The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The battle over borders and why they remain important today

by Tara D. Sonenshine, opinion contributor - 09/28/23 10:00 AM ET

Getty Images
People hold signs in favor of the Greater Idaho Movement in Enterprise, Oregon, on May 12, 2023. Oregon has not elected a Republican governor in 40 years. Yet it is very divided: in the last midterm elections in November, only six out of 36 counties voted Democratic, but they are the most populous and they consistently win. In the very rural east of the state, many voters are tired of being dispossessed by the urban elite close to the Pacific coast. To ward off fate, an unusual idea emerged: what if we moved the border, to create a “Greater Idaho” encompassing half of Oregon? Of the 15 counties in the eastern part, 11 have already voted to force their local officials to regularly discuss the modalities of a hypothetical secession. On May 16, the Wallowa court is due to vote on a similar measure. (Photo by Robyn Beck / AFP) (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images)

As President Biden confronts a growing surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, we are forced to confront an age-old question: What is the purpose of a border, anyway?

The latest twist in the border battle is an internal American movement called “The Greater Idaho,” a citizen-led plan to co-join parts of eastern Oregon with Idaho, moving the state line so that conservatives in the former can live, formally, in the latter. And although the movement to move the border is small, the agitation is raising big questions.

Conservatives in Idaho and Oregon have begun to think that issues such as gun control, abortion, cannabis laws and a host of other red-blue divides create the need to change the political map. The state legislatures of both Oregon and Idaho would have to approve any proposed redrawing of state lines, which in this case “would be the most significant geographically since western states began forming in the mid-19th century.” Congress would, ultimately, need to weigh in.

Seceding from the Union is not a new concept. Just recently, officials in California’s San Bernadino County also raised the possibility of pulling away from what some residents there consider an overly progressive state. This county of 2.2 million people went so far as to commission a ballot proposal to study the possibility of creating a new state. This would be the first such move since the creation of Hawaii in 1959, and although locals say it is a “longshot proposition,” it reflects another deep polarization at a time when California faces economic stressors and climate challenges.

Borders provide stability and governance. But it means someone is in control. As one European scholar put it, “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised.” Globally, borders have been a source of interest for centuries, as empires rose and fell, land was divided, new countries were formed, and cohesion and territory became prized possessions.

The origins of the nation-state go back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, out of which Sweden and France emerged from the ashes of a Thirty Years War over the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire. We credit that treaty with the rise of state sovereignty as a key dimension of international affairs.

Over the succeeding centuries, wars were fought over borders, countries were partitioned and new nations were formed as colonial powers loosened their grip on citizens outside their formal borders.

Conflicts tend to re-shape maps, as happened after World War I and World War II. The State of Israel came about in 1948 after multiple wars. The year before, India and Pakistan achieved independence with a physical border marking the new states. As with many border changes, disputes arise over territory.

Therein lies the problem with hiving off sections of a city, state or nation — the result is often political conflict. Whether it’s China and Taiwan, the Israelis and Palestinians, controversy over Kashmir or the Nagorno-Karabakh, borders do not ensure peace, but they do bring the notion of sovereignty into the fore.

Today we are witnessing what happens when one country disregards the sovereignty of another, as is the case of Russia attacking Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin defends this two-year-old war with the rationale that Ukrainian statehood is “fictional,” saying Ukraine always was and always will be part of Russia.

We often hear it said that, with new technology and increased means to travel, we live in a borderless world. With trade, migration, artificial intelligence, remote work and ubiquitous social media, why even have a border?

But borders create rules — laws, regulations, standards and policies that make order out of chaos. Communities exist within and across states, in the places that people call home. At the same time, there are often humanitarian crises like the war in Ukraine, or natural disasters like in Morocco or Libya where citizens must flee. Finding a balance that respects rules but values human life is the critical task of our time.

Tara D. Sonenshine is the Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice in Public Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.