Regional contributions to Multifunctional Peacekeeping Operations:
Best practices and main challenges: A look from Latin America1*
Ms Anabella Busso2**
The purpose of this notes is to provide academic reflection upon some regional experiences
of contribution to multifunctional peacekeeping operations (PKO), detecting their best
practices and challenges. The intention is to contribute with ideas that lead to a strengthening
of UN PKO in cooperation with different regional organizations. In order to achieve that,
after clarifying the perspective from which this paper was designed, some general conditions
for best practices needed for a successful performance of regional organizations in
peacekeeping are described and, later, specific examples of best practices provided by Latin
America are analyzed. The selected cases provide both practices related to institutional
development and strengthening of the involved countries via South-South cooperation
initiatives, as well as activities related to the training of peacekeepers and peacemakers and
cooperation in the area of defense.
Is the contribution of regional organizations to peacekeeping perceived by
Governments receiving the contribution as a cooperative contribution?
There is a growing tendency towards conceiving modes or regionalized participation within
the framework of the United Nations. By regionalization in Peacekeeping, we understand, as
Manrique de Luna Barrios (2009) does, that PKO’s regionalization is a process in which
Regional Organizations are involved in the constitution, deployment and management of
PKO’s, either through autonomous action or through a joint effort with the UN, in virtue of
the principle of cooperation and according to what is established by the Charter of the
Organization.
Following that conceptualization, it is important to stress, in the first place, that from a
general perspective, those kinds of missions increased in number at the end of the Cold-War
due to the paralysis imposed by the superpowers in the UN Security Council through their
veto power. However, their growth is also associated with a change in the nature of the
conflicts of the post-Cold War period, where intra-state wars prevail over inter-state wars
(Busso: 2007). Under these circumstances, the internal logic of a conflict is always better
known and understood by the states of the region involved because they are suffering from
the consequences of such disputes more directly than extra regional countries.
Most South American countries participate in Peacekeeping Operations since the 1950’s
approximately. Since the 1990’s we have witnessed a multiplication of this missions, as well
1
* This paper is a commissioned background paper for the International Forum for the Challenges of Peace
Operations. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Challenges Forum
Partnership or the Host.
2
** With contributions from: Celina Rossa, Emilse Calderón and María Eva Pignatta
as a change in both its nature and its needs. These troop contributing countries have acquired
vast experience in different missions all over the globe, in inhospitable areas, with different
cultures and in conflicts of different intensities and magnitudes. Accordingly, a major
challenge for these countries would come along in the year 2004, when the opportunity
presented itself for Latin America as a region to lead a mission in its own continent in Haiti.
In 1992 the UN Security Council asked the Secretary General to analyze UN capabilities in
the areas of preventive diplomacy, peace achievement and peacekeeping, and to establish
ways in which regional organizations could contribute to peace. In response to this request,
Boutros Boutros Ghali (1992) created a document titled “An Agenda for Peace”, which
seeked to organize the participation of Regional Organizations jointly with UN in
peacekeeping operations. Manrique de Luna Barrios (2009) explains that the lack of a precise
definition of the terms "agreement” or “regional organization” gave rise to a broad criteria
about what should be considered a regional organization. Thus, without violating Articles 52
and 54 of the Charter of the United Nations, this changed the criteria by which only three
regional organizations could be considered “regional organizations” or “agreements”
pursuant to Chapter VIII of the UN Charter: the Organization of American States (OAS), the
League of Arab States, and the African Union.
The Brahimi Report, which provided a tremendous self-criticism on behalf of the United
Nations, proposed regional action and the creation of rapid deployment forces for the new
generation of complex and multidimensional Peacekeeping Operations. These proposals and
recommendations were taken by our region as valid, and as such implemented in different
instances that are presented in the present paper.
Applying this reasoning to the Latin American experience, and in addition to the regional
contributions of the OAS, we should include the operations carried out by the multilateral
mechanisms of concertation of policies, which are specifically designed for conflict
resolution (i.e. Contadora's Group in 1983), as well as those mechanisms with a more
diversified agenda which also contribute to peace (including collaboration with UN
Peacekeeping Operations, such as the Union of South American Nations, UNASUR, and the
South American Defense Council ,CDS).
