Withstanding Costly Sanctions

The regime launched a campaign against the embargo that targeted both domestic constituencies and the international community. The Committee for the Defence of Economic and Social Interests (CODIES – Comité pour la Défense des Intérêts Économiques et Sociaux), which comprised crucial economic actors including the Chamber of Commerce, the Belgian-Burundian and Franco-Burundian chambers of trade, various unions, and the Association of Burundian Banks, initiated and coordinated a number of activities. A press agency was created to inform the national and international public ‘about […] the new government's objectives’ as well as the disastrous effects of the embargo (Comité pour la Défense des Intérêts Économiques et Sociaux 1996). The CODIES also discussed filing a case before the International Court of Justice and presenting official complaints at the UN Security Council and the World Trade Organization. To support these efforts, the staff at the permanent missions in Geneva, New York and Brussels should be expanded and provided with argumentative guidelines (Chambre de Commerce d'Industrie, d'Agriculture et d'Artisanat du Burundi 1996). Domestically, the new government denounced the sanctions as an unjust punishment and appealed to the Burundians’ national solidarity and pride. For example, it defiantly nicknamed a new boulevard constructed in the capital during this period ‘Avenue de l'embargo’ (Buyoya 2013 int.).

The campaign against the sanctions put forth two major arguments: First, the process of deciding and implementing the embargo was condemned as a breach of international law because ‘only the United Nations can impose sanctions’ (Mbonimpa 2013 int.). According to this reading, the sanctions constituted an exclusively Tanzanian initiative, which allegedly pursued a secret agenda of weakening ‘the proud and ancient nation of Burundi’ (Nyamoya Reference Nyamoya1997). Nyerere's disproportionate engagement for the FRODEBU and the perception that he was using the sanctions to bring Buyoya back not to the peace process in general but specifically to his regional negotiation table in Arusha attracted major criticism (Peterson Reference Peterson2006; Daley Reference Daley2007). Consequently, the Buyoya government refused to accept Nyerere as the mediator (Mthembu-Salter Reference Mthembu-Salter2002).Footnote ⁶ By shifting the blame for the imposition of sanctions to Tanzania and to Nyerere's desire to punish the post-coup government for interrupting his mediation efforts, Buyoya made sure that his core constituencies – namely, the army and the urban Tutsi elite – blamed them rather than his coup for the sanctions (Economist Intelligence Unit 1997).

In response, the Regional Initiative sought the Western governments’ support to demonstrate the broad international approval of the embargo (ReliefWeb 1996; Second Regional Summit on the Burundi Conflict 1996). Likewise, FRODEBU activists and other proponents of the embargo stressed its genuinely regional nature (Bamvuginyumvira 2013 int.; Ndorimana 2013 int.; Ngendahayo 2013 int.) and the fact that ‘the region could not have taken the decision [to impose sanctions] without the support of the United Nations’ (Mbonerane 2013 int.).

Second, the regime stressed the humanitarian impact of the sanctions. According to the government, the sanctions disproportionately hit the poor, leading to a ‘shortage of essential elements for the[ir] survival’ (Banyiyezako 2013 int.). The campaign also emphasised the embargo's impact on the broader population, stressing that ‘FRODEBU claimed to represent eighty per cent, but these eighty per cent were suffering from sanctions’ (Ntahuga 2013 int.). In line with this strategy, a state-controlled NGO, the Association for the Preservation of Peace in Burundi, filed a case before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights denouncing the sanctions’ lack of proportionality (Olinga Reference Olinga2005). In addition, sanctions were made responsible for all economic and social difficulties in an attempt to divert attention away from the regime's own mismanagement (Hoskins et al. Reference Hoskins, Nutt and Watson1997), a military budget that absorbed about half of the government's revenues and the disastrous effects of the civil war (Economist Intelligence Unit 1998).

