Interview with Carolyn McAskie, head of UN peacekeeping mission in Burundi

November 5, 2004 - (IRIN) Following a UN Security Council recommendation, the UN peacekeeping mission in Burundi, known as ONUB, began operations in June. The mission is now fully operational, despite a shortfall in its civilian staffing.

ONUB has a code of conduct unit, the first of any UN peacekeeping mission, to prevent cases of sexual misconduct by UN staff and troops against the host population. IRIN spoke to the head of ONUB and special representative of the UN Secretary-General, Carolyn McAskie, in Bujumbura on 26 October on this unit as well as on ONUB's strength, deployment, security and progress made so far.

We bring you excerpts of that interview:

Q: Could you give me a brief review of your operations since June when ONUB began its operations - are you on track?

A: It?s my first peacekeeping mission of course, so I don't have anything to compare it with, but my colleagues who have seen other missions being mounted are actually quite impressed with how quickly we've been able to mount. We have the advantage, of course, of building on the previous missions. On the political side, the previous UN political mission, which, although was small, was well established, had good relations and quite a few of the staff there have carried on into our peacekeeping mission. So we have the continuity and the context.

And on the military side, of course, we've built on what was the very first African Union peacekeeping mission ever [the African Mission in Burundi], and we are very proud that we took over from them. Most of the contingents have stayed on and form a good 50 percent of our military capacity. So we have had a very good start because of that, but also with support from headquarters, the starting up has been excellent.

Burundi is in a unique position in that every peacekeeping mission is urgent and has to do everything all at once, but in Burundi we have a particular issue in that we have to accompany the peace process as laid down in the Arusha Accords [the Peace and Reconciliation Agreement signed in August 2000 in Arusha, Tanzania]. So we have a tight timetable to follow. I think that has been one of the issues for us. And [the
UN] headquarters has understood that and helped to get us going.

We were very active in the early days. In my first couple of months I was very active on the political side, working with the parties and supporting the South African facilitation [South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma is the facilitator of the Burundi peace process] and the region in trying to find a power-sharing formula that was acceptable to all the parties and now were working very hard on the other aspects. The big issue, of course, now is the electoral timetable and the security timetable and disarmament.

So we are reasonably on track. We are fully staffed on the military side, but on the civilian side we are not yet fully staffed and we?ll be working over the next couple of months to fill all the positions.

Q: What are the urgent programmes right now?

A: First of all, I think that the electoral unit must be congratulated for the work it has done in support of the newly appointed electoral commission here in Burundi - that we've worked very closely with the commission on helping them to put in place all the elements needed to establish the electoral calendar. This probably has been one of our biggest priorities. The other big priority is the work we are doing with
the government, with the army, with the rebel groups, with the donors, the World Bank and on the disarmament side.

I would say the elections and disarmament are probably the two biggest priorities, but we have a whole range of issues that we are following. It's hard to say which one is more important than the other, but there is, of course, the human rights; mine action; gender aspects; there is the code of conduct aspect; and there is all the political analysis. We have a very good team on all of these issues and I think that they are doing very well.

On the elections, of course, we've been given a bit of a breathing space in that all of the elections don't have to happen before the 31st of October. Burundi's neighbouring countries have organised what's called the regional initiative, led by Uganda, and with very strong support
from Tanzania and South Africa and all the other neighbouring countries. They have accepted that the transitional government can continue for the six months required to put in place the elections.

But the big outstanding question is that will we have a security situation in the country that will allow us to keep to the elections timetable?

Q: What is your view, or assessment, of this?

A: You know, I think it is doable. There are a lot of forces working positively to make it happen. There are negative forces, as well, who would like to disrupt them, but I think they are very much in the minority. It is very important that the Burundians be given this chance now to put in place a properly elected government at all levels. They?ve got a big task in front of them, the village elections, district elections, the assembly, the Senate, and the president - that?s going to take a long time.

But when I say I think it is doable, I'm not saying a hundred percent. There is definitely a chance that there could be serious disruptions and there would be people who will try to disrupt the process. And I think we have to be vigilant for that. And we have to work very hard with all of the parties to persuade them that unfortunately politics means there are winners and losers. Not everybody can get everything they want in every process.

The message I'm sending is that Burundians need to accept that they need to put in place a process that will manage their problems. They are not going to come up with a process that will once and for all solve their problems.

Q: What is the deployment status of ONUB troops?

A: The fact is we've deployed to the province of Bujumbura Rural, where the main area of the problem is. We are based in Kabezi [Commune]. We do patrols and we send out military observers. So that is the current plan.

