Unity and Sovereignty: A Delicate Balance for Security

Caleb Faulkerson

Open Library (https://openlawlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/state-scoop-assembling-reprint.png)

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “a house divided cannot stand.” These words ring true now as ever, with the sovereign state evidently constituting the metaphorical house at the center of contemporary geopolitics. That said, as with many standard houses, certain occupants will at times seek to renovate or otherwise redefine their abodes. Yet can a house multiplied stand the tests of time?

Given the ongoing War in Ukraine and kinetic developments in Pakistan, it goes without saying that the concept of sovereignty is important now as ever. As Eric Brahm notes, “a sovereign government is a fixed authority with a settled population that possesses a monopoly on the use of force […] recognition on the part of other states helps to ensure territorial integrity and is the entree into participating in diplomacy and international organizations on an equal footing with other states.” Yet this begs two key questions: what are the implications of unification rhetoric and unifications themselves? What are the effects of unification on state security?

For a contemporary instance meriting this line of questioning, look no further than Moldova and its western neighbor Romania. In January 2026, to much surprise, the president of the former, Maia Sandu, stated in a British podcast interview that “if we have a referendum I would vote for the unification with Romania.” In addition to shock from members of the opposition party in Moldova, The Rest is Politics podcast hosts themselves were shocked by President Sandu’s remarks, with one Rory Stewart quipping “if you are a head of an independent state, even from a position of your ego, you would never want to vote in a referendum to merge with a neighbor!”

Yet as absurd as such remarks may seem upon initial consideration, the sentiments therein are not without precedent. Feelings in favor of ‘Unirea’, alluding to unification with Romania, in Moldova largely stem from the fact that, a century ago, the polities constituted one state on the world stage. According to a European Pravda piece, “almost all of the territory of today’s Republic of Moldova was part of Romania before World War II. In 1940, under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, […] Moscow occupied [modern Moldova].” Moldova’s seizure by the Soviet Union was not the end of its story, however, despite the fact that amid their occupation, “the Soviet authorities […] artificially created a ‘Moldovan language’ (by changing the alphabet used for the Romanian language).” It is therefore understandable that “Unirea is not seen as the dismantling of independence, but as a return to one’s own statehood.” Understandable too is the fact that, should Moldova eventually join Romania, a member of the European Union (EU), it could also enjoy multi-layered access to a network of regional partners which have long formed a bulwark against Moscow’s encroachment.

That said, with previously mentioned notions of sovereignty in mind and given the current geopolitical climate, it is equally understandable why the thought of a state voluntarily joining with a neighbor on the world stage is viewed negatively in many contexts. The concept of irredentism, harkening to an Italian term meaning “unredeemed,” may even come to mind, particularly when co-ethnic populations are involved across a given international border. Yet regardless of the label one uses to describe them, phenomena similar to that exemplified by Moldova’s president are by no means existing in vacuums unto themselves; with U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments about Canada becoming America’s 51^st state and the fact that 34% in Northern Ireland indicated they would vote in favor of Irish unity in 2022-2024 polling demonstrating that such developments are not confined to any singular region or continent.

Regarding the effects of pro-unification rhetoric, look no further than the “elbows up” phenomena in Canada. Prompted largely by the aforementioned comments from the U.S. administration, these developments involving boycotts of American goods and surges in Canadian nationalism culminated in a record low of approximately 60% in the share of imports to Canada from the U.S. according to Statistics Canada. Couple this with Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs against America’s neighbor to the north and it is clear that unification rhetoric, when respectively bolstered and met (in this case widely defensively) by real time actions can viscerally impact the ways in which global publics engage with their peers on the other side of international boundaries.

Evidently, though expressions and responses in favor of respective unifications are noteworthy, proactive considerations of what can follow are essential to elevate the viability of such centripetal developments. For example, according to Britannica, in the case of former East and West Germany, “after 45 years of division, Germany was once again united, and the following year […] helped negotiate the Treaty on European Union, which established the European Union (EU) and paved the way for the introduction of the euro, the EU’s single currency, by the end of the decade.” Thus, the effects of German unification were manifold; on one hand it accelerated the process of European integration but on the other, as a November 2024 Inkstick piece notes, “apart from economic inequalities, there is also a representation gap [between former East and West Germany], as few eastern Germans access the top positions in politics, education, or the private sector.” All in all, however, the long-term effects of German reunification have been generally positive, particularly since “the drive behind reunification [coming] from the people of Germany not from the diplomatic process that surrounded the issue” according to the U.S. Department of State.

As far as state security is concerned in relation to unification, there are key considerations to keep in mind. For starters, hearkening back to the previously mentioned elements of sovereignty, one must consider the strategic complexities at play in relation to the collective territory of the polities involved. In each of the previously mentioned contexts, geography matters as do regional and historical factors. Additionally, those genuinely seeking sustainable and viable unification should remain cognizant of the fact that widespread public support on both sides of the border(s) in question is essential. By doing so, those at multiple levels of society can better ensure that their dreams for a more unified tomorrow do not undermine the priorities of today.