The government campaign regarding the humanitarian impact of sanctions was increasingly echoed by NGOs and UN agencies. Despite exemptions for the import of humanitarian goods, the embargo complicated their work and turned them into key players in the anti-sanctions discourse (Bruderlein Reference Bruderlein1998; Khadiagala Reference Khadiagala and Boulden2003: 230). In response to the growing concern about the humanitarian impact of sanctions, the RSCC created a list of humanitarian exemptions on 24 October 1996 (Regional Sanctions Coordination Committee 1996). On 16 April 1997, further items were added to the list (Hoskins et al. Reference Hoskins, Nutt and Watson1997). Moreover, multilateral assistance continued to a certain extent. The World Bank channelled its funds through domestic NGOs such as Twitezimbere (Nyandwi 2013 int.), and many programmes officially shifted their focus towards emergency assistance in order to continue their work (Nduwimana 2013 int.). Furthermore, Western governments began to voice doubts about the embargo's ability to positively affect the situation in Burundi (Daley Reference Daley2007; Wolpe Reference Wolpe2011). As one of the first European countries, France supported Buyoya in demanding that regional actors should lift the embargo (Cornwell & de Beer Reference Cornwell and de Beer1999; Manirakiza Reference Manirakiza2007: 61–76) and by mid-1998, the UN, the EU and the US also suggested that the sanctions should be reconsidered (Mthembu-Salter Reference Mthembu-Salter1999).

In addition to officially granted exemptions, the increase in sanction-busting activity played a major role in reducing the economic impact of the sanctions. Air corridors were established between Bujumbura and other African countries, as well as Belgium,Footnote ⁷ with the help of the government, which endowed Air Burundi with the exclusive right to explore the possibilities for the regular transport of commodities and passengers (Bulletin Officiel du Burundi 1997a). These air corridors were supplemented by a significant amount of cross-border smuggling with neighbouring countries (Hoskins et al. Reference Hoskins, Nutt and Watson1997; Mthembu-Salter Reference Mthembu-Salter1999). Additionally, Burundi continued its trade with non-COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) states, so that virtually all goods were available again by 1997, albeit at higher prices (IRIN 1997a). Due to insufficient capacity, as well as an increasing lack of political will of some countries, the RSCC did not efficiently monitor let alone enforce the sanctions regime (International Crisis Group 1998). Commercial activity between Nairobi and Bujumbura was resumed in July 1997 following the granting of permission by the Kenyan government (ReliefWeb 1997), and Eritrea restarted trade with Burundi in the same year (Bentley & Southall Reference Bentley and Southall2005; Khadiagala Reference Khadiagala2007). The readiness to enforce the remaining sanctions further decreased when a decision by the regional foreign ministers to end the sanctions was overruled at a meeting of the regional heads of state in Kampala, Uganda, on 21 February 1998 in an opaque process. According to the rumours, the decision was only taken when those heads of state critical of the embargo had already left (Wohlgemuth Reference Wohlgemuth, Wallensteen and Staibano2005: 135).

The Burundian government also used the scarcity of goods to its own advantage. The disruption of the economy and the widespread smuggling resulting from sanctions facilitated the restoration of clientelist networks among ‘urban businessmen [who] were more affected than the general population’ (Bihute 2013 int.). Like the leaders of the two preceding military regimes, Buyoya had made use of extensive patronage networks during his first rule from 1987 to 1993 (Uvin Reference Uvin1999). After 1996, many of the private firms that belonged to (former) high-ranking civil servants (Ngaruko & Nkurunziza Reference Ngaruko and Nkurunziza2000) benefited from sanction-busting activities. Speculative importers included senior members of the military and the civil service, and some evidence also points to the involvement of cabinet ministers (Economist Intelligence Unit 1997). Local businessmen, who were generally supportive of the Buyoya government, also profited from the clandestine trade (Calmeyn et al. Reference Calmeyn, Musabyimana and Reychler2000: 89; Daley Reference Daley2007).

Lastly, the regime managed to adapt to the economic constraints set by the embargo. The ‘café-carburant’ (coffee for fuel) initiative was launched to secure the supply of petrol and the export of Burundi's most important source of foreign revenues. Moreover, a ‘solidarity fund’ was set up to generate alternative revenues for the regime's war efforts in the face of foreign exchange shortages (Buyoya Reference Buyoya2011: 147). The Central Bank created a list of prioritised items to be pursued with the limited amount of foreign exchange available (Banque de la République du Burundi 1996: 60). This list was later amended to include selected enterprises of national interest such as the fuel-trading Société Interpetrol (Bulletin Officiel du Burundi 1997b). Private banks were obligated to transfer all remaining foreign exchange to the Central Bank (Banque de la République du Burundi 1996: 60). Finally, the serving of external debt was suspended in response to the growing budget deficit (Girukwigomba 2013 int.).

