Análise comparativa das operações multinacionais nas crises do Golfo Pérsico e da Somália: o impacto das resoluções do conselho de segurança da ONU

Abstract

This dissertation conducts a comparative analysis of multinational operations in the crises of the Persian Gulf and Somalia, focusing on the impact of UN Security Council resolutions. The study explores how these resolutions influenced the strategies employed and the outcomes of international interventions in both conflicts. The Persian Gulf crisis, marked by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, was notable for the rapid mobilization of an international coalition led by the United States, resulting in an effective intervention that restored Kuwait's sovereignty. In contrast, the Somalia crisis, triggered by the collapse of the central government and subsequent civil war, was characterized by a predominantly humanitarian international response, facing significant challenges due to internal fragmentation and the absence of a functional government. Security Council resolutions were crucial in both cases, providing the legal basis and mandate for operations, although the effectiveness of these resolutions varied depending on the context and complexity of the conflicts. The interventions in the Persian Gulf were driven by clear strategic and economic interests, especially related to oil, while in Somalia the focus was on mitigating the humanitarian crisis. The research identifies similarities in the coordination and logistical challenges faced in both operations, as well as significant differences in the motivations and contexts of the interventions. The conclusions highlight the importance of clear mandates, effective coordination, and adaptation to local realities for the success of multinational operations. This study offers valuable lessons for future international interventions, emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies that consider both political and humanitarian aspects, aiming for lasting peace and promoting international stability.