir, on your

election to lead the work of the current session. Your

election is an honour and a sign of the great esteem in

which the United Nations family holds you and your

country, Finland, which maintains friendly, cooperative

relations with Burundi.

I would further like to pay a well deserved tribute

to your predecessor, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Minister

for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Namibia, who

masterfully led the work of the previous session. We

particularly appreciated his competence, dedication and

high level of commitment to successfully fulfilling his

mandate.

I also salute the dynamic and innovative work of

Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, to achieve

peace, security and development throughout the world.

My delegation greatly appreciates his report, “We the

peoples: the role of the United Nations in the twentyfirst century”, which undertakes a painstaking and

uncompromising analysis of the great challenges of

these times and proposes an approach to overcoming

them so that it will be possible to live in a world free

from want and fear, in a world that meets our

aspirations.

Finally, it is my pleasure to welcome warmly

Tuvalu as a new Member of our Organization, and at

the same time to congratulate it on its wise decision to

our ranks at this beginning of the new millennium.

My delegation unreservedly supports and

endorses the Millennium Declaration, adopted by our

heads of State and Government on 8 September 2000.

We very much hope that its pertinent

recommendations, made by almost all the world's

leaders, will not become a dead letter. The United

Nations, and each country in particular, must

implement the appropriate strategies to translate the

recommendations into concrete actions that can

improve the future of our populations and peoples — in

particular the most disadvantaged.

At one of the meetings of the Millennium

Summit, which concluded on 8 September 2000, the

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of

Burundi, speaking on behalf of the head of State,

stated:

“The Burundian people are in the process of

turning a page in their history. The agreement on peace

and national reconciliation was signed on 28 August in

Arusha, Tanzania, before the eyes of the entire world,

which hailed the occasion. This was a qualitative leap

12

forward towards a better future for the Burundian

people.” (A/55/PV.7)

Later the Minister said, however:

“Everything has not yet been resolved ... the

greatest remaining challenge is ending the war,

without which the implementation of the

agreement is practically impossible.” (ibid.)

The end to the war was to have been negotiated

yesterday, 20 September, at a meeting scheduled in

Nairobi between the Government and the rebels, and

before the heads of State of the region. The President

of the Republic himself represented the Government.

The heads of State of the region and, of course, the

mediator were also there. The three political parties

that had not signed the 28 August peace agreement

were also there, and they signed the agreement. Thus

the maximum number of parties have now accepted

this agreement.

As for the rebels, only one movement, the FNL,

was represented by its leader. The head of the other

movement — the CNDD-FDD, which is the more

important group — did not make the trip. The two

movements refused to negotiate anything or to meet

with the Government delegation. Rather, they

contented themselves with repeating their

preconditions and pleading that they had to consult

their rank and file before making any commitments.

Thus the meeting was a failure. The hopes of the

Burundi people of seeing the violence come to an end

were dashed. The implementation of the peace

agreement has been called into question. The

signatories to the agreement on peace and national

reconciliation — negotiated two years ago — are now

accused of being traitors and men of straw, and are

being asked to return to the negotiating table. Those

taking part in the rebel uprising go so far as to call into

question the good faith of the leaders who sponsored

the negotiations and the signing of the peace

agreement.

Before denouncing the 28 August peace

agreement, the rebel uprising had hidden itself behind a

series of preconditions for the ceasefire negotiations.

The two principal preconditions were as follows.

The first precondition was the dismantling of the

regroupment camps. This precondition has been

meaningless since 31 July 2000, because the

Government had committed itself to dismantling the

camps by that date, and it kept this promise, as the

United Nations has confirmed on the basis of reports

from its agencies working in the field in Burundi. The

facilitator, Mr. Nelson Mandela, himself publicly

reaffirmed these reports during the signing of the peace

agreement on 28 August.

The second precondition related to the release of

political prisoners — an issue that has been the source

of a great deal of disagreement between the negotiating

parties. But since then, thanks to the compromise that

the parties have reached, contained in article 15 and

point 20 of the second protocol to the peace agreement,

the current Government can create an independent

commission to look into, inter alia, the issues of prison

conditions and political prisoners.

That is why it has just asked the Secretary-General to send to Burundi a team of experts in

criminal law to inquire freely into the existence or nonexistence of political prisoners in Burundi. It is no

longer possible to deal with this question outside of the

peace agreement unless one wants to imperil the entire

peace process. The Government and the people of

Burundi were very grateful for the opportunity they

had to explain to the Facilitator during his two visits to

Burundi how delicate the problem was.

Burundians suffer enormously from war; they

want finally to breathe the air of peace. Deadly, wanton

ambushes against people travelling on the roads,

attacks on innocent people in the hills and in the

displaced persons camps, theft of livestock, destruction

of houses, crops, social infrastructure and so on — all

of this must stop so that, finally, our country can regain

its peace and tranquillity.

