Publication: La ONU y la construcción de la paz en Haití y Guatemala
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2016-05-06
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
En los años noventa del siglo XX, un conjunto de circunstancias en el panorama internacional abrieron paso a un nuevo perfil intervencionista de la ONU en la resolución de conflictos armados materializado en marcos de actuación significativamente más amplios y en la extensión a nuevos escenarios de intervención. Estas circunstancias estaban vinculadas fundamentalmente a un nuevo orden internacional salido de la guerra fría que, por una nueva primacía de la democracia y de los derechos humanos frente al principio absoluto de la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de los Estados, favoreció los mecanismos multilaterales de seguridad y de promoción de la paz. Sin embargo, la proliferación de nuevas intervenciones en este ámbito, lideradas por las Naciones Unidas y centradas ya no estrictamente en la contención de la violencia, sino en la transformación y resolución de sus causas, no se mostró siempre eficaz conduciendo frecuentemente a la reemergencia de situaciones de violencia. El presente trabajo de investigación tiene como finalidad comprobar que estas nuevas intervenciones para la resolución de conflictos armados intraestatales estuvieron inspiradas en un concepto muy propio de los estudios para la paz ofrecido por uno de sus padres fundadores (Johan Galtung) – la paz positiva – y que su impacto y grado de eficacia fueron tan más elevados cuanto el acercamiento a esta nueva propuesta de paz afectó no solamente su narrativa legitimadora, sino también a sus prácticas en el terreno. Quiere igualmente confirmar que dificultades encontradas en el terreno en la puesta en práctica de una paz positiva tienen que ver también con características endémicas de la ONU que, con frecuencia, obstaculizan proyectos de construcción de paz de trazos más locales y sostenibles. Como metodología, optamos por realizar un análisis comparativo de dos intervenciones para la paz lideradas por las Naciones Unidas en dos países – Guatemala y Haití – en donde la ONU asumió, en un primer momento, el rol de mediadora entre las partes respectivas para, posteriormente, implementar la paz salida de cada uno de los procesos de negociación por vía de la instauración de misiones de paz. Para llevar a cabo dicha investigación, aparte del uso de fuentes secundarias disponibles, fueron realizadas entrevistas en el terreno a actores locales e internacionales en los países en cuestión. Además, fue usado un conjunto de índices e indicadores que intentaron añadir un componente de carácter más cualitativo al análisis. Más allá de observar los procesos de paz en Guatemala y Haití a través de lentes internacionales, se buscaron referentes locales para evaluar el impacto de la intervención de la ONU en cada escenario. Verificamos que en Guatemala la propuesta de una paz sostenible facilitada por la mediación de la ONU y la consecuente instauración de la MINUGUA, aunque con sus debilidades propias, fue extensiblemente más eficaz que la alcanzada en Haití, sostenida por un proceso de mediación frágil y por una sucesión de misiones de paz no exitosas, fracaso evidenciado por el regreso a la violencia diez años después. Los resultados de esta investigación plantean que, por haber cumplido más fielmente con los principios de la propuesta de la paz positiva en la resolución de la guerra civil en Guatemala, facilitando un amplio diálogo nacional, integrador y local sobre las causas del conflicto, la ONU permitió generar semillas de paz más sostenibles. Por el contrario, en Haití, las Naciones Unidas, con su estructura rígida y extremamente dependiente de sus Estados miembros, encontraron serias dificultades en atraer a las partes a una solución pacífica sostenible en el tiempo. Más que un interviniente secundario en los procesos en los que actúa, la ONU tiene a su disposición mecanismos y recursos que condicionan con significativa influencia los resultados de paz alcanzados, fenómeno que sugiere la necesidad de una reflexión crítica sobre su intervención en pro de la paz, sus fortalezas y debilidades, de forma que se potencie un desempeño más eficaz de la Organización en la búsqueda de modelos de paz más fecundos y duraderos a largo plazo.
