Horizons sovereignty dilemma

"The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Horizons, p. 245


I cannot agree holistically with the sentiment described above in Mary Rosenblum's novel, nor can I condone the belief that "sovereignty protects difference." In my opinion, such a way of thinking is dangerous and irresponsible, especially when applied to our discussion of the Other. The separation portrayed by Rosenblum in her fictitious, futuristic narrative mimics actual human history's infatuation with racism, prejudice, segregation, ethnic cleansing, religious crusades, etc. Sovereignty can be utilized as a way of protecting one population's cultural and geographic ties; however, mankind cannot afford to use the physical boundaries of sovereignty to dictate human interaction. A nation may choose "to protect its own", yet that does not necessitate isolation from external influence. Horizons explores this concept through the continual debate within the Platforms regarding trade agreements with Earth. The same discussion occurs within our own political environment, among the First World and the Third, between the East and the West, between communist and democratic forms of governance.  Sovereignty, in this context, has less to do with protecting one's own people and everything to do with solidifying the divide between us and them. Physical borders and separations based upon ideological difference or skin pigmentation (in addition to countless other "sameness" checkpoints) highlight those so-called disparities even further and inspire more suspicion between the two groups. At times sovereignty seems, to me, to be far too easy an excuse to which apprehensive isolationists may cling. And in an increasingly globalized dynamic among "nation-states", the purview of sovereignty becomes all the more ill-defined.