Is a Borderless World a Dream or a Nightmare? - Millie and Akshaya

Humanity has been drawing lines between territorial units for multiple millennia in order to delimit territorial areas for the purposes of security, administration and/or effective governance. Borders vary hugely; they can be heavily fortified physical barriers, or they can exist merely in the imagination of a population. Borders are a complex phenomenon, with many holding very strong views as to what should constitute their purpose in society today. The presence of borders in our dynamic world is not something that we should accept unquestioningly, in order for borders to be assets to our global activity, rather than hindrances, they cannot afford to remain static. They also vary hugely in terms of how effective they are and how much they allow things to cross them. Borders have played a huge part in the history of the world, being the cause of many wars, such as the India-Pakistan war over Kashmir, yet also creating peace for many, by protecting people, ensuring resources are well distributed, and preventing overpopulation in a particular place. It is therefore easy to think of borders as inevitable and essential to the functioning of modern society. However, the necessity of borders has been queried by many libertarians on numerous grounds, but particularly freedom, equality, rights and economic efficiency. Whilst borders undoubtedly do impose costs on individuals and societies, it is a large jump to do away with borders altogether, and this essay will seek to explore whether such a scenario is feasible or advantageous.

It is undeniable that restricting movement between two countries is a form of inequality, as it involves the prioritisation of one group of people over another. The comfort and happiness of the destination country’s population is viewed as being more significant than the basic needs and provision of the migrant population. Borders deny some people the basic human right of equal opportunities, as immigration restrictions arbitrarily discriminate against people by their birth place. There has recently been a crackdown on the Guatemala-Mexico border, not to keep Central Americans out of Mexico, but to keep them out of the USA. This is due to a rising number of non-Mexican migrants fleeing from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala as an attempt to escape from the gang warfare, with 52,000 unaccompanied children being caught at the US-Mexican border between October 2013 and June 2014. This crackdown, however, did not stop migrants from entering into the USA, but instead made their journey longer and much more perilous; even when borders are enforced the current border management system is ineffective and unnecessarily leads to many human rights abuses.

Additionally, borders too often mean a hard boundary between the extent of a Government's power, meaning that politics within countries is largely self-contained due to the concept that each country has a right to self-determination and sovereignty. Politics in the world today is no longer a solely internal issue due to globalisation and the presence of international organisations such as the UN, NATO and the EU where member countries must abide by certain rules present in the organisations. Furthermore, current issues such as climate change and the environment are not bordered and, in theory, human rights should also not be bordered. The occurrence of human rights abuses is often disregarded for the sake of diplomacy between nations, put down to the country's right to self-determination and the desire to not interfere in another country's politics. International groups such as the UN seem to accept many countries as members in order to maintain friendly relations, often turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and the lack of environmental conscience. For example, Saudi Arabia has been accepted as a part of the UN and the World Trade Organisation despite being one of the very few countries in the world to not accept the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, they have also recently been elected to be a part of the UN's women's rights commission, despite not allowing women to make major decisions without male permission and with gender segregation being widely used, with women not being allowed to compete freely in sports or go swimming in a public swimming pool. This sense of international diplomacy was clear in 2004, when the United Nations Committee Against Torture criticised Saudi Arabia over the amputations and floggings it carries out under Sharia law. The Saudi delegation responded defending 'legal traditions' held since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago and rejected interference in its legal system. This shows a significant flaw in the presence of borders; a country's right to self-determination should never warrant the sacrifice of the correct and just treatment of their citizens. Moreover, a country's political self-determination seems to undermine the concept of the Human Rights Act as borders mean that, despite being metres apart, countries have vastly different laws dictating criminal punishments for the same felony; particularly evident in the United States of America, where 31 of the 50 states still have the death penalty as a punishment for murder. In this way, a borderless world would mean more equality as globalisation necessitates more open forms of governance where basic politics, such as human rights, should be non-negotiable.

