THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

It is my purpose to offer a vision of what our world could become if the residents of nation-states chose to abandon the senseless factional considerations that have driven human against human for generations, mainly on the basis of which side of a line they happen to have been born.  It is a vision of an improved state of society, in which the absence of borders would promote working together to solve common problems--instead of endless generation of new and additional problems caused by this factional conflict and hostility.

History and headlines daily present us with a vast array of happenings and circumstances--some grave, and some downright amusing--which are attributable to the fact that our world is encumbered by borders and separate nations.  In this regard, it can be interesting to consider a random few among thousands of such situations, for the purpose of conjecturing what would not happen should our planet become a world without borders:

In a world without borders, nation A, formerly allied with nations B and C in the prosecution of a war against D through J, would not, once an armistice had been reached, turn around and declare war on nations B and C--as Italy did to its former allies Germany and Japan in 1943 and 1945, respectively.

In a world without borders, nations A and B would not commence occupancy of smaller, more defenseless, countries C and D, staying until they were directed to withdraw their troops by an international body--as was the case when Britain and France commenced occupancy of Lebanon and Syria, until directed to withdraw by the United Nations in 1946.

In a world without borders, nation A would not warn nation B that it risked "all-out war" if it attacked nation C--as Egypt warned Israel, regarding a perceived intent on the part of Israel to attack Syria in 1967.

In a world without borders, ninety two people would not be sentenced to death for treason against their nation--as occurred in 1971.

In a world without borders, agencies of national governments wouldnot need to resort to assassinations in order to accomplish their missions--as a congressional investigation into the United States' own Central Intelligence Agency determined in 1975.

In a world without borders, nation A would not resort to selling arms to nation B, as a "rebuff" to nation C--as was our sale of arms to China in 1980, described in the media as a "rebuff to the Soviet Union."

In a world without bgorders, a general of the army of nation Awould not be sentenced to twelve years imprisonment for "mismanagement" of a war waged by nation A against nation B, over a few tiny islands in the vicinity of nation A--which were claimed to be "owned" by nation B--as happened during the invasion that Argentina undertook against Great Britain over the Falklands and South Georgia in 1982.

In a world without borders, nation A would not need to expel three envoys of nation B, in retaliation for nation B's recent expulsion of theirs--which exchange occurred between Great Britain and Syria in 1986.

And in a world without borders, nations A, B, and C would not refuse to recognize nation D's right to exist--as is the case concerning a number of Arab states' continuing position regarding Israel to this day.

                                                                 * * * * *

If there were no borders, nations would not dominate, annex, attack, wage war against, nor conquer, other nations.  Nations would not seek to expand their respective national territories by taking territory away from other, perhaps smaller or weaker, nations, by means of threat or invasion, as has been customary throughout history.  There would be no larger or stronger nations; nor would there be smaller or weaker nations.  And larger or stronger nations would not fight over, negotiate concerning, grant or disapprove among themselves "spheres of influence," or dominance over, smaller or weaker nations.  There would be no riots, insurgencies, or other acts of violence within the cities and villages of certain nations, in attempts by indigenous peoples to rid themselves of the presence of occupying troops of foreign nations.

Nsation would not take sides in favor of or against other nations.  A nation would not have to resort to threatening a second nation in order to convince that second nation to refrain from attacking a third nation who happened to be a neighbor or ally of that first nation.

Nations would not be able to adopt an official religion, such as Catholicism or Islam; nor an official economic system, such as communism.  And nations would not need to resort to military action on account of threats of infiltration by their neighbor's doctrines across their borders. 

Regions would not be carved up into new national entities following wars or conferences, with little or no regard for the composition of the peoples living within these places.  People related by blood or culture would no longer be rendered "citizens" of one or another among two and even threenations--and thus need passports in order to "go home for the holidays."

                                                                     * * * * *