Peacekeeping? An Analysis of the Public Choice Issues in ONUCA and MINUSTAH Reforms

Abstract

This paper examines the key differences between the United Nations’ peacekeeping missions in Central America (ONUCA) and Haiti (MINUSTAH) to assess the impact of these foreign interventions on the national institutions of the affected countries within the context of peacebuilding policy. I contend that if the UN leads peacebuilding reforms at a constitutional or equivalent level, then the intervened polity should develop liberal democracy, free markets and/or stable peace. For this comparison, I employ a most similar systems design, which uses UN-promoted reforms as an independent variable and the aforementioned outcomes as dependent variables, encompassing all observable elements of peacebuilding. I found that UN-led reforms did not lead to the desired results of peacebuilding. Rather, polities only democratized, liberalized and pacified when the mission supported an agreement that came from within. The continuation of war and the lack of internal national consensus hindered democratization, liberalization and pacification in Haiti, while peace and internal consensus allowed peacebuilding to succeed in Central America. Third party intervention, particularly from the West, promoted violence and peace, respectively.