One of the most fortified borders in the world is the border between Melilla, a Spanish autonomous city on the north coast of Africa, and Morocco. The border is shrouded in barbed wire, and involves lookout posts, video surveillance, fences and patrols. Here, many form large groups of hundreds of people, who try to cross into Melilla by overpowering the border guards with strength and numbers. Most of them are caught, some are killed, many are injured, but a few manage to get through. The majority of the people who wish to migrate are from Sub-Saharan Africa, who are escaping poverty, war or oppression, such as from Boko Haram; racism prevents many from successfully requesting asylum. Melilla is such a desirable destination as it is part of the EU and is thus obligated to give migrants a greater degree of protection and provision than other neighbouring countries, and the country itself has more jobs and affluence. Therefore, people are willing to go to these extreme lengths in order to reach Melilla. The presence of this border is the cause of all this struggle and has led to some losing their lives. Hence, a borderless world would eradicate this violence driven by inequality and elitism between various groups, as all would be global citizens with equal opportunities.

However, this concept of the privileged citizens and the disadvantaged outsiders exists within countries as well. The only way to truly eradicate this inequality would be to prevent communities from forming, as any type of exclusive group would result in some being outcasts. But would this not be restricting human nature? Not only do humans instinctively crave communities and inclusion, they need them to live happy, healthy lives; research has found a link between loneliness and levels of fibrogen which, in high concentrations, can cause heart attacks and strokes. Therefore, the forming of separate groups, united by similar culture, language and politics is necessary, highlighting the importance of borders.

Despite being seemingly a way of uniting people and creating a more just and equal world, a borderless world is not possible. Humans naturally have differences, whether that is their language, culture or religion and countries bring together people with similar cultural or social characteristics. The current world has many examples of this desire to be in a country with those who are deemed similar to ourselves. For example, Catalonia is currently trying to have its independence from Spain due to long-standing cultural and social differences and this nationalism is not uncommon, many countries are beginning to want to separate from unifying organisations such as the UK's leaving the EU in Brexit. These current affairs reflect the international desire for sovereignty and self-determination. Nationalism seems to be present in most people to some extent, while people do not choose their country of origin they will always feel some affinity towards it and the majority of individuals only leave their country for an improved economic or safety status, yet few leave for social reasons.  Furthermore, borders are extremely useful in relation to the capturing of international criminals; UK border police arrested individuals in connection with 18 murders, 27 rapes, 29 sex offences, and 323 violent crimes in 2011 and, in 2010 to 2011, e-Borders alerts led to 2,800 arrests after details of 126 million passengers were checked against ‘watchlists’ of suspects. Therefore, borders will always remain as they are human constructions, therefore they reflect the human desire to differentiate between groups of people and the innate human desire to feel a sense of belonging to a group of similar people to ourselves.


A key argument for the maintaining of borders is the controversial issue of immigration. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to nationality is listed at number 15. This sense of national identity is something which is ingrained in us and this identity seems to be translated into a sense of entitlement to one's country of origin, whether it is to its jobs, its culture or its housing, this entitlement is the primary excuse for hostility towards immigrants. Immigrants and foreigners, just simply due to their crossing of a border, are deemed threats to a country's economic and social security. It seems irrational to think that, simply due to an individual crossing a socially constructed boundary between two lands deemed 'different', they are automatically a threat to that land's society. Nationalism, in its essence, indicates that one country's people are superior to another country's people and that the people born into the country have more of a right to success and prosperity there. Furthermore, nationalism creates an 'us and them' mindset in individuals which is inherently dangerous in human psychology, as individuals that a group deems as 'outsiders' are sub-consciously dehumanised by those deemed 'insiders'; something which was evident only 70 years ago in World War II. Such nationalism is a product of the creation of borders and therefore the creation of separate states. Moreover, many citizens are fearful of immigrants as they are viewed as different to those currently living in the country. This raises the question of why a lack of movement connotes security; citizens are often far more fearful of immigrants they see as different from themselves, for example, American or Australian immigrants are not viewed with the same scepticism as Syrian or Somalian immigrants. The concept that refugees are all terrorists is absolutely unfounded as, for example, between 1975 and 2015, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan, Somalian, Sudanese and Yemeni people (the nationalities which Donald Trump listed as the most dangerous) have killed 0 people on US soil in terrorist attacks. An individual's life being valued below a country's economic competency or its sovereignty is widely present in society today; demonstrated in the widespread 'citizenship tests' presented to asylum seekers which asks questions which many existing citizens cannot answer, and which are entirely irrelevant to that individual's potential economic or social contribution to society. Nationalism is something which exists, to some extent, in everyone as humans are inherently territorial species however, borders exaggerate this sense as they are viewed to represent the differences between groups of people. In this sense, a borderless world would mean that such divisions would not be obvious, however, this does not mean that they would not still exist.

