The Walls Between Conflict and Peace

1st Edition Alberto Gasparini

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-walls-between-conflict-and-peace-1st-edition-albe
rto-gasparini/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Between Peace and Conflict in the East and the West

Studies on Transformation and Development in the OSCE
Region 1st Edition Anja Mihr

https://ebookmeta.com/product/between-peace-and-conflict-in-the-
east-and-the-west-studies-on-transformation-and-development-in-
the-osce-region-1st-edition-anja-mihr/

Between Peace and Conflict in the East and the West:

Studies on Transformation and Development in the OSCE
Region Anja Mihr (Dir.)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/between-peace-and-conflict-in-the-
east-and-the-west-studies-on-transformation-and-development-in-
the-osce-region-anja-mihr-dir/

Childhoods in Peace and Conflict 1st Edition J.

Marshall Beier

https://ebookmeta.com/product/childhoods-in-peace-and-
conflict-1st-edition-j-marshall-beier/

Peace and Conflict Studies 5th Edition David P. Barash

https://ebookmeta.com/product/peace-and-conflict-studies-5th-
edition-david-p-barash/
The Palgrave Encyclopedia Of Peace And Conflict Studies
1st Edition Oliver P. Richmond

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-palgrave-encyclopedia-of-peace-
and-conflict-studies-1st-edition-oliver-p-richmond/

Galileo and the Conflict between Religion and Science

1st Edition Gregory W Dawes

https://ebookmeta.com/product/galileo-and-the-conflict-between-
religion-and-science-1st-edition-gregory-w-dawes/

Childhoods in Peace and Conflict 1st Edition J Marshall

Beier Jana Tabak

https://ebookmeta.com/product/childhoods-in-peace-and-
conflict-1st-edition-j-marshall-beier-jana-tabak/

The Conflict Between the California Indian and White

Civilization Sherburne F. Cook

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-conflict-between-the-
california-indian-and-white-civilization-sherburne-f-cook/

Cultural Violence in the Classroom Peace Conflict and

Education in Israel 1st Edition Katerina Standish

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cultural-violence-in-the-classroom-
peace-conflict-and-education-in-israel-1st-edition-katerina-
standish/
The Walls between Conflict and Peace
 International Comparative
Social Studies

Editor-in-Chief

Mehdi P. Amineh (Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University

of Amsterdam, International Institute for Asian Studies, Leiden University)

Editorial Board

W.A. Arts (University College Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Sjoerd Beugelsdijk (Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands)
Harald Fuhr (University of Potsdam, Germany)
Joyeeta Gupta (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Nilgün Önder (University of Regina, Canada)
Gerhard Preyer (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
Islam Qasem (Webster University, Leiden, The Netherlands)
Kurt W. Radtke (International Institute for Asian Studies, The Netherlands)
Ngo Tak-Wing (Leiden University, The Netherlands)
L.A. Visano (York University, Canada)

Volume 34

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/icss

The Walls between Conflict
and Peace

Edited by

Alberto Gasparini

LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: Variant of the border cities in the chess game: from war machine to cooperation tool.
Created and with kind permission by Alberto Gasparini and Giuseppe Assirelli.

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016044163

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.

issn 1568-4474
isbn 978-90-04-27284-2 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-27285-9 (e-book)

Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents

Preface vii
List of Figures, Tables, and Graphs ix
Notes on Contributors xi

Introduction. Walls: Ways of Being, Ways of Functioning, Ways of

Being Transformed 1
Alberto Gasparini

Part 1
Walls Dividing, Walls Uniting

1 Walls Dividing, Walls Uniting: Peace in Fusion, Peace in Separation 35

Alberto Gasparini

Part 2
Macro Walls and Macro Networks

2 Why Empires Build Walls: The New Iron Curtain Around the
European Union 97
Max Haller

3 The Enlargement Process and the “Dividing Lines of Europe” 126

Melania-Gabriela Ciot

4 Are Walls a National Security Issue? A View from the

United States-Mexico Border 146
Dennis Soden and Alejandro Palma

Part 3
State, Security and Ethnic-Political Walls

5 The Berlin Wall 161

Anneli Ute Gabanyi
vi Contents

6 Vatican City-Italy Wall: Consolidating Social and Political Peace 183

Domenico Mogavero

7 The “Crossings” along the Divide: The Cypriot Experience 197

Maria Hadjipavlou

8 Israel-Palestine: Concrete Fences and Fluid Borders 217

Eliezer Ben-Rafael and Sigal Ben-Rafael Galanti

9 Ordinary Everyday Walls: Normalising Exception in Segregated

Belfast 238
Hastings Donnan and Neil Jarman

Part 4
What Happens after the Wall?

