Trotz der Bemühungen der internationalen Gemeinschaft und insbesondere der jüngsten Initiative von Präsident Museveni, die darauf abzielen, einen innerburundischen Dialog in Gang zu setzen, sind die Fortschritte bei der Umsetzung der von der Afrikanischen Union am 13. Juni und von der Ostafrikanischen Gemeinschaft am 6. Juli gefassten Beschlüsse offensichtlich unzureichend. Nur die vollständige Umsetzung dieser Beschlüsse hätte den Weg geebnet für glaubwürdige, alle Parteien einbeziehende Wahlen in Burundi, deren Ergebnis repräsentativ wäre. Die Regierung hat die Wahlen dennoch durchgeführt und sich damit anders entschieden.
Ohne substanziellen nationalen Dialog, der zu einem politischen Konsens führen könnte, wird es Burundi nicht gelingen, zum Pfad der Stabilität, der Demokratie und der Entwicklung, der mit der Verabschiedung des Abkommens von Arusha eröffnet wurde, zurückzufinden. Daher wird die EU nun mit der Vorbereitung der besonderen Konsultationen nach Artikel 96 des Cotonou-Abkommens beginnen, damit die burundische Regierung die Verpflichtungen eingeht, die zur Überwindung der Krise erforderlich sind. Die Achtung der Menschenrechte, der demokratischen Grundsätze und des Rechtsstaatsprinzips ist Grundprinzip der auf dem Cotonou-Abkommen beruhenden Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und Burundi.
Die EU fordert die Regierung und die Oppositionsparteien nachdrücklich auf, den Dialog wieder aufzunehmen, um im Hinblick auf die Wiederherstellung eines alle Parteien einbeziehenden, demokratischen politischen Systems zu einer einvernehmlichen Lösung zu gelangen. Sie unterstützt uneingeschränkt die Anstrengungen, die die Ostafrikanische Gemeinschaft, die Afrikanische Union und die Vereinten Nationen in dieser Hinsicht unternehmen.
Die humanitären, sozioökonomischen und sicherheitspolitischen Auswirkungen der Krise auf das Land und die gesamte Region bereiten der Europäischen Union große Sorge. In diesem Zusammenhang begrüßen wir, dass die Afrikanische Union Menschenrechtsbeobachter und Militärexperten entsandt hat, die die Entwaffnung der mit den politischen Parteien verbündeten Gruppen überwachen. Die Europäische Union würdigt die Großzügigkeit, mit der die Nachbarländer Flüchtlinge aus Burundi aufnehmen, und bezeugt erneut ihre Solidarität mit der burundischen Bevölkerung und den Aufnahmegemeinschaften, indem sie unter anderem humanitäre Hilfe für die Tausende von Flüchtlingen bereitstellt.
Sie weist abermals darauf hin, dass politische Ziele nicht mit Gewalt durchgesetzt werden dürfen, und appelliert noch einmal an alle Beteiligten und die führenden Politiker, Gewalt zu verurteilen und zu unterbinden. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Aktionen der bewaffneten Gruppen, etwa die jüngsten Anschläge in der Provinz Kayanza. Die Europäische Union trifft im Einklang mit den Schlussfolgerungen des Rates vom Juni 2015 Vorbereitungen, um gegebenenfalls gezielt restriktive Maßnahmen gegen diejenigen zu verhängen, deren Handlungen zu Gewalt und Unterdrückung und zu schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen geführt haben oder führen werden und/oder die Suche nach einer politischen Lösung behindern.
Die Bewerberländer Montenegro*, Serbien und Albanien*, das Land des Stabilisierungs- und Assoziierungsprozesses und potenzielle Bewerberland Bosnien und Herzegowina und die dem Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum angehörenden EFTA-Länder Island, Liechtenstein und Norwegen sowie die Ukraine, die Republik Moldau, Armenien und Georgien schließen sich dieser Erklärung an.
* Montenegro, Serbien und Albanien nehmen weiterhin am Stabilisierungs- und Assoziierungsprozess teil.
Despite the efforts of the international community, and in particular the recent initiative of President Museveni with a view to facilitating an inter-Burundian dialogue, it seems clear that insufficient progress has been made in implementing the decisions adopted by the African Union on 13 June and by the East African Community on 6 July. Only by implementing those decisions in full would it have been possible to hold credible and inclusive elections in Burundi yielding representative results. In going ahead with the elections, the government has decided otherwise.
In the absence of a meaningful national dialogue which could lead to a political consensus, Burundi will be unable to return to the path of stability, democracy and development which started with the adoption of the Arusha Agreement. The EU will therefore launch the preparatory work for specific consultations as provided for in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in order to ensure that the Burundian government makes the commitments necessary to remedy the crisis. Respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law is an essential element of the cooperative relationship between the EU and Burundi, which is governed by the Cotonou Agreement.
