By Bola A. Akinterinwa
Donald Trump is the current president of the United States. Anthony Asiwaju is Professor Emeritus of History in the University of Lagos and pioneer Commissioner for International Boundaries at the National Boundary Commission, Abuja. While Asiwaju is essentially an academic, Donald Trump was an astute businessman before his election on November 8, 2016 and inauguration as 45th US President on January 20, 2017. The two of them are Christianly.
President Donald Trump is a white man with a pure white man’s and republican mentality: proponent of traditional values, socially conservative (strong opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage on the basis of Judeo-Christian ethics, strong national defense, American conservatism, free market capitalism, free enterprise, fiscal conservatism, deregulation, restrictions on labour unions, etc. Professor Anthony Asiwaju is a black man with neither the mentality of the white man nor that of a black man. His mentality is simply that of the academician who is interested in objectivity of purpose and scientificity of arguments. He is reputed to be the leading Comparative Historian and Borderlands Scholar.
Put differently, Trump sees life from the business entrepreneurial perspective while Asiwaju underscores scholarship in his attitudinal disposition.
On other societal issues, they also have different perspectives. The critical issue of land border is a case in point. Donald Trump wants to use the issue of United States border with Mexico to address the irritants in their bilateral relationship and particularly how to grow and further develop the economy of the United States in fulfilment of his electoral campaigns. In this regard, Trump wants to build a new Wall of Jericho, generally referred to as ‘Donald Trump Wall,’ to provide a concrete demarcation between the two countries, and, by so doing, prevent the inflow of illegal Mexican immigrants into the United States.
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), excluding Alaska, the international boundary line of United States-Canada border is about 3,987 miles while the United States-Mexico border is about 1,933.4 miles, of which Texas has the lion share of 1,241 miles, Arizona has 372.5 miles (including 19.1 miles along the Colorado River), New Mexico has 179.5 miles, and California has 140.4 miles. Even though the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says ‘the Canadian and Mexican international borders are less problematic than the coastline measures because there are long stretches that are straight, such as the nearly 900-mile section of the US-Canada border along the 49th parallel,’ there is no disputing the fact that Donald Trump sees many problems with the US-Mexican border. It is because of the perceived problems that he has decided to build a wall as a border against foreign intrusion.
The wall is to be 40 feet tall, with 7 feet concrete foundation to serve as an antidote to eventual tunnelling, and 10 inches thick. The wall will cover a distance of 1000 miles. In terms of costs of construction, it is estimated to cost between $15 billion and $25 billion based on current prices. The concrete foundation laying alone is to cost $700 million and all budgeted costs are expected to be paid for by the Mexicans, that is, the United States will build, Mexico will pay for it from the calculations of Donald Trump. In this regard, Donald Trump wants to impose a 20% tax on all imports from Mexico to the United States.
Without iota of doubt, the Mexicans are not much concerned about payment of any costs. Donald Trump has signed an executive order authorising the commencement of the construction of the wall, regardless of the required internal processes of congressional approvals for funding.
What is important to note about Donald Trump’s Wall is that it is a wall, a border that divides, that separates. It is a border that is not helpful to regional integration. It is a border of hostility that has the potential to encourage underground economic activities. It is also a wall designed to control illegal immigrants. At best, it cannot but be inimical to good neighbourliness, not because of the purposes of the construction but because of the environmental conditionings of the policy decision, and particularly because the United States and Mexico are both neighbours by territorial contiguity and political propinquity.
Without doubt, no country condones illegal immigration and no one should condemn Donald Trump for seeking to make the world of Americans secure. However, the mania of doing it, the sloganeering of it, the braggadocio or arrogance with which it is presented and done, in fact, the demeaning of the people of Mexico by saying the wall would be built and the Mexicans would be made to pay for it through possibly deductions from remittances by Mexicans in the US to their relations back home or imposition of tariffs to the tune of 20%, is unnecessarily quite provocative.
Whatever is the case, the essential point is that Donald Trump, either as estate manager or as US president, is on record to have been building walls that divide. He has been allocating houses on discriminatory basis. The walls he has been building have also been discriminating. Consequently, there should not be any big issue about the new Donald Trump Wall in the making.
