This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 18 July 2014, At: 11:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

International PeacekeepingPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/finp20

Stepping out of the Shadow:South America and PeaceOperationsKai Michael KenkelPublished online: 08 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Kai Michael Kenkel (2010) Stepping out of the Shadow: SouthAmerica and Peace Operations, International Peacekeeping, 17:5, 584-597, DOI:10.1080/13533312.2010.516928

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2010.516928

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

INTRODUCTION

Stepping out of the Shadow: South America andPeace Operations

KAI MICHAEL KENKEL

South American states’ contributions to peace operations have experienced rapid growthover the last decade. While this alone merits the attention of analysts, the growingNorth–South gap in the norms and practice of these missions places even greater emphasison the natural intermediary functions these states can perform. Within the context of theUN Stabilization Mission in Haiti, these states have begun to develop a distinctiveapproach to peacebuilding. After describing the basic historical and political featuresspecific to the region, this introduction presents a special issue that explores that incipientmodel with an eye to providing analytical insights and stimuli to further research.

The peace operations conducted by the United States are more or less that,violence and victory, and ours, what we were proposing and what four yearslater I can say we are achieving, is something else, this paradigm of develop-ment of the country, revitalization of institutions and the reconstitution ofthe fabric of society.

Igor Kipman, Ambassador of Brazil to Haiti1

Since 2004, the states of South America2 have become key contributors to UNpeace operations (PKOs), and one of the largest such missions – the UN Stabili-zation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) – has become a testing ground for a jointpeacebuilding model being developed by these countries. At a time when develop-ment in intervention norms and peacebuilding models is driven by the global‘North’ while the troops who deploy on these missions are overwhelmingly fromthe ‘South’, it is of paramount concern – both practical and analytical – to identifykey actors capable of bridging this widening gap. For South American troop con-tributors this is a natural vocation that, with Brazil at the fore, they have begun toexercise with growing self-confidence as their global influence has grown.

Despite this rising role in peace operations, there has been little analysis of theSouth American context of peace operations outside the continent, particularly inlanguages other than Spanish and Portuguese.3 Indeed, this special issue of Inter-national Peacekeeping marks the first dedicated issue on the subject in an English-language publication of international reach. Conscious of this position, thisspecial issue has several goals. Just as authors in the pages of this journal have

International Peacekeeping, Vol.17, No.5, November 2010, pp.584–597ISSN 1353-3312 print/1743-906X onlineDOI:10.1080/13533312.2010.516928 # 2010 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

previously identified European, US and Asian styles of involvement in peace oper-ations,4 the contributors here lay out the contours of a South American approachto intervention, and the prospects for its growth and role vis-a-vis internationalpeacekeeping as a whole.

With a view to addressing an audience from outside the region and in the hopeof providing both cogent analyses and the foundations for further research on thesubject, this special issue focuses on three main factors that influence the SouthAmerican approach to intervention: the historical and cultural specificities ofthe region; the effects of its relative position in the international system; andthe special context of Haiti, where the majority of the region’s peacebuildingexperience has been gained and brought to bear.5 These elements will be brieflydiscussed here to contextualize the various contributions to this special issue.The contributions are then introduced in the final section.

Intervention in the South American Context

The South American context for intervention and peace operations is shaped bythree main factors, two normative and one institutional. The two main normativefactors that set the region apart are a very extensive tradition of peaceful conflictresolution, and a static and conservative interpretation of sovereignty, interpretedalmost exclusively in terms of border inviolability. Institutionally, as a result of itspatterns both of historical development and of periods of extended military ruleover the past century, the region possesses patterns of civil–military relations thatdiffer considerably from the mainstream models developed in the global North.

There is a very long and well-institutionalized tradition of peaceful conflictresolution in South and Central America. Since the 1980s, many of these mechan-isms have been closely linked to the democratization processes that have sweptthe region. The predilection has been for normative solutions, often in the formof legal instruments, leading to a certain normativism in these forms, known asjurisdicismo. These legal instruments have frequently come in the form of multi-lateral arrangements – linked to the Pan-American idea that began at the Confer-ence of Panama under Simon Bolivar in 1826 – and the states of the region haveshown strong support for international organizations since their inception.6

For example, all the then independent states of South America were membersof the League of Nations, and founding members of the UN. Several SouthernCone states7 explicitly trace their involvement in peace operations back to theLeague of Nations’ conflict resolution efforts in the region, including the 1933Leticia dispute and the 1932–35 Chaco War. As a result, support for multilateralinstitutions and peaceful approaches to conflict resolution are firmly rooted in,indeed a defining characteristic of, the region’s political culture. The region hasalso set important precedents in the field of denuclearization (through the Tlate-lolco Treaty of 1967) and confidence-building measures such as those concerningArgentine–Brazilian nuclear cooperation (see the contributions by Monica Herzand Rut Diamint). These forerunners have made the region’s states logical candi-dates for contributions to peace operations since these originated, and they haveparticipated extensively ever since.

