Borders - Cities, States and Nations

"There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism". Walter Benjamin

Police is beating up Catalans who vote for independence, America wants to build a wall, Putin sees Ukraine as part of Russia, Syria is mired in chaos, Kurds remain without a country, and the European Union is shaken by Brexit; these are all manifestations of how problematic the various definitions of nation states are and yet, there is so much renewed fixation on this brittle construct that some feel reminded of the festering crisis before WW I, over a century ago. In a world of instant communication, unprecedented awareness of global  issues such as climate change, and gigantic global migrations this state of affairs is shocking.

walled city of Carcassonne, France

Meanwhile cities absorb most of the population growth around the world, take on the global migrations and engage in worldwide exchange.

“The Syrian crisis was a turning point in so many ways. Not just because of the scale with 6-8 million Syrians forced out of the country. Not just its intractable character. Because so many moved toward Europe and found refuge in cities".(UN High Commissioner for Refugees)

Cities have to abide by state and federal laws but have no way of controlling who comes and goes. Nobody pays a tariff when entering a city and no passes are needed to move from city to county or the other way around. The medieval city with its walls and gates is a distant past, at least in advanced civilizations there are no restrictions on travel between cities. But most cities don't complain and many even welcome the growth and the diversity from migration or declare themselves "sanctuary cities".

“Given the demographic changes in northern European economies it makes much sense to integrate refugees in our towns and cities. This is not a one-way street for us. We will need to get to know other cultures, other religions and we will all be richer for it.” Mayor Andreas Hollstein, Altena Germany

How does the incompetence of so many nation states and the frequent competence of cities fit into the emerging global phenomenon of new nationalism? Is it a fallacy to expand the concept of the open city to states and nations? So that nations would be more like cities, with their own rules and laws and governed by resident elected officials but without the absolute power of closing borders because these nations would be subordinate to a larger context?

The European Union is an experiment in this direction. But the recent national elections were like here largely driven by immigration fear and the debate about a nation's rights to control its borders. In Germany even a prominent member of the losing somewhat internationalist Social Democrat Party conceded that "a country must be able to be a country, regulate, organize, enable but also punish and limit. If this is questioned, the result won't be good in the long run." (Andrea Nahles, new SPD speaker in the parliament.) What has happened to the idea of open borders? Where does the idea come from that "to be a country" one has to be able to limit access?

Nationstates after the Westphalian Treaty

Where does the concept of nation even come from? Surely it didn't exist throughout human history. Historians locate the formation of the first State in Mesopotamia. Its formative elements were taxation and slavery, according to James Scott, a Yale professor who wrote "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States". Others date the recognition of a system of what we call nation-states at the end of the Thirty Year War and the peace treaty of Westphalia of 1648.

Westphalian system: A global system based on the principle of international law that each state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country’s domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War. 

The balance of power that characterized that system depended on its effectiveness upon clearly defined, centrally controlled, independent entities, whether empires or nation-states, that recognized each other’s sovereignty and territory. (Treaty of Westphalia)

Either way, a study of history and culture shows that nations and nation-states are not a "natural" given, not a necessity and that people have lived without that construct over long periods and in many regions of the world. In North America there were no nation states before the US was created, even though native first people (Native Americans) tribes use the term  "nation" today in reference to sovereignty and rights relative to US bodies of governance.

The principle followed in large part by the peacemakers of Versailles after the First World War was that of national self-determination: every nation deserves to
inhabit a state exclusively reserved for it. This was an absurdity from its first introduction; for we have no way of saying what constitutes a nation. Do the Welsh form a nation? Do the Swiss? Or the Basques? Do Australian aborigines, or Native Americans? Even now the state of Israel exists, we are not disposed to call the Jews a nation, rather than a people: but what distinguishes a nation from a people? Our propensity to speak of a group of people as forming a nation is in large part influenced by whether or not it has a territory of its own. We do not    count the Gypsies (Roma) as a nation, because they have no land of their own, but are scattered through many lands (Dermott, On Immigration and Refugees)

Medieval Europe before Westphalia consisted of smaller units that were not defined as nations and were frequently what one would better describe as fiefdoms or at best as city states under larger umbrellas of kingdoms, above all the Holy Roman Empire.

None of these empires and kingdoms was a unified state in the modern sense; they were in fact more like federations, with power fragmented amongst a multiplicity of feudal lords. Monarchs – kings and emperors – had little direct authority over most of their territories; local magnates (dukes and counts) or major towns owed him, their overlord, a duty of obedience, but within their own territories they could act as virtually independent rulers. When a king managed to get most of the magnates on his side, they would support him; if not (especially when they felt he or his officials were encroaching too much on their independence) they could (and frequently did) rebel.
Complicating this situation was the existence of a hugely influential international organization which claimed to be independent of kings and emperors, and at times asserted its claim to superior authority over them. This was the church, under the leadership of the pope in Rome. (Medieval Europe)

Like the European Union, the US is a construct is larger than the traditional Westphalian nation-state by combining states the size of countries into a larger union. The Civil War proved that this wasn't an easy feat. Neverless, today various laws such as the interstate commerce clause prohibit states to inhibit trade or travel on their borders, ensuring free movement of people and goods over thousands of miles.

