Advertisement

Peace Operations, Intervention and Brazilian Foreign Policy: Key Issues and Debates

  • Kai Michael Kenkel
  • Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto
  • Mikelli Marzzini Lucas Alves Ribeiro
Chapter

Abstract

Peace operations, as well as humanitarian intervention and its attendant debates, constitute a key element of Brazil’s foreign policy project as an emerging power. This chapter situates Brazilian participation in peace operations, atrocity prevention and the surrounding normative debates, and highlights the key issues this activity has raised for Brazil as it navigates its shifting global role. The analysis lays out the patterns of Brazilian participation in intervention operations and debates has followed, as well the distinctiveness of their contribution and its changing weight in the way the country constructs its narrative of global participation. The role of status seeking as a determinant of that participation is a guiding focus throughout the chapter.

References

  1. Abdenur, Adrenalina E., and Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto. 2016. ‘Democratisation by Association? Brazilian Social Policy Cooperation in Africa. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 28: 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Acharya, Amitav. 2011. Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders: Sovereignty, Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World. International Studies Quarterly 55: 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguilar, Sérgio Luiz Cruz. 2005. Brasil em missões de paz. São Paulo: Usina do Livro.Google Scholar
  4. Amorim, Celso. 1999. Entre o desequilíbrio unipolar e a multipolaridade: o Conselho de Segurança da ONU no período pós-Guerra Fria. In O Brasil e as novas dimensões da segurança internacional, ed. Gilberto Dupas and Tullo Vigevani, 87–98. São Paulo: Editora Alfa-Omega.Google Scholar
  5. Araújo Castro, João Augusto. 1972. The UN and the Freezing of the International Power Structure. International Organization 26 (1): 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellamy, Alex. 2009. Realizing the Responsibility to Protect. International Studies Perspectives 10 (2): 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benner, Thorsten. 2013. Brazil as a Norm Entrepreneur: The “Responsibility While Protecting” Initiative. GPPi Working Paper. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Berti, B. 2013. Forcible Intervention in Libya: Revamping the ‘Politics of Human Protection’? Global Change, Peace & Security 26 (1): 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brimmer, Esther. 2014. Is Brazil a Responsible Power or a Naysayer? The Washington Quarterly 37 (3): 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brockmeier, Sarah, Oliver Stuenkel, and Marcos Tourinho. 2016. The Impact of the Libya Intervention Debates on Norms of Protection. Global Society 20 (1): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bukovansky, Mlada, Ian Clark, Robyn Eckersley, Richard Price, Christian Reus-Smit, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. 2012. Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardoso, Afonso José Sena. 1998. O Brasil nas Operações de Paz das Nações Unidas. Brasília: FUNAG.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, Katharina P. 2013. Token Troop Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. In Providing Peacekeepers: The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions, ed. Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, 48–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deng, Francis, et al. 1996. Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  16. Destradi, Sandra and Kai Michael Kenkel. 2017. Responsibility and Reluctance: A Fundamental Tension in Emerging Powers’ Approach to Global Governance. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the 58th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association 23 February 2017, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  17. Diniz, Eugênio. 2007. Brazil: Peacekeeping and the Evolution of Foreign Policy. In Capacity Building for Peacekeeping: The Case of Haiti, ed. J.T. Fishel and A. Sáenz. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, Gareth. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2014. The Consequences of Non-Intervention in Syria: Does the Responsibility to Protect Have a Future? In Into the Eleventh Hour, ed. R. Murray and A. Mckay, 18–25. Bristol: E-International Relations.Google Scholar
  20. Fernández Moreno, Marta, Carlos Chagas Vianna Braga, and Maíra Siman Gomes. 2012. Trapped between Many Worlds: A Post-Colonial Perspective on the UN Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). International Peacekeeping 19 (3): 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fontoura, Paulo Roberto Campos Tarrisse da. 2005. O Brasil e as operações de manutenção da paz das Nações Unidas. Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2009. Brasil: 60 anos de operações de paz. Rio de Janeiro: Diretoria do Patrimônio Histórico e Documentação da Marinha DPHDM, Marinha do Brasil.Google Scholar