Secondly, regardless of the difficulties and weaknesses of the participation of regional
organizations in peacekeeping operations, they can contribute positively to peacekeeping in
various circumstances. We should remember, for example, that regional organizations have
participated in actions of “preventive diplomacy” which helped contain potential conflicts in
Latin America. For instance, they contained the disputes between Colombia and Venezuela
(2010), and between Colombia and Ecuador (2008), and prevented state disintegration
processes when UNASUR acted against secession demands faced by the Government of Evo
Morales in Bolivia in 2008. These actions somehow contributed to greater awareness among
the civilian population and different power groups about the importance of conflict
prevention. On another note, Latin American countries had an active role in actual
peacekeeping situations when Argentina, Brazil and Chile participated in the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) and enhanced civil participation in
multifunctional operations through South-South cooperation.
Furthermore, the regionalization process of peacekeeping operations often had a positive
impact because it helped decentralize the management of various crises affecting
international peace and security. In this way, the efforts to maintain peace in some areas were
not rejected by some of the actors engaged in the conflicts, which in the past had accused the
2
UN of not being a valid negotiator for tolerating the actions by member states, which violated
the boundaries of the Organization’s Charter (Manrique de Luna Barrios, 2009). In other
words, the contributions of regional actors are usually –although not always- perceived by the
states involved in a conflict as more cooperative than UN actions. Therefore, foreign support
is not viewed as an interventionist practice, a benevolent hegemony or as a protectorate
concealed under the form of humanitarian action, as it often occurs with the intervention of
extra-regional powerful states.
However, to avoid misperceptions, it is important that regional organizations do not fall
under the hegemony of any particular actor, which may impose conditions and have a
negative impact3 (Navas Córdoba, 2012). We do not consider that to be the case of any Latin
American country making troop and police contributions to Peacekeeping.
Thirdly, although the literature on the subject shows that regional peacekeeping actions can
be more pragmatic and more successful in a particular situation, to achieve the desired
results, PKOs should be both horizontally and vertically coordinated. It is important to
establish a division of labor among the countries of the region while maintaining coordination
with the UN. Sharing operational, strategic and political information is fundamental.
We should also note some other difficulties faced by regional organizations in terms of
resource availability, operational capabilities and the political will of its members. Moreover,
some regions such as the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent do not have regional
organizations that are capable of participating in PKOs (Navas Córdoba, 2012).
Next and closely related to the previous point, the countries which belong to a regional
organization and which are committed to peacekeeping should inevitably achieve proper
coordination between their foreign policies and their defense policies at the domestic
level and, at the same time, should try to connect with the goals and actions of the regional
organizations. Transferring the disputes of national and regional bureaucracies to the design
and execution of PKOs can only bring negative results.
Finally, the need for Regional Organizations to increase the number of women in PKOs is
being faced. We must keep in mind that "improving gender balance in PKOs has two direct
effects: first, it provides a model for societies undergoing a reconstruction process through
the presence of women in all stages; second, it improves the security of women and girls
involved in diverse situations of conflict through greater participation of women among
military and police personnel. " (Avelar Giannini, 2011: 11). In this sense, many countries of
the region share experiences about the best ways to implement UN Security Council
Resolution 1325 in a fashion that is in accordance with their respective internal legal
arrangements, which has been materialized in National Implementation Plans of the
aforementioned Resolution. An exhibit of that effort is shown by the different regional
seminars on Gender in Peacekeeping and the incorporation of the issue in general that take
place in the countries of the UNASUR. Sharing experiences and best practices in Gender
among these countries can contribute to make their mission more reliable and legitimate
when they do deploy, because Peacekeepers that are trained and aware of the Gender Issue
and its importance are perceived (in most cases) as a solution and not as a problem by the
host country.
3
It is worth noting the participation of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group
(ECOMOG) in Liberia and Sierra Leona and the role placed by Nigeria, the main source of funds and troops in
the missions carried out by this African regional organization. (Navas Córdoba, 2012)
3
Challenges and Lessons Learned in the region: cooperation or coordination?
The growing relevance of South-South cooperation is associated with the redistribution of
power in international relations in the last decades, the progressive rise of emerging powers
(China, India, and Brazil, among others) and the growing influence of developing countries in
the creation of the international agenda. These changes bring about new perspectives on how
to address the challenges faced by the international community. In this context of changes,
marked by a scenario of potential “emerging donators”, the efficiency of Official
Development Assistance has been an issue of debate. It has been pointed out that “(…)
South-South cooperation would help transfer experiences among cooperating countries, it
would make a more efficient use of assimilated knowledge, it would help adjust to the
political and economic needs of countries in similar situations and it would demand minimum
requirements (Lengyel and Malacalza, 2011).
