A protester, who is against President Pierre Nkurunziza's decision to run for a third term, gestures in front of a burning barricade in Bujumbura, Burundi on May 14.Goran Tomasevic/Reuters
After trying almost every other pressure tactic, the U.S. government is taking to the Twitter airwaves in an unorthodox attempt to communicate to Burundi's embattled President.
Tom Malinowski, assistant secretary for democracy and human rights in the U.S. State Department, led the latest charge. He tweeted directly to Pierre Nkurunziza, the controversial President who has triggered a national crisis by trying to extend his rule for a third term in defiance of most interpretations of the constitution.
"Mr. President, we get daily reports of Imbonerakure attacks," Mr. Malinowski tweeted, referring to the ruling party's youth militia, which is accused of assaulting and threatening the President's opponents.
"Will you commit to stopping them?" he tweeted. "Burundi's future's at stake."
A few hours later, there was a sharp retort on the same medium from Willy Nyamitwe, the President's communications adviser. "What interest do you have to criticize the ruling party and its youth?" he tweeted at Mr. Malinowski. "Could you take time to investigate?"
Twitter might not be the most successful method of diplomatic arm-twisting, but the international community has been searching for any way to send a strong message to Mr. Nkurunziza. A wide range of creative pressure tactics are now being attempted by everyone from Washington to the African Union, and the result is a fascinating case study in modern diplomatic strategy.
Foreign governments have a strong interest in persuading Mr. Nkurunziza to step down. They are worried that his bid for a third term could embolden other African autocrats to stay in power illegally. His bid has already led to huge demonstrations in Burundi's streets, fuelling violence from police and protesters. These clashes could eventually trigger a civil war, with the risk of mass atrocities and humanitarian catastrophe. (In fact, it has already sparked an exodus by more than 105,000 refugees.) And any Burundian war could easily spill over to its neighbours, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, both of which have their own long histories of war and atrocity.
So the foreign diplomats are determined to ratchet up the pressure on Mr. Nkurunziza. If he agreed to step down at the end of his term this summer, it would immediately defuse the crisis. Elections could proceed with international support, and his ruling party would still have a good chance of winning.
The strongest method of persuading him to quit, of course, would be military intervention by Western or African troops, but it's highly unlikely that this would gain approval from the United Nations Security Council, where China and Russia would veto any hint of military intervention, even if Western governments were willing to contemplate such action.
Moreover, Burundi doesn't have much geopolitical or economic significance. It's an impoverished and isolated country, lacking the oil or other resources that would make it of interest to the big global players. And as long as its violence remains at a relatively low level – about 20 dead and 200 injured since the protests began on April 26 – there won't be enough global outrage to build support for intervention.
The African Union and the East African Community both have "stand-by" military forces for exactly this kind of emergency situation. There have been rumblings that the AU and the EAC are willing to consider calling for help from these stand-by forces, but again there is unlikely to be enough political support for military action if the violence remains at a relatively low level.
So this leaves the diplomats searching for other tactics. The U.S. State Department, in a major statement last Friday, warned of several possible steps against the Burundian government. It threatened to impose "visa ineligibilities" on anyone responsible for violence – in other words, they would be banned from entering the United States or other countries that support the ban. It also urged donors to reduce their financial assistance for Burundi. And it supported a potential halt in Burundi's participation in the UN-backed peacekeeping force in Somalia – a key source of revenue for Burundi's army.
The African Union and the East African Community, meanwhile, have weighed in on the crisis by casting doubt on the legality of the President's bid for a third term. They are sending high-level delegations to Burundi this week to try to persuade the President to step down. And the AU has also promised to withhold its election observers from Burundi, which would make it almost impossible for Mr. Nkurunziza to gain international legitimacy for his third term.
Another regional body, representing the leaders of the Great Lakes region, announced that it would temporarily move its headquarters out of Burundi. At a summit this week, it also called for an "indefinite" delay in the scheduled June election – as most other foreign governments have done. According to South Africa, an observer at the summit, the Great Lakes region will oppose any election in Burundi as long as there is "unrest" and "instability." This would seem to favour the protesters, who have the power to prolong the unrest.
South Africa, a major player in the Burundian crisis because it helped negotiate the Arusha agreement that settled Burundi's long civil war, has been vocal in calling for Mr. Nkurunziza to abandon his bid for a third term. It also reportedly offered political asylum to him if he agreed to step down.
Of all these tactics, the most likely to succeed is the election postponement. There are already reports that the President would accept a short-term delay in the election, possibly a week or two. The international community will push for a longer delay.
A substantial election delay would seem to play into Mr. Nkurunziza's hands, allowing him to extend his rule temporarily. But in reality, it would actually hurt him politically. It would prevent him from claiming electoral support for a third term in office. And it would allow time for other forces – the ruling party, or the army – to mobilize against his third term bid. These forces would increasingly realize that only his retirement would allow the ruling party to be recognized internationally as the legitimate government of Burundi.