Why Drawing Borders Along Ethnic Lines Often Fails

World War I marked the beginning of the end of the belief that a multinational state could exist without violence, blood, and force. One of the consequences was the recognition that states with sizable national minorities could not simply handle these groups peacefully, leading to the redrawing of borders and the writing of peace treaties that addressed these issues.

Following this period, various universalists and federalists suggested alternative models for governance. These ideas appeared promising, especially as nationalism was under attack and European community advocacy groups like Jean Monnet foresaw the declining relevance of nationalism. Alongside these trends, communism's call for proletarian internationalism merged with advancements in science and technology that were expected to unify cultures, blur differences, and integrate the world into a single entity.

However, this vision was, in many ways, an illusion. Internationalism, while intriguing, has not become the wave of the future. The Talmudic axiom, 'It is the nature of man to feel closer to the most limited and narrow circles of people,' remains a strong predictor of human behavior. Even as the family often takes precedence over the nation, and the nation garners more loyalty from its citizens, conflicts between parties sharing a common territory and demanding full control still persist.

Examples Where Ethnic Borders Do Work

Interestingly, ethnic borders can work in certain situations. For instance, in nations where distinct ethnic areas exist, such as Yugoslavia, the initial redrawing of borders post-war led to relative peace among the various Balkan countries. These countries managed to coexist and maintain some form of stability, demonstrating the potential for ethnic borders to function successfully in certain contexts.

However, it's crucial to note that even in cases where ethnic borders seem to work, such as in Belgium, they are not guaranteed to satisfy everyone. Belgium formally split into French-speaking Flemish-speaking, and German-speaking zones, including the division of university libraries and their collections. While this solution did not satisfy everyone, Belgium has managed to avoid civil war over the issue, suggesting that it can coexist peacefully even if imperfectly.

Special Cases and Exceptions

Situations like the Navajo reservation offer interesting exceptions. The Navajo reservation defines a specific land that is considered sacred and historically significant to the Navajo people. This arrangement works for them, as it respects their cultural and spiritual values. The Navajo example highlights that some ethnic divisions can be managed and accepted when they align with the core values and identity of the community.

India’s case is another intriguing example. The partition of India into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh has led to rivalry and occasional war. However, it is essential to question whether unification would have been a better scenario. Every situation is unique, and the outcomes of such decisions can be complex and far-reaching.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while ethnic borders can work in certain scenarios, such as in Yugoslavia or the Navajo reservation, they are not inherently guaranteed to satisfy everyone or work universally. The failure or success of drawing ethnic borders depends on a myriad of factors, including cultural, political, and historical contexts. It is essential to approach these issues with a nuanced understanding and recognize the contradictions and unpredictabilities inherent in human behavior and societal change.