ON POLITICAL BOUNDARIES. 241 



Political Boundaries. 

 By Colonel Sir T. H. Holdich, K.C.M.G., K.C.I. E., CB. 



[Ordered by the General Committee to be printed in exteneo.] 



It is said that more wars have been caused by boundary disputes than 

 any other source of political contention. Whenever there is a war, 

 there is, inevitably, a boundary violated somewhere or other as the 

 direct result of military movement, but this is an effect rather than a 

 cause. The cause is to be sought for amongst a great complexity of 

 human motives — it may be a spirit of aggression, the sheer lust of 

 world power, or it may be and frequently is an irrepressible demand for 

 more space for an expanding people. This everlasting changing and 

 shifting of boundaries which, whether regarded as cause or effect, is 

 the accompaniment of every great world war would, one would have 

 thought, have led long ago to a most careful consideration of 

 the principles which should govern the setting out of boundaries 

 between nationalities in such manner as to render them the most 

 efficient factors in the preservation of peace; and yet the amount of 

 really useful literature on this subject is almost infinitesimal. The 

 complexity and importance of it has, I think, hardly been realised, 

 and certainly no other subject could lend itself better to scientific dis- 

 cussion from either the military, political, or the geographical stand- 

 point, or start more free from preconceived notions and dogmatic opinion. 

 One or two able writers have indeed attempted to define the require- 

 ments of an international boundary from a theoretical point of view in 

 a manner which is wholly admirable in so far as it is based on a belief 

 in the regeneration of humanity, and the existence of an honest desire 

 for a millennium of peace and goodwill which should lead nations to 

 dwell together in unity. Unfortunately there are very few signs of 

 this happy tendency in these days. It does not much matter in what 

 direction you look for signs of yearning loving kindness amongst people, 

 who, being ordered and ruled from separate and distinct centres of 

 government, still exist as rivals in the gi'eat world field of commercial 

 development and wealth hunting; you will not find them. In no direc- 

 tion whatever are such symptoms significant enough to warrant the 

 adoption of any scheme of boundary fixing which would lead to the 

 commingling of the human fringes of the nations and promote mutual 

 assimilation in a spirit of brotherly love and common ideals. Here we 

 are faced with one of the difficulties which beset the discussion of the 

 subject. What is a nation? or rather what are those conditions of 

 government and geographical environment which constitute the basis 

 of a nationality, binding all its individual members into one definite and 

 complete whole in the consciousness of unity of purpose and ideals? 

 An American writer defines a nation as ' a population of an ethnic 

 unity, inhabiting a geographic unity under a common foiTn of govern- 

 ment.' He is careful to add that the exceptions are quite numerous 

 enough to prove the rule. We had better leave it at that, and remember 

 that under the universal political empires of the past there were no 

 nations; and that with the increase of democracies in the world will 

 come an inevitable increase of international boundaries. It is, however, 

 1916 R 



