Where there is conflict between nations within the borders of a country, or for that matter, within the limits of this planet eventually, the simplest solution may seem for the stronger to eliminate the weaker either by heartless extinction or brotherly absorption. Neither of these methods are known to work in an absolute sense in a reasonable period of time though. As demonstrated in the Balkans and in the Middle East, conflicts remain, fluctuating only in intensity, as long as disparities in priviledge at a basic level exist.

Conflict is expensive, and peace, as time moves on, worth more. An epoch is dawning now where the purifying value of competitive living has expired. The power of sophistication in weaponry at this point exceeds refinement of human qualities above the physical, so in inconsiderate war, as war is, more good than bad may perish unselectedly, either side, leaving a negative net effect in terms of the development of humankind.

We have to make progress in terms of enhancement of quality of life for life itself to make sense. Progress in terms of enhancement of the quality of life has two components, namely material progress and progress in the moral diposition of individuals that make up society. Both of these, as Albert Scweitzer points out, should be ethically driven for progress towards true civilisation to be possible, something that does not manifest under conditions of conflict. Therefore, peace needs to be sought in order to focus energies on developments of a finer quality, developments that are becoming possible as our insights and abilities grow and that can take us to levels of fulfilment and joy of life not otherwise attainable.

Peace is not possible without compromise. For peace to last, the value of peace must continually weigh visibly more to the parties involved than the cost of war. The value of peace must also weigh more than the cost of whatever compromises are necessary for maintaining it. To be acceptable to all parties at the outset, the compromising solution proposed to this end must provide to each group both guaranteed, recocnisable securities for well-being, and also an open way for development towards fulfilment for the citizens of each group involved, maintaining their own traditional base in their own right, for it is from there that they have to develop spontaneously towards the singular universal unifying truths beneficial to all.

Peace requires providing each of the entities involved with what they need for survival in an equitable manner. Balancing this equasion in a way to make the advantages recognizable by all parties, the factors involved most difficult to address are the indeterminable ones, that include traditional claims, religious differences, relative sizes of populations and preconceptions about the relative standing of groups.

These indeterminable factors, together with the problem of guaranteeing stability, as it so happened, are the ones that appeared to fall into place quite miraculously, as what seems to be a possible answer dawned upon me.

As a necessary precondition it is of course required that a clear perception is honoured by the parties involved that all nations / ethnic groups, irrespective of historical epsodes, have equal rights for survival as far as human intervention is concerned, just as individuals are acknowledged to have equal rights to life as far as human intervention is concerned, leaving cleansing of the races absolutely in the hands of God. Then an effective way of fulfilling the critical political requirements must be found, which will include providing each ethnic group as a respectable entity with an equal basis for preservation of their ethnic heritage and rights, while at the same time providing each group with a guarantee for equal access to living space and resources for their people.

Altough the premises might seem obvious, a rare marriage of liberty and order may be necessary to put the equasion into perpetual balance.

In practice this might be attainable by each group allowing the other(s) to stake off an equal but relatively small portion of land most suitable for the pupose, not including indivisible resources, each of which can be declared to contain an individual state in it's own right. The remainder of the land around and between the resulting "mini states" can then be considered to be 'confederal' property, belonging to the combined nations of the country as a whole. This 'commonage', or 'confederal property', whatever one chooses to name it, can be governed by a 'confederal' government consisting of a constitution-forming senate with equal representation from each of the member states, with under it, bound by the constitutonal limits set out by the senate, a federal house, with democratic representation from the inhabitants of the federal land, responsible for the administration of it.

The result can be a relatively free country for the majority of the combined populations to prosper in, guarded by their conservative patron states, in which each inhabitant could have a dual citizenship, ie. of the Federal State as well as of that individual's parent nation.

With human qualities as they are in mind, this concept might nowhere in the world be easily accepted by ones with the upper hand, but may in the end prove well worth while --- or am I dreaming?.