The Buyoya regime managed to reduce the economic pain caused by the sanctions, so that the economy slowly recovered. After the nation's GDP decreased sharply in 1996 due to the sanctions and the civil war, it remained stagnant in 1997 and grew by 7·4% in the following year (Hoskins et al. Reference Hoskins, Nutt and Watson1997; Kamungi et al. Reference Kamungi, Oketch, Huggins, Huggins and Clover2005). In a nutshell, economic development ‘improved notably as regards internal production and public finances and […] inflation decreased remarkably thanks to the regular provision of goods of primary necessity’ (Banque de la République du Burundi 1998: X).

Argumentative Self-Entrapment

Despite this economic recovery, the regime ultimately responded to the Regional Initiative's most important requirement for the lifting of sanctions: unconditional negotiations with all parties to the conflict. At first,Footnote ⁸ the regime denied that its seizure of power could be characterised as a coup and argued that the sanctions thus lacked any well-founded reason. The toughness of the sanctions took Buyoya and his supporters, who had relied on Buyoya's international reputation for having paved the way to multiparty democracy, by surprise (Uvin Reference Uvin1999). This standing was undermined by the signals of regime disapproval conveyed by the sanctions: The Regional Initiative referred to the new government as the ‘Buyoya regime’ rather than talking about the Burundian government (Second Regional Summit on the Burundi Conflict 1996; Sixth Regional Summit on the Burundi Conflict 1998). Moreover, Nyerere characterised the sanctions as a signal of ‘support [for] a democratically elected government’ (Le Soir 29.8.1996). Responding to this challenge, the Buyoya government initiated its diplomatic campaign, during which it became increasingly entrapped in its own strategy of denouncing the sanctions as undermining the regime's efforts to negotiate.

To justify the takeover of power, Buyoya's supporters argued that the previous president's flight to the US embassy had created a power vacuum, which left the stumbling nation without political leadership in a deepening security crisis (Mworoha 2013 int.). In such a situation, Buyoya assumed his responsibility as an experienced statesman in a ‘political change dictated by the events’ (Buyoya 2013 int.) that was guided by ‘humanitarian motives’ (Nijimbere 2013 int.) and prevented a takeover by Bagaza and other more extremist elements in the Tutsi community. In short, the regime disputed that the takeover of power could be characterised as a coup d’état, which would have potentially justified a strong regional and international response, during this ‘denial phase’ (Risse Reference Risse1999: 545). In contrast, FRODEBU stressed that the coup had overthrown a democratically elected government (Misago 2013 int.; Nduwimana 2013 int.). According to the party's leading politicians and diplomats, the region's heads of state, who had applauded the democratic 1993 elections, could not accept military interference in Burundi once again (Mbonerane 2013 int.; Ntibantunganya 2013 int.).

In a second phase, the Buyoya government then turned to criticising the sanctions for undermining the true intentions behind the coup – namely, to re-establish democracy and revive the peace process (Longman Reference Longman1998: 20). The regime responded to some of the senders’ demands in order to be able to argue that the sanctions were no longer necessary. Conscious of the senders’ pressure, it reopened the National Assembly and lifted the ban on political parties before the first review of economic sanctions in Arusha in mid-October 1996 (Mthembu-Salter Reference Mthembu-Salter1999; Khadiagala Reference Khadiagala2007). Nonetheless, the political significance of these reinstated institutions remained extremely limited. Political parties were only allowed under the vague requirement that they ‘positively contribute to Burundi's development’ (Economist Intelligence Unit 1997), which gave Buyoya the freedom to outlaw them as he pleased. Moreover, the Assemblée Nationale lacked clearly defined legislative powers in the absence of the constitution, which had been suspended after the coup (Hoskins et al. Reference Hoskins, Nutt and Watson1997).

In addition to responding to the senders’ demands to restore constitutional rule, the regime stressed its willingness to engage in peace talks (Buyoya Reference Buyoya2011: 142–3). According to this discourse, the prolonged sanctions undermined the government's attempts to find an internal solution to the crisis and ‘handicapped the negotiations’ (Girukwigomba 2013 int.). To prove the regime's preparedness to advance a negotiated settlement of the conflict, the government leaked information about secret talks with the rebel movement CNDD under the mediation of the Italian Catholic organisation Community of Sant'Egidio in Rome at the end of 1996 (Dupont Reference Dupont1997; Wolpe Reference Wolpe2011) and circulated the agenda, which included the restoration of the constitutional order, a ceasefire and the involvement of other political parties in the process (Nijimbere Reference Nijimbere2001; Buyoya 2013 int.). However, the talks subsequently collapsed due to pressure from the Tutsi elites on the regime after the information had been leaked.