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 585

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

As a result of the region’s peripheral status in the international system – pre-dicated on the legacy of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism and a relationship tothe United States scarred by the interventionism enshrined in the Monroe Doc-trine – a second key influence on the region’s political context for interventionis a reading of the concept of state sovereignty that almost exclusively privilegesthe inviolability of borders. Interstate relations are shaped by the principle of non-intervention, enshrined in the Calvo and Drago doctrines.8 This principle is verystrongly adhered to, as it is considered to have kept the peace in the region, whichhas not seen significant interstate armed conflict since the War of the Triple Alli-ance, which ended in 1870.

However, the combination of peaceful conflict resolution and early settlementof border disputes contributed to a tendency for violence and political contesta-tion to be displaced to the domestic level. As a result, there is a history in theregion of military involvement in governance through coups and praetorian gov-ernments, and of frequent involvement by armed forces in internal developmentand law-and-order missions, particularly in Brazil and the Andean region. Thestates of the Southern Cone all had military governments between the 1960sand the 1980s, and the democratization process, although it has made greatstrides, is still ongoing. The evolution of civil–military relations has had aseries of effects on these countries’ participation in peace operations, which isdiscussed in several contributions to this special issue and briefly below.

Put briefly, the South American context is extremely conducive to the peacefulresolution of conflicts and to forms of multilateralism, while resistance to peaceenforcement (as a perceived violation of the principle of non-intervention) isvery strong. Despite considerable domestic preoccupation with human rights asa result of experiences of military rule, the issue has not been meaningfully incor-porated into the foreign policies of the region’s states. As a result, with regard tointervention, South American states have not accompanied two major shifts in thepractice of many Northern states since the end of the Cold War. They have notwarmed to the idea of a more robust use of force in peace operations, nor hasthere been a discernible move towards greater ethical content in their foreign pol-icies.9 However, as will be shown, their particular experiences are quintessentiallysuited to certain types of peace operations that have grown in number.

Regional Integration

The above-mentioned regional arrangements largely dealt with regional inte-gration at an abstract level, or with specific issues such as human rights andnuclear disarmament; as a result of jurisdicismo, their normative intent oftenexceeded their effective implementation. One exception was the Organizationof American States (OAS), its Charter signed in 1948, which came into being in1951. The Washington-based body, whose membership includes all states ofthe Western Hemisphere (though Cuba’s membership rights have been sus-pended), played an important role in the Cold War in resolving regional borderdisputes and crises considered to be in the US sphere of influence.10 Article 19of the Organization’s founding documents enshrines the principle of non-

586 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

intervention in member states’ (but not non-member-states’) internal affairs,which provided a very strong incentive for adhesion. Due to US policy dominancewithin the Organization, however, from the 1960s onwards many membersbegan to search for mechanisms perceived as less beholden to Washington.

Cooperation and integration went further in the area of trade. With the for-mation of the Southern Common Market, or Mercosur/Mercosul, in 1991,regional integration in South America began in earnest; this had been precededby the less institutionalized Andean Community of Nations, which wasfounded in 1969. Mirroring the generally lower levels of institutionalization inthe continent’s domestic context, regional efforts remain hampered by concernswith the cession of sovereignty to supranational entities. This is even moreclearly the case in the area of foreign and defence policy coordination. Beyondwhat amount to declarations of principle, what little defence-related cooperationthere had been historically has been limited to military–military cooperation andcombined exercises, often under US leadership.11

Southern Cone states’ leading participation in MINUSTAH was to change thisin two major ways: through the regularization of coordination meetings betweenthe foreign and defence ministers of contributing countries – which came to beknown as the ‘2 × 9’ mechanism – and through advanced exchanges andcooperation between the centres established in the region’s armed forces to traintroops for deployment in MINUSTAH (and to a lesser extent for other peace oper-ations). The NATO-inspired South American Defence Council, which held its firstmeeting in March 2009 under the auspices of the South American Community ofNations (UNASUR/UNASUL), is another important step forward in this regard,and represents the first multilateral organ in the region specifically tasked todeal with matters of defence policy.12 Brazil’s role in these institutions remainscomplicated, divided as the nation is between leadership and ‘followership’ atthe regional and global levels (see the contributions by Diamint and Kenkel).

