Interview with  Professor Akihiro Iwashita of Hokkaido University, winner of the 2019 Milefsky Award

In 2019, IBRU awarded the second annual Ray Milefsky Award to Professor Akihiro Iwashita of Hokkaido University. Professor Iwashita has been a leading boundary practitioner and scholar of Asian borders, with expertise on the border between Russia and China as well as various disputes involving Japan. IBRU Director Philip Steinberg interviewed Professor Iwashita following his receipt of the award.

You have been involved in border and boundary issues for several decades. Have you seen any changes in how politicians and the general public approach borders? 

Essentially, when I began my career, questions and practices of boundary delimitation and border management were considered issues of state “sovereignty” and competence, and were thought to be the concern of a high-politics that was far removed from the lives of ordinary people. However, beginning with my work along the Sino-Russian boundary, I discovered that local administrations and the people living in these borderlands were able to affect not only the demarcation and administration of their borders, but also through their actions influence international relations between the two states. I have advocated this understanding and approach to the Russo-China and Japan-related cases that I have spent the bulk of my career focussed on. In this post-Cold War, globalized world, it is more difficult for states to ignore the voices and interests of borderland peoples, although their level of influence depends on the case in question. I believe that this phenomenon, of greater influence and weight being accorded to borderland populations, will continue and develop. It is therefore vital that border studies researchers encourage this phenomenon, in order to work towards a situation where relations between people and institutions on either side of the border serve to define not only the characteristics of a particular border, but to shape relations between the two countries.

Could you say a bit more on why it’s so important to consider the livelihoods and cultures that characterise borderlands?

Any particular border is socially-constructed, and it obtains its meaning from the particular communities within which it is located. Whether adjudged natural or otherwise, borders are always the creation of human beings. Therefore, the emergence, shifting and removal of borders is not the result of inexorable, impersonal forces, but the responsibility of human actors. It is impossible to envisage the complete disappearance of borders, for borders grant humans the ability to conceptualize the spaces within which they live their lives. The removal of particular borders does not result in their absolute disappearance, but instead their re-appearance and re-animation elsewhere. Nevertheless, the ways in which particular borders are envisaged and enacted stem from how communities think about them. It is for this reason the cultures and livelihoods of the borderlands, both the space surrounding borders and the people who live there, are so crucial, precisely because improving the relations of those living on opposite sides of the border is capable of having out-sized effects far beyond the border itself.

Is this need to consider cultures and economies in the areas around a border equally important when determining maritime boundaries? 

Essentially, yes, although practically-speaking there are normally differences in the two cases. The possibility of marking and materializing a border over terrestrial spaces serves as a prison for people’s imaginations. By contrast, maritime space is just an (endless) moving wave of water without any physical fence or object. It still remains the case that it is impossible for humans to enclose maritime spaces in the same manner as conceived on land, given the inherent mobility of the seas. Consequently, the maritime boundary is more artificial than that on land, because there is no way to map these borders back out into the world.
The management of maritime boundaries is therefore far more dependent upon the global governance mechanism provided by UNCLOS. This does not mean that local communities, and their cultural and economic specificity, are unaffected or unable to influence these processes, but merely that the governing and administrative framework is far more restricted. However, there is no guarantee that this will remain the case. In the future, humans will want to border the deep sea floor, Antarctica and other maritime zones, once it is feasible to do so. Bordering processes are liable to expand into the atmosphere, cosmos and cyberspace. As these processes advance, the livelihoods and processes of those affected by them will come to be of increasing importance.

You have played an active role in leading study tours to disputed regions. Why is that so important?

Many people are not aware of the realities that prevail in borderlands or disputed regions. They just sit at the center of the state, or at least view the areas in question from the state’s perspective, and imagine a solution that suits those interests. The result is that concerns about the state as a whole come to be refracted through these borderlands, resulting in a border consciousness that is totally divorced from the realities of local life along the border. Most obvious is the conception of borders as being the origin of threats to the state and society, such as terrorism, smuggling, poaching, or illegal migration. As Oscar Martinez noted many years ago, the result is an understanding of the border as a “fortress”. However, when one recognises borders as “gateways” it is possible to invoke a more positive and constructive image. The border tourism we conduct encourages people to make different associations with the border, such as “innovation”, “opportunity”, and “discovery”. Of course, it is certainly possible to draw lasting boundaries without such visits, but the aim is to see local voices and interests accounted for in decisions which are frequently taken far from them, and over which they have no control.   

What do you see as the greatest challenge in boundary dispute resolution?

The greatest challenge to resolution is the human imagination. Once people’s thinking about a border is captured by fear it becomes difficult to resolve disputes in a rational way. This has certainly been the case for the Dokdo/Takeshima, Senkaku/Diaoyu and South Kurils/ Northern Territories disputes with which Japan is involved. At the same time, this is also where the key to resolutions may lie, as with Damansky/Zhenbao Island for the Soviet(Russia)-China dispute. In 1960s and 70s, the island was a symbol of Sino-Soviet military confrontation, with the nation across the border represented as the enemy. However, under Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping, the meaning associated with the island changed, and under the slogan of “Never repeat Damansky/Zhenbao” the island became a metaphor for the importance of peace and mutual understanding, which led to the resolution of the dispute in the 1990s. Clearly, the meaning accorded to a particular border can be transformed, but how to achieve this is a big question for border studies.

 Do you have any final thoughts for the IBRU Borderlines readership?

IBRU is a pioneering institution for border studies. When we began our border studies project in the mid-2000s, we sought to learn from IBRU. We have been influenced by IBRU’s contention that practice is of vital importance, that border studies in the absence of practical activities is ineffectual. However, we have tried to develop IBRU’s model in order to facilitate practical engagement with not only experts, but also a broader range of society.