Meanwhile, the former ruling party and the major opposition party after the coup in Burundi, FRODEBU, repeatedly made reference to the sanctions. This not only served as a constant reminder of the regime's illegal assumption of power (Bamvuginyumvira 2013 int.) but also legitimised and empowered FRODEBU's claims vis-à-vis the government (for a similar theoretical argument, see Risse & Sikkink Reference Risse, Sikkink, Risse, Ropp and Sikkink1999). Put differently, FRODEBU wanted to keep the sanctions in place because they added authority to its demands (Ntibantunganya 2013 int.). The Hutu-dominated diaspora in Eastern Africa and Europe enhanced these lobbying efforts by paying official delegation visits to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the United Nations and Western governments and by lobbying the public (Ngendahayo 2013 int.). In Germany, for instance, the so-called Burundi Büro, financed by the German non-profit organisation Aktion Courage,Footnote ⁹ coordinated this work. Its Burundi news bulletin, issued weekly, criticised the irregular nature of Buyoya's rule and emphasised the need for sustained international pressure, including sanctions (Burundi Büro Reference Burundi1997). Major rebel groups such as the CNDD-FDD also supported the sanctions as a means to constrain the regime economically and militarily (Ndiho 2013 int.).

In a third phase, initial concessions spurred further demands for politically more meaningful steps. Following a meeting of the Regional Initiative in Kampala on 18 August 1997, Tanzanian foreign affairs minister Jakaya Kikwete announced that the sanctions would remain in place until they achieved their aim of fully restoring democratic rule in Burundi (Inter Press Service 19.8.1997). The government initiated a National Debate, reflecting Buyoya's preference for the domestic peace processes (Brachet & Wolpe Reference Brachet and Wolpe2005). Such an internal political solution was meant to ease the regional pressure (Maundi Reference Maundi, Sriram and Wermester2003: 341). The National Debate consisted of 15 presidential meetings and round tables for representatives of the political parties, members of parliament, public officials, the army, the police and civilian groups. At the beginning of 1998, the internal debate led to the conclusion of a partnership agreement that stipulated the enlargement of the National Assembly from 81 to 121 members under a new constitution and the reshuffling of the government, with FRODEBU's Frédéric Bamvuginyumvira to become prime minister (République du Burundi 1998). The regime depicted this as further evidence that the Buyoya government was really seeking to resolve the crisis through negotiations (Girukwigomba 2013 int.). In exchange, the partnership agreement stated that the sanctions constituted an undeniable obstacle for the route towards peace and that the transitional institutions should launch initiatives for the resumption of bilateral and multilateral cooperation (République du Burundi 1998). While FRODEBU's internal wing thenceforth demanded the lifting of sanctions, the external wing accused it of having become ‘Buyoya's marginalised lapdog’ (Misago 2013 int.). The 1998 partnership hence manifested the de facto split between the exiled faction of FRODEBU and those who had remained in Burundi after the coup (International Crisis Group 1999).

Having started negotiations and reinstated the political parties as well as the National Assembly, the government claimed in 1998 that it had fulfilled the region's conditions for lifting the sanctions (Mbonimpa 2013 int.). After the summit in Kampala on 21 February 1998, however, the Regional Initiative stated that no significant progress had been achieved towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict, requested unconditional negotiations including all rebel movements under the mediation of Nyerere, and threatened to uphold the embargo otherwise (IRIN 1998). After arguing more and more vocally that peace talks with both Hutus and Tutsis were its key intention (New York Times 10.8.1997; Dagne Reference Dagne1998), the Buyoya administration had increasing difficulty justifying its reluctance to engage in the revitalisation of the Arusha negotiations. By mid-1998, most parties to the conflict – namely, 17 political parties and rebel movementsFootnote ¹⁰ – eventually embarked on the Arusha process, with the first round of negotiations taking place from 15 to 21 June 1998. The process strove to find a solution to the civil war and to lay the foundation for a transitional government that would incorporate representatives of all the principal factions (Lemarchand Reference Lemarchand2007). In January 1999, the remaining trade restrictions were finally lifted because the Burundi government had proved its irrevocable commitment to negotiations (Bentley & Southall Reference Bentley and Southall2005).