The importance of the armed forces peacekeeping training centres as sourcesof integration within the region, and of the region with the rest of the world,cannot be overstated; they are crucial nodes for the flow of information, experi-ence and norms between the region’s troop contributors, their counterparts inother regions and the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO).In addition, they are a key conduit for notions of professionalism and civilian–military interaction. This is where military peacekeeping culture meets nationalmilitary cultures – a crucial element in mission effectiveness, as recognizedearly on by the UN.13 The first state in the region to found a centre to train peace-keepers was Uruguay in 1982; this was institutionalized into the National Schoolfor Peace Operations (ENOPU) in 2009.14 Argentina followed suit in 1995 withthe founding of the Argentine Joint Centre for Peace Operations (CAECOPAZ),15

and Chile with its joint centre, CECOPAC, in 2002.16 The development of a jointpeacekeeping centre in Brazil has been somewhat hampered by persistent inter-service rivalry, but the decision was been taken in June 2010 to merge theArmy’s centre (founded in 2005) and the smaller Marine Corps School underthe aegis of the former,17 rechristened the Brazilian Joint Peace OperationsCentre (CCOPAB).

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 587

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

States’ preparation for the Haiti mission provided the impetus for unprece-dented levels of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The Latin AmericanAssociation of Peacekeeping Operations Training Centres (ALCOPAZ) wasfounded in the interstices of the 2007 meeting of the International Associationof Peacekeeping Training Centres (IAPTC) and unites all MINUSTAH troop-con-tributing countries (TCCs) from the region except Bolivia. Chile and Argentinaalso placed a bi-national force, dubbed the ‘Southern Cross’ force (Cruz delSur) under the UN Standby Arrangement in 2006. A small contingent of Paragua-yan troops have been trained in Brazil and integrated into the Brazilian battalionin Port-au-Prince, together with a small number of Uruguayan Navy personnel.The degree of policy coordination, training quality, political support and accom-panying bilateral investment connected to MINUSTAH is a distinct a novelty inthe region. These efforts have helped to give MINUSTAH the feel of a SouthAmerican mission and have contributed significantly to both mission effectivenessin Haiti and political cooperation in the region.

South American Participation in Conflict Resolution and Peace Operations

The nations of South America, in particular those from the Southern Cone(Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay – the ‘ABCUs’), have historically beenfirmly committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts; indeed, several haveenshrined this practice as a foundational principle in their constitutions.Mediations and commissions on the continent first took place in the early yearsof the League of Nations, and the region’s support for such initiatives has beenstrong both normatively and in practice ever since. As a result, South Americahas been a consistent, though not always major, contributor of troops to UN PKOs.

The general historical pattern of South American troop contributions has fea-tured two main elements: a gradual increase in numbers of troops sent, up to andincluding large battalions; and a steadfast refusal – until the advent of MINUS-TAH – to deploy on any type of mission other than one based on Chapter VIof the UN Charter. South American states have sent individuals or small teamsof observers on UN missions since a very early stages of such operations, andhave only increased this participation through the large battalions sent toAngola and Mozambique in the immediate post-Cold-War period, and now toHaiti. The exception was Brazil’s Suez Battalion, which saw up to 800 men sta-tioned with the first UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) from 1956 to 1967.

Prior to MINUSTAH, Argentina had participated in 35 UN and OAS PKOs,to which it deployed an aggregate of more than 24,000 troops.18 In addition –partly as a result of a desire to regain international stature after the Falklands/Malvinas conflict – it participated in NATO-led interventions in Kosovo andBosnia.19 Chile, whose foreign policy follows both a South American and aPacific vocation, has shown a clear pattern of increased participation since1935, culminating in its participation in MINUSTAH and – novel for a SouthAmerican force – the US-led Multinational Force that preceded it in 2004. Simi-larly, Brazil has been a consistent contributor to UN operations. Typically this hasbeen in the form of observers and staff officers, with four major exceptions when

588 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

it sent a battalion-size force: UNEF I, the UN Operation in Mozambique(UNOMOZ), the UN Angola Verification Missions (UNAVEM) and MINUS-TAH.20 The Andean countries’ forces, as well as Paraguay’s, have essentially con-fined themselves to the deployment of individuals or at most company-sizedforces.21

Uruguay, the smallest of the Southern Cone countries, is somewhat of anexception to this pattern, as it both began to send its forces abroad earlier andhas continued to do so in larger numbers – for example with battalions to theUN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), UNOMOZ and UNAVEM,its troops numbering 2,500 in the latter. In addition to the second largest contin-gent in Haiti – which has just under three times its population – Uruguay also senta contingent twice as large as its MINUSTAH force to the UN Mission in theDemocratic Republic of Congo (MONUC). As a result, between a quarter and athird of Uruguayan armed forces personnel are involved in peace operations atany given time. Tiny Uruguay’s prowess in this regard has some connection tothe financial benefits of participation, which provide a large part of the country’smilitary budget.22 These national approaches taken together make up the SouthAmerican approach, of which MINUSTAH has become the showcase.

MINUSTAH

Created in April 2004, following the controversial removal of Haitian PresidentJean-Bertrand Aristide, MINUSTAH has a three-fold mandate, established inSecurity Council Resolution 1542 (annexed to this special issue). The mandatefollows a somewhat fixed pattern for complex operations, calling – with impli-cations for chronological ordering – for the mission to act on three fronts: the pro-vision of a secure and stable environment (initially through peace enforcement,followed by assistance to the Haitian National Police); support for the politicalprocess (principally through elections); and human rights. The original mandatewas for 6,700 troops; this was increased following the earthquake that devastatedPort-au-Prince and killed up to 250,000 Haitians and over 100 UN staff, includingmission head Hedi Annabi and his Principal Deputy, Luiz Carlos da Costa.