The open border zones of the EU (Schengen states)

In an increasingly connected world that more and more "becomes a village" wouldn't it be natural to think about unions that are even bigger than the US and the EU?  This question has been asked, especially after the bloody wars of WWI and WWII. both caused by nationalism, racism and an extreme overstatement of what separates different nations. The League of Nations and then the United Nations were created to manage nationalism through international law. It was after the Second World War that the late "global citizen" activist Garry Davis lobbied the United Nations to declare Universal Human Rights (they did) and accept global citizenship (they didn't). The idea of being a world citizen first and a national citizen second is not dead. Just last month a huge Global Citizen Festival took place in Central Park in New York. So why not consider continents without borders, or, indeed, an entire world without borders? When such an idea was attributed to then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the last campaign it was considered near heresy by many.

“We are born as citizens of the world....“How many bombs had I dropped?” How many men, women and children had I murdered? Wasn’t there another way, I kept asking myself?” ” Garry Davis in Passport to Freedom: A Guide for World Citizens and in his memoirs.

 The idea of one world citizenship was certainly not created by Clinton and not even by Davis. It goes as far back as Socrates who is said to have considered himself a citizen of the cosmos.

Most people arguing for borders assume that the one-world people would not recognize the differences of ethnic background, culture, governance and economic systems and quickly conclude that borders like fences make good neighbors. But what if "no borders" would simply mean the same as a city or provincial border? I.e. it exists, it reflects election districts, governance, culture and laws but not travel restrictions. To cross such a border one wouldn't need a passport to cross it, nobody could prevent anybody from crossing it. Just as cities which feel overwhelmed by in-migration can resort to zoning restrictions on new development, without outright preventing people from trying to find housing and a job, no matter how hard it may be.

Large cities in 2030 (The Economist)

Corporations, banks and non profits have long taken the world as their playground and largely ignored boundaries in their quest for global markets. Recent US efforts to revert the trend of "free trade" in a multi-national context and withdraw from global efforts such as the Paris Climate accord cause concern among CEOs and environmentalists alike. Clearly, those political realities are out of step with economic and environmental realities in which the entire world must not only be seen as a stage for trade and commerce but also for effective environmental protection.

Common culture, identity, self determination and the need of groups to coalesce around common denominators and cultural agreements such as language, religious practice or law do not end with open borders. Defenders of current border management need to be asked from what they derive the ethical right to exclude others from getting to places they believe to be more desirable.  Just as residents in a city can move from a less desirable neighborhood to a better one or to a better city possibly in another state, people of countries in dire condition should have a right to leave it and search for a better place. Birth, language, religion or culture should not bestow citizens of countries with the right to lock others out.

We affirm the right of the individual to the fundamental liberty accorded to him by every civilized nation to come and go and dispose of his person and his destinies as he pleases. — The International Emigration Conference, 1889

Inside the US, the civil rights movement eliminated overtly exclusionary law and discrimination based on race, gender or religion, all practices that were routinely applied domestically and against the country's own citizens. Why should those same discrimination practices remain legal on the international level?

Just as it is impossible to imagine that rapidly growing cities such as Austin or Denver would declare that they have enough and close their borders so they wouldn't lose their cultural identity or have to spend the necessary money on schools, roads and infrastructure or let only people in with lots of money or higher education it should be impossible for nations to do that.

One World

It is the belief of democratic countries that its people should have the right of free speech, self determination and free travel and that people themselves are best capable of determining their own fate. Through history these concepts have been pushed from small limited spheres to larger scales. Today we have global travel has not only because of an increased world population or because individuals travel more often and over bigger distances, the ancient causes of war, natural catastrophes or famine persist. In spite of national civil rights inequities have become more accentuated domestically, but on the international scale, where they are not buffered by generally accepted anti-discrimination rights, they have become intolerable

The world at the turn of the twentieth century is one in which there has long been no  possibility of crossing any but a very few frontiers unhindered, but in which travel is swifter and easier than ever before, and there are manifold calamities – persecution, violence, war, hunger – pressing people to flee the lands in which they are living. (Dermott, On Immigration and Refugees)

Just as US residents continue to empty the rural interior of the US in a big migration to the cities on the coasts, global migrations are directing masses of migrants and refugees towards the regions of higher wealth. While growth as an eternal ingredient of capitalism is usually welcome for economic development in cities coupled with the belief that "the market" can take care of internal migrations through demand and supply and the resulting prices which would make too desirable places eventually unaffordable and, therefore, less desirable, this same logic has  somehow not been applied to a country and the international context. There is no reason why not.

Maybe it is time for nations to learn form their own cities how to cope instead of restrict.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

Bruce Katz: The Refugee Crisis Is a City Crisis
BBC: The Global Philosopher: Should Borders Matter?  (a global discussion)
The Moral Case for Open Borders
Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders, Joseph Carens