If no borders mean no one is being excluded, then who is being included? Borders exist as much in our minds as they do on maps, with social borders being built by differences in culture, language, history and ideology. North Korea has its own bubble in Japan, resulting in those who worship Kim il-Sung’s ideology and those who detest it living alongside each other in Tokyo. There is a community of 150,000 Koreans dwelling in Japan, after their ancestors were forcibly transported there in the 1940s; they go to schools funded by North Korea and learn Korean history, Korean language, about the North Korean regime and wear traditional Korean clothing. After the Korean War, when Korea was broken into North and South, the remaining 660,000 Koreans still in Japan after the demise of Japan’s Empire had to choose which Korea they affiliated with. The majority of them had been from South Korea, but North Korea sent money to the Koreans in Japan to help them build businesses and schools. Effectively creating a cultural border, resulting in the Koreans building trust and loyalty to a regime they’d never lived under. Borders such as these prove that even in a world without national borders, people will still find ways to divide themselves. In British India, despite cartography suggesting political uniformity and the British government exercising nominal sovereignty, Indian princes remained mainly autonomous within their territories. This highlights the confusion surrounding borders and their authority. Even these social borders can be violent, with the Korean children needing guards to protect them from the Japanese people who loathe their ideology on the way to school. Therefore, a borderless world couldn’t unify humanity, as humans are naturally drawn to those with similar beliefs and will create their own borders to protect their values. In addition, simply removing the borders between countries would not eradicate racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on. Social change cannot occur just because there is political change, as social borders can continue to exist in place of physical ones. Economic inequalities can also continue to exist, with corporate companies continuing to exploit producers who lack the knowledge to stop it.

Moreover, another issue with the presence of borders is the fact that their creation is often one of imposition rather than an open dialogue with the people it will affect. Borders, as they exist today, are the reminders of Western colonization because they were usually imposed on the citizens of the country by the colonizers as a means of gaining and maintaining control. For example, one of the most famous failings of the creation of a border was the 'Radcliffe line' known today as the border that marks the division of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. The Radcliffe line was created by Sir Cyril Radcliffe in 1947 during the Partition of India. Radcliffe was a British architect who, whilst having esteemed credentials as an architect, lacked the practical knowledge of India as a country and its stark differences in its cultures and religions, namely the differences between the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities. Such a failure led to border conflicts which contributed to 3 wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971. The creation of the border was a rushed decision and its creation meant that the colonizers still had control over India's people as they imposed the borders on people they deemed inferior and incapable of creating the borders for themselves. This demonstrates how borders have the potential to severely disrupt a society if created without that society's needs and differences in mind. Therefore, this also shows how borders must not solely be political concepts, they must be geographical concepts. This does not mean that a borderless world is necessary or will mean an end to conflict, it shows how borders have the capability of being divisive if the existing divisions in society are not accounted for. Therefore, Governments must understand the implications of borders as they are meant to reflect the cultural, linguistic and religious differences, not create them.

In this modern, globalised world, where technology and the internet allow people to easily communicate and trade with others on the opposite side of the world, how necessary are borders? With the growth of supranational organisations, transnational corporations and non-governmental organisations, the earth is now becoming a world of flows. Restrictions on international movement are an innovation of the twentieth century, due to the growth of nationalism in a post-World War I world, so open borders is really just a reoccurrence of past liberalism. As the concept of absolute state territorial sovereignty is being challenged and erased, this could ultimately lead to a homogenised, borderless world, hence the abolition of borders may not be the delusional fantasy that some perceive it to be.