South-South cooperation as a regional practice to supplement and/or strengthen a certain
mission has been used as a tool to contribute to the performance of PKOs. This type of
cooperation “(…) among developing nations allows the countries which have achieved more
progress in certain areas to share and/or transfer part of their capabilities to less successful
countries by covering their needs at least in a specific area. This can be achieved through a
formula generally used in technical cooperation, which focuses on human and technical
resources instead of financial tools. This formula also offers two advantages: a relatively low
economic cost and a fast and direct impact on the population involved.” (SEGIB, 2007:57).
The progressive cooperation of Latin American countries in Haiti since the year 2004 –
mainly Chile, Brazil and Argentina– and the concomitant involvement of these countries in
the MINUSTAH can be understood in the context of this scenario of increasing stages of
South-South Cooperation. After the presidential elections of 2006 in Haiti, middle income
Latin American countries began to visualize their South-South cooperation strategies under
with a new and distinctive approach based on regional commitment to democracy, the
multilateral system and a shared view of the fact that the security comes from national
development, and, to achieve it, it is indispensable to fight poverty reorienting aid towards
social policies (Lengyel, Thury Cornejo y Malacalza 2009 y Lengyel y Malacalza 2011).This
approach tried to avoid the mistakes committed by North South Cooperation.
The South-South Cooperation Latin American contribution with Haiti is over 25 million
dollars, counting both Bilateral Horizontal Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation (SEGIB,
2007:58) and it proceeds, mainly, from Argentina, Brazil and Chile (ABC countries).
However, there is evidence of a broader regional commitment including bilateral projects
proceeding from Venezuela (in the supply of Oil and Gas) and Cuba (in the areas of Health
and Education) and projects financed and supervised by UNASUR.
Among the ABC countries, Brazil develops projects in the fields of Agriculture, Food
Security, Health and Infrastructure. According to data from the Brazilian Agency of
Cooperation, 77% of the International Cooperation Development projects in the Caribbean
take place in Haiti. (Langyel et al, 2010: 52).Chilean projects of South-South Cooperation
have focused on Child and College Education Programs, Sustainable Rural Development and
Security through Police technical assistance (http://chileabroad.gov.cl/haiti/relacionbilateral/cooperacion-internacional/). Argentina cooperates with Haiti providing technical
consulting in Economics and Finance, Water Purification and Agricultural Production. In the
latter area is where cooperation has been more relevant, through the execution of the program
4
“Pro-Huerta”, which constitutes a successful practice (of Bilateral Horizontal Cooperation
at first and of Triangular Cooperation later).
“Pro-Huerta” is a program led by the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA),
originally designed and implemented in Argentina in 2003 to improve the alimentation of the
population in a of structural poverty situation. Since 2005, Argentinean specialists are
working in Haiti with a team of local technicians, with the goal of transmitting knowledge,
technical assistance and strategic supplies to the population, in order to guarantee auto
production of fresh food. Additionally, the program includes a “Water Mission”, aimed at
improving water access conditions in Haiti, both for water consumption and for irrigation.
Undoubtedly, the success of “Pro-Huerta is founded, aside from the quality of the human and
technical resources it provides, on the fact that both the donor and the receiving country face
common problems, as well as in the leading role local communities gained in the process of
knowledge transfer. In this way, a program originally conceived as Bilateral Horizontal
Cooperation and focuses in the Gonaives area, is currently sustained in Triangular
Cooperation involving Canada, Spain, Brazil, the International Fund for Agricultural
Development and the Inter-American Institute of Cooperation for Agriculture (Revista FOAR, 2008: 52), and it has been replicated all over the Haitian territory. Besides that,
cooperation in the context of Pro Huerta has reached UNASUR, whose Technical Secretariat
executes and finances the enhancement of the program since February 2012, doubling its
beneficiaries (UNASUR, 2012: pages. 6 y 7).
Among the main challenges faced by cooperation in general, including South-South
Cooperation, several issues need to be stressed, such as:
Understanding that cooperation cannot be visualized as structural, but has instead to
be thought of as temporary and destined to strengthen local capabilities. As Ricardo
Seitenfus, former Special Representative to the General Secretary in Haiti, stresses,
“Emergency aid is ineffective when it becomes structural by substituting the State´s
functions turning into a lack of collective responsibility” (Seintenfus, 2010).