10 European Twin Cities: Models, Examples and Problems of Formal

and Informal Co-operation 263
Thomas Lundén

11 Scenario for the New Town of Gorizia/Gorica 294

Alberto Gasparini

Bibliography 331
Index 367
Preface

Walls are as old as the world of human groups and communities. And their
purpose has always been to provide the group, the homeland and the nation
with security and internal freedom by means of a walled social and political
order, walled social and cultural homogeneity and in modern times walled
sovereignty and a walled democracy. A wall has also been a perverse dream
which may have been a short-term tactical success but has not met the
medium- and long-term needs of the society which built it. Such walls have
crumbled, and in some cases disappeared, because they have not lived up to
the promises made for them, and because the closure they bring has always
entailed economic, social and cultural impoverishment. Walls have changed
by means of their transformation into borders, and subsequently by processes
of reciprocal awareness, diplomacy, reconciliation and cooperation.
It was thought that in the globalising modern world there would no lon-
ger be any need to erect walls, or at most there would be room for walls
between neo-empires and for military fences. But the world has belied such
predictions; walls are reappearing, even between countries which have labo-
riously come together in federations, confederations and special unions, not
least the European Union itself. Who would have thought this could happen
after decades of work by people living in border areas and the institutions
(Euroregions, EGTCs, etc.) to build cross-border cooperation and remove the
obstacles to it?
Under these conditions it becomes essential to understand the logic of walls
and the part they play in a dynamic process of change which turns them into
something new, and how to use such processes to discourage the construction
of walls, since they are not a real solution to the problems they are supposed
to solve.
It is to be hoped that this book may contribute to mutual awareness between
peoples and deter them from building walls. Like all others, our epoch must
come to understand that walls go against history and are ineffective and a
waste of resources.
Every story has a beginning, though the starting point gradually fades. The
same goes for this book. The original idea came up around a table in a restau-
rant in Gorizia, during a discussion with Professor Eliezer Ben-Rafael. It took
shape as the articulation of the volume was influenced by the novelty of its
approach to public walls.
Behind the restaurant was the fact that Gorizia was the venue for an inter-
national conference on “The Berlin wall and the other walls”, and it was there
viii Preface

that scholars from Europe and the rest of the world met to discuss the sub-
ject. The conference was organised by ISIG (International Sociology Institute
of Gorizia) and the IUIES (International University Institute for European
Studies) in September 2009. From there the idea began to take off as it was pro-
posed to a number of European teaching and research institutions. The enthu-
siastic support it received enabled us better to articulate the various facets of
the idea as they are illustrated in the introduction to the book.
Of additional significance is the fact that behind the scholars who contrib-
uted to the book are research institutes which for years, if not decades, have
devoted their attention to walls, borders and cross-border cooperation. Among
these I have particular pleasure in citing Belfast, El Paso, Nicosia and Cyprus,
Cluj-Napoca, Berlin and the Centre for Baltic and East European Studies in
Stockholm, besides ISIG and IUIES in Gorizia.
Our heartfelt thanks therefore go to all the authors for the enthusiasm and
commitment they have put into their contributions. And I would like to give
special thanks to Eliezer Ben-Rafael for his unstinting collaboration and invalu-
able advice in the organisation and evaluation of the contributions which go to
make up this volume.
I would also like to thank Luigi Pellizzoni and Adrian Belton for their invalu-
able scientific and linguistic advice, Mark Brady for his translations and his
revision of texts in English, Giulio Zanoli and Bernardo Gasparini for their IT
expertise, Matteo Delli Zotti for his production of graphs and images adapta-
tion. My undying gratitude goes to Mehdi Parvizi Amineh, Editor-in-Chief of
Brill’s International Comparative Social Studies series, and the reviewers for
reviewing the manuscript. My best wishes go to Rosanna Woensdregt at Brill
for her guidance and management at all the stages of our work. Last and by
no means least, I reiterate my thanks to Brill Publishers for believing from the
outset in this book on world walls and local walls and their limitations.
List of Figures, Tables, and Graphs