This is further established as there already are some parts of the world that no empire, nation or state has been able to tame. There is a total of around 370 million people worldwide, living in 90 countries today, in areas known as non-state spaces. The land in these spaces have too extreme a geography to control. People tend to settle in these areas to seek refuge from borders, and most fled into the mountains to evade expanding government forces; they chose rugged terrain over war, famine, taxes and subjugation from state authorities. Some groups left to escape apprehension, such as Africans fleeing from the Arab and Atlantic slave trades, and some communities were leaving ruling powers they opposed, like the Inuit and the Arctic. The Himalayas is covered in these non-state spaces, to the extent that anthropologists have named this region Zomia. Zomia runs through eight countries and is on the periphery of all of them; numerous isolated groups live here, many with nomadic lifestyles. In Zomia, one group fled here 1200 years ago, as they didn’t want to assimilate with the Tibetan Empire. They consist of just 25 families and speak a dialect of Tibetan; they don’t identify as either Chinese or Nepali and instead have their own distinct identity. Therefore, a border is not necessary for identity, and living without borders is possible as it is already being done. Borders have not always existed; in the past aboriginal groups had fluid membership, allowing them to share territory and resources. This concept is not outdated, as it is still occurring within some parts of Zomia.

On the other hand, these non-state areas with their own identity prove the importance of having some form of territorial identity. Patriotism and nationalism, although can sometimes be damaging, can also be useful tools in humanity’s progress, as they can strongly motivate people. National identity, and the pride that often accompanies it, can encourage people to work harder and be more productive, as they feel somewhat obligated to give back to their country. A borderless world may result in a less productive workforce, who are less likely to volunteer and give back to their community. Also, with protectionist ideologies resurging in response to terrorist attacks in the last couple of decades, such as 9/11, a borderless world seems as naïve as ever. But, as global citizens, all humans share some responsibility for this world and all who live in it, so there may not necessarily be a loss of pride. There may instead be a greater sense of loyalty if we live in a united world, where all resources are shared and all productive work benefits everyone in some form. Therefore, a borderless earth could be a concept all of humanity should aspire to have.

Furthermore, who would govern a borderless world and distribute global resources? Forming a political system for such a large population would be virtually impossible, due to there being people with radically different ideologies, faiths, economic backgrounds and cultures. A single government couldn’t manage 7.6 billion people as allocating welfare benefits fairly and to the right people, distributing aid during a crisis and preventing corruption, as well as many other acts, would be incredibly difficult with such a large population. This can be seen in India, with a population of 1.3 billion where corruption is prevalent partially due to the larger population invariably leading to shortage of resources, greater wealth inequalities, and thus, greed amongst people of power. Also, it is difficult for a government to administer rules and regulations over vast areas and therefore many laws would not be enforced, potentially leading to anarchy. Moreover, democratically choosing a single government would be challenging, especially with the variety of political views in the world. Therefore, the government would either be very small in number and not representative of the people which would result in tension among the people, or be very large and lack communication, thus being inefficient and poorly managed. So, a borderless world would be unrealistic and therefore a nightmare.