Avoiding turning the cooperation (in general, but South-South Cooperation in
particular) to be used as a lab for international welfarism where NGO’s act in a
superposed and uncoordinated way. The Haitian experience is of great significance
for this since, as said by former North American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
there were 10.000 NGO’s working in Haiti, of which only 300 were properly
registered in the corresponding Ministry, which means that lots of agencies were
acting with no supervision nor control. This illustrates the need for governmental
coordination and supervision of cooperation activities.
Although South-South Cooperation includes new sources of finance and new
approaches to development for receptor countries, it is nevertheless a Foreign Policy
instrument of the donor countries, that is, a strategic tool that may vary with interests,
capacities and world visions of the actors involved. This context makes it necessary
to shrink the instrumental condition of cooperation and instead provide it with a more
stable character.
Finally, it is very important that the different cooperation modalities (North South and
South-South) regain their previous percentages of financial resources, where the
larger share of the aid was destined to beneficiaries and a smaller share to technical
and bureaucratic expenses. Nowadays, that equation is completely altered.
5
Regionalization of Pre Deployment Training. Same mission equal same
doctrine?
Training to perform tasks in conflict situations has become one the main concerns regarding
PKO’s in general and the capacities of some Regional Organizations in particular. Besides
that, it is necessary to find mechanisms that allow for sharing and coordinating training
efforts and achievements among different organizations, in order to protect the rights of
civilian population affected by conflict. In this sense, Juan Gabriel Valdés, former UN
representative in Haiti, has pointed out that in MINUSTAH, the integration of LatinAmerican soldiers where they worked together, proved to be very efficient and showed
collaboration and a fraternal spirit. He argued, however, that in the broader process of
integration, where extra regional actors participate, there are difficulties. There are different
traditions, different forms of troop organization and, sometimes, an insufficient troop
preparation for the task they are to face in the field (Alvarez Veloso, 2005).
In this context, Latin America has tried to generate novel initiatives in order to address the
challenges of training and coordination peacekeepers/makers face. Those initiatives have
been shared both inside and outside of the region. One of the most outstanding of this
initiatives in the Latin American region is Argentina’s Centro Argentino de Entrenamiento
Conjunto para Operaciones de Paz (CAECOPAZ), in terms of civilian and military training
for peacekeeping. CAECOPAZ was created in 1995.
CAECOPAZ’s regional capacity was stated by Dr. Arturo Puricelli, former Argentinean
Ministry of Defense, when the Chilean Minister of Defense and the Secretary General to the
UN, Mr. Ban Ki Moon, visited CAECOPAZ in June 2011. In that occasion he highlighted
that Argentina’s International Defense Policy tries to contribute with other countries by
providing its means and capacities to the fostering of collaboration and joint action for peace
and international security, under the UN flag.
The fact that CAECOPAZ possesses regional capacity of advanced training in Peacekeeping
does not mean that it replaces national centres, but that it complements them instead. Among
its regional features, we can highlight:
Its curricula follows UN’s advice, providing for an articulation between what is
established by that organization and the experienced gained in the field;
Training has allowed Argentina to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern
Peacekeeping Operations;
The issues tackled by the curricula provide a general and traditional education on
peacekeeping. Course include: Civic-Military Coordination in Peacekeeping, UN
Logistics and Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance, among others.
It focuses on some of PKO’s newest challenges (International Seminar on Applying a
Gender Perspective to Peacekeeping, Human Rights in Peacekeeping, and Negotiation
in Peacekeeping).
Argentinean instructors teach in Peacekeeping Training Centres worldwide, including
Germany, Brazil, Canada, Chile, United States, France, Guatemala, India and Mali,
among others. Likewise, CAECOPAZ hosts instructors from Germany, Bolivia,
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, United States, France and India;
6
CAECOPAZ is part of the Latin American Association of Peacekeeping Training
Centres (ALCOPAZ) and the International Association of Peacekeeping Training
Centres (IAPTC). This connections favor the Exchange of experiences at the regional
level and on a worldwide scale;
As a result of these activities CAECOPAZ is in accordance with the objective of
contributing to the acquisition of capacities required by the personnel participating in
Peacekeeping Operations (which agrees with the priorities indicated by the New
Horizon process). Also, effective training contributes to the planning, management
and supervision of Peacekeeping in general, and it also contributes to the
standardization of a Regional Peacekeeping Doctrine through the incorporation of
Latin American experiences.