In the last decade of the XX century, a series of circumstances in the international arena paved the way to a more interventionist profile of the United Nations in armed conflict resolution, materialized in significantly broader action frameworks and its extension to new conflict scenarios. These circumstances were essentially set on a new international order, which emerged from the Cold War, when the values of democracy and human rights prevailed over the absolute principle of non-interference in internal affairs of other States, thus encouraging the use of mechanisms for multilateral security and peace building. However, the proliferation of these new interventions led by the UN – focused now not only on containing violence, but on an effort to transform the root causes of conflicts – was not always effective, often leading to the reemergence of violence. This research aims to verify that these new conflict resolution interventions were inspired by a Peace Studies’ concept suggested by one of its founding fathers (Johan Galtung): the concept of positive peace. It also wants to prove that their impact and effectiveness were more significant when the new positive peace approach affected not only their legitimizing narrative, but also their practices in the field. Finally, it wants to confirm that the difficulties experienced on the ground in the implementation of a positive peace approach are related to UN endemic characteristics that end up damaging more local and sustainable peace-building projects. As a methodology, we conducted a comparative analysis of two peace interventions led by the United Nations in two countries - Guatemala and Haiti. In both, the UN was, at first, the conflict mediator and, later, in order to implement the outcomes of the negotiations process, it deployed peace missions. Apart from the use of secondary sources, in-depth interviews were conducted in the field with local and international actors involved in each process. A set of indexes and indicators were also used to complement the analysis with a qualitative component. More than observing the peace processes in Guatemala and Haiti through international lenses, local references were privileged to assess the impact of the UN intervention in each stage. This research verified that in Guatemala the peace project facilitated by the UN mediation and the consequent establishment of MINUGUA, even with its particular weaknesses, was extensively more effective than the one achieved in Haiti, supported by a fragile mediation process and a sequence of unsuccessful peace missions. The failure in Haiti was evident by the return to violence ten years after the first intervention. The results of this research suggest that, having complied more faithfully with the principles of the positive peace proposal to solve the civil war in Guatemala, favoring a broad and inclusive local dialogue on the root causes of conflict, the UN intervention fomented a more sustainable peace. By contrast, in Haiti, the United Nations, with its rigid structure and extreme dependency on its Member States, encountered serious difficulties in bringing the parties to a peaceful sustainable solution. More than a minor participant, the United Nations has access to tools and resources that significantly influence the results achieved within a peace process, fact that suggests the need for a critical consideration of their involvement in peace building, their strengths and weaknesses, so as to promote a more efficient performance of the Organization in finding more fruitful and enduring peaceful solutions.
In the last decade of the XX century, a series of circumstances in the international arena paved the way to a more interventionist profile of the United Nations in armed conflict resolution, materialized in significantly broader action frameworks and its extension to new conflict scenarios. These circumstances were essentially set on a new international order, which emerged from the Cold War, when the values of democracy and human rights prevailed over the absolute principle of non-interference in internal affairs of other States, thus encouraging the use of mechanisms for multilateral security and peace building. However, the proliferation of these new interventions led by the UN – focused now not only on containing violence, but on an effort to transform the root causes of conflicts – was not always effective, often leading to the reemergence of violence. This research aims to verify that these new conflict resolution interventions were inspired by a Peace Studies’ concept suggested by one of its founding fathers (Johan Galtung): the concept of positive peace. It also wants to prove that their impact and effectiveness were more significant when the new positive peace approach affected not only their legitimizing narrative, but also their practices in the field. Finally, it wants to confirm that the difficulties experienced on the ground in the implementation of a positive peace approach are related to UN endemic characteristics that end up damaging more local and sustainable peace-building projects. As a methodology, we conducted a comparative analysis of two peace interventions led by the United Nations in two countries - Guatemala and Haiti. In both, the UN was, at first, the conflict mediator and, later, in order to implement the outcomes of the negotiations process, it deployed peace missions. Apart from the use of secondary sources, in-depth interviews were conducted in the field with local and international actors involved in each process. A set of indexes and indicators were also used to complement the analysis with a qualitative component. More than observing the peace processes in Guatemala and Haiti through international lenses, local references were privileged to assess the impact of the UN intervention in each stage. This research verified that in Guatemala the peace project facilitated by the UN mediation and the consequent establishment of MINUGUA, even with its particular weaknesses, was extensively more effective than the one achieved in Haiti, supported by a fragile mediation process and a sequence of unsuccessful peace missions. The failure in Haiti was evident by the return to violence ten years after the first intervention. The results of this research suggest that, having complied more faithfully with the principles of the positive peace proposal to solve the civil war in Guatemala, favoring a broad and inclusive local dialogue on the root causes of conflict, the UN intervention fomented a more sustainable peace. By contrast, in Haiti, the United Nations, with its rigid structure and extreme dependency on its Member States, encountered serious difficulties in bringing the parties to a peaceful sustainable solution. More than a minor participant, the United Nations has access to tools and resources that significantly influence the results achieved within a peace process, fact that suggests the need for a critical consideration of their involvement in peace building, their strengths and weaknesses, so as to promote a more efficient performance of the Organization in finding more fruitful and enduring peaceful solutions.
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología, Departamento de Ciencia Política y de la Administración III, leída el 28-10-2015