[The following interview with a Burundian student in Belgium is translated from the June 15 issue of La Gauche, weekly newspaper of the Ligue Révolutionnaire des Travailleurs (Revolutionary Workers League), Belgian section of the Fourth International.]
Question. At the root of the present conflict stands Burundi's colonial heritage. What was the policy of the old colonial power, Belgium, in regard to the ethnic division of the population? What conditions prevailed in the country when independence was achieved?
Answer. The colonial power used an ethnic minority to exploit the country. Political power and all educational, economic, and social benefits were enjoyed exclusively by this minority. While the colonial power gave its ally various incentives to maintain the existing situation, the latter overburdened the Hutus with exploitation and humiliation.
Q. When the massacres began, the regime's official radio presented them as the work of a reactionary monarchist group composed of agents of imperialism. Is there any truth to this contention?
A. The press agencies' reports tally with testimony of witnesses. On April 29, 1972, Tutsi monarchists tried to reinstate King Ntare V in Kitega, while on May 1, in the south, a Hutu uprising broke out. According to witnesses, this uprising cost the lives of about 5,000 persons, both Hutu and Tutsi; according to Radio Bujumbura, more than 50,000 were killed.
I think that for the moment that is what must be remembered out of all the typically hollow language of the antinational regime in Burundi.
Q. The first ones massacred seem to have been the Hutu ministers in Micombero's government. On what social forces does this regime rest? What is its character?
A. Micombero's regime rests essentially on a nepotistic caste of officers that makes up the Military Council and makes all decisions. The government, composed of both civilians and military men, is only an executive organ for effecting technical tasks that the army is still incapable of carrying out. All posts are filled by Micombero's, or the Military Council's, nominees: ministers, governors, local secretaries, communal administrators, functionaries in the agricultural sector, diplomatic representatives, and' the leaders of the JRR [Jeunesse Révolutionnaire Rwagasore - Rwagasore Revolutionary Youth], the UTB (Union des Travailleurs Barundis- Burundi Workers' Union], and the UFB (Union des Femmes Barundis - Burundi Women's Union].
The whole structure functions under the "mythology" of ethnic solidarity, which occasionally has to be bolstered by a regionalist ideology. During periods of serious crisis, the Military Council may intervene on the governmental and provincial level by direct administration. That was the case in 1965 during the repression of the Hutus, in 1966 when the monarchy was overthrown, and in 1969 when twenty-three Hutus were executed.
The summary execution of the three Hutu ministers [during the latest repression] fits in with the systematic implementation of the Simbaniye plan.
[Artemon Simbaniye, minister delegate to the presidency, a member of the council of ministers.]
Q. Simbaniye's execution plan seems to have been created in 1962 and to have aimed at partial extermination of the Hutus so as to institute an "apartheid" regime in Burundi. What is this plan, and do the present massacres represent its implementation?
and Shibura [Major Albert Shibura, minister of the interior] simply adapted it to the prevailing circumstances. The plan called for the extermination of 100,000 Hutus in 1968.
Now, when one looks at the way the army, the administration, and the JRR have set about to suppress the Hutus systematically and methodically, from ministers on down through schoolchildren and peasants, and when one looks at the cynicism with which contradictory news reports are sent out to confuse public opinion, one can truly conclude that implementation of the Simbaniye plan has moved into the final phase.
Q. In the explanations broadcast by "Voice of the Revolution" (the gooernment radio station), progressivesounding appeals are mixed in with accusations against the Mulélist Simbas; in his radio speech Micombero assailed the collusion, rather unusual, of the Chinese ambassador and Belgian elements. What do you think of the anti-imperialist phraseology in which Micombero's speeches are steeped?
A. His concern about attracting Western aid, which he needs in order to perpetrate the anti-Hutu genocide, impelled him to raise the spectres both of the Mulelist threat and of the People's Republic of China. As for the "Belgian elements," he wanted to amalgamate the monarchist opposition with the Belgian government. Micombero well knows how the imperialists prefer a lackey who is adept at disguising things. He is not at all ignorant of the power of progressive rhetoric. That is why he uses progressive terminology in the fight against progress.
Q. The October 1965 events, which are recalled by the present situation, allowed Micombero to place himself in power; then he undertook systematically to eliminate the Hutus. Tell us what happened in 1965.
A. Contrary to the claims of the Tutsi government and all its political organs, the JRR and the UNEBA