Figures

2.1 The duration of the existence of state borders in Europe 104

2.2 The New Iron Curtain around the Schengen area and the European
Union, 2010 110
2.3 Where the new Iron Curtain between Africa and Europe comes to light:
Ceuta (Spain/Morocco) 119
6.1 Map of the Vatican City, surrounded by the wall 191
7.1 Borderline between Turkish and Greek Cyprus 201
7.2 Street cut by the Green Line in Nicosia 201
7.3 Hundreds of people wait to cross to the other side after the check points
opening at Ledra Palace Hotel in Nicosia 212
7.4 Central street in the capital of Cyprus, Nicosia, Ledra street which was
closed in the interethnic fighting in 1963 and reopened in 2008 212
8.1 Central Israel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 2007 223
8.2 The barrier in the Northern West Bank 226
8.3 The Gaza Strip 231
9.1 Map of Belfast ‘peace walls’ 243
9.2 Falls-Shankill barrier at Cupar Way 244
9.3 Crumlin Road ‘peace wall’ 244
9.4 ‘Wall’ of CCTV cameras on the Limestone Road interface 245
9.5 ‘Peace wall’ dividing public park (Alexandra Park) 246
10.1 Map of Haparanda-Tornio twin towns 269
10.2 Map of Narva-Ivangorod twin towns 277
10.3 Map of Narva 278
10.4 Map of Valga and Valka twin towns 286
11.1 Map of Gorizia and Nova Gorica divided by the border 304
11.2 American soldiers mark off the new border between Italy and
Yugoslavia at Gorizia, 1947 305
11.3 Red star surmounting Nova Gorica railway station on the far side of the
border fence. On this side, Italy 305
11.4 Demolition of the boundary stone of the fence between Gorizia and
Nova Gorica 306
11.5 The mayors and the people of Gorizia and Nova Gorica toast in the
occasion of the fence fall 306
x List Of Figures, Tables, And Graphs

11.6 April 30th 2004. Celebration for the fall of the ‘wall’ of Gorizia outside
the railway station in the area formerly divided by a fence; it is now a
common square 307
11.7 The new square in front of the railway station, now bereft of its red
star 308
11.8 The new square playing a role in daily life; the railway station is in the
background 310
11.9 Gorizia. The future in the past 312

Tables

3.1 Per Capita expenditures on social protection 134

3.2 GDP per capita in PPS (Purchasing Power Standards) in the EU Member
State from 2007 137
8.1 Terror attacks and casualties in Israel, 1994–2014 by year 224
9.1 Reasons given for not wanting the wall removed 256
11.1 Scenarios possible in 2030 according to times 327

Graphs

1.1 Many superimposed borders form a hard wall 72

1.2 Organisations and their borders in modern society 79
1.3 Organisations and their borders experienced by the individual 79
3.1 Unemployment situation 139
4.1 Migration of Mexicans Into and Out of Mexico: Mexican National
Survey of Occupation and Employment, 2006–2009 (thousands) 151
11.1 Networks within each sector and between sectors 322
11.2 The towns of Gorizia and Nova Gorica remain divided
(hypothesis a) 324
11.3 The towns of Gorizia and Nova Gorica construct a differentiated
integration (hypothesis b) 325
11.4 The towns of Gorizia and Nova Gorica achieve an (almost) perfect
integration (hypothesis c) 326
Notes on Contributors

Eliezer Ben-Rafael
is a Professor of sociology, Tel Aviv University. His areas of research are ethno-
cultural cleavages in Israel, collective identities, sociology of languages and lin-
guistic landscape and the sociology of the kibbutz. He received the Landau Prize
for his life achievements in Sociology and was president of the International
Association of sociology. He published recently Sociologie et Sociolingustique
des Francophonies Israéliennes (with Miriam Ben-Rafael) (2013); The risk of
enduring (with M. Topel, Sh. Getz and A. Avrahami) (2011); Jews and Jewish
Education in Germany Today (with O. Guckner and Y. Sterberg) (2011); Ethnicity,
Religion and Class in Israel (with S. Sharot) (reprint 2007); Jewish Identities in
a Era of Multiple Modernities (with L. Ben-Chaim) (2006); and Is Israel One?
Religion, Nationalism and Ethnicity Confounded (with Y. Peres) (paperback
2010); Jewish Identities: Fifty Intellectuals Answer Ben Gurion (in Hebrew, French,
English and Italian: 2002–2013). He has also edited several books about The
Communal Idea in the 21th Century (2013); World Religions and Multiculturalism
(2010); Linguistic Landscape in the City (2010); The Jewish People Today (2009);
and Transnationalism: Diasporas and the Advent of a New (Dis)order (2009).

