Peace and the Emerging Countries: India, Brazil, South Africa

  • Kai Michael Kenkel


Over the course of the last decade, countries commonly designated as ‘emerging powers’ have taken on an increasing role, not only in contributing materially to international efforts at keeping, building and enforcing peace, but — more primordially — in giving conceptual contours to what vision of peace underpins these efforts. The IBSA countries — India, Brazil and South Africa — combine political and material factors (such as democracy, participation in peace operations and an openly revisionist diplomatic agenda) to provide the most cogent example of rising powers’ behaviour in this area. As each state is grounded in its own national and regional traditions, the present analysis focuses on those common factors in their approach to peace that derive from their condition as emerging powers. When placed in this context, therefore, their interaction with the concept of peace will here be primarily viewed through the lens of their relative position in the international system.


Regional Perspective Global Order BRICS Country Peace Operation Human Development Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 31ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kai M. Kenkel, ‘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 M. Kenkel (London: Routledge, 2013), 85–110.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pu Xiaoyu, “Socialisation as a Two-way Process: Emerging Powers and the Diffusion of International Norms,” Chinese Journal of International Politics 5 (2012): 341–367;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brian L. Job and Anastasia Shesterinina, “China as a Global Norm-Shaper: Institutionalization and Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect,” in Implementation & World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice, eds Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Rohan Mukherjee and David M. Malone, ‘From High Ground to High Table: The Evolution of Indian Multilateralism’, Global Governance 17 (2011): 325.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2013 The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World (New York: United Nations Development Programme, 2013),, accessed 21 June 2014; United Nations Development Programme Brazil (2013) ‘Ranking IDHM Municípios 2010’,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Instituto Pereira Passos and Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, ‘Tabela 1172 — Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano Municipal (IDH), porordem de IDH, segundoosbairrosougrupo de bairros’, 2010, icipal%20(idh).xls, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johan Galtung, ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’, Journal of Peace Research 6 (1969): 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacopo J. Waiselfisz, Mapa da Violência 2012: Os Novos Padrões da Violência Homicida no Brasil (São Paulo: Instituto Sangari, 2012), 18.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, ‘Figure 2.3: Countries ranked by violent death rate per 100,000 population, 2004–09’, 2011,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See, for example, Leonardo M. Alles, A Política Externa do Governo Lula: da NãoInter-venção à NãoIndiferença (Curitiba: Appris, 2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Barbara Bravo and Paula Drumond, ‘Challenging Modernities in Rio de Janeiro: A Critical Analysis of the “Pacification” Project’, in Controlling Small Arms: Consolidation, Innovation and Relevance in Small Arms Research, eds Peter Batchelor and Kai M. Kenkel (London: Routledge, 2013), 218–235;Google Scholar
  13. Ignácio Cano, ‘Public Security Policies in Brazil: Attempts to Modernize and Democratize versus the Waron Crime’, Sur — International Journal on Human Rights 3 (2006): 133–149;Google Scholar
  14. M. D. Freire, ‘Paradigmas de segurança no Brasil: da ditadura aos nossos dias’, Aurora 5 (2009): 49–58,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    Arie M. Kacowicz, Zones of Peace in the Third World: South America and West Africa in Comparative Perspective (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998); G1 (, ‘Lula defende consolidação da América do Sulcomozona de paz’,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Kai M. Kenkel, ‘South America’s Emerging Power: Brazil as Peacekeeper’, International Peacekeeping 17 (2010): 650–652.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Leslie E. Armijo, ‘The BRICS Countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as an Analytical Category: Mirage or Insight?’ Asian Perspective 31 (2007): 15–21.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Kai M. Kenkel, ‘Brazil and R2P: Does Taking Responsibility Mean Using Force?’ Global Responsibility to Protect 4 (2012): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 17.
    See Peter Dauvergne and Deborah B. L. Farias, ‘The Rise of Brazil as a Global Development Power’, Third World Quarterly 33 (2012): 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Anita Mathur, ‘Role of South–South Cooperation and Emerging Powers in Peacemaking and Peacebuilding’, NUPI Report No. 4 (Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2014), 34–38,–14-Mathur.pdf, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Volker Boege, Anne Brown, Kevin Clements and Anna Nolan, On Hybrid Political Orders and Emerging States: State Formation in the Context of ‘Fragility’ (Berlin: Berghof Foundation, 2008), 6,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Jeremy Allouche and Jeremy Lind, ‘Beyond the New Deal: Global Collaboration and Peacebuilding with BRICS Countries’, IDS Policy Briefing 64 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2014), 1–2,, date accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Susanne Gratius, ‘Brazil in the Americas: A Regional Peace Broker?’ Working Paper (Madrid: Fundaciónparalas Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior, 2007), 9,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Thierry Tardy, ‘Emerging Powers and Peacekeeping: An Unlikely Normative Clash’, Policy Paper 2012/3 (Geneva: Geneva Centre for Security Policy, 2012), 3, 4,–493d-ae8d-bf980e886d3f/en/Emerging+Powers+and+Peacekeeping.pdf, accessed 26 October 2015.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Andrew Hurrell, ‘Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-Be Great Powers?’ International Affairs 82 (2006): 1–19;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. see also Daniel Flemes, ‘O Brasil na iniciativa BRIC: soft balancing numa ordem global em mudança?’ Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 53 (2010): 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 25.
    Chris Alden and Marco Antonio Vieira, ‘The New Diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Brazil, India and Trilateralism’, Third World Quarterly 26 (2005): 1079;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliver P. Richmond, ‘Critical Agency, Resistance and a Post-Colonial Civil Society’, Cooperation and Conflict 46 (2011): 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 30.
    Kai M. Kenkel, ‘Brazil’s Peacebuilding in Africa and Haiti’, Journal of International Peacekeeping 17 (2013): 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    Kenkel, ‘Brazil’s Peacebuilding in Africa and Haiti’, 288–289; see also Robert Muggah and Ilona Szábo de Carvalho, ‘O Efeito Sul: reflexões críticas sobre o engaja-mento do Brasil com Estadosfrágeis’, RevistaBrasileira de SegurançaPública 5 (2011): 166–176,, accessed 21 June 2014.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Adriana E. Abdenur and Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto, ‘South-South Cooperation and Democracy in Africa: Brazil’s Role in Guinea-Bissau’, Africa Review 5 (2013): 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 34.
    See Laurie Nathan, ‘Interests, Ideas and Ideology: South Africa’s Policy on Darfur’, African Affairs 110/438 (2010): 63.Google Scholar
  33. 36.
    N. Grobbelaar and Y. Chen with H. Corbett, ‘Understanding South Africa’s Role in Achieving Regional and Global Development Progress’, IDS Policy Briefing 64 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2014),, accessed 26 October 2015.Google Scholar
  34. 38.
    Sean Burges, ‘Brazil’s International Development Co-operation: Old and New Motivations’, Development Policy Review 32 (2014): 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 39.
    Brendan Vickers, ‘Towards a New Aid Paradigm: South Africa as African Development Partner’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (2012): 552–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 40.
    R. Gowan and S. K. Singh (2013) ‘India and UN Peacekeeping: The Weight of History and Lack of Strategy’, in Shaping the Emerging World Order: India and Multilateralism, eds B. Jones, P. B. Mehta and W. P. S. Sidhu (Washington: Brookings Institution), 178–179.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kai Michael Kenkel 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Michael Kenkel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations