Mary Dejevsky: It's time we stopped seeing national borders as sacrosanct

Countries and territories change, for one reason or another. Why should their boundaries not be subject to fluctuation, too?

Share
Related Topics

There are times when what does not happen in the world may be just as significant as what does. And while we follow the stirrings in north Africa, with as much trepidation as excitement, we should not neglect what is going on just a little further south. Between 9 and 16 January, the people of southern Sudan cast their votes in a referendum on secession. The result will be announced in the middle of next month. But it is already known that the south Sudanese have opted more than 99 to one for a separate state, and in June the world's newest independent country should be born.

By geographical size, Sudan is one of Africa's biggest countries, and one of its most variegated politically and in almost every other way. A formal split redraws the map. But the reason this potentially momentous change has fallen from the headlines is that, despite apocalyptic predictions of violence and a return to civil war, the referendum took place almost entirely peacefully. The voting was orderly; observers described the polling as meeting most international norms, and Sudan's leaders in Khartoum said before, and have confirmed since, that they would accept the result.

Of course, noble intentions do not always match reality. Maybe Khartoum will show less equanimity about losing one third of its territory when the principle comes closer to becoming a fact. Maybe the oil-rich region of Abyei, which straddles the future border, will indeed become the focus of a new and even nastier armed conflict. And even if none of this happens, maybe the inevitable change in regional dynamics will spawn sub-conflicts of its own, starting with unrest inside the north of the country and a new flare-up in and around Darfur.

But why not enjoy a brief rest from doom-watching and take the early positive signals from Sudan at face value? All right, so it is a cherished tenet of diplomacy that changing borders is, almost always and everywhere, a very bad idea. It is regarded as a trigger for instability, a suspension of the international status quo that presages a perilous leap into the unknown. But is it quite so destabilising as is commonly assumed? Is it any more destabilising, for instance, than the supposedly preferable alternatives, such as living together in enforced peace and harmony, or some form of federation, reluctantly entered into?

In Europe, the supposed permanency of national frontiers was a staple of the Cold War. For the best part of half a century, any bargaining between the two superpowers was predicated on the inviolability of borders. The carve-up signed at Yalta was set in stone – or iron curtain or barbed wire – for fear of something worse. But when neither the division of Europe nor some of its national borders could be maintained, the unravelling was – with the exception of Yugoslavia – remarkably orderly. Oh yes, there were qualms. Margaret Thatcher was not the only national leader to resist the unification of Germany. And there were disputed scraps around the edges – those so-called "frozen conflicts" – that remain unresolved.

But these should not disguise the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed into its constituent parts extraordinarily peacefully; that the republics that gained, or regained, their independence, are more content in their current independent state than they were – in the case of the Baltic States blissfully so – and that many of the remaining disputes are themselves a consequence of artificial borders created for purposes of political control by Stalin. It could be argued that if changing borders were not still such a taboo, these disputes might have been solved by now. The "velvet" divorce that separated Czechoslovakia in 1993 was so amicable that it has been almost forgotten; the two republics have gone their different ways as individual nation-states since.

Now it is clearly unreasonable to expect all disputing couples to behave like the Czechs and the Slovaks. But is it reasonable in this day and age to set treat secession as somehow worse than unwilling union? Or, as the Western sponsors of Kosovo's independence did, to insist that independence was an exception that should in no respect be treated as a precedent? Granted that nothing should be done that might seem to encourage forced annexation, might it not now be more realistic to accept the division of Cyprus than hope that it can be put back together?

All right, the sceptics will pipe up, perhaps post-Cold War Europe is "mature" enough to handle border-change – perhaps even the United Kingdom will one day divide into its constituent parts – but elsewhere it would be a recipe for war without end. Pessimists on Sudan will cite Ethiopia, noting that civil war resumed with Eritrea within five years of separation. Which is true, but peace – albeit an uneasy peace – has now reigned for more than a decade.

And could it not also be said that it is outside Europe where a new permissiveness towards changing borders might, in the end, prove most constructive? Is it not here, where demographic change has been acute, and where many colonial-era borders already rode roughshod over older allegiances, that an adjustment of the border, or even the creation of a new sovereign state, might discourage a resort to force? Then again, if changing borders became a more acceptable way of solving disputes, other countries might feel their dignity less threatened by a loss of territory. Might we see, perhaps, an independent Kurdistan; a peaceful Kashmir united, or split, as a result of the UN-ordained plebiscite it has never had?

Countries and territories change. For one reason or another, the ethnic or religious mix shifts; technological advances may dictate a sharp rise or fall in economic fortunes. Why should state borders not be subject to pragmatic fluctuation, too? National allegiance is a powerful force, not to be underestimated even in this global age; but insecurity turns it all too easily into aggression. A more broadminded attitude towards frontiers would give mediators an additional tool for ending or pre-empting wars. Ending this taboo would enhance, rather than detract from, international stability, and – still better – as the smiles of south Sudanese voters showed, it would add to the sum of human happiness.



m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Project Coordinator

Competitive: The Green Recruitment Company: The Organisation: The Green Recrui...

Project Manager (HR)- Bristol - Upto £400 p/day

£350 - £400 per annum + competitive: Orgtel: Project Manager (specializing in ...

Embedded Linux Engineer

£40000 - £50000 per annum + competitive: Progressive Recruitment: Embedded Sof...

Senior Hardware Design Engineer - Broadcast

£50000 - £65000 per annum + Benefits: Progressive Recruitment: Working for a m...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

Our sanctions will not cripple Russia. It is doing a lot of the dirty work itself

Hamish McRae
David Cameron and Theresa Mayspeak to Immigration Enforcement officers at a property where six immigrants were arrested on July 29, 2014 in Slough, England.  

Does David Cameron actually believe his tough new immigration stance?

Matthew Norman
The children were playing in the street with toy guns. The air strikes were tragically real

The air strikes were tragically real

The children were playing in the street with toy guns
Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite – The British, as others see us

Britain as others see us

Boozy, ignorant, intolerant, but very polite
Countries that don’t survey their tigers risk losing them altogether

Countries that don’t survey their tigers risk losing them

Jonathon Porritt sounds the alarm
How did our legends really begin?

How did our legends really begin?

Applying the theory of evolution to the world's many mythologies
Watch out: Lambrusco is back on the menu

Lambrusco is back on the menu

Naff Seventies corner-shop staple is this year's Aperol Spritz
A new Russian revolution: Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc

A new Russian revolution

Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc
Eugene de Kock: Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

The debate rages in South Africa over whether Eugene de Kock should ever be released from jail
Standing my ground: If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?

Standing my ground

If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?
Commonwealth Games 2014: Dai Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Welsh hurdler was World, European and Commonwealth champion, but then the injuries crept in
Israel-Gaza conflict: Secret report helps Israelis to hide facts

Patrick Cockburn: Secret report helps Israel to hide facts

The slickness of Israel's spokesmen is rooted in directions set down by pollster Frank Luntz
The man who dared to go on holiday

The man who dared to go on holiday

New York's mayor has taken a vacation - in a nation that has still to enforce paid leave, it caused quite a stir, reports Rupert Cornwell
Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business, from Sarah Millican to Marcus Brigstocke

Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business

For all those wanting to know how stand-ups keep standing, here are some of the best moments
The Guest List 2014: Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks

The Guest List 2014

Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks
Jokes on Hollywood: 'With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on'

Jokes on Hollywood

With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on