Sigal Ben-Rafael Galanti

is a senior Lecturer in Political Science and Chair of the Beit Berl Research
Center for Educational and Social Studies at Beit Berl College. During the
years 2006–2012 she headed the Social Sciences and Civic Studies department
of the college. She also teaches at the East Asian department of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. Sigal Ben-Rafael Galanti was a Research Fellow at
the Institute of Social Sciences (SHAKEN), Tokyo University (2001) and the
Graduate School of Political Science at Waseda University, Tokyo (2005). She
carried out her PhD research in Japan, focusing on this country’s democratiza-
tion under American Occupation. She also investigates Israel’s political parties
and civic education. She recently wrote Judicial Review in Japan—a Limited
Mechanism or an Agent of Democratization (2010); The Memory of the Second
World War and the Essence of ‘New Japan’ (2009); The Emperor in New Japan:
The Parliamentary Debate (2008). In the field of Israeli politics she wrote
From the Margins to a Continues Governing Position: The Miracle of the Israeli
Rightist Likud Elite (2008); The ‘Miraculous Likud’ and the Polish formula (2011);
Political Elites at the Right—the Likud (2007); Kibbutz Sector and Israel’s Political
Elite of Today (2011).
xii Notes On Contributors

Melania-Gabriela Ciot
is associate professor at Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca (Romania),
where she is currently teaching courses on International and European
Negotiations, Idiosyncrasies and Foreign Policy Decisions Making. She
holds a PhD in International Relations and European Studies from Babeș-
Bolyai University and one in Educational Sciences from Ghent University,
Belgium. Gabriela Ciot has an intense scientific and research activity, which
includes books, articles and studies in international and national jour-
nals, including “The Negotiator Magazine”, “Disability and Society Journal”,
“Studia Universitas Babes-Bolyai—Psychologia-Paedagogia”, “The Journal
of E-working”, “International Journal of Psychology”. Her research interests
are the psychology of decision-making process, especially in foreign policy,
European and international negotiations, mediation and management of con-
flict and cooperation. Recent publications include Modelul Negociatorului
(idiosincrazii în procesul decizional al politicii externe) (2012); Managementul
educației (clasa de elevi) (2012); Educație și societate (2012); Fundamente ale
pedagogiei—partea I, (2012); Media portrayals of people with disability—an
intercultural approach, (2009); Managementul clasei de elevi (2007); Elemente
de pedagogie şi teoria şi metodologia curriculumului (2003); O abordare sintetică
a educaţiei—suporturi pentru formarea iniţială şi continuă a cadrelor didactice
(2002).

Hastings Donnan
is Director of the Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and Social
Justice, co-Director of the Centre for International Borders Research and
Professor of Anthropology at Queen’s University Belfast. His research focuses
on the comparative study of borders that have experienced conflict, violence
and war and on related issues of trauma, memory and displacement. He has
conducted long-term residential field research at Pakistan’s borders with
Afghanistan and Kashmir as well as at the Irish land border, and he is particu-
larly interested in boundary crossing and boundary transgressions. His pub-
lications include A Companion to Border Studies; Borderlands: Ethnographic
Approaches to Security, Power and Identity; Culture and Power at the Edges of
the State; Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State; Islam, Globalization
and Postmodernity; and Border Identities: Nation and State at International
Frontiers. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and a Member of the Royal
Irish Academy.

Anneli Ute Gabanyi

born in Bucharest to a Transylvanian Saxon family of partly Hungarian heri-
tage, completed secondary studies in her parents’ native town of Sibiu.
Notes On Contributors xiii

As a former trader, her father was subjected to restrictions by Communist

authorities, and the Gabanyi family residence in the Sub Arini area was con-
fiscated by the state. Gabanyi studied Philology and Political Science at the
University of Cluj, and later at the Université d’Auvergne and the University
of South California. She received a PhD in Philology from the Helmut Schmidt
University in Hamburg. In 1963, Gabanyi and her family were allowed, as eth-
nic Germans, to reunite with their relatives living in West Germany. They set-
tled in Munich, where she became an analyst for Radio Free Europe (1969);
she was head of the station’ Romanian Research Section until 1987. She has
frequently visited her native country after the Revolution, and is a regular con-
tributor to Sfera Politicii. Anneli Gabanyi is presently as associate researcher
for the German Institute for International and Security Issues (Stiftung
Wissenschaft und Politik) in Berlin. Her recent works include Systemwechsel
in Rumänien: von der Revolution zur Transformation (1998), The Ceauşescu
cult: propaganda and power policy in communist Romania (2000), Vom
Baltikum bis zum Schwarzen Meer. Transformationsstaaten im östlichen Europa
(with Klaus Schoeder) (2002).