In addition to providing approximately half of the personnel for the militarypillar of the mission (see Table 1), the states of South America provide a majorityof staff officers and headquarters personnel. In a break with DPKO practice, theMINUSTAH force commander has since the inception of the mission been a Bra-zilian officer; the deputy positions alternate between other Southern Cone nations.

This dominance within the operation gives the South American nations theability to use MINUSTAH as a stage to implement several distinctive and ofteninnovative homegrown elements of peacebuilding. These elements include: amarked initial reluctance to use force, coupled with its judicious and successfuluse when unavoidable; a focus on sustainable development projects based onbilateral involvement often using technologies developed in the sendingcountry; contextually coordinated action among TCCs not members of analliance that would otherwise automatically provide this integration; and theclose contact of the military contingents with the local population, includingthrough programme delivery.

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 589

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

To date, this practice is well ahead of matters at home. While there is substan-tial knowledge of peace operations and of their possibilities in the region’s policy-making community (which has emerged rapidly over the last several years), publicdebate – and therefore the ability to mobilize public opinion – is embryonic atbest.23 Media coverage is scarce and driven by major events. Academicproduction is growing rapidly, though it remains largely centred on institutesenjoying geographical proximity to policymakers and implementers. Due to thesocial origins of the role of academics in the region (see Herz in this specialissue), this output in the field of international relations has historically beenconcerned predominantly with the implications of these countries’ participationin MINUSTAH and other PKOs for their role in the international system.

What is it that the countries of South America gain, and seek to gain, fromsuch extensive investment in MINUSTAH? For many of the TCCs the missionis a way to gain international profile, to fulfil a desire for increased globalstatus and to demonstrate that the region – or, in the case of the regionalhegemon, that Brazil – has an important and innovative contribution to maketo security at both the regional and global levels. How the incipient SouthAmerican model – which is described in depth, together with its political, insti-tutional and societal origins, throughout the pages of this special issue – fitsinto the broader framework of developments in peace operations is the subjectof the next section.

South America and the Global South in the Spectrum of Conflict ResolutionMechanisms

In a process whose genesis is situated at the latest in An Agenda for Peace(1992),24 the UN has searched for a means to provide an integrated concept

TABLE 1:

SOUTH AMERICAN CONTRIBUTORS TO MINUSTAH, 30 JUNE 2010

Country Troops

Argentina 710Brazil 2,187Chile 510Ecuador 71Guatemala 148Paraguay 31Uruguay 1,131Total South America 5,506Total MINUSTAH 11,578

South America % of MINUSTAH 48Brazil % of MINUSTAH 19Brazil % of South American TCCs 39

Source: UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, ‘Ranking of Military ofPolice Contributions to UN Operations’, 30 June 2010, at: www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2010/june10_1.pdf. Participation in the police pillarof the operation by Latin American states is considerably less.

590 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

for the toolbox of conflict resolution mechanisms provided for in its foundingdocument. The most recent such initiative was launched with a document entitled‘A New Partnership Agenda’ and known as the ‘New Horizon Report’.25 Thedocument strives to establish a global system for peace operations, with impli-cations both conceptually and in terms of best practices in the field. LocatingSouth American states in the field of conflict resolution mechanisms involvestwo axes. One relates to the norms of intervention to which they subscribe andwhich have been put into practice in the approach described throughout thisspecial issue. The second is geographically determined and involves the notionof regional partnerships.

In terms of the values governing their involvement in interventions and conflictresolution, South American states are strongly governed by a conservativeinterpretation of sovereignty which emphasizes non-intervention. As such, theyhave historically refused to participate in Chapter VII missions and are doing sonow in Haiti only as a function of an integrated mission with larger aims moreclosely related to their own priorities. These include a peacebuilding approachbased on sustainable development using technologies developed in the regionand close contact of the military with the population, including in programmedelivery. Coupled with an extensive tradition of peaceful conflict resolution,mediation and strong support for multilateral institutions, this situates SouthAmerican TCCs as highly suitable donors to long-term, ‘development-heavy’peacebuilding missions where there is no need for the robust use of force orwhere this necessity has been resolved through previous peace enforcement efforts.

