The Oxford English Dictionary defines a border as “the line separating two countries, administrative divisions or areas”. However, borders have come to mean different things to different people; for some, they offer protection; to others, they separate. For a border to be relevant, it needs to be viewed as legitimate by all parties involved – some borders are agreed and negotiated, others are imposed.
International law defines a nation state as “having a defined territory”, which shows that for an area to be a self-governing entity, borders do have to exist. The concept of borders has therefore existed ever since the first nation state, but it is only now that we are beginning to redefine what they mean. For example, despite existing since 1848, the USA-Mexico border saw new reinforcements under the Trump administration. This played on “the fear of the other” which borders can act to reinforce, giving the wall new significance.
The concept of national borders equalling national identity is accepted in today’s society. Essentially meaning that a group of people within a specific region would share characteristics (for example, language, religion, history and culture). However, to take the division of Germany after WW1, we see that a country is far more than its borders. At this time East Prussia was separated from Germany by the Polish Corridor – yet despite this separation, these citizens still self-identified as German. Borders cannot solely define the identity of the people within them, because that sense of nationalistic pride will always remain, no matter where the walls are.
In recent years there has been a movement towards the concept of open borders – “a regime of nearly complete freedom of migration world-wide, with rare exceptions for preventing terrorism or the spreading of disease,” with the idea that this would reduce world poverty. This idea has been both criticized and praised in turn by many, but what is important to observe is the difference between no borders and open borders. No borders’ is a utopian principle desired by many, “imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do…” as many argue that borders cause more problems than they solve. They cost huge amounts of money to maintain, which could be spent on improving lives. The border between North and South Korea is the most heavily militarised in the world, and for the people living in the North, that border serves to entrap them within their own country.
We see borders as a political principle devised by humans, however that is far from the truth. Geography has been defining where borders must lie for years, whether through rivers or mountain ranges. Regardless of whether there is a physical wall or not, a border will always remain between the USA and Mexico, in the form of the Rio Grande, or between France and Spain on the Pyrenees mountains.
The concept of a world with no borders is highly desirable, and justifiably so. However, the removal of borders would lead to the collapse of countries, and of the global system of governance as we know it. If a nation state needs a border to be classified, then ultimately borders are essential for countries to actually exist. What needs to change therefore isn’t the actual existence of borders – it’s the way we view them.