The Ministry of Defense of Argentina has an objective: the consolidation of
CAECOPAZ as the First Regional Peacekeeping Training Center of Advanced
Instruction. In other words, the idea is for CAECOPAZ to complement and not
replace national training centres, giving a qualitative step forward.
CAECOPAZ’s courses and seminars are regarded as reference within the region and
have been dictated in other Latin American training centres.
The centre’s organizational culture is aligned with the culture of peace that is fostered
by both the Latin American region and the United Nations.
It has international training experience, and offers courses in Spanish, English and
French.
It has permanent national and foreign instructors.
There is a stand by team of instructors, ready to be deployed worldwide.
The training offered by CAECOPAZ is based mainly in the CPTM generic modules
of pre deployment training promoted by the UN’s ITS (Integrated Training Center).
Such basic training is complemented with further training based in experiences and
complementary components that are updated taking into consideration Security
Council Resolutions and specific guidance by the Argentinean Ministry of Defense.
The regionalization of training can be observed in the fact that Lessons Learned in the
field are translated into recommended practices and influence the elaboration of
specific coursed. An example of this is the “Humanitarian Assistance in Peacekeeping
Operations” Course, dictated by CAECOPAZ for the first time in the year 2008. Such
course was developed as a consequence of a specific request by the Argentinean
Ministry of Defense to train more personnel in this theme, provided the needs
expressed from the field. The course was regionalized through ALCOPAZ and today
some national training centres include it in its own curricula. This specific training in
Humanitarian Assistance proved to be practically useful at the 2010 earthquake in
Haiti, where alumni from that course were deployed at the time of the earthquake.
7
ALCOPAZ: lessons learned in regional training. A Latin American
Contribution to Peace?
The creation of the Asociación Latinoamericana de Centros de Entrenamiento para
Operaciones de Paz (ALCOPAZ) (Latin American Association of Peacekeeping Training
Centres) can only be understood in the context of UN’s conceptual objectives regarding the
development of cooperation measures in the field of Peacekeeping Training. ALCOPAZ’s
purpose is to promote greater efficiency in the training of personnel to be deployed in
Peacekeeping Operations.
ALCOPAZ is an entity formed by training centres and government institutions from countries
of Latin America & the Caribbean, dedicated to the purpose of training Armed Forces, Police
and Civilian personnel that are to be deployed in Peacekeeping Operations under UN
mandate. Its main activities, as described in its statute, are based on fundamental principles
that are shared by all of the training centres composing the institution. These include:
To promote the exchange of experiences among members, mainly on topics related to
different education and training methodologies.
To promote the standardization of education and training procedures, in accordance to
the policies dictated by the UN.
To contribute to the training of personnel from ALCOPAZ’s countries in issues
related to the planning and leading of Peacekeeping Operations.
To elaborate guidelines of lessons learned and best practices in training for
Peacekeeping.
To create conditions that facilitate fluid and efficient contact between the members of
the association, strengthening bilateral and regional cooperation.
To promote mutual knowledge and understanding of the different institutional
perspectives and existing organizational cultures among civilian, police and military
personnel that participate of Peacekeeping Operations.
To foster scientific multidisciplinary research in Peacekeeping, through the
organization and sponsorship of workshops, seminars and other academic activities.
To identify and properly channel the support of international cooperation to activities
destined to the fulfillment of the purposes of the association.
Regional Defense cooperation: its reflection in the creation of Field Support
mechanisms for Peacekeeping
South America has shown signs of progress in the area of Defense Cooperation which,
besides strengthening regional linkages, has triggered experiences that, although still in its
initial stages, constitute additions to Field Support in UN PKO’s. The Joint Combined Peace
Force “Cruz del Sur” (FPCC) and the Combined Binational Peace Force “Compañía de
Ingenieros Libertador Don José de San Martín” constitute initiatives in this field.