This links closely with a second possibility for integration for the region’sstates into a global peacekeeping system, which is related to its focus on regionalsecurity as a function of global security. Fred Tanner, Director of the GenevaCentre for Security Policy, has provided an analysis of this process which containsseveral insights of great relevance to South America as a source of peacekeepingnorms and practices. Among them is the importance of regional partnerships, inpart as a way of bridging an increasing North–South divide, and whose focusseems tailored to the South American development focus:

for such a system to be effective, it needs to rely more so on the broadeningpartnerships of the UN with various regional organizations while increasingthe interface between peacekeeping and peacebuilding at the same time. Inview of the lack of strategic consensus by the Security Council permanentmembers, such a system cannot be created top down, but rather it needsto be built on peacekeeping practices, norms, and interdependent relationsof states and institutions.26

Such an approach favours the creation of epistemic space in a global conflictresolution system for approaches originating in the global South. South AmericanTCCs have a crucial role to play in that space, since they embody a certaineconomic and historical via media between North and South. This naturalbridge function is a promising future vocation for these states, as the success ofthe burgeoning South American model encourages its further refinement as apossible counterpoise to the liberal peacebuilding model. 27 This bridge function

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 591

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

takes on geographical overtones as these states – at least for the time being – findthemselves united by capacity and inclination to responsibilities within theirown hemisphere or, with Brazil as a force motrice, in a select number ofAfrican or lusophone countries.

As a result of historically driven suspicions of US motives, it is not likely thatSouth American states – with some notable exceptions – will involve themselvesin missions viewed as too closely supporting a US hegemonic agenda. However, asthe above quote demonstrates, in a rapidly integrating system all missions aresomehow interrelated, and increasing clout for South American states in theirregion may come at the price of overlooking the fact that missions such asMINUSTAH effectively keep the global hegemon’s backyard tidy while it turnsattention to more force-intensive and less consensual missions elsewhere, suchas in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Such a pattern clearly indicates a global division of labour in terms of taskswithin peace operations peace operations, one that also takes a thematic shape:while the states of the North are focusing increasingly on security-related issuesin peace operations, primarily concerning the use of force, Southern states haveturned more towards questions related to economic development (see Diamintin this special issue). This has important implications for how these two groupsof states will relate to one another in the building of a global system of peaceoperations:

MINUSTAH represents a watershed in Latin American geopolitics anddiplomacy. It is a mission which grants to Brazil, Chile, Argentina andUruguay a position in the region as guarantors of security. In LatinAmerica there is talk of a withdrawal of the superpowers, to concentrateon other latitudes of the planet, with a different level of conflict. Thismeans that for the participating countries, taking up responsibility for thecontinent means becoming international actors and contributors to securitywithin their respective radii of influence.28

As South American states grow in stature and capabilities, and as their specificvalues and comparative advantages are further crystallized into a coherentapproach both conceptually and in the back alleys and agricultural projects ofHaiti, their function in an ever more integrated system of global conflict resol-ution is bound to increase considerably.29 It does so as a crucial indicator ofthe contours of the relationship between the world’s North and South, which isincreasingly becoming the defining global division of our time. It is in the spiritof bridging that gap, and bringing the rich traditions and vast potential of animportant intermediary region to broader attention, that this special issuebrings together a comprehensive set of studies on the South American approachto peace operations.

The Contributions

The special issue comprises nine contributions, divided into three main types, thatwed practical applicability with diversity of analysis. Contributions giving the

592 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

analytical underpinnings for the study of the South American context of interven-tion are placed at the beginning, and gradually overlap with case studies ofspecific TCCs from the region, though together these cover an array of analyticalapproaches as well. The special issue includes an eyewitness account from withinMINUSTAH and provides a conclusion that highlights sociological themesthrough the contributions, combining them with an analysis of globalization’seffects on peace operations.

Monica Herz’s contribution opens the special issue at its broadest analyticalperspective. The participation of South American states cannot be understoodwithout her cogent presentation of the cultural and historical specificities of theway the region engages with the notion of security. Herz sets the stage for thespecial issue’s other themes by examining the way security issues are framed onthe continent. She focuses on four main factors that run through the specialissue: analytical approaches to situating South America within the global distri-bution of power; efforts to construct in South America as a zone of peace; thebroadening of the concept of security; and the regionally specific interpretationof state sovereignty.

Paulo Esteves’s contribution has a dual function. While it addresses theoreti-cal issues that contextualize of South America’s role in peace operations, it is atthe same time a South American scholar’s conscious contribution to, ratherthan application of, ongoing theoretical debates on intervention, globalizationand peace operations. Casting Martin Wight’s notion of international revolutionsin Foucauldian terms, Esteves recounts the establishment of the liberal inter-national model within modern peace operations, and grants special attention tothe specificities of this process in the South American context.

Arturo Sotomayor’s article ties in neatly with the preceding one, providingcrucial contextualization for the rest of the special issue by exposing the effectsof civil–military relations on South America’s role as peacekeeper. Sotomayoridentifies three key motivating factors for peacekeeping participation: democrati-zation, foreign policy concerns and remuneration. He addresses the relationshipbetween defence policy formulation processes, security concepts and peacekeep-ing participation relating to three major contributor states from the SouthernCone: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. The innovation of Sotomayor’s work isthat it demonstrates that the relationship between these variables is not uni-directional: clearly, defence policy and PKO participation are a result of constel-lations of civil–military relations within states at the end of democratictransitions. Sotomayor adds to this understanding the realization that there isan attendant ‘feedback effect’, into local contexts of governance, of norms towhich states are exposed in PKOs.

