THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

The modern map of the entire Middle East was for the most part determined during the years following World War I.  Many boundaries were said to have been simply drawn as straight lines, based not upon "any logical or naturan divisions"; but, rather, "to satisfy the ambitions of European imperialism." (Grenville, A History of the World in the Twentieth Century)  Thus, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were actually merely "artificial political units," created at the end of the First World War, and fraught with "inbuilt potential for conflict" (Grenville, op.cit.)--which has proven to be more than a valid appraisal.  An amusing postscript lies in the account of Britain and France's negotiations concerning their respective "spheres of influence" in the area comprising Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.  In 1922, we are told, Britain "decided to divide their sphere along the River Jordan," resulting in the birth of "a new country" on the east side of that river.  That newborn nation was dubbed "Transjordan." 

Furthermore, in a world divided by borders, and comprising a confusing array of independent entities, actions (or non-action) are often motivated by the desire of one nation-state to please (or not to displease) another, rather than by the interests of the people who live there.  Rivalries among imperialist nations, and/or their comparative strengths, often decided the geographic locations of boundaries, as well as the number and location of their respective colonial possessions.  The result has frequently come to comprise racial and cultural minorities becoming "embedded resentfully...[within] nations to which they felt no allegiance."  Thus, after the spoils were divided and traded following World War I, one-third of Poland's population did not speak Polish; more than one-third of Czechoslavakia's populace consisted of Poles, Germans, Magyars, Russians, and Ruthenes; and a million Magyars wound up living within Romania.  A comical picture emerges from a description of the scene at a meeting in Moscow between Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, in October of 1944, wherein, "using a piece of paper like a scorecard," Churchill proposed that Russia keep Romania, while Britain would keep Greece.

These jokes continue until our present day.  The second half of the twentieth century alone saw the birth of over a hundred new states in Africa, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.  Among the fifty or more of today's African nations, most of which having been very recently instituted, bounds have been usually defined by the borders of former colonies.  Thus, a single independent nation-state might enclose "people of many languages, stocks, and customs."  Such randomly created national entities have frequently given birth to fierce struggles within their borders between factions, regions, or tribes.  Overall, today's world consists of at least 196 independent nations.  But they comprise the makings of as many as 1,300 potential national entities.  It is common sense to realize that a world expanded into 1,300 nation-states would probably bring about no improvement to mankind.  And it perhaps suggests that a world consisting of but a single nation-state is the sole remaining alternative.

                                                                       * * * * *

A further disadvantage of the existence of so many sovereign national entities is the extensive parallelism among political jurisdictions, which results in duplications of civil expenditures and consequent taxation.  If twenty independent nations exist upon a continent, there will likely be twenty copies of each of a number of necessary governmemntal bodies and agencies--when logic would declare that one would do.  In the present state of our world, a single governmental function is therefore subject to many incidents of bureaucracy and taxation.  Furthermore, some of these functions may not be performed completely or satisfactorily in every quarter, by reason of the fact that some of the bodies responsible for their performamnce may not possess sufficient resources or personnel or capability to successfully do so.

So long as we are divided into an array of nation-states, there will be nations that have a head-startin one or another technology; and nations that are technologically deficient in one or more departments  Those with such a head start will tend to increase their advantages over time; while those who are thus deficient, especially smaller nations, will find it harder, and perhaps eventually impossible, to catch up.  Such deficient nation-states may need to resort to agreements, alliances, or actions that are less than beneficial to their citizens, or the world in general, in order to one way or anotherobtain what they cannot themselves achieve.  In a unified world, all technological advances would be at the disposal of all--subject, of course, to legal principles regarding subjects such as patent, copyright, and trade secrets.  But there would be no boundary lines constituting a wall between "have" and "have not" places in regard to technological advancement.  Thus, the opportunity for all to eventually acquire or share in all of mankind's progress would be free of hindrance due to political bounds.

                                                      8 8 8 8 8

(PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE, OR VIE E-MAIL, TO ONEWORLD@TAMPABAY.RR.COM)