Alberto Gasparini
is professor of sociology at the University of Trieste, Faculty of Political Science,
where he holds courses in Rural and Urban Sociology, Sociology of International
Relations and Forecasting techniques. Alberto Gasparini is founder and presi-
dent of the International University Institute for European Studies since 2000
and director of the International Sociology Institute of Gorizia from 1989 to
2011. He seats in the directing board of several Italian and international scien-
tific institutions. Since 1994, Alberto Gasparini is director of the Italian journal
“Futuribili”. His main fields of research and study are: trans-border relations,
urban and rural sociology, regional planning, international relations, ethnic
relations, futures studies. Alberto Gasparini is a member of the expert group
on the EGTC organized by the Committee of the Regions (EU) and of Working
group organized by the Council of Europe. He is ISIG’s first delegate at the United
Nation EcoSoc in New York, Wien and Geneva. Alberto Gasparini has received
international honors and awards for his work, including “Doctor and professor
honoris causa in social sciences” in 2012 by the Eotvos Lorand University of
Budapest, and in 2013 by Babes Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca. Recent pub-
lications include La sociologia degli spazi (2000); Cross-border Co-operation in
the Balkan-Danube Area (2003); Swot 1. Analysis and Planning for Cross-border
Co-operation in Central European Countries (with D. Del Bianco) (2010); Swot 2.
Analysis and Planning for Cross-border Co-operation in Northern Europe (with
D. Del Bianco) (2010); Società civile e relazioni internazionali (2011); Strategies
and Euroregions for Cross-border Co-operation in Balkan and Danube Countries
xiv Notes On Contributors

(with D. Del Bianco) (2011); Swot 3. Cross-border Co-operation in Europe: A

Comprehensive Overview (2012).

Maria Hadjipavlou
was Associate Professor at the Department of Social and Political Sciences,
University of Cyprus (1995–2013). Previously she taught at Boston University
and Bentley College in the USA. She has, for decades, facilitated and designed
numerous conflict resolution workshops among different social groups from
across the divide. She is a founding member of non-governmental organi-
zations: the Peace Center, Hands Across the Divide, The Cyprus Academic
Dialogue, the Cypriots’ Voice and the Gender Advisory Team. She has been
a consultant to the Council of Europe on issues of inter-cultural dialogue
and gender equality. As a trainer for the UNFPA, she worked with women in
Bratislava. Kabul, Tunisia and has been a member and trainer for WINPEACE-
Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. She has published in international journals on con-
flict resolution and the Cyprus conflict, citizens’ unofficial diplomacy, women
and the peace negotiations, etc. Her book “Women and Change in Cyprus:
Feminisms, Gender and Conflict”, I. B. Taurus, 2010, has become a reference
book on Women and Cyprus. Her research interests include international
conflict resolution, gender and conflict, peace education, feminist theories,
memory and reconciliation, gender and migration, women, peace and security,
and women and the economic crises. She is a member of the ‘Gender Equality
Technical Committee’ working on the integration of gender equality provi-
sions in the peace negotiations in Cyprus. For the last four years she has been
teaching at Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, in the Summer Term.

Max Haller
born 1947 in Sterzing (Italy), is professor of sociology at the University of Graz
(Austria). 1986–89 president of the Austrian Sociological Association; 1988–92
vice-president of the European Sociological Association; 1984–85 co-founder
of ISSP; member of the Austrian Academy of Science. Visiting professor at the
Universities of Klagenfurt and Innsbruck (Austria), Mannheim and Heidelberg
(Germany), Trento (Italy), Sta. Barbara (California, USA) and St. Augustine
University of Tanzania. He published 16 monographs, edited 16 books and
about 240 scientific articles in leading international sociological journals
and books in German and English, several translated into Italian, French
and Hungarian. Research areas: social stratification, ethnic relations, sociol-
ogy of European integration, comparative social research, and sociological
theory. Recent books: The Making of the European Union. Contributions of the
Social Sciences (editor, Springer 2001); European Integration as an Elite Process.
Notes On Contributors xv

The failure of a Dream? (Routledge 2008); The International Social Survey

Programme. Charting the Globe (editor with R. Jowell and T. Smith, Routledge
2009); Ethnic Stratification and Economic Inequality around the World. The End
of Exploitation and Exclusion? (Ashgate, forthcoming).

