Why is redrawing the artificial borders not a viable solution to conflicted states?

Question

Multiple states in Middle East and Africa seem to be stuck in violent conflicts that seem to be reoccurring and nearly inevitable because of the unstable internal power balance of various ethnic or religious groups inside - they aren't functioning as a single nation because they aren't a single nation, their boundaries have been drawn at decolonization either based on where was a border between, say, England and France; or even at completely arbitrary lines on map.

This problem is quite clear - for illustrations see here or the diversity maps from Vox.

There are three ways how the borders can start to match the ethnic, tribal or religious identities of people -

• Genocide or total cultural assimilation (we've seen attempts at that)

• mass migration (Partition of India and Pakistan is an example) with rather horrible consequences

• Renegotiating the borders

Oh, and the fourth 'effective' option of closing your eyes and hoping that the problem will solve itself, which we're doing now in all those regions.

Why is the third option refused?

It doesn't seem that it's even given a serious consideration - the global community is treating the territorial integrity of Iraq, Somalia or others as sacred even while being ready to depose local governments there. Why can't local self-determination movements be supported even if it would change a line that was drawn on map by some foreign bureaucrat?

It cost Western Europe centuries and a sea full of blood to come to borders that agree with the actual distribution of nations. Why should Middle East and Africa really be forced to pay the same cost?

It's not easy to do the transformation, but it does seem clear that the situation could be improved by allowing Sunni and Shia populations in Iraq and Syria to have self-determination and separate countries, instead of forcing the communities together where they'll be in internal conflict. A 1% scattered minority isn't a threat and can coexist; but if it's 33% vs 66%, then it's either rule or be ruled. Similarly for Afghanistan and the conflicts between Pushtun and other groups; similarly for situations such as Rwanda. A difficult one-time transition would be clearly better than a civil war every generation or so.

Answer 1

Simple reason: precedent.

If USA supports such a border rewrite, what's left for it to do when Mexicans in South-West decide to secede (or, in a less likely scenario, The South Rises Again :)?

If Russia supports such a border rewrite, what's left for it to do when Chechnya, or Yakutia, or Tatarstan decide to secede?

If China supports such a border rewrite, what's left for it to do when Uighurs or any other non-Han areas decide to secede?

Which by the way is exactly why USA government was criticized for supporting Kosovo by many right-thinking people - it gave Russia reciprocity and cause in Abkhazia and Crimea.

Answer 2

Because trying to redraw the border would just start the next round of wars.

Most ethnic groups overlap their neighbors -- especially when countries have large capitals or ports that attract people from all over the country.

And even where ethnic groups have well-defined limits to the area they currently occupy, they often remember ancient times when they lived (or ruled) elsewhere. If an effort is made to redraw the boundaries, many ethnic groups will try to regain their ancient territories.

Furthermore, many potential boundaries are not sustainable in the long run. A landlocked country is at a major disadvantage. A country without a secure water supply, or food supply, or raw materials for its industries is vulnerable. A country with a religion that believes that it can only tax foreigners (or subjects who do not share the religion) that does not have an easily taxed export good will see its tax-base crumble as subjects convert to the dominant religion.

Answer 3

All the talk about “arbitrary borders” obscures the real problem. It's the very notion of the nation-state and modern borders that are in a sense arbitrary and seldom map to the political and cultural realities of former colonies. And the nation state wasn't established painlessly in Europe either. At the end of the day, there isn't any “real” border that you would merely need to discover to solve all conflicts.

Answer 4

Examples of peacetime and non-violent border redrawings are relatively few and far between. Assume that there is a general consensus within a majority of all population that would be affected by the redrawing where the border should be. You still have nation-level politics in the way. It becomes a game of power: do I have enough power to convince the other side to give me more? Am I giving them too much and therefore losing power? Does this stretch of land maybe serve some strategically important purpose (like ocean access)? Could there be exploitable natural resources? Is my power maybe based on the population there to a non-neglegible extent?

Taking all together, there are tremendous driving forces for sticking to the status quo borders unless wars move them. Consider how long it took India and Bangladesh to solve their exclaves and enclaves issues.

Answer 5

Renegotiating the borders risks creating new plots of "Land that no one wants".

The other answers about setting precedence for independence break-outs, and that it wouldn't stop wars, but we did draw these boundaries before, so if that's different, why are we hesitant to do so again?

Well, when we did draw the border between Sudan and Egypt, we..did it at least twice (Once in 1899, and once in 1902) - and then we created probably the most notable border detail once people hear about it, Bir Tawil. Sometimes referred to as "The land that no one wants", it's a bit more complicated than that; neither of the surrounding states want to claim the land is theirs because it would effectively relinquish their claim to the Halaib Triangle next to it, given that the drawn border they would need to agree to to claim it explicitly denies them the other. As a result, as I understand, no people permanently settle there, but there are groups that pass through the region, and mining camps that have been established, but it's commonly known for people who hear about it not being claimed and decide to start a "Micronation" in that specific area.

The Canadian/U.S. border could find itself subject to this type of area, if there was dispute over the islands off the coast of both in the Atlantic that technically are claimed by both, a border re-drawing over that could cause other issues with the border (i.e. Stuff like the Northwest Angle and Islands, Point Roberts, or Campobello Island, etc.). Those might stick around more strongly as they are established now, there are some areas that are not inhabited, and as someone not from Egypt or Sudan, Bir Tawil sounds like it's in a similar situation, just much more stressed because of the area next to it where the border drawings became much more desirable.

The above is hopefully unlikely to happen, but the easiest way to avoid that is to simply not try and draw new borders again, unless the countries in question agree on the borders, and specifically agree with all parts of the border (Presuming that they helped draw the border too, though all of this is hypothetical).