multilateral action

I've just finished reading "Moral Victories: How activists provoke multilateral action" by Susan Burgerman. It was a very interesting book (although filled with too many acronyms). It discussed the cases of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Cambodia mainly.

El Salvador: the government itself was committing atrocities against the people and the gorilla fighting force, mostly the right wing of the government, and the president claimed to be unable to control them. However, the country was concerned about its international reputation and the military was highly dependent on US aid (the US pumped money into a terrorist government for years!), so when the fighting reached a stalemate and the US finally pulled the plug on aid after some high profile assassinations, the UN was able to come in and set up a peace negotiations process that included a high emphasis on human rights. With the help of the UN, El Salvador was able to establish a civilian police force, build its governmental institutions, and make necessary compromises with the gorillas. It's a much safer place to be now.

Guatemala: similar to El Salvador except the gorilla forces were much smaller so there was no question of fighting reaching a stalemate. The government was abusing human rights by enlisting peasants into the war and other methods. They also didn't care quite so much about an international pariah reputation. However, after thirty something years of bloody civil war and the jabs of economic sanctions and international disdain, they finally agreed to a peace process like in El Salvador but with less of a UN role.

Cambodia: this was an instance of two governments fighting and also grappling with Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge were fighting Cambodia and the USSR, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Americans were all involved in a big geopolitical fight. The country was very closed off, allowing no NGOs or commission investigations. Also, because the involved parties wouldn't agree to demilitarization, the peace effort was hampered (also, both sides went back on agreements), so its main successes were in building institutions such as the judicial branch.

I just thought these cases were interesting because they give you hope, you know? Even in a place like Cambodia where they had "killing fields" and so many people died, it was possible, via international cooperation, sanctions etc, and local/international NGOs, it is actually possible to get an extremely abusive government to change its ways, or to end a long and bloody civil war. Sometimes it's easy to think that something is so bad that it will never change, but it turns out that you just need enough people working together.

That's how I hope it will be in the Middle East. I guess it's different, though, to stop the civil unrest of millennia, than to stop a 35 year civil war. But if it's possible in South America and Cambodia, maybe someday it will be possible in Israel and Palestine.