“Cruz del Sur” constitutes a binational enterprise of military integration, with the objective of
fostering mutual trust, interoperability and complementarity between the Armed Forces of
8
Argentina and Chile. It consists of a Joint Combined Peace Force that has five components:
Land, Naval, Air, Military Hospital and Engineering Company. Its goal is to be used in UN
PKO’s, according to the parameters and procedures of the UN’s Stand by UN Agreements
System (UNSAS). Argentinean Law Nº 26.560 establishes that “Cruz del Sur” will only be
allowed to be used when a Resolution from the UN Security Council authorizes the
deployment of such a Force for a specific mission, under UN mandate and with the previous
approval of both governments (Salesi, 2012). In this context, after the Security Council’s
requirement or the offering on behalf of both governments (according to the 2010 MOU), the
Force is to be deployed within 90 days.
Engineers Company “Libertador Don José de San Martín” is an Argentinean-Peruvian
Combined Binational Peace Force, created through a MOU signed by both Defense
Ministries in 2008, intended to be put at UN’s disposal in Haiti. The capacities and specific
profile of this company were defined with the Haitian scenario in mind, in order to facilitate
the obtaining, potabilization and distribution of water in underprivileged areas, public schools
and medical posts. The 2010 earthquake in Haiti shed light on the need for this binational
instrument to collaborate with peace and reconstruction (Salesi, 2012).
This Latin American Peace Forces constitute a Best Practice because:
They accomplish the Brahimi’s Report (2000) requirement for a greater involvement
of Member States in order to make PKO’s more effective.
They contribute to “New Horizons” requirement on the need to create more powerful
field support mechanisms.
They get PKO’s to work as areas of International Defense Cooperation.
They keep open the possibility of changing a binational initiative into a multilateral
one, as occurs with “Cruz del Sur” MOU, which allows for the incorporation of new
states.
They allow for these practices to be taken upon by UNASUR in general and the South
American Defense Council (CDS) in particular, that includes in its specific objectives
to share experiences in UN PKO’s (http://www.unasursg.org/inicio/organizacion
/consejos/cds). At the same time they can provide information for the elaboration of a
Program of Combined Acquisitions for PKO’s like the one presented at UNASUR,
allowing for PKO´s to become an instance of Regional Military Logistical Integration.
Final Conclusions
As a brief conclusion, it is necessary to put forward the following reflections:
Should the UN be the institution that provides the guidelines for regional initiatives
and the framework for working on joint training and doctrine?
Are the operational Joint procedures for the use of a Joint Combined Peace Force in
the Latin American region viable and effective to successfully deploy in a
Peacekeeping Operation?
Should the different regional contributions to Peacekeeping Operations be more
institutionalized?
9
Bibliography
Alvarez Veloso, David (2005), Uso de la fuerza, elecciones y desafíos de la Minustah.
Revista Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad (FLACSO, Chile). 2005; 19(1):315. Recuperado
HAPI 11/26/2012
Antonini, Blanca (2009), “Multilateralismo y operaciones de paz: desafíos y
oportunidades”, en Hirst, Mónica (Comp.), Crisis del estado e intervención
internacional, Edhasa, Buenos Aires.
Asamblea General (2013), “Recursos aprobados para las operaciones de
mantenimiento de la paz para el período comprendido entre el 1 de julio de 2013 y el
30 de junio de 2014”, A/C.5/67/1, Naciones Unidas, 18 de julio de 2013, disponible
en http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/?symbol=A/C.5/67/19.
Avelar Giannini, Renata (2011), Reporte final Trabajo de campo en Haití -31 de mayo
al 30 de junio 2011-: “En la encrucijada: Haití, MINUSTAH y la comunidad
internacional”, Resdal, 02/10/2011.
Boutros Boutros Ghali, Una agenda para la paz, A/47/277, 17 de junio de 1992.
Busso, Anabella “Seguridad mundial y regional: incidencias en la política exterior y
de defensa de la República Argentina”, en AAVV, Defensa Nacional: dimensiones
internacionales y regionales. Contribuciones al debate, Ministerio de Defensa de la
República Argentina y Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 2007. ISBN: 978-987-223228-5-6.
De Valenzuela, Patricia (2012), La perspectiva de género en el ámbito de las
Operaciones de Paz: El caso Minustah, E-Book, RESDAL, Buenos Aires.
Fondo Argentino de Cooperación Horizontal (FOAR) (“008), Ministerio de
Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto, Revista nº 9, Edición Especial
15 años del FOAR, Buenos Aires.