The EU urges the government and the opposition parties to resume the dialogue in order to achieve a consensual outcome which will lead to the re-establishment of an inclusive and democratic political system. The EU fully supports the efforts being made to that end by the East African Community, the African Union and the United Nations.
The European Union is deeply concerned about the humanitarian, socioeconomic and security-related impact of the crisis in the country and in the region as a whole. In that context, we welcome the dispatch by the African Union of human rights observers and military experts to oversee the disarmament of the groups affiliated to the political parties. The European Union commends the generosity of neighbouring countries in sheltering refugees from Burundi and reaffirms its solidarity with the Burundian people and with the host communities, including through the mobilisation of humanitarian aid for the thousands of refugees.
The EU notes that violence cannot be used for political ends and once again calls on all stakeholders and political leaders to both condemn and discourage it. In particular, this refers to the activities of the armed groups, such as the recent attacks in the province of Kayanza. In line with the Council conclusions of June 2015, the European Union is preparing to adopt, where necessary, restrictive measures targeted at those whose actions might have led or might lead to acts of violence and repression and to serious human rights violations, and/or which might hamper the quest for a political solution.
The Candidate Countries Montenegro*, Serbia* and Albania*, the country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia align themselves with this Declaration.
* Montenegro, Serbia and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
It appears that things are picking up in the wonderful world of radicalisation. Following hot on the heels of David Cameron’s speech on extremism, the Evening Standard reports that a primary school has referred one of its pupils to the Government’s multi-agency Channel programme because a child that can’t be older than 11 was “deemed at risk of Islamic radicalisation.” Yes, folks, you heard that right, because “the behaviour of the child’s parents caused concern among staff” a kid is now the subject of government study. That’s because non-violent extremism leads to violent extremism, even in the case of primary school children. Except it doesn’t, or at least doesn’t work like a conveyor belt.
Here’s the resulting paradox in a nutshell: we live in a country that retains global power pretensions (even though we fudge on paying for it) and are committed to retaining a nuclear deterrent to bolster that self-image. At the same time, in a supposedly free and democratic society, we are referring under twelves to a counter-extremism programme because otherwise… bad things might happen?
Channel operates in “pre-criminal space”, which is a nice way of saying that a Channel referral doesn’t require an actual criminal offence. The Channel vulnerability assessment framework is particularly worth reading in full:
1. Engagement with a group, cause or ideology Engagement factors are sometimes referred to as “psychological hooks”. They include needs, susceptibilities, motivations and contextual influences and together map the individual pathway into terrorism. They can include:
• Feelings of grievance and injustice
• Feeling under threat
• A need for identity, meaning and belonging
• A desire for status
• A desire for excitement and adventure
• A need to dominate and control others
• Susceptibility to indoctrination
• A desire for political or moral change
• Opportunistic involvement
• Family or friends involvement in extremism
• Being at a transitional time of life
• Being influenced or controlled by a group
• Relevant mental health issues
2. Intent to cause harm Not all those who become engaged by a group, cause or ideology go on to develop an intention to cause harm, so this dimension is considered separately. Intent factors describe the mindset that is associated with a readiness to use violence and address what the individual would do and to what end. They can include:
• Over-identification with a group or ideology
• Them and Us’ thinking
• Dehumanisation of the enemy
• Attitudes that justify offending
• Harmful means to an end
• Harmful objectives
3. Capability to cause harm Not all those who have a wish to cause harm on behalf of a group, cause or ideology are capable of doing so, and plots to cause widespread damage take a high level of personal capability, resources and networking to be successful. What the individual is capable of is therefore a key consideration when assessing risk of harm to the public. Factors can include:
• Individual knowledge, skills and competencies
• Access to networks, funding or equipment
• Criminal Capability
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m pretty sure that any 10 year old fulfils: “A need for identity, meaning and belonging/A desire for status/A desire for excitement and adventure/Susceptibility to indoctrination/Being at a transitional time of life”. Cynicism aside, the basic problem with this vulnerability assessment framework is that it contains very ambiguous criteria that effectively makes being pissed off at the current state of things a red flag for authorities. This wouldn’t matter so much except that the latest Counter-Terrorism and Security Act put it on a statutory footing. From a not-quite-half-arsed grab bag of indicators that someone might (and could) commit a terrorist offence, to a statutory duty for Councils everywhere to assess people in this way. I have no idea whether a ten year old can develop the intent to cause harm, but I somewhat doubt that they have the capability to cause harm. The question for the rest of us is how well we’d fare if put under the microscope by someone who may, or may not, have any of the training necessary to differentiate between, say, a lonely person and a lone wolf nutcase. Just remember not to express “extreme” opinions to anyone official in future, just in case, like.
Identity? Status? Dehumanisation? That’s got Kafka written all over it.