The model of the Cold War is the only useful example in modern history of successful conflict resolution. The large scale of the conflict, and the geographic separation of the conflicting parties, do not preclude its use as a model for proper conflict resolution in smaller, more local examples. Its lessons can be applied to Israel, Bosnia, and practically all other conflicts in the world. Indeed, they are being applied, even if only unconsciously, to the question of Quebec independence.
The essence of the lesson of the Cold War is this: conflict can only be resolved through the proper use of true morality. Not the abandonment of values, but their development to the point of merger with the values of the opponent on a plane above conflict, is the necessary ingredient of lasting conflict resolution. The key for international diplomats is to keep conflict manageable until such a time as that higher level is reached where confluence of interest replaces conflicts of interest, while at the same time, working to promote one's own interests in the absence of such confluence.
The end of the Cold War came about only when the interests of the United States and those of the Soviet Union became equal. The Cold War ended when the leadership of the Soviet Union realized that the only way to secure their continued role as a super-power was to become economically advanced. Only through economic competitiveness would they be able to continue providing military and other aid to client states, thus maintaining their influence in other parts of the world. Of course, the primary model of economic advancement is the United States, and it thus became within the Soviet interest to cultivate warm relations with the United States, to the point of forging economic alliances.
The same lesson can be applied to Israel and the Middle East as a whole. The various conflicts in the region, those involving Israel and those not, will only be solved when the states involved realize that it is within their own interests to ally with each other -- including Israel -- for the betterment and continued survival of the region as a whole. Economics is one sphere in which this is becoming more evident. Within the past two years, many Arab states have strengthened economic ties with each other, and quite a few have approached Israel for guidance in the development of agricultural, water, and technological resources.
But economics is not the basic element necessary for the future health of the region. Water is. The entire region suffers from a detrimental lack of water resources. Some leaders in the region, particularly in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have even discussed the idea of selling oil for water. Eventually, with or without accords like Oslo, the various states of the region will find it necessary to collaborate in the development of new water resources and the conservation of those already existing. Israel has led the way in this respect, pursuing programs of desert irrigation which have conservation at their core, and pioneering water desalination technology which is marketable to other countries in the region. Thus, a confluence of interests is developing among Middle Eastern states upon which peace -- real peace -- will be built.
It is well within the interests of Israeli leaders to insure that Israel remains strong enough, geographically, economically, and morally, to provide the assistance the other states of the region will need. If Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres really want to achieve comprehensive peace, they will see to it that the conditions remain, and further develop, under which Israel can take the lead as the interests of all Middle Eastern states merge.
Copyright 1994. Reproduction in electronic or print formats by permission only.
