World without walls
For many, the disintegration of global borders might signal the first step towards a truly inclusive global community. Our Future Planet wonders if it will ever happen.
Among the most remarkable and moving events of recent times, the fall of the Berlin Wall still has a resonance some twenty years on.
A potent symbol of oppression, political tyranny, hatred and war, its disintegration became a vast symbol of hope, if not for a new world order then for a more expansive, economically free and open world dialogue.
Since then there have been many positive global changes, like the freeing of symbols including Nelson Mandela, and the gradual disappearance of outdated political models.
But in many places, guarded and oppressive regimes continue their human rights abuses. Communist States deny their citizens access to media or the opportunity of profitable work. Other African States deny episodes of genocide and starvation.
So much of this, in many ways, comes down to States’ instinctive desire to defend themselves, to create a barrier between themselves and neighbouring countries, to protect their resources, political systems, wealth and culture.
We name these global barriers borders. They are the reason countless wars have been fought, and countless people have died. In essence they are the physical embodiment of our inability to share, and our innate passion for competition.
Is a world without borders ever possible, as part of an integrated, global society? For many this seems an impossible dream. But a glimpse at the true realities of what borders create suggests it’s not nearly such an irrational idea as it might seem.
Forced repatriation
‘The Uzbekistani authorities must stop forcibly returning refugees to Kyrgyzstan while fears persist of continuing instability in the south of Kyrgyzstan,’ Amnesty International reported on 24 June 2010.
“We urge the Uzbekistani government to not expel, coerce or persuade refugees from Kyrgyzstan to go back to their homes until they can return in safety,” said Andrea Huber, Amnesty International's deputy director for Europe and Central Asia.
‘Despite government claims to the contrary, the security situation in southern Kyrgyzstan remains volatile and unstable. The Uzbek population does not trust the security forces of Kyrgyzstan who have proved unable to protect them and have been accused of collusion in killings and lootings.
‘The deadly violence is said to have started with clashes between rival gangs of mostly Kyrgyz and Uzbek youths on 10 June and rapidly escalated, reportedly leaving more than 2,000 people dead and thousands injured.
‘Around 400,000 people are reported to have fled their homes and about 100,000 are believed to have fled to Uzbekistan.
According to satellite images assessed by the UN Institute for Training and Research, 1,807 buildings in Osh have been “totally destroyed” and others have been severely damaged.
‘Amnesty International has been told that refugees were forced onto buses to Kyrgyzstan by refugee camp officers and Uzbekistani security forces in the Pakhtaabad district in Uzbekistan.
‘An Uzbek refugee told Amnesty International: “Many of us don’t want to go, we fear for our lives, but we have no choice.”’
Forcible return of refugees is a classic example of how borders enable and encourage human rights abuses. Acting as individual, rather than global nations, countries are able to offload their responsibilities, shirk the need to act, and close their borders, often claiming inability or lack of responsibility for helping endangered, displaced communities.
Often this comes down to innate cultural or political differences between countries, or historic arguments. But all of these elements are exacerbated and aided by borders. While we may think borders protect us, they actually make communication and understanding harder, separating diverse cultures and societies, and quickening the race for power and economic and natural resources.
They provide a key driver for the global arms trade. They prevent international treaties from having any bite, causing arguments over efforts to protect fishing stocks where Nation States claim rules are inapplicable to their ‘territorial waters’. Borders are responsible for the vast majority of global issues and crimes.
Closing the door
As the challenges of the next few decades become more pressing, border systems are going to come under more and more pressure.
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has studied this area, releasing a document in Dec 2008. ‘Beyond borders: the need for strategic global adaptation’, makes a pressing case for understanding why borders are likely to become one of the major sticking points in any pathway towards a sustainable world as global warming increases.
‘No country can solve the carbon emissions problem alone; nor can adaptation be addressed solely on a national basis. In Bangladesh, climate-triggered, large-scale migration is likely to spill across borders and oceans, causing a range of social and political implications and consequences including potential conflict and threats to security.’
The simple fact is that borders will be of little use in protecting our so called ‘boundaries’ when the effects of global warming arrive, unless we can move past isolationist thinking and deliver international consensus on action before all this happens.
‘There will be echoes of these emergent challenges round the world. International migration will increase, perhaps dramatically. International borders and boundaries will be closely scrutinised and in some cases disputed.’ continues the report.
‘National adaptation decisions will have impacts beyond borders. And new international agreements are needed. A new vision of adaptation is emerging that includes strategic planning and cooperation at national, regional and global levels.’ the IIED paper suggests.Yet more ironic is that when all the risk occurs, borders will probably play a role in hushing it up.
Culture of silence
Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) is an international organisation working for global press freedom. Put simply, when journalists cross from one country to another, not only their ability to report, but their lives can be at risk.
‘Jean-Léonard Rugambage, the deputy editor of the fortnightly Umuvugizi, was gunned down outside his home in Kigali at about 11 p.m. on 24 June [2010],’ reported the organisation on 25 June 2010. ‘He was the first journalist to be murdered in Rwanda since Emmanuel Munyemanzi in 1998.’
“We have for months been condemning the climate of terror in Rwanda, the escalating repression of independent journalists and totalitarian tendencies,” said the organisation
“It seems that newspaper closures, trials of journalists and blocking of websites have not been enough to elicit a reaction from the international community. Will this tragic development finally open the eyes of those who support this government?”
The point is that the international community refuses to act in these scenarios. Not only do borders allow it to close its eyes to the issues, they often prevent fair reporting reaching the outside world and provoking demonstration on governments to act.
Removing borders would demand a fundamental rethinking of global governance, society, culture and economics. Undoubtedly mass unrest and violence would result in the short term.
In the longer term, without action far more serious repercussions than these are at hand.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Read more articles with reference to Human Rights and Globalisation or sign up to our newsletter.
Resources:
iied - Beyond borders: the need for strategic global adaptation
Amnesty International - RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN CUBA
URGENT ACTION STOP FORCIBLE RETURNS TO MOGADISHU, SOMALIA
Amnesty International Public Statement - Worrying reports about Uzbekistan expelling refugees to Kyrgyzstan