Conversely, some research has shown that free migration could double the size of the economy, and lead to a much more productive world. It is not just the labour force that makes a corporation productive, but also the infrastructure. The USA is more productive than Mexico, with 5 times more income per capita, and identical workers earning over 3.8 times more in the US than in Mexico. This has led to many people migrating to the USA, in order to gain access to the physical capital that makes them more productive and consequently wealthier. In the words of Ludwig von Mises, “There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labour^”, which means that in a borderless world, where labour could travel freely across borders, a large proportion of the global population would reside and work in high productivity countries. Research has found that more than 165 million adults globally being estimated to name the United States, a high productivity country, as their desired future residence. Furthermore, an estimated 165 million residents of Sub-Saharan countries express a desire to move abroad permanently, most likely to seek jobs in countries with better economic infrastructure. Mass migration due to a borderless world would result in a more efficient allocation of labour, causing a dramatic increase in global income and production, despite some areas experiencing huge losses in human capital and others being overwhelmed. Some research has found that there could be a global income increase of 100% by ending global restrictions on the movement of labour, thus the total amount of goods and services produced on earth each year would double and could eradicate poverty. Ultimately, a borderless world would support the utilitarian view, as 71% of humanity live on less than $10 a day, so increasing global income per capita would benefit the majority. Some may argue that an increase in labour would result in an increase in competition for jobs, however the number of jobs in the economy is not fixed. Immigration causes growth in native employment and contributes to economic prosperity, possibly by their own consumption, or they may create new employment opportunities by starting businesses. Immigrants are 30% more likely to start a business than natives in the USA, and it has been found that each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers.

In conclusion, despite the possible benefits of having no borders, it is ultimately impractical and impossible to live in and govern a borderless world. Forming an effective political and economic system, which can manage trade fairly, enforce laws and preserve cultures on such a large scale is not viable, so ultimately, a truly borderless world would be a nightmare. However, having administrative borders, which would allow each region to be governed efficiently, that are also porous and thus enabling free trade and migration, may be most beneficial; existing as jurisdictional boundaries, not barriers to human movement. The rapid rate of globalisation means that a country's borders will need to become more fluid in order to encourage more open trade links and therefore maintain a more stable and efficient global marketplace as current borders seem to limit the efficiency of global trade and the productivity of workers. Therefore, a world that is borderless in a cognitive sense and allow for a world of flows could be an attainable dream for humanity, even if this is never realised in my lifetime.
 




Bibliography:

Anon., n.d. Double World GDP. [Online] Available at: https://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/ [Accessed 9 March 2018].

Central Intelligence Agency, n.d. The World Factbook. [Online] Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html [Accessed 9 March 2018].

Clemens, M. A., Montenegro, C. E. & Pritchett, L., 2009. The Place Premium: Wage Differences for Identical Workers Across the US Border, s.l.: s.n.

Diener, A. C. & Hagen, J., 2012. Borders: A Very Short Introduction. s.l.:OUP USA .

Esipova, N. & Ray, J., 2009. 700 Million Worldwide Desire to Migrate Permanently. Gallup.

Fairlie, R. W., 2008. Estimating the Contribution of Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy , s.l.: s.n.

Harris, J., 2017. Building a border at 4,600 meters. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECch2g1_6PQ&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5dRe4rC7m8jDaqodjZeLzCZ&index=1 [Accessed 26 February 2018].

Harris, J., 2017. Europe’s most fortified border is in Africa. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY_Yiu2U2Ts&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5dRe4rC7m8jDaqodjZeLzCZ&index=2 [Accessed 26 February 2018].

Harris, J., 2017. How the US outsourced border security to Mexico. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xbt0ACMbiA&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5dRe4rC7m8jDaqodjZeLzCZ&index=4 [Accessed 26 February 2018].

Harris, J., 2017. Inside North Korea's bubble in Japan. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfyIQbxXPs&list=PLJ8cMiYb3G5dRe4rC7m8jDaqodjZeLzCZ&index=15 [Accessed 26 February 2018].

Hong, G. & McLaren, J., 2015. Are Immigrants a Shot in the Arm for the Local Economy?, s.l.: s.n.

Kerr, W. R. & Kerr, S. P., 2011. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IMMIGRATION: A SURVEY, s.l.: s.n.

Knapton, S., 2016. Having no friends could be as deadly as smoking, Harvard University finds. The Telegraph.

Mises, L. v., 1927. Liberalism. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

Smith, N., 2017. A World Without Borders: Richer, Fairer, and More Free. Foreign Affairs, p. 3.

The World Bank, n.d. GDP per Capita (current US$). [Online] Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD [Accessed 9 March 2018].