Setting conditions to halt violence is cruel, and

the international community must condemn this

attitude and those responsible for it. Given the

intransigence of the rebels, the Government of Burundi

calls upon the region and the international community

to implement the provisions of article 2 of the peace

agreement, which states that if the armed groups of the

non-signatory parties reject the invitation made in the

agreement to suspend hostilities and to start

negotiations for a ceasefire, the guarantors of the

agreement, particularly the Governments of

neighbouring States, and the international

organizations will take “the necessary steps to stop,

13

demobilize, disarm and, where appropriate, arrest,

detain and repatriate the members of these armed

groups and, furthermore, take all appropriate steps

against any party which encourages and supports such

activities”.

In the absence of a ceasefire not only do the

innocent continue to die, but also the refugees and

displaced persons cannot return home; assistance to

rebuild the country cannot begin; and even the

transitional institutions established cannot function

properly. Why is the international community silent

when two armed movements are holding hostage an

entire people that had pinned so many hopes on the

peace agreement which has now been signed by 19 out

of 19 parties — in other words, all of the negotiators?

The Government, as it has often repeated, is

prepared to negotiate directly with the rebels and to

conclude the ceasefire agreement as soon as possible. It

will also continue to explain the peace agreement to the

people so that they will support its contents and its

programme. It is also continuing consultations in order

to arrive at compromise solutions regarding the

reservations expressed by certain parties about the

agreement and other questions that are still pending.

We would be deluding ourselves if we said that

Burundi will attain peace and security without a

favourable environment in the subregion and in Africa

in general. Unfortunately, nothing leads one yet to hope

that peace will be established in the Great Lakes region

any time soon. The Lusaka agreements signed in

August 1999 still offer a few glimmers of hope before

actually entering into force. However, they are an

important basis for the resolution of the conflict in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo. The summit that

took place, again in Lusaka, on 14 and 15 August 2000

unfortunately ended in failure, even though it was one

more chance to establish the basis for peace. However,

a lost opportunity should not discourage us. We would

like here to say that we very much support President

Frederick Chiluba of the Republic of Zambia for his

tireless efforts to find a solution to the question of the

Congo, and we encourage him to persevere.

Contrary to the allegations made by the head of

the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo from this rostrum on 16 September, I wish to

reaffirm that the only interest of my country, Burundi,

is to maintain security over our borders. We have no

other ambitions, political or economic, with regard to

any neighbouring country. And we hope that the same

applies to our neighbouring countries, in particular

those who give refuge to and assist the Burundian

rebels.

Each country, and the subregion in general, must

focus on problems of development. The ideology of

genocide, which is undermining the entire Great Lakes

region, and the many armed rebellions by those who

champion that ideology, will be overcome only through

the concerted and determined efforts of all States of the

Great Lakes region, with the active support of the

international community.

In this context, the conference on peace, security

and development for the Great Lakes countries,

envisaged for several years now, can be successful only

if each country of the region makes a meaningful effort

to improve their domestic policies.

By holding the Millennium Summit, the United

Nations chose a very opportune moment to discuss the

great challenges that await us in the coming century:

peace, security and disarmament, on the one hand, and

development and the eradication of poverty, on the

other.

As is so well summarized by the SecretaryGeneral in his report, we must live free from fear and

free from want. Although these two goals are the very

essence of our Organization, it must be stated that,

unfortunately, we are still wide of the mark. Fratricidal

wars continue to break out in various parts of the world

and it takes too long to put the fires out. Conflicts

break out on the borders of neighbouring countries, and

entire communities are forced into exile. Given the

multitude of these conflicts and their complexity, the

international community has only a mixed record of

success. Like other heads of delegations that have

preceded me, I am inclined to wonder why our

Organization does not do better in preventing and

resolving conflicts and in peacekeeping.

On this subject, we very much support the

implementation of the valuable recommendations in the

Brahimi report, which was the outcome of an in-depth

study at the request of Mr. Kofi Annan on the activities

of the United Nations in the area of peace. We welcome

the steps already taken by the Secretary-General to

prepare a detailed plan for the implementation of these

recommendations.

14

If our Organization were to engage in some selfquestioning, we would probably find that one of the

primary causes for failure lies in the very functioning

of the United Nations. The Security Council decides on

everything, and it decides too slowly. In the face of

urgent situations, there is too much procrastination due

to political expediency which is very often

insufficiently understood by the international

community.

Over the last fifty years, it is the same people

who decide the fate of humanity while safeguarding the

interests of some States as a matter of priority. People

who seek urgent assistance thus have the impression

that they are being held hostage or are being abandoned

to their fate because international solidarity, so keenly

awaited, does not materialize. My delegation,

therefore, reiterates the hope that we will re-think the

functioning, composition and attributes of the Security

Council in order to revitalize it and to adapt it to this

ongoing state of change.

The question of the equitable representation of all

regions of the world on the Security Council and the

question of increasing the number of members, both

permanent and non-permanent, deserve our attention.

