Borders as Happy Face Barriers

            It has been said that borders to not need to be barriers. That is true for borders without checkpoints, armed guards, passport control, and fences. You would not even know they are there. The other type with all of the features mentioned, you tend to notice them. They are hard to ignore if you ever have to pass through one. They are necessary depending upon the relations of the states, but what are the effects of that and do those effects also contribute to why they are needed?

            As well as legal zones, borders also serve a psychological purpose.(1)  They define where a nation begins and ends, geographically speaking. They carry that space upwards into "air space" and outwards where those borders are defined by bodies of water as their "waterways" or "coastal zones". But they also provide a means of psychological assurance, as well as being a potential source of fear. They keep the bad guys out. As long as all (or most) of the bad guys are presumed to be hiding on the other side of all those armed border guards with dogs, we can all sleep a little sounder at night. Yet by defining our space, our comfort zone, so precisely, we can all freak out and risk war or international incidents when some, accidentally or on purpose, drive their tanks or fly their planes on the wrong side of that line. Are they any real less of a threat parked on the other side of that line with guns, never mind missiles, that can hit targets with shells precisely even a hundred kilometers away? Probably not that much less of a threat, but it has a great impact and psychological consequences when even minor "incursions" occur.

            So if our borders are good, designed to keep out the bad guys, what do those on the other side need them for? Certainly we are not their bad guys, so why do they need to patrol it? These may seem like silly questions, but it is all about perception. Once someone, even just one side, builds a wall between you and him, you have to wonder what he is trying to protect or keep in, and who he intends to try to keep out. Borders which are barriers, which regulate which people and goods may or may not pass through them, are usually designed to keep bad things out, and when your side is the one building or enforcing the barrier, it tends to send a message to others that they are the ones you wish to put some distance between.

            With the hardening or stronger controls over the Estonian-Russian border from the Estonian side, that perception is palpable. Though the border needs to be controlled more to European standards due to Estonia's having joined the European Union, that perception that Russians were the undesirables needing to be kept out hardly started there. Estonia became independent as a breakaway province of Russia in 1919. Like many breakaway territories, even the United States, that autonomy was not unchallenged. In the US instance, even after signing a peace treaty with England, England tried to regain control of the US roughly a generation later but did not succeed. Estonia too had problems with Russia after it became independent being more or less occupied by the Soviet Union all over again within a generation before regaining independence in 1991. The military imbalance, the threat of reoccupation before joining the EU and NATO in 2004, the psychological need to have a patrolled border was very real, even if those patrols were initially militarily insignificant.

             On the Russian side, the border is viewed differently. Before Estonia joined NATO, it is doubtful many Russians ever had nightmares about being invaded by Estonians. Given that different level of perceived threat, Russians living near the border generally have had a friendly positive outlook toward Estonians in contrast,(2) somewhat understandably, than how many ethnic Estonians would prefer to have little to do with Russians in general.

            When people are not worried about tanks and soldiers crossing their border, they also still tend to associate negative things with borders; drugs, illegal aliens, black market goods, or gun running. It is not that these things are not passing over their roads, through their towns, everyday, it is just at the borders where they tend to get noticed more, talked about more, get more publicity, and occasionally are even stopped there. Borders, checkpoints in borders as opposed to where people just cross in the woods, are places where there is a greater chance of catching some of these. They are bottlenecks where larger numbers of people, and most vehicles, have to pass through one by one, be inspected, and show papers. An excellent place to catch the bad guys not crossing where there are no guards, and tend to remind honest people that where they were born or where they are citizens of matters. It also costs them a lot of money to pass through.

            It is this cost of crossing borders, as well as different price levels across the sides of this enforced zone which fewer may cross easily, which leads to smuggling and legal transborder merchandise transfer, what I call taking as much as you are legally allowed to carry with you. In such cases, those who have more frequent opportunities, easier and cheaper access to crossing than others, provides opportunities for profit for those lucky few. As Eiki Berg notes, "People with social advantages, who have the right for simplified border crossing (the right passport or relevant circle of relatives), can make a profit of the existing reality. ...improve ones financial situation, or even become rich."(3)

            Smuggling legal goods across the border where price differences are steep or where goods are heavily controlled or in short supply on one side, yet easy to obtain on the other side, are another side effect of strong borders. In my opinion, this category of problems is completely regulatory and caused by the enforcement of the border and nations' desires to regulate goods and prices. High tariffs can also lead to such problems, and in this instance, the problems can be lessened due to easing legal cross-border traffic which would bring a parity to prices on both sides of the border.

            While the perception is of organized crime being more active and more organized on the Russian side of the border, there are smuggling of illegal substances, namely drugs, which travel across the border in both directions. Meta-amphetamines and designer drugs enter Russia through the Pskov region from Estonia and Latvia, and heroin enters Europe much the same route in the opposite direction.(4)  While corruption from this criminal activity gets much public attention in association with the Russian side of the border, such smuggling routes indicate their must be similar corruption or greater laxity on the Estonian and Latvian sides for such routes to exist. However, one might think Pskov is more of a concern due to greater funding for fighting the problem on the Estonian and Latvian sides thanks to EU funding opportunities. Russia on the other hand, has less money to deal with the problem and has a reputation for rule of law related problems, and a more corrupted court system. Not only do they have less funds for law enforcement, they lack the social structures to provide a living to those who depend upon growing drugs to even just be able to survive. As noted in a 2004 report on Pskov, "During the spring, the authorities are planning to crackdown on local poppy and hemp fields, destroying any they find and arresting their owners. For many residents of this poor region, such crops are one of the only forms of survival." (5)  When a people are offered literally only two options, become criminals or starve to death, one cannot blame them for preferring the first choice, for it otherwise might not be their first choice, and calling it a choice in such instances is against the logic of the language used. This is a factor of why Russia is the way it is in regards to rule of law, and the people within Russia understand that, so economic conditions need to improve before the corruption markedly will.

            The relations between Estonia and Russia, between the EU and Russia, and the economic differences require a strong heavily-monitored border, yet that situation will have many negative effects which I believe also may feedback, and at least to a minimal degree, will reinforce those causes. Without free trade and minimal tariffs, smuggling of legal goods will increase leading to more crime, more corruption of border guards, and worsening perceptions. Perception that drugs and corruption are primarily a "Russian problem" can lead to less cooperation and potential for corruption on the Estonian side to be overlooked, glossed over, and ignored. Acknowledging in the West that criminal elements and drugs are also being sent into Russia from Europe, should be used as a tool to lessen the perception that only one side is the "good people" side of the border and that crime and smuggling can be and is a two-way street. And also, acknowledging without the gloating of a picked-on underdog, that there is a new dynamic, a real fear that Russians may feel they may be invaded or attacked from Estonia now that it is in NATO, and that fear will have a part to play in the rise of nationalism and will further extremist organizations goals. The feedback from the effects of the now necessary hard border will only exacerbate the situation without great care to minimize that impact until the time is ready to ease toward a softer border, should conditions improve in the future.