Border Preservation in the Modern Context

Question: Is the security – defined as the territorial integrity – of the state the first and foremost thing that a state’s leader ought to concern him/herself with?

I’m sorry, I’m afraid I can’t exactly pinpoint the topic of discussion. My definition of territorial integrity has always been something along the lines of “the right of a state to retain ownership of and authority in its recognized territory”. That does cover many possible security issues, but certainly not all of them. When you define “security” as “territorial integrity”, are you solely referring to cases of land ownership and placement of borders? Or do you mean any security issue caused by outside interference that takes place within a state’s territory? I’ll briefly address both points.

The right of a state to defend its existing borders is an issue that remains central to international politics. I spoke about it extensively in my first blog post, especially with regards to the reasons why borders might change. Currently, as far as the U.N. and most power players are concerned, borders represent legal boundary lines of states, and demarcate the precise extent of a government’s ruling mandate over the land. Therefore, it is only this type of border that we can comment on for the time being. Now, current borders are protected by layers and layers of legal doctrine that are, for the most part, recognized by the entire world. Borders are not easily changed nowadays; since a pattern of global order has gradually begun to mediate world affairs, states cannot simply invade and annex territories, or trade them like baseball cards. Saddam Hussein learned this all too well when he attempted an invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. No, if borders are to be legally changed nowadays, they must be subject to international tribunals, recognized by various nations and international organizations, and provide for the replacement of government infrastructure.

A prime example of this was the dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula, which lies on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon. Both countries claimed it, based on conflicting legal claims regarding colonial-era treaties. However, rather than go to war over it, they decided to hand the matter over to the International Court of Justice. After careful study and deliberation over the treaties, it was determined that the peninsula belonged to Cameroon. Although Nigeria still does not agree with the ruling, they peacefully withdrew their military and civilian personnel.

Territorial integrity has, therefore, become not so much a security problem as a political one. Despite many modern military attempts to change borders and carve out new countries, recognition only comes with a clear legal case as well as a certain degree of political maneuvering. Of course, it is expected that a state will take any measures to retain all of its land, even regarding it as a national security matter, but ultimately, the legal framework has become strong enough that it must be respected by all sides.

Now, with regard to the second point, it is often stated that countries spend far too much on defense, as it usually eats up the largest portion of their budgets. The United States, in particular, spends untold amounts of the national budget on defense, far more than any other country, leading many to question just how necessary the defense of a superpower is. It is easy for these people to question whether a strong defense is a necessity; we certainly don’t have Barbarian hordes waiting at the border, sharpening their blades and waiting for the right time to strike. However, it is important to remember that there are indeed powers that would like to take advantage of a passive United States, not only in America itself but among her allies and trade partners.

Looking at this problem from another perspective, we see an even greater need for appropriate security forces. States that aren’t approaching superpower status certainly need defense capabilities, as their enemies both foreign and domestic stand a greater chance of seriously damaging the government and the state. In addition to that, if America were to take the route previously mentioned, it would remove from the picture a major stabilizer in world affairs. Without the United States around to protect its allies and maintain global order, lesser nations would have to deal with their enemies with minimal outside assistance, as the U.N. is essentially ineffective without strong countries to back it up. As much as the need for alternative modes of spending exist, internal territorial security must remain unbreached, for if any government functions are to work, proper stability and authority of government must be maintained.