On the contrary, the borders of Professor Anthony Asiwaju are philosophically different. His own borders unite. His own walls integrate, they serve as instruments of national and regional development. It is within this context that his latest book, African Border Boom Town: Imeko Since c. 1870 was written. Imeko is one of Nigeria’s border towns, with 168 Compounds and four Quarters, located in the south-western part of Nigeria in Ogun State. Imeko is the world headquarters of the Celestial Church of Christ, an indigenous white garment church established in 1947 by Reverend S.B.J. Oshoffa through divine inspiration.
The book, the public presentation of which the Faculty of Arts of the University of Lagos played host to, is what Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, described in his address, as Chairman of the occasion, as ‘a major contribution to an emerging, rich mine-field of border studies.’ The book reviewer, Professor Abednego E. Ekoko of the Delta State University, Abraka, has it that, in the book, Professor Anthony Asiwaju ‘has most significantly proposed a practical policy formulation with emphasis on integration and bridges, not walls of separation as currently proposed by Donald Trump.’
Separating Borders and Globalisation
From the foregoing, which is better: a border that divides or a border that unites and integrate? Globalisation is essentially about removal of national frontiers and borders to facilitate the movement of goods and persons, as well as to promote the rights of establishment within the framework of regional integration agreements. Donald Trump wants a border that divides in order to ensure American self-preservation, American safety and economic self-reliance. Anthony Asiwaju is not against self-preservation, safety and economic prosperity. He simply believes that a border can be developed into a town, and then use the border town to integrate the people of the community who may reside on both sides of the frontier. His investigation of the twists and turns, development and its challenges, community living and its challenges, etc in Imeko which grew up from a village to a town and where ‘boom’ has come to characterise community life, is a case in point.
Most unfortunately, however, the direction of global thinking does not appear to lend credence to the promotion of the idea of a border-promoting unity or border for integration purposes anymore. Greater emphasis is now placed on ‘the will of the people’ to define political borders in contemporary global governance. For instance, why is the international boundary between the Israelis and the Palestinians an issue? Why is there difficulty in the establishment of a Palestinian State? We are told in international law that a state is constituted when there is a union of a people, a government and a well defined territory, that is with defined or delimited boundaries. Why is the boundary and Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory an issue in international relations? By mere fact of occupation of Palestinian territory, is Israel not raising issue with the border line?
Prime Minister May Theresa has said ‘Brexit is Brexit.’ But what does it really mean beyond the ordinary meaning of withdrawal of UK membership from the European Union? In which way is the Brexit different from Donald Trump’s foreign policy militarism? When will there not be a domino effect of Brexit in either the African Union or the ECOWAS, especially in light of the fact that virtually all the instruments of creation of African organisations are largely inspired by those of Western Europe? What choice should be made between and among a border that separates, a border that unites, and a border for self-aggrandisement?
Border in Nigeria, as shown in the 342-paged African Border Boom Town, Imeko, since c.1780 published by Bookbuilders, is that of unity and integration. Border, in the context of US-Mexico relations is about separatism while border in the context of Brexit is about self-projection and ‘Global Britain.’ Prime Minister May Theresa has, in this regard, clearly explained what we should understand by Brexit and Global Britain.
As regards Brexit, it is conceived to be a step toward Global Britain. Theresa May noted in her address to the 2016 Conservative Conference that ‘Brexit should not just prompt us to think about our new relationship with the European Union. It should make us think about our role in the wider world. It should make us think of Global Britain, a country with the self-confidence and the freedom to look beyond the continent of Europe and to the economic and diplomatic opportunities of the wider world.’ This is the basis for Global Britain.
In fact, the dynamics of the quest for a truly Global Britain are not far-fetched: Britain is considered the fifth biggest economy in the world. As submitted by the Prime Minister May, since 2010, Britain has grown faster than any economy in the G-7 and has attracted a fifth of all foreign investment in the European Union. Britain is the biggest foreign investor in the United States.
Perhaps more interestingly, Britain has ‘more Nobel Laureates than any country outside America, … the best intelligence services in the world, a military that can project its power around the globe…’ Britain has the greatest soft power in the world and sits ‘in exactly the right time zone for global trade and our language is the language of the world,’ May Theresa further noted.
Consequently, for the purposes of a truly Global Britain, Brexit requires the repeal of the 1972 Act which gave the direct effect to the European law in Britain. By Brexit, it simply means that laws would no longer be made in Brussels but in Westminster. In general, it simply means that Britain will no longer be subject to the supranational authority of the European Union. Global Britain therefore means self-capacity and self-capability to project British power worldwide. It is about being an effective and reliable global power. It is in the quest for a Global Britain that the British Prime Minister went on official visit to the US last Thursday, 26th January to be the first foreign leader to be received at the White House.