In the meantime, we need to use our troops for one of our major purposes: to support the disarmament, and that means that we have to be placed around the country in order to supervise the cantonment of the rebels, the barracking of soldiers, assisting in the verification process as the rebels come in to be counted and then disarmed and then demobilised. So that means we need to station ourselves in various places around the country.

In addition, we have responsibilities along the border with [the Democratic Republic of] the Congo and Rwanda, and we are working very closely with colleagues in Rwanda and in the Congo along the border. So we've stationed the Pakistani battalion, for example, all along the border with the Congo and, as luck would have it, MONUC [the UN peacekeeping Mission in the DRC] also has a Pakistani battalion and they are stationing their Pakistani battalion on their side of the border. So they will be able to communicate rather well.

Q: What about the cantonment centres, do you have troops now at all these centres?

A: Yes, we are verifying all of the cantonment sites now. So that will be happening. We've got a new Kenyan battalion, just recently arrived and they will be in [the southern province of] Makamba. The Nepalese are in [the northwestern province of] Bubanza and we?ll be moving into [the northern province of] Ngozi. We have the Ethiopians in [the central province of] Gitega and then the Mozambicans here in Bujumbura, along with the large South African contingent.

Q: ONUB's military section recently replaced some sections of the South African peacekeepers. Was this normal procedure?

A: Oh yes.  Once the contingents are in place, they have a tour of duty and they go through what's called a rotation.

Q: So the South Africans are not pulling out of the mission altogether?

A: Oh, no way at all. They are a fundamental cornerstone of the force and will remain so. Now there is another issue. This [the South African force] is not to be confused with the fact that South Africa has a bilateral agreement with the government of Burundi to provide a protection force for the returning exiles. So there is a South African unit on the ground that is not under the command or control of the United Nations.

Q: The CNDD-FDD claims that the attack on the Gatumba refugee camp on 13 August occurred because it had pulled out 4,000 men from the area at your request. It also said it warned you that attacks would occur if its men were pulled out of the area. What are your comments?

A: No, that is not true. I hate to say this, but that is absolutely false. Mine negotiations with the FNL were secret. I had no exchanges with the CNDD-FDD on my exchanges with the FNL. The only people to whom I reported the results of my discussions with the FNL were the president and the Minister of Defence. I asked the president whether I should discuss it with the head of the CNDD-FDD and he said no. I received no warning from the CNDD-FDD.

The reason for the withdrawal of some of the troops of the CNDD-FDD from the ground was because we discovered that the food being provided in the cantonment area for soldiers, who had come in to be disarmed, was being shared with fighting men. The governments that provide the food have no legal basis to feed fighting men. It is against all the international protocols. We don?t do that. We informed the CNDD-FDD and we decided, therefore, to pull some of their troops off the ground and bring them into the cantonment areas to be fed.

Q: What about the half rations that the CNDD-FDD claims were then given to their men at the camps?

A: No, they did not receive half rations. The European community provided rations for X-thousands of CNDD-FDD cadres on the basis of figures given by the CNDD-FDD. They then discovered that in fact only half of those numbers were actually in the cantonment areas and had the right to be fed by the international community.

If you have a fighting force on the ground, it is the responsibility of the people managing the fighting force to feed and supply them. So the feeding and supplying of the CNDD-FDD on the ground is, was, and always will be the responsibility of the CNDD-FDD in consultation with the
government authorities.

It is absolutely impossible and out the question that any international donor would provide development humanitarian aid to soldiers who are fighting a war.

And for them [the CNDD-FDD] to claim that they warned me that this would have consequences, is unconscionable, I received no such warning.
I had no such discussion with the CNDD-FDD. In fact, for many weeks, the CNDD-FDD refused my request for a meeting.

Q: Since the Gatumba massacre, has ONUB taken any steps to avoid such an attack from occurring again?

A: Well, first of all, I think people must remember that the arrival of the UN is not going to change the behaviour of the people on the ground. There are still people out there who are determined to find a way to kill their fellow citizens. We have 5,000 troops. There are 2,600 collines in Bujumbura. If I have nobody doing logistics and administration - and if my soldiers never sleep - I could put two people per colline in all of Bujumbura. You can do the math yourself. We can put military observers around the country, but we depend on the good citizens of Burundi for letting us know when things are afoot.

Why did the government army not prevent it [the Gatumba massacre] when they had an army post only a few miles away and radioed for help
and got no help from Bujumbura? That is one of the questions in the UN report. So, it is easy to blame the UN because we arrived with a Chapter Seven mandate and 5,000 troops. At the time of Gatumba, our full strength in the country was 3,600 troops, so barely one per colline for all of Bujumbura.

The stories, which we have not been able to verify, of who attacked Gatumba, range from a force of 150 to a force of 700. Seven hundred is a battalion; we only have half a dozen battalions [in ONUB], maximum.

