Fragmentary Thinking in a Fragmented World
Frederick Harker-Mortlock considers the link between the imagined territorial borders of nation-states and global conflict
An astronaut bobbing gently inside the observation deck of the International Space Station, and in the act of comparing a political map of the world to the Earth’s surface, would be struck by a peculiar inconsistency. Unlike on the map, the continental landmasses of the real world are not criss-crossed with thick, black lines. There is no sign of the territorial borders of nation-states.
The reason why there is no sign of these borders is, of course, because they do not exist: except in our minds. Because they are a wholesale product of the human imagination, their global ‘presence’ results only from a worldwide imagining of their existence.
A Diminishing Presence?
One might posit that the global ‘presence’ of the territorial borders of nation-states is being eroded by a move away from the worldwide imagining of their existence. The growth in multilateral treaties and bloc politics – for instance, the G20 – seems as if they might signal a gradual rejection of this imagining. In many ways, they represent attempts to behave as if territorial borders do not exist.
Ultimately, however, these devices of co-operation fundamentally accept the idea of nation-state territorial borders. The European Union (EU), as representative of what is ostensibly the most concerted effort to jettison the imagining of these borders, exemplifies the point: its Constitution demands that the EU respect the ‘essential’ Member State function of ensuring territorial integrity. Thus, borders are still imagined and, consequently, still ‘exist’.
The Problem with Territorial Borders
But what is the significance of imagining the territorial borders of nation-states and, in turn, behaving as if they are an established fact?
Thinking about this, one is drawn to considering the nature of nation-states. They certainly have their positive element, including the fostering and maintenance of myriad cultural specialties. For instance, they promote specific languages, unique types of architecture, peculiar dishes; the concentration of management capacities allows for the coordinated building of roads, hospitals and schools; they assure that others are looking out for each other; and they develop feelings of belonging. However, nation-states also seem to be the focal points around which a great deal of earthly death and destruction revolves. And it is in its contribution to this little detail that the overriding significance of behaving as if territorial borders exist appears to reveal itself.
Behaving as if territorial borders exist equates, for nation-states, to enforcing what they see as their exclusive rights to particular territories. But, by doing this, a nation-state automatically excludes from that territory anyone who is not, cannot, or does not want to be a member of that nation-state. Although most people will probably be able to accept a lack of membership in the nation-state, accepting exclusion from its claimed territory is much more difficult. The reasons for this are obvious. The land, sea and air that constitute territory not only often have real sentimental value for people but also provide, in varying degrees, an array of desirable tangibles. Such tangibles may include: life-sustaining resources, sites of holy worship, a rock upon which to build one’s house, and – if one is really lucky – forests bursting with truffles.
The inability of excluded peoples to ignore these admittedly tempting facets of territory has equated to, as everyone acknowledges, conflict. Some modern-day cases-in-point include: pre-Israel/Israel vs. Arab World, India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. Georgia, and Eritrea vs. Ethiopia.
An International System without Territorial Borders
In recognising this link between territorial borders and conflict, we might consequently be drawn into imagining an alternative international system in which each nation-state does not insist on territorial integrity. In this apparition, nation-states would still exist. It is just that people would move freely amongst the land, sea and air spaces formerly reserved for one particular nation-state or the other. No Palestinian, for instance, would be prevented from crossing into, and building his or her house in, the areas in which Israelis reside.
From such a vision, of course, arise some fairly substantial questions. Such questions include: would there be much reason for nation-states and other associations of people to attack one another, if everyone had the opportunity to settle wherever they desire, and to access a reasonable (and not underwhelming) share of the Earth’s generous bounty? Or would people find other reasons for conflict, like the opportunity to enslave others under a particular ideology, or for material profit? Would it not be likely that conflict would still well and truly exist in the world, but that it might be (significantly) reduced?
One thing seems certain. Our current way of conceptualising the international system, in which we imagine that, and consequently behave as if, nation-states have territorial borders is, at least from a humanistic perspective, flawed. Although this article does not necessarily cry out for the mental demolition of nation-state territorial borders, it suggests that an international system imagined upon more liberal principles might, perhaps, better serve human interests.
Frederick Harker-Mortlock is in his third year of a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in History and Government and International Relations.