  24. Franck, T.M. 2003. Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention. In Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, ed. J.L. Holzgrefe and R.O. Keohane, 204–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glanville, Luke. 2014. Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hermann, Breno. 2011. Soberania, não-intervenção e não-indiferença: reflexões sobre o discurso diplomático brasileiro. Brasília: FUNAG.Google Scholar
  27. Hofmann, Gregor. 2015. Ten Years of R2P: What doesn’t Kill a Norm Only Makes it Stronger? Contestation, Application and Institutionalization of International Atrocity Prevention and Response. (PRIF Report No. 133). Frankfurt am Main: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  28. ICISS. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  29. Jefferess, David. 2009. Responsibility, Nostalgia, and the Mythology of Canada as a Peacekeeper. University of Toronto Quarterly 78 (2): 709–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Job, Brian L., and Anastasia Shesterinina. 2014. China as a Global Norm-Shaper: Institutionalization and Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. In Implementation & World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice, ed. Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard, 144–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaldor, Mary. 2007. Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2010. South America’s Emerging Power: Brazil as Peacekeeper. International Peacekeeping 17 (5): 644–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2012. Brazil and R2P: Does Taking Responsibility Mean Using Force? Global Responsibility to Protect 4 (1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2013a. Brazil. In Providing Peacekeepers. The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions, ed. Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2013b. Brazil’s Peacebuilding in Africa and Haiti. Journal of International Peacekeeping 17 (3-4): 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2013c. Out of South America to the Globe: Brazil’s Growing Stake in Peace Operations. In South America and Peace Operations. Coming of Age, ed. Kai Michael Kenkel, 85–110. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenkel, Kai Michael, and Felippe De Rosa. 2015. Localization and Subsidiarity in Brazil’s Engagement with the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 7 (3/4): 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenkel, Kai Michael, and Marcelle Trote Martins. 2016. Emerging Powers and the Notion of ‘International Responsibility’: Moral Duty or Shifting Goalpost? Brazilian Political Science Review 10 (1).: n.p.Google Scholar
  39. Kenkel, Kai Michael, and Cristina Stefan. 2016. Brazil and the “Responsibility while Protecting” Initiative: Norms and the Timing of Diplomatic Support. Global Governance 22 (1): 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ki-moon, Ban. 2009. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. United Nations Document A/63/677.Google Scholar
  41. Krishnasamy, Kabilan. 2001. Recognition for Third World Peacekeepers: India and Pakistan. International Peacekeeping 8 (4): 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malone, David. 1997. Haiti and the International Community: A Case Study. Survival 39 (2): 126–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 1998. Decision-Making in the UN Security Council. The Case of Haiti, 1990–1997. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mello e Souza, André de. 2014. Repensando a Cooperação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).Google Scholar
  45. Morris, Nicholas. 2004. Humanitarian Intervention in the Balkans. In Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations, ed. Jennifer M. Welsh, 98–119. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Morris, Justin. 2013. Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum. International Affairs 89 (5): 1265–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Neack, Laura. 1995. UN Peace-Keeping: In the Interest of Community or Self? Journal of Peace Research 32 (2): 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patrick, Stewart. 2010. Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers. Foreign Affairs 89 (6): 44–53.Google Scholar
  49. Patriota, Antonio de Aguiar. 1998. O Conselho de Segurança após a Guerra do Golfo: a articulação de um novo paradigma de segurança coletiva. Brasília: Instituto Rio Branco/Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.Google Scholar
  50. Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations in New York. 2011. Responsibility while Protecting: Elements for the Development and Promotion of a Concept. United Nations Document A/66/551–S/2011/701.Google Scholar
  51. Resende, Lucas Pereira. 2013. Uma nova abordagem para o estudo do engajamento do Brasil nas operações de paz da ONU. Política Externa 21 (3): 163–176.Google Scholar