So where is the next one [attack] going to be? If I know, I'll be there and I'll stop it. I don't want to sound offensive, but we are here to help; we are here to do what we can, but it would be irresponsible of me to send a message to the Burundians that says now we are here - we?re going to stop all the killing that you people have been doing to each other for 50 years.

Q: Regarding disarmament, what progress have you made so far?

A: There again, you must remember that disarmament is basically a government programme. The Burundian government - you see this is not East Timor or Liberia, where you had either a non-existent or a non-functioning government - Burundi has a functioning government and a functioning army with its own policies. So we are in a slightly different position from our colleagues in some of these other places.

The government has signed agreements with the rebel forces that all of these people will be brought in together with the army, jointly disarmed and then jointly demobilised or integrated into what would be a wholly newly transformed army for the new Burundi - and into a whole newly transformed police force for the new Burundi.

So we have to work with all of the parties to make sure that everybody comes up to the starting gate at more or less the same time and then that everything is agreed on what the plan for re-integration is. We don?t have that from the government.

What is the budget for integration? We don't have that from the government. How is it going to be financed? We can't answer that question until we have the plans and the budget for it. Where is the army? Is the army going to come to sides to work with the newly arrived rebels to create the new unit? No, the army is still on the ground fighting the FNL.

We're pretty sure that we can demobilise, easily, 15,000 people very quickly once the process starts - the children, the pensioners and the handicapped.

Q: Do you have any more figures?

A: Well they are still being verified. But there are 66,000 people now, either in the army, in the CNDD-FDD or in the cantonment areas. So that is one firm figure.

We've been given lists of other people still that are out, but nobody has proved that those people exist. So, our guess is that we probably will end with around 70,000 total, including 45,000 for the army. We've got about 21,000 in the cantonment areas. Plus, there are a few thousand CNDD-FDD on the ground. So that?s where we come up with roughly 70,000.

We figure 70,000 people will go through the [disarmament] process. Now, about 10,000 or 12,000 of those will go to the police; about 25,000 will form the nucleus of the new army; about 15,000 are children, handicapped or pensioners. So that's 50,000 already, so maybe another 20,000 have to be demobilised. So it's manageable. And our sense now is that we have enough agreements amongst all the parties that the actual disarmament can start at the end of November.

Q: In reference to the issue of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct by UN troops, has there been any case of this within ONUB?

A: No, there have been no proven cases since 1 June when ONUB took over the peacekeeping mission in Burundi.

Now, there have been cases amongst the other troops in the country who are not UN. They don't come under our control. They are under the control of the sovereign government. They are not under the command of the United Nations. But we have very strong support from [the UN] headquarters that since the breaking of the scandal in the DRC [the UN is investigating cases of sexual exploitation of the host population in eastern DRC] that we will have a very strong, proactive and preventive approach. And the government has raised the question; they are worried that because of what's happening next door or because of what had happened before, amongst the previous non-UN troops stationed here, that there would be a problem.

We have a very strong policy of training people as they arrive and briefing them. The [UN] Secretary-General has a very strong policy for civilian staff. The army has codes of conduct and we are determined that we will prevent anything like this. It means being very strict; it means making certain areas of town are off-limits to the troops; it means being very careful because you've got 5,000 men away from home. One has to accept the fact that there will be attempts by troops to buy sexual services. In some countries, that is not necessarily illegal, if it is done in a humane way and under a controlled environment. But as far as the UN is concerned, it is not tolerated.

So we have to make sure that if there is any indication of troops or civilians using prostitutes' services, that these areas would be made off limits. Personnel have been told that this is not acceptable. In the case of the troops, this will be ground for their return to their country immediately and they would never serve on a UN mission again. In the case of civilians, it will be grounds for discipline. The disciplinary procedures are even more cumbersome for civilians as you can imagine - you can't order them home the way you can a soldier. But we'll be very strict.

So we are trying our best.

Q: I understand the South African peacekeepers have about 100 women in their ranks, has this contributed positively to your efforts against sexual exploitation of the host population?

A: Well, I hope so. I don't know. There are four Nepalese women as well, in the medical service - a doctor and some nurses. There are no Pakistani women and I don't think there are any Ethiopian or Mozambicans either. But yes, there is a good South African contingent of women, it is good to see them and if they can have a stabilising influence on their colleagues, that would be good. But, you know, we try to find ways of giving the troops some time off, some time to relax and go out of the country on R&R [rest and relaxation]. And there are also lots of things arranged for them to do as well, like social nights, television, movies, sports and many other things. I know it is difficult. They are a long way from home and from their families.