Neil Jarman
is a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and
Social Justice at Queen’s University Belfast and the director of the Institute for
Conflict Research, a not-for-profit, policy orientated research centre, based in
Belfast. He has a PhD in anthropology from University College London and has
worked extensively on issues associated with the political context in Northern
Ireland over the past 20 years. His work on parading and visual displays was
published as Material Conflicts in 1997. His more recent work has focused on
the processes of conflict transformation, including work on the role of the civil
society in peacebuilding; vigilantism and the control of violence; public order
policing; hate crimes and issues related to migration and cultural diversity.
Over the past six years he has worked with the Northern Irish government and
other agencies in reviewing the physical legacy of the conflict and the con-
tinued presence of walls, fences and barriers in residential areas of Belfast.
Neil also chairs the International Expert Panel on Freedom of Assembly at the
Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, part of the Organisation
for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Panel has produced two editions
of the Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and works with governments
and NGOs across Eurasia on issues related to protests and demonstrations.

Thomas Lundén
PhD (1977) in human geography, University of Stokholm, is Professor Emeritus
of human geography, Stockholm University. Lundén was dozent at the
University of Stockholm, then Associate Professor at the same university,
and finally Professor at the Södertörn University. He was project leader: “The
influence of political territorial hierarchies on local development and rela-
tions in cross-border areas. The role of Szczecin as central place in relation
to the divided Pomeranian hinterland”, and member of TRATEBBB-project:
“Reaching religion and thinking education in the Baltic-Barents Brim”. Lundén
was director of the Swedish Institute (under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) of
“International academy exchange cultural relations”; acting director of Centre
for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES), Södertörn University; board
member, vice-chairman and chairman of Swedish Society for Anthropology
and Geography (SSAG). Now he is chair of the editorial advisory board of the
“Journal Baltic Worlds”, Södertörn University. Recent publications include
xvi Notes On Contributors

Boundary Towns. Studies of Communication and Bound­aries in Estonia and

its Neighbours (with D. Zalamans) (2000); On the Boundary: About humans at
the end of territory (2004), Crossing the Border. Boundary relations in a chang-
ing Europe (editor) (2006); Kaliningrad Identity: Crucial to Democracy and
Development in the Baltic Sea Region (2009); Religion Symbols as Boundary
Markers in Physical Landscapes: An Aspect of Human Geography (2011); Stettin
(Szczecin): A Node in a Geographical Network (2013).

Domenico Mogavero
trained as a lawyer a priest and is now Catholic Bishop of Mazara del Vallo
(Italy). He was awarded a PhD in Canon Law at the Potifical Lateran University
in Rome. He has been an Expert in Canon Law in the Faculty of Law at the
University of Palermo. He has been Special Professor of Canon Law and Vice-
Dean at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Sicily. He has been co-director and
then director of the National Office for legal questions of the Italian Episcopal
Conference—Conferenza Episcopale Italiana (CEI). He was then appointed
president of the CEI’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. As president of
the Council for Legal Affairs he has on several occasions made public appeals
to Italy’s political leaders to draw attention to their immoral behaviour and
involvement in legal questions. During the debate on the company kept by
Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, he suggested that he resigns “for the
good of the country”. Domenico Mogavero has written a number of books and
articles on canon law, the role of judges in Courts of first instance, Catholic
associations, Councils of Participation, canonical marriage, training for the
clergy, lawsuits against bishops in the canon of the special councils from
the 4th to the 6th century, and relations between church and state.

Alejandro Palma
received his BA in Political Science, as well as his MS in Intelligence and
National Security Studies from the University of Texas at El Paso. As a gradu-
ate student, Alejandro was selected as an Intelligence Community Center for
Academic Excellence (IC CAE) Scholar. He currently works for the City of El
Paso, Texas as an Urban Planner, where he advises public and private sector
clients on municipal policy best practices and compliance. Prior to his work
with the City of El Paso, Texas, Alejandro worked for the Institute for Policy
and Economic Development (IPED) on cross-border (U.S./Mexico) research
projects regarding various political, economic and security issues with an
emphasis on transnational criminal organizations. He can be contacted at
alejandro.j.palma@gmail.com.
Notes On Contributors xvii

Dennis L. Soden
is a professor of Leadership Studies at the University of Texas at El Paso,
where he previously served as executive director of the Institute for Policy and
Economic Development. He also previously was on the faculties in Political
­Science and Public Administration. His current research examines the geo-
politics and geo-economics of international straits. He is the author of over
one hundred articles and technical reports and has authored or co-authored
9 books, including Global Environmental Policy and The Environmental
Presidency. He holds a Bachelors degree in