Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Thank you, Professor Touzé, for your testimony.

I want to give you the opportunity to continue your explanations because I think this is very important.

Many experts have asked the United Nations to invoke Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, which is a weapon, a very serious tool. We're talking about military intervention here.

Before moving on to that step, what else can be done internationally? You spoke about co-operation, but there isn't any. You used the words “total denial”. What instruments, what tools do the United Nations have to multilaterally strengthen what we've seen, obviously, in all the reports and interventions with the state of Burundi so that we can avoid resorting to Chapter VII? We have reached a point where we need to make a decision without the approval of Russia, China and, above all, the neighbouring African states. What else do you think is left to do?

[Sébastien Touzé]

There is one approach that has had varying degrees of success, but we are seeing there have been some results. I'm referring to regional action. I think we need to convince the African Union to put a little more pressure on the Burundian authorities to convince them to co-operate. I think it's at the regional level, first of all, that this might take an easier turn than in a universal approach.

Then, it's clear that if this regional voice fails, we'll be in a situation where the means available to the various UN bodies will be limited. We've seen it ourselves within the Committee against Torture. We've also seen it within the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Our means are particularly limited.

Still, we're seeing a precedent in Burundi's case that marks a particularly significant liaison between the UN Secretariat, the Human Rights Council, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the various UN committees and several regional organizations. So continued pressure is needed.

I fully agree with you about the report, that Chapter VII is a solution that shouldn't be considered immediately for the moment, especially since it would have few chances of success given the position of Russia and China. So we need to keep on. As I said earlier, we must also increase pressure bilaterally. It's clear that Burundi has links with a number of states, and I think we should go to those countries to convince them to put pressure on the Burundian authorities.

You know all of the UN's means with regard to this kind of situation. They aren't limited, but they do depend to a large extent on the full alignment of the states in the region so that the problem can be properly considered.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

MP Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much for your testimony today.

This whole study has been very eye opening with respect to what goes on in the world and the helpless nature of the plight of those who suffer torture and human rights violations. I think, ultimately, from what I've heard from you today and from others who have testified on this, if a government fails to co-operate, there's a very limited role that the international community can play in forcing somebody to really bring their justice system up to par with international standards.

In your opinion, what specifically can Canada do? Are there any sanctions? Is there any funding that can be provided, etc., to really work on these bilateral relations and to really encourage the regional states around Burundi to take part in resolving this issue?

[Sébastien Touzé]

As I have been saying for some time, the first point to work on is maintaining dialogue with the authorities in Burundi. We must not isolate them, but we must work with them so that we can make them aware of the international community's concern.

If Canada were to become involved in that kind of action, as I have been saying for some time, I feel that it should be done bilaterally, through diplomatic dialogue. It is helpful to maintain that link. What is missing, to an extent, in dealing with Burundi is an objective contribution of states to the diplomatic dialogue with the authorities, without having to do so covertly. We absolutely have to communicate the international community's concern and we must tell the authorities in Burundi that we are ready to work with them to find ways for them to co-operate with the United Nations.

I believe that the issue goes beyond the simple diplomatic relationship between two states. As you rightly said just now, this is about human lives, about people being tortured and executed, about women being raped every day in Burundi, and about people fleeing the country en masse. We have actually been able to see quite a massive exodus to Rwanda, especially by Tutsis, who had no choice but to flee, given the persecution they are suffering in Burundi.

I believe that we have to speak very clearly and directly to the authorities in Burundi and to act in a way that will convince them. I believe that we must be able to persuade the authorities in Burundi of the legitimacy of the international community's actions. I do not believe we should confront the authorities in Bujumbura or totally oppose them because that is the best way to have them dig in their heels and completely deny the situation.

So I believe that we have to maintain that diplomatic dialogue, and also strengthen the diplomatic network around Burundi in order to increase those pressures. The word pressure often gives the idea of pressure by force or by economic means, except that we know that the impact of any economic measures will be most felt by the people. I believe that that is something we must avoid. So we really have to exert positive pressure, using equally positive means, maintaining the dialogue and resuming discussions with Burundi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

I think we have time for a short question from MP Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It might end up being more of a question and a comment.

I listened to your story today. We've had other witnesses come in and talk about the impunity that exists in Burundi, not just this time but on a past occasion as well. I'm just wondering, and you've already commented a bit on this, why countries can treat the UN and its international agencies with such contempt. Burundi still sits on the UN Human Rights Council. As far as I can tell, there's been no pressure. We file reports. We put commissions in place. They assign police forces, and they just say “we're not interested,” and that's the end of that, other than the rest of us complaining about it a bit. The AU has 54 members, the United Nations has 193 and they can't seem to put enough pressure on any of these countries to change their behaviour to actually attempt to have them adhere to their own constitutions.

Why are these international agencies so impotent when it comes to these issues?

[Sébastien Touzé]

I believe that they are so powerless because the UN's entire logic is built on the strict respect for state sovereignty. You do not need me to tell you that one state cannot watch another state interfere in the internal affairs of another state. In the case of the UN, it's exactly the same thing.

In this case, I feel that the situation is a symptom. Burundi is actually coming out of a conflict, and, when resolving that conflict, they established positions that would prevent them from getting into a similar situation again. In order to do so, it defined the sharing of responsibilities in its territory in ethnic terms.

The problem is that the ethnic sharing, as conceived in the Arusha accords, does not automatically correspond to the current reality. Everything has been completely reopened by the current president. In other words, the current president sees that the majority is not Tutsi but Hutu and that power should therefore go to the majority. So he asks people to leave him alone so that he can determine on his own who should govern the country and how. For Burundi, it is a strictly internal situation that is of no concern to the international community and that has absolutely nothing to do with any international agreements. That's what is getting in the way.

The authorities in Burundi and the politicians in charge are wondering where this external pressure is coming from. They do not understand it and the actions of UN committees have no legitimacy, in their opinion. We have been told that. They do not see why they should listen to political opponents instead of the majority in power.

In a word, everyone is completely blind. The president has decided that his government and his institutions are supposed to work in that way. The same goes with reopening the Arusha accords.

Why is he running for a third term when the accords do not allow it? Simply because he wants to run the country as he sees fit without having to worry about pressure from the international community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much for joining us today, Professor Touzé, and for testifying before our Subcommittee on International Human Rights. It's been very enlightening. I know you dialed in from a long way away. Thank you for joining us this evening, and we bid you farewell.

[Sébastien Touzé]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

We will go in camera for two minutes, as there are a couple of business items. We'll make it very fast.

[Proceedings continue in camera]