Border, Identity And (In) Security: The Kenyasomalia Border 1963-2016

State borders ideally frame the perception of security through the logic of insiders/outsiders and natives /non-natives. Insecurity is perceived as threats posed by outsiders, the ‘enemies' of the state. The view silences insecurities within the borders of a state. This exclusivist view of the border eliminates grey areas, and where such exist they are assumed danger zones. The realist and neo-realist perspectives understand security from historical protection or infringement of states' borders.[1] Thinking of insecurities as outside state borders continue to permeate security practices. An example is the notion of ‘homeland security' in an attempt to counter the threat of international terrorism by Western governments. Border politics enhance border protective initiatives. The re-introduction of walls shift the view of borders as simple national artifacts and tourist attractions to security mechanisms. For example, the Hadrian wall constructed in 122 AD separated the Romans from Barbarians between Scotland and England.[2] It remained in place as a tourist attraction and artifact. In modern days, border walls are dominant political issues. The intent to build walls between the United States (US), and Mexico,[3]  Morocco and Western Sahara, and on-going Kenya-Somalia border fence[4] are supposed mechanisms for enhancing security. 

The dominance of borders in politics elicit debates on their technical sufficiency in International Relations (IR). Neither modern political theory nor IR theory possesses an impressive record of theorizing outcomes of border difficulties.