Hirst, Mónica (2007), “La intervención sudamericana en Haití”, en Hirst, Mónica
(Comp.), Crisis del estado e intervención internacional, Edhasa, Buenos Aires.
Hirst, Mónica (2009), “La intervención sudamericana en Haití”, en Hirst, Mónica
(Comp.), Crisis del estado e intervención internacional, Edhasa, Buenos Aires.
Informe Brahimi (2000). Informe del Grupo sobre las Operaciones de Paz de las
Naciones Unidas. http://www.un.org/spanish/peace/operations_report/
Informe del Secretario General sobre la Misión de Estabilización de las Naciones
Unidas en Haití, S/2013/493, Consejo de Seguridad, Naciones Unidas, 19 de agosto
de 2013.
Lengyel Miguel y Malacalza Bernabé (2011), “Argentina-Haití”: el desafío de la
Cooperación Sur-Sur y la promoción al desarrollo”, Revista Española de Cooperación
Internacional, nº 27, IUDC, Madrid.
Lengyel Miguel, Malacalza Bernabé y Valentín Thury Cornejo (2009), La eficacia de
la ayuda al desarrollo en contextos de fragilidad estatal: Haití y la cooperación
Latinoamericana”, Avances de Investigación, Fundación Carolina, Madrid.
10
Manrique de Luna Barrios, Antonio (2009), “El proceso de regionalización de las
operaciones de mantenimiento de la paz y su implementación práctica”, Opinión
Jurídica, Vol. 8, No. 16, pp. 17-32, Medellín, Colombia
Martínez Reinosa, Milagros Elena (2008), “Las relaciones entre Cuba y Haití: un
modelo ejemplar de cooperación Sur-Sur”, CLACSO,Observatorio Social de América
Latina, Año 8 no. 23, Buenos Aires. Disponible en:
Naciones Unidas, “Las mujeres en las actividades de mantenimiento de la paz”,
Mantenimiento de la Paz, página oficial de UN, disponible en
http://www.un.org/es/peacekeeping/issues/women/womeninpk.shtml
(Fecha de consulta: octubre de 2012).
Navas Córdoba, Julio (2012), “El futuro de las misiones de la ONU: el papel de las
organizaciones regionales”, Documento de Opinión, IEEE.ES, 20 de marzo
Pureza, José Manuel, et al. (2009), “Las nuevas operaciones de paz de las Naciones
Unidas. Los casos de Angola, Timor Oriental y Mozambique”, en Hirst, Mónica
(comp.), Crisis del estado e intervención internacional, Edhasa, Buenos Aires, 2009.
Salesi, Alejandro (2012), Argentina y las Operaciones para el Mantenimiento de la
Paz, en Várnagy, Tomas, (comp), Operaciones de Paz de naciones Unidas, Escuela de
Defensa, Buenos Aires, 2012.
SEGIB (2007), “Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica”, Estudios
SEGIB Nº 2, noviembre, Madrid.
Seintenfus, Ricardo, (2010.) Entrevista realizado a Ricardo Seitenfus, ex
representante especial del Secretario General de la ONU en Haití, diario Le Temps,
Suiza, el 20 de diciembre.
Tokatlián, Juan Gabriel (2011), “Permaneciendo en Haití”, Página 12, Buenos Aires,
10 de octubre de 2011.
UNASUR (2012), Informe de actividad de la Secretaría Técnica de UNASUR en
Haití, Asunción 17 de marzo de 2012
Valdés, Juan Gabriel, “La Minustah y la reconstrucción política de Haití”, en Hirst,
Mónica (comp.), Crisis del estado e intervención internacional, Edhasa, Buenos
Aires, 2009.
Consulted Web Sites
ALCOPAZ:http://www.mindef.gov.ar/mindef_mision_de_paz/pdf/ANEXOALCOPAZ.pdf
CAECOPAZ: http://www.caecopaz.mil.ar/
CLACSO: http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/osal/osal23/11S1Martin.pdf
INTA: http://intainforma.inta.gov.ar
Embajada
de
Chile
en
Haití:
bilateral/cooperacion-internacional/
http://chileabroad.gov.cl/haiti/relacion11
Agencia Brasilera de Cooperación: http://www.abc.gov.br/
UNASUR: http://www.unasursg.org/inicio/organizacion/consejos/cds
Ministerio de Defensa de la República Argentina: http://www.mindef.gov.ar/
12