On September 20, the United Nations released a report saying that agents of the Burundi government were involved in systematic gross human rights violations, torture and executions.

The report added that in “some instances… those gross human rights violations amount to crimes against humanity” and that “Given the country’s history, the danger of genocide also looms large.”

While activists and human rights organisations have in the past pointed to the possibility of genocide in Burundi, this is the first time the UN uses this word since the conflict broke out in April 2015. So far, 500-1,000 people have been killed and about 300,000 forced into exile.

In the meantime, independent media that would be telling the world what’s happening in this abused country on a daily basis has been contained and traditional centres of dissent like civil society organisations have been silenced and run out of the country.

This means that discerning the truth of what’s actually happening and documenting it is difficult and, in that sense, we are unlikely to know when whole villages are silenced.

But now that the UN has publicly acknowledged that crimes against humanity may have been committed and genocide a high possibility, will the UN and the international community act?

Remember, the UN promised us in 1948 that genocide would “Never” happen “Again.” And the international community has since added the “responsibility to protect;” that is, swing into action to stop mass killings and genocide.

But as we know, mass killings, crimes against humanity and even genocide keep happening; consider Rwanda in 1994, Darfur, et cetera.

Why? Why does the world, with a lot of means and military capability, a well spelled out objective — “Never Again” — keep committing the same mistake of the past?

Explanations by most researchers who study genocide and crimes against humanity revolve around three claims. First, that, in some instances, the world lacks information about what’s happening. This explanation blames lack of early warning mechanism.

Second, the world lacks institutional mechanism to prevent such atrocities. Finally, leaders lack political will to act. In Burundi’s case however, the world can neither claim ignorance of what’s happening or what’s likely to happen as the report tells us.

In fact, according to a number of reports, even before the violence broke out in April 2015, after President Nkurunziza announced that he would seek a third term in office that his opponents called unconstitutional, likely outcome had been pointed out. Nor can we say that the world or the region lacks the institutional setup to save Burundi and its people from their leaders.

For as we know, the UN Security Council can decide to invoke Chapter Seven of the UN Charter to enforce peace and reduce the possibility of genocide to zero.

Alternatively, there is the regional Standby Brigade that can be called upon to enforce sanity. Most importantly, within the East African Community, mechanisms have also been put in place that, if fully supported, can find a peaceful political settlement.

If the world wanted, it could, wholeheartedly support the Benjamin Mkapa-led peace talks. And the precedent in Burundi is that once regional powerbrokers—Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and Rwanda —unambiguously line behind negotiations, protagonists normally listen and buy into the initiative. That’s what happened in the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and later Nelson Mandela-led Arusha Peace talks that ended a decade’s civil war in 2005.

Put that way, if the world fails to arrest the deteriorating situation in Burundi, it won’t be due to lack of information or institutional mechanism but political will.

Otherwise, if the world and, specifically, regional powers had the political will, it wouldn’t be very difficult to force protagonists to embrace peaceful resolution to their disagreements.

With this in mind, what remains to ask is: We know that the possibility of trying perpetrators of such crimes exists (at least at the ICC); but what do you do to those who have the power to stop such atrocities but choose not to?

Isn’t it time for the world to think of ways to hold responsible those who have the power and responsibility to protect but decide otherwise?

Christopher Kayumba, PhD. Senior Lecturer, School of Journalism and Communication, UR; Lead consultant, MGC Consult International Ltd. E-mail: [email protected]; twitter account: @Ckayumba Website:www.mgcconsult.com