Kai Michael Kenkel’s analysis of Brazil as an emerging power combinesgeneral analytical principles with their application to a specific case. Applyingthe concept of ‘emerging powers’ both to the region as a whole and to Brazil’scomplex role within it, he combines the specificities of emerging power policywith elements specific to the incipient South American model of peacebuilding.The model’s application has been spearheaded by Brazil within the context ofMINUSTAH. Principally the elements are, inter alia, the interpretation of

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 593

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

sovereignty prevalent in the region, the effects of military rule on civil–militaryrelations, and the attendant adaptations of the role of the military in the peace-building paradigm in question.

Rut Diamint’s contribution also has a dual function. It provides a detailedcontextualization of regional integration and cooperation processes – a keytheme informing many of the special issue’s other analyses. And it serves as acase study to cast light on Argentina’s conceptual and practical engagementwith peace operations, past and present. Grounded in an understanding of theSouthern Cone region as an incipient regional security community, Diamint’sanalysis focuses on the institutionalization of this process through mechanismssuch as the ‘2 × 9’ group and the Union of South American Nations.

Julia Buxton’s analysis balances the special issue’s focus on the Southern Conestates by providing an overview of Venezuelan attitudes towards interventionunder President Hugo Chavez. Grounded in a detailed understanding of previousVenezuelan exceptionalism, the contribution traces self-conscious efforts by theBolivarian government to establish a more equitable counterweight to theperceived injustices of the dominant peacebuilding model. Buxton’s texttouches most directly on one of the special issue’s subjacent themes – the relation-ship between Northern and Southern norms of intervention as an expression ofthe unequal relations in the global order.

Omar Gutierrez’s case study of Chilean participation in peace operationsbrings original empirical research to the special issue. Following his presentationof Chilean policy responses to changes in the global environment and the coun-try’s history as a troop contributor, Gutierrez presents the result of surveysrecently conducted on the Chilean Marine Corps regarding opinions held byMarine officers and enlisted men regarding peace operations. The resultsprovide important insights into motivations for participating at the individual,corporate and – by extension – political levels. The results also reflect thechanging prestige of peace operations by illustrating that these missions, onceperceived as detrimental to career progress in many parts of the region, havenow become a key component of personal and career fulfilment within militaryestablishments.

Carlos Chagas brings valuable reflections from his experiences in the field. Inhis role as adjutant to the MINUSTAH Force Commander, this Brazilian MarineCorps officer sat for over a year at the table where many of the mission’s key pol-itical and military choices were made. His account of the mission’s early periodoffers unique insights into both the functioning of a complex peacebuildingmission and the motivations and goals, both military and political, of one of itskey contributors.

In a conclusion to the special issue Franz Kernic and Lisa Karlborg tie togetherthe contributions’ general themes and combine them with a sociologicallyoriented investigation of globalization and its effects on the development ofpeace operations. They analyse how globalization has diffused norms at aglobal level and how South America has interacted with this process. Thisallows for the identification of future perspectives on the region’s role in peaceoperations.

594 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

Taken as a whole, these contributions constitute a comprehensive overviewof the role of South American states as contributors to UN peace operations. Inpresenting the main issues related to South American state’s role in peace oper-ations from a breadth of analytical perspectives, the aim of the special issue isboth to provide cogent and complete analyses of these key actors’ particularities,and to provide sources for future research on this topic of growing relevance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Special Issue is, in its majority, the fruit of an international seminar held in April 2010 at the

Institute for International Relations at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, entitled‘Europe and Latin America in Peace Operations: Comparative Perspectives and Practices’. Theevent brought together more than thirty scholars from four continents, with the aim of increasing

dialogue on practical and theoretical issues between academics and practitioners—both civilian andmilitary. As such, it is conceived with its bridge function in mind, in the interest of increasing researchlinks and fostering the integration of the South American region into broader international debates.

The author and organizer of the event would like to thank the following institutions for theirsupport, without which the conference and this collection would not have been possible: CAPES

(Brazilian Ministry of Education), the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the European CommissionDelegation in Brazil, the governments of Canada and Norway, and the Pontifical Catholic Universityof Rio de Janeiro.

NOTES

1. Cited by Ana Luiza Zenker, Agencia Brasil, ‘Embaixador admite resistencia de haitianos a pre-senca de tropas’ [Ambassador Admits Haitian Resistance to Troop Presence], Clube Juridicodo Brasil, 14 Oct. 2008, at: www.clubjus.com.br/?artigos&ver=7.21577, author’s translation.

