Francis (Year 7)
Editor’s note: This essay was recently entered into the Minds Underground: Young Minds Essay Competition. CPD
In my personal view, it is highly unlikely that world-leaders would co-operate to such a high standard that such a utopia is achievable, I can explain this belief in two issues that lie in contemporary politics.
1. The cultural and theological tension in rural areas
An example of these issues is in rural south-east Asia and Africa, where the shadow of a murky imperial past has caused turmoil in the past centuries. It can be suggested that the root of the problem lies in the fact that the borders are not adequate to support the rich and diverse cultures that once thrived, so a proposition to abolish all borders would magnify all the flaws in the conflicting ideologies of the sub-Sahara, as well as Oceania. Indonesia, for example, has had a tumultuous past when it comes to religious and cultural differences. Such a conflict that could be named is the radical-Islamist terrorists of the 1980’s, which caused mass panic, and lead to government censorship of all media, and it wasn’t until 1989 the press once again reattained their freedom of speech.
Even today there are reports of various separatist terrorist attacks. They have become less common,(in Indonesia)but it leads to the question, namely, if the Dutch, former owners of the territory that is now known as Indonesia, had been less negligent with their duties (after World War II, they relinquished ownership of their overseas territories), i.e. to create sustainable borders that could support the multitude of conflicting cultures, yet instead, they opted for the easier option: lump all of these diverse and varied cultures together in a ‘melting pot’. In a first-world country capable of developing infrastructure, be it healthcare, public transport, or amenities like toilets or even schools to suit its citizen’s needs, this would be a brilliant opportunity to grow a diverse society all could acclimatize to.
Unfortunately, as Indonesia is a developing nation, it is not graced with such opportunities. I believe this is the reason for such violent outbreaks in the past. It is common for people to believe that their life would improve if a corrupt and conniving government, in some cases many hundreds of miles away would be dissolved, and a more localised authority would take control.
This idea is fuelled on the theory that such a situation would allow for the local government would be more focused on individual needs than the economy or their own power. Yet, due to recent events, such as covid-19 and the recession in the August and Winter of 2023, the economy is not yet strong enough to bring around 60 percent of the world’s population from poverty1, and so it becomes harder and harder to meet the requirements of many, and more and more tempting to prioritize yourself and your peers as a politician.
The second reason that I believe makes globalism an unsustainable worldview is:
2. Hostility from dictatorships and far-right world leaders
As the leader of an authoritarian regime, the benefits for a globalist society for them personally, would be rather limited, as they would lose their respect and high-up position almost instantly. There is also a high chance that prosecution would follow their fall from grace, as, unsurprisingly, all dictators/authoritarian governments breach the universal charter of human rights (article one, two, three, four, five, seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven). Now, on to the issues nationalist ideology causes. For this segment, I will use Pakistan as an example, as 89 percent of the country’s population are self-acknowledging patriots.
Nationalism, as a concept, boils down to the reluctance to support the growth and safety of other nations, for example, ceasing to send monetary aid to countries under threat of invasion from a malicious force or in the aftermath of a natural disaster. This unwillingness to collaborate with other nations would prove contradictory to the abolishing of all borders. As well as this, some may argue borders are pivotal for the preservation of society as without well-defined boundaries, different legal systems and customs would collide, causing mass confusion and hysteria. Pakistan and India, for example, would suffer greatly as two incredibly distinct cultures, one built on Islamic values, the other on Hinduism. These two belief systems have caused great conflicts historically, and if all borders were disregarded, many could be persecuted for their religious beliefs, an argument similar to my first point. Even if we were to suddenly unanimously decide on banning borders, many would take advantage of the lengthy process of the redistribution of power and take commit all manner of crimes.
Conclusion
It would be rather problematic if the entire world followed the manifesto of one person, an entire political party even, what with all I have mentioned previously on the variety of differing beliefs on which many structure their lives upon. In fact, it would be preposterous to suggest that one person could handle the mean feat of global leadership: in my opinion, even a senate of twenty or more would crumble within months of its formation, under the pressure of governing so many people with diverse needs. The closest possible and most sustainable option apart from a borderless world, would be borders not based on race, culture, or economic development. Instead, world leaders should base their territorial claims over political support, to ensure everyone felt represented correctly. This would mean constantly fluctuating borders. However difficult this may be to achieve, it would drive worries away from immigration as borders, unless necessary, would only mark political trends in the area.
In my eyes, this is as close to a utopia as humanly possible.
The GSAL Journal 