- How have conflicts changed since the time when their consequences became global? Does it mean that the international community should change fundamentally its approach toward the conflict resolution?

- There are two aspects that determine the globalization of the conflicts. The first one implies that local conflicts remain if the international community does not interfere. In those cases when the international community is not interested in the conflict for some reason, the conflict does not escalate to a global scale. As it happens, for example, in Africa where genocides often occur without any international interference. External international interference globalizes conflicts because of the divergence of the interests of the international players. Of course, there were exceptions when there was a need to interfere and the international consensus was found that helped to localize and resolve the conflict by local efforts. But these are more exceptions than the rule.
The second aspect of the globalization of some existing conflicts consists in the negative impact that they have on global and world security. One can see that with the conflicts in the Middle East and the Muslim world that are projected onto neighbouring countries and the whole world. This is absolutely another level of conflict and it should be treated accordingly. The international community should make efforts to elaborate common actions which will involve not only main powers but also others and that will have more operational and efficient effect on conflicting parties. This aspect is not well developed today although I understand that today it is hardly possible to achieve it due to the divergence of interests between the main powers.

- Is the Arab-Israeli conflict local or global? Are the conflicts similar to it “unresolvable”? If so, does it mean that the international community should do everything in order not to allow local conflicts to last too long and become unresolvable?

- Unfortunately, this conflict is global and it became global quite a long time ago. I believe that the reason of globalization of this conflict has nothing to do with the conflict itself. The conflict acquired global dimension when external players interfered into it and started to use it in their own interests. This began during the Cold War when the Arab-Israeli conflict was one of the main arenas of the international political game. Nothing has changed since then. If this conflict remained on the local level, most likely, it would be resolved a long time ago. Nowadays radical forces of the Muslim community joined this conflict, being interested in its spread and ideologization. This is a constituent part of their global interests. Moreover, there are such countries as Iran that participate in this conflict from a distance for totally incomprehensible reasons while they do not have any historical connection to it. Is it possible to resolve this conflict? Taking into consideration the above, it is very difficult to understand. Of course, conflicts should not be allowed to deteriorate, but the international community does not always have proper means for their fastest resolution.

- In your opinion, what is the main threat to world security today?

- If natural disasters are not taken into account, the main threat is constituted by those who challenge the global and regional order. One thinks immediately about Islamism originated mainly from the Middle East that promotes actively an alternative project of the world order. Besides this, the asymmetric threats are still urgent as in the case of WMD.

- As a participant of the 2011 Yaroslavl Global Policy Forum, could you, please, share your impressions? How can you evaluate the level of discussions within sections? How was it useful personally for you?

- It would be desirable to publish conference materials or to distribute them among the participants. Undoubtedly, the Yaroslavl Forum is useful both generally and particularly for the discussion of concrete problems that are interesting for different experts. I would suggest making of the final conclusions on the work of the sections and, probably, elaboration of some policy recommendations. In addition to general impressions and useful contacts, the Forum provided me with a unique opportunity to learn better Russian colleagues’ opinions on topical issues.

Interviewed by Yulia Netesova

Translated by George Plaschinsky

Zvi Magen

Is a research fellow with focus on Russia, Middle East and intelligence at the Institute for National Security Studies, Israel, which he joined following a long career in Israel's Foreign Service. From 1993-1997 he served as Israel's ambassador to the Ukraine, and in 1998-1999 he served as Israel's ambassador to Russia. In the years 1999-2006 he served as head of the "Nativ" organization (the Prime Minister's Office liaison group for the FSU and Jewish diaspora affairs), and in 2006-2009 he was head of the Institute for Eurasian Studies at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. Ambassador Magen served in IDF Military Intelligence, completing his service with the rank of lieutenant colonel.
Tweet