  52. Santos, Norma Breda dos. 2002. Dez anos no deserto: a participação brasileira na primeira missão de paz das Nações Unidas. In Israel-Palestina; a construção da paz vista de uma perspectiva global, ed. Gilberto Dupas and Tullo Vigevani, 263–285. São Paulo: Editora UNESP.Google Scholar
  53. Schirm, Stefan A. 2010. Leaders in Need of Followers: Emerging Powers in Global Governance. European Journal of International Relations 16 (2): 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Seitenfus, Ricardo Antônio da Silva, Cristine Koehler Zanella, and Pâmela Marconatto Marques. 2007. O Direito Internacional repensado em tempos de ausências e emergências: a busca de uma tradução para o princípio da não-indiferença. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 50 (2): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shesterinina, Anastasia. 2016. Evolving Norms of Protection: China, Libya and the Problem of Intervention in Armed Conflict. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (3): 812–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Silva, Lélio Gonçalves Rodrigues da. 2005. Uma missão de paz na África. Rio de Janeiro: Biblioteca do Exército.Google Scholar
  57. Silva, Antonio Ruy Almeida, Carlos Chagas Vianna Braga, and Danilo Marcondes. 2017. The Brazilian Participation in UNIFIL: Raising Brazil’s Profile in International Peace and Security in the Middle East? Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 60 (2): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siman Gomes, Maíra. 2016. Analysing Interventionism Beyond Conventional Foreign Policy Rationales: The Engagement of Brazil in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (3): 852–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stefan, Cristina G. 2017. On Non-Western Norm Shapers: Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting. European Journal of International Security 2 (1): 88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stolte, Christina. 2015. Brazil’s Africa Strategy: Role Conception and the Drive for International Status. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stuenkel, Oliver. 2014. The BRICS and the Future of R2P: Was Syria or Libya the Exception? Global Responsibility to Protect. 6 (1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Suzuki, Shogo. 2008. Seeking ‘Legitimate’ Great Power Status in Post-Cold War International Society: China’s and Japan’s Participation in UNPKO. International Relations 22 (1): 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thakur, Ramesh. 2013. R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers. The Washington Quarterly 36 (2): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. ———. 2014. Syria and the Responsibility to Protect. In Into the Eleventh Hour, ed. R. Murray and A. Mckay, 38–43. Bristol: E-International Relations.Google Scholar
  65. Thakur, Ramesh, and T. Weiss. 2009. R2P: From Idea to Norm—And Action? Global Responsibility to Protect 1 (1): 22–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Uziel, Eduardo. 2010. Brasil, Conselho de Segurança e operações de manutenção a paz da ONU. Política Externa 19 (1): 63–77.Google Scholar
  67. ———. 2016. Três questões empíricas, uma teórica e a participação do Brasil em operações de paz das Nações Unidas. Política Externa 14 (4): 91–105.Google Scholar
  68. Ward, Steven. 2017. Status and the Challenge of Rising Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weiss, Thomas G. 2006. R2P After 9/11. Wisconsin International Law Journal 24 (3): 741–760.Google Scholar
  70. Welsh, Jennifer. 2014. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Catalyzing Debate and Building Capacity. In Implementation and World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice, ed. Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard, 124–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. ———. 2016. The Responsibility to Protect after Libya & Syria. Daedalus 145 (4): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000a. Reflections on the Legality and Legitimacy of NATO’s Intervention in Kosovo. International Journal of Human Rights 4 (34): 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. ———. 2000b. Saving strangers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Williams, Paul D., and Alex Bellamy. 2012. Principles, Politics, and Prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Use of Military Force. Global Governance 18: 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wohlforth, William C., Benjamin de Carvalho, Halvard Leira, and Iver B. Neumann. 2017. Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies 44 (3): 536–546.Google Scholar
  76. Xiaoyu, Pu. 2012. Socialisation as a Two-Way Process: Emerging Powers and the Diffusion of International Norms. Chinese Journal of International Politics 5 (4): 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Michael Kenkel
    • 1
  • Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto
    • 2
  • Mikelli Marzzini Lucas Alves Ribeiro
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Brazilian War College (ESG)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Bahia State UniversityPaulo AfonsoBrazil

Personalised recommendations