In her address to the republicans at a retreat in Philadephia, she raised three important issues: the need for the US and the UK to offer a joint leadership to the rest of the world in the conduct and management of global affairs. In this regard, for instance, she advised Donald Trump to engage Russia but also beware. She noted further that the Iran nuclear deal which Trump has threatened to tear up is ‘vitally important for regional security… We should not jeopardise the freedom that President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher brought to Eastern Europe by accepting President Putin’s claim that it is now in his sphere of influence.’
The second point of importance is the quick change in attitude of Prime Minister May Theresa. Earlier on in the UK, she described the campaign policies of Donald Trump as ‘divisive, stupid, and wrong.’ Now, on the soil of the Americans, she sang a new pleasing song by saying that the electoral victory of Donald Trump would surely enable the United States to be ‘stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead’ in the same manner the Brexit is expected to restore Britain’s sovereignty and independence. Thus, when interests are at stake, the borders naturally disappear or become thin even if the differences are still there.
The third point is about interference. Theresa May explained that the days of British and American interferences in the domestic affairs of other sovereign countries are over. She cautioned against the type of military adventures undertaken in Iraq and Afghanistan by Tony Blair and George Bush. Again, is this not unnecessary show of diplomacy? By cautioning against the type of military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, does it mean that other types of military adventures will be tenable?
Internationally speaking, there is the principle of International Responsibility to Protect (IR2P) which is applicable in the context of genocide, crimes against humanity and when governments are unable to protect their people against persecution. In which way is or will the application of the principle of IR2P be different from military adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan since interventions are more of a national mentality than of a collective design?
As notable as these points may be, there is no way the British and the Americans would be seeking Global Britain and ‘America First’ or ‘Make America Great Again’ without engagement in the internal affairs of other countries. In fact, the logic of making America great cannot but be largely predicated on destabilisation of other countries militarily, culturally, economically, etc. The case of Mexico is noteworthy. Donald Trump’s foreign policy clearly points to it.
Without any scintilla of gainsaying, at the level of US-Mexico relations, the Trump Wall constitutes an irritating border and a dividing factor. Most Mexicans have been much concerned about the future of their ties with the United States. Already, the Mexican president who was to attend a US-Mexico summit this week has cancelled his scheduled visit because of Donald Trump’s executive order directing the commencement of the construction of the Trump Wall. More irritating, the US president is insisting that Mexico must pay the costs for the wall and in the event of refusal to pay, the Mexican president should not bother to come to Washington for their jointly agreed summit. For Mexico, this is an unacceptable arrogance and humiliation. Thus, both countries are already on the path of a trade war, the future of which is not yet clear.
What is clear for now is that the threats against globalisation or the urge for national protectionism is sharply increasing. The disinterest in the supranational authority of many international organisations is on the increase. African countries have problems with the International Criminal Court. Many Member States of the European Union are complaining against it. Even within many states, agitations for self-determination are deepening. The natural question now is which way forward?
Donald Trump’s walls of disunity are likely to threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. In fact, they will generate new ones. For instance, it cannot but complicate the peace process in the Middle East. As a result of Donald Trump’s directive that the US Embassy should begin to move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the Palestinians have responded by indicating that their recognition of the State of Israel would be withdrawn in the event of actualisation. Recognition is a fourth requirement for establishment of diplomatic relations between and among states in international relations. It does not prevent the existence of a state but, without state recognition, diplomatic ties cannot be established.
In other words, if the Palestinians withdraw their recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, it does not in any way prevent the continued existence of Israel. In fact, with the current recognition by Palestinians, it is the recognition of the people of Palestine, the recognition of their international boundaries, and of course the recognition of their government that have been the issue in Israel. The United States under Donald Trump appears to want to aid and abet the complication of the problems with its foreign policy.
Consequently, Donald Trump’s foreign policy cannot but be a major instrument of setback in the quest for peace as his foreign policy has the potential to generate fresh crises and conflicts while deepening existing ones. These crises and conflicts cannot but also precipitate the quick decline of American power and the loss of its leadership status in the foreseeable future. Donald Trump should therefore learn how to make haste slowly in making America great again.