2. The term ‘South America’ has been preferred throughout this issue, as it more accurately reflectsthe self-identification of the actors involved. Generally speaking, the focus is on the main contri-butors to MINUSTAH. Where reference is meant to include Central American troop contribu-tors, or in original references, ‘Latin America’ has been used. As a rule, ‘hemispheric security’refers to efforts involving both American continents, often under US leadership.

3. See Wenche Hauge, ‘A Latin American Agenda for Peace’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.16,No.5, 2009, pp.685–98; Arturo Sotomayor Velasquez, ‘Different Paths an Divergent Policiesin the UN Security System: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective’, International Peace-keeping, Vol.16, No.3, 2009, pp.364–78; and several contributions focusing on the locus of thisLatin American cooperation, Haiti, notably Robert Muggah and Keith Krause, ‘Closing the Gapbetween Peace Operations and Post-conflict Insecurity: Towards a Violence Reduction Agenda’,International Peacekeeping, Vol.16, No.1, 2009, pp.136–50.

4. See Richard Gowan, ‘The United States and Peacekeeping Policy in Europe and Latin America:An Uncertain Catalyst?’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.15, No.1, 2008, p.92; special issueof International Peacekeeping, on the ‘liberal peace’, Kristoffer Liden, Roger MacGinty andOliver Richmond (eds), Vol.16, No.5, 2009.

5. On the history and contemporary conditions of Haiti see Steeve Coupeau, The History of Haiti,Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008; Etienne D. Charlier, Apercu sur la formation historiquede la nation haıtienne [Historical Survey of the Formation of the Haitian Nation], 2nd edn, Mon-treal: Editions DAMI, 2009; Christophe Wargny, Haıti n’existe pas – 1804–2004: deux cents ansde solitude [Haiti Does Not Exist: Two Hundred Years of Solitude], Paris: Autrement, 2008;World Bank, Social Resilience and State Fragility in Haiti, Washington, DC, 2007.

6. See, e.g., Raul Benıtez, ‘America Latina: operaciones de paz y acciones militares internacionalesde las fuerzas armadas’ [Latin America: peace operations and international military actions of itsarmed forces], Foro Internacional, Vol.47, No.1, 2007, pp.99–116.

7. Definitrans of the Southern Cone vary and can include up to five or even six states (ARG, CHI,URU, BRA, PAR, BOL). In the peacekeeping context Brazil is generally included in the SouthernCone.

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 595

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

8. Carlos Calvo, Le droit international theorique et pratique; precede d’un expose historique desprogres de la science du droit des gens [The Theory and Practice of International Law; Precededby a Historical Account of the Progress on the Study of the Law of Nations], Paris: A. Rousseau,1896.

9. With the incipient exceptions of Chile, which has incorporated human security into defence whitepapers, and the increasing rhetorical reference to a ‘diplomacy of solidarity’ in statements fromBrazilian diplomats. See also Paulo Gustavo Pellegrino Correa, ‘MINUSTAH e diplomacia soli-daria: criacao de um novo paradigma nas operacoes de paz?’ [MINUSTAH and the Diplomacy ofSolidarity: Creation of a New Paradigm for Peace Operations?], MA thesis, Universidade FederalSao Carlos, 2009, at: www.progp.ufscar.br/progp/ppgpol/arquivos/File/paulo.pdf.

10. On the current role of the OAS, see Paz Veronica Milet, ‘El rol de la OEA. El difıcil camino deprevencion y resolucion de conflictos a nivel regional’ [The Role of the OAS. The DifficultRoad to Conflict Prevention at a Regional Level], Revista Futuros, Vol.3, No.10, 2005, at:www.revistafuturos.info.

11. Kai Michael Kenkel, ‘Military–Military Cooperation, Regional Integration and Training forPeacekeeping Operations: Brazil and the Southern Cone’, in Gerhard Kummel, Adrian Ratkicand Henrik Furst (eds), Core Values and the Expeditionary Mindset, Baden-Baden: Nomos,forthcoming.

12. The ‘2 × 9’ mechanism and UNASUR/UNASUL, as well as the general dynamics of regionaldefence policy integration surrounding peace operations, are the focus of the contribution byRut Diamint to this volume. See also Paulo Tripodi and Andres Villar, ‘Haitı: la encrucijadade una intervencion latinoamericana’ [Haiti: A Latin American Intervention at the Crossroads],Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad, Vol.19, No.1, 2005, pp.17–35.

13. UN Security Council res. 1353, ‘Strengthening co-operation with troop-contributing countries’,13 June 2001.

14. ENOPU website, at: www.ejercito.mil.uy/comsocial/enopu/index.html15. CAECOPAZ website, at: www.caecopaz.mil.ar16. CECOPAC website, at: www.cecopac.cl17. CCOPAB website, at: http://ccopab.eb.mil.br18. Luciana Micha, ‘Una vision integrada de la participacion Argentina en MINUSTAH’ [An Inte-

grated View of Argentina’s Participation in MINUSTAH], Security and Defense StudiesReview, Vol.5, No.1, 2005, p.1.

19. See Pablo Vignolles, ‘El Valor de las Fuerzas Armadas como Instrumento de la Polıtica Exterior:Argentina en misiones de paz y coaliciones militares’ [The Value of the Armed Forces as an Instru-ment of Foreign Policy: Argentina in Peace Missions and Military Coalitions], Security andDefense Studies Review, Vol.2, No.1, pp.143–88.

20. For comparative analyses of Argentina, Brazil and Chile as TCCs, see Elsa Llenderrozas, ‘Losincentivos de Argentina, Brasil y Chile para participar en la mision MINUSTAH en Haitı. Suimpacto en los mecanismos de cooperacion en operaciones de paz’ [Incentives for Participationin MINUSTAH by Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The Impacts of Cooperation Mechanisms andpeace operations], MA thesis, Latin American School of Social Science (FLACSO), Argentina,2004; Ricardo A. Runza, ‘Misiones, despliegue y organizacion de las Fuerzas Armadas deArgentina, Brasil y Chile’ [Emissions, Deployment and the Organization of the Armed Forcesin Argentina, Brazil and Chile], Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad, Vol.18, Nos 1–2, 2005,pp.155–81.

21. On the participation by almost all MINUSTAH TCCs see John T. Fishel and Andres Saenz (eds),Capacity Building for Peacekeeping: The Case of Haiti, Washington, DC: National Defense Uni-versity Press, 2007.

22. Interview with senior Uruguayan Army officer, ENOPU, 17 July 2009, Montevideo; CristinaZurbriggen, ‘Polıtica exterior, defensa y las operaciones de paz: ¿una estrategia coherente? Elcaso de Uruguay’ [Foreign policy, defence and peace operations: a coherent strategy? The caseof Uruguay], Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad, Vol.19, No.1, 2005, pp.85–109; Julian GonzalezGuyer, ‘MINUSTAH, Sudamerica y desafios y limitaciones de las misiones de paz de “ultima gen-eracion”’ [MINUSTAH, South America, and challenges and limitations of the last-generationpeace missions], paper presented at 21st World Congress of the International Political ScienceAssociation, Santiago de Chile, 12–16 July 2009, at: www.haitiuruguay.com.uy/materiales/haiti/julian%2520gonzalez%2520guyer%2520ipsa%25202009%2520minustah.pdf; JulianGonzalez Guyer, ‘Tropas uruguayas en misiones de paz o la hemiplejia de la polıtica exterior.El riesgoso compromiso sudamericano en Haitı y los lımites de las estrategias internacionalesde reconstruccion post-conflicto’ [Uruguayan troops in peace operations and the paralysis offoreign policy. The risky South American commitment in Haiti and the limits of international

596 INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4

strategies of post-conflict reconstruction], paper presented at the VIIII Jornadas de Investigacionde la FCS, Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo, Sept. 2009, at: www.haitiuruguay.com.uy/materiales/haiti/julian%2520gonzalez%2520guyer%2520jornadas2009.pdf.

23. Ana Luiza Zenker, ‘Brasileiro nao conhece o trabalho das tropas no Haiti, diz embaixatriz’[Brazilians don’t know the work of Brazilian troops in Haiti, says Ambassador’s wife], AgenciaBrasil, 14 Oct. 2008, at: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/arquivo/node/354637.

24. UN Secretary-General, ‘An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement Adopted by the SummitMeeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992’, 17 June 1992, at: www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html

25. DPKO, New Horizon Report, at: www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/newhorizon.shtml.26. Fred Tanner, ‘Addressing the Perils of Peace Operations: Toward a Global Peacekeeping System’,

Global Governance, Vol.16, No.2, 2010, p.209.27. See Liden et al. (n.4 above).28. Benıtez (see n.6 above), p.112.29. On some of the difficulties to be overcome, institutional and otherwise, see Monica Hirst and Elsa

Llenderrozas, ‘La dimension polıtica de la presencia en Haitı: los desafıos para el ABC+U’ [Thepolitical dimension of the presence in Haiti: challenges for ABC+U], paper presented at theSegunda Reunion de Reflexion sobre la Cooperacion Argentina con Haitı del Proyecto ‘La Recon-struccion de Haitı. Fortaleciendo las capacidades de Argentina para una cooperacion efectiva’[Second Meeting Reflecting on Argentine Cooperation with Haiti on the Project ‘Reconstructionof Haiti: Strengthening Argentina’s Capacity for Effective Cooperation’], Buenos Aires, 7–8July 2008, at: www.haitiargentina.org/content/download/405/1632/file/Paper%2520Hirst%2520Llenderrozas.pdf

STEPPING OUT OF THE SHADOW 597

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:03

18

July

201

4