They are in tune with the imperatives of democracy

and legitimacy in making decisions in this highly

important Organization — the United Nations. Only

such a reform can restore the confidence of all Member

States in reviving the force of law in international

affairs, because today, weak nations are confronting,

basically, the law of force.

In order to do this the establishment of the

International Criminal Court, the Statute of which was

adopted in Rome in 1998, will, I am sure, be a useful

tool to combat impunity.

Although sanctions fall exclusively within the

competence of the Security Council, from 31 July 1996

until January 1999, Burundi lived under a regime of

economic sanctions imposed by neighbouring

countries, which was in violation of the United Nations

Charter because it was not an initiative of the Security

Council. As has been pointed out, such sanctions have

proved to be both unfair and counterproductive.

Because of the adverse effects of these sanctions in the

economic and social area, those who suffer the most

are innocent people — the elderly, women and

children. The Security Council should therefore resort

to targeted sanctions only in serious and exceptional

circumstances when other methods of pressure have

failed, in order to avoid causing harm to the entire

population.

The other major obstacle to world peace is the

proliferation of light weapons — paradoxically, in poor

countries. Only with the combined efforts of all States

will we be able to deal with this phenomenon, because

arms manufacturers and merchants form a worldwide

network that represents big financial interests. Any

peacekeeping programme should therefore include, as a

matter of priority, the monitoring of flows of light

arms, since it is such weapons that are used by most

clandestine movements to cause death and destruction

through terrorism.

Furthermore, fear cannot be dispelled from the

world as long as competition to produce weapons of

mass destruction continues. Our Organization should

do everything it can to bring about complete global

denuclearization in the medium term. This standing

threat to humanity undermines all hopes for a world of

peace, to which the founding fathers of our world

Organization aspired.

Those with the responsibility of governing some

of the poorest countries in the world appreciate, on a

daily basis, just how hard it is to ensure that peace can

prevail in a community that is bereft of food and other

basic needs. A proverb in our national language,

Kirundi, says, “If you go to sleep with an empty

stomach, you will wake up with a heart full of hatred”.

It is no secret that the world has an abundance of riches

and resources of all kinds. But that does not prevent

people in some parts of the world from dying of hunger

or malnutrition, while their fellow human beings in

other parts of the world — and sometimes even in their

own countries and cities — are wallowing in luxury.

This means that true cooperation is the kind that

encourages growth in production and income to enable

people to take control of health, education, nutrition

and decent housing. By giving greater assistance to the

poorest countries, the rich countries would be working

not only for a fairer world but for greater security for

their own people.

The millennium report of the Secretary-General,

submitted under agenda item 49 (b) of the fifty-fourth

session, rightly stresses the seriousness of the tragedy

caused by the HIV/AIDS pandemic throughout the

world, focusing particular attention on Africa. Of the

36 million people who are HIV-positive, more than 23

15

million are in sub-Saharan African. According to that

report, in the same region, more than one child in ten

has lost its mother to AIDS. The very pessimistic

prediction has been made that by 2010 there will be 40

million orphans. Burundi has not escaped this

dangerous epidemic, which appeared at the beginning

of the 1980s and is continuing to cause devastation

today, particularly among the most active and,

therefore, the most productive people.

In the meantime, with the assistance of the World

Health Organization, the United Nations Children's

Fund and other actors, to which we extend our heartfelt

thanks, my Government has launched a robust

prevention policy against HIV/AIDS. A special fund

has been established to combat this scourge, which

could decimate entire generations. That is why we

endorse the recommendations of the Secretary-General

to reduce the HIV infection rate, particularly by

increasing access to information, education and health

services for people who are already infected. At the

same time, we recommend that the pharmaceutical

industry be provided with all the financial support

necessary to develop an effective and affordable

vaccine to eradicate this scourge by the end of the

century.

Before we can be sure of having built a more

secure and prosperous world, we must be mindful of

the need to bequeath to our children an

environmentally balanced planet. Unfortunately, we

have to say that the industrial progress that was

supposed to have generated prosperity is making our

natural environment increasingly unhealthy. We must,

as a matter of urgency, control the quality of industrial

production and the phenomenon of population growth,

particularly in urban areas, if we wish to safeguard

quality of life for future generations.

We have often behaved as if nature would remain

healthy without our making any effort. Today,

desertification is a threat to many countries that used to

be covered with vegetation. Drought has invaded

regions that used to be crossed by great rivers and

streams. In those places where there is still enough

water, it takes millions of dollars to treat it to make it

potable.

My delegation would like to reiterate the

Secretary-General's appeal to all Member States at the

Millennium Summit to fund an assessment of

ecosystems before it is too late. The result would no

doubt be a clear, realistic programme to protect our

environment.

Despite the difficult situation in which we have

been living for several years, Burundi, in close

cooperation with other Member States, will work

steadfastly to achieve the goals pursued by our

Organization. We hope that the United Nations will

adapt to current challenges and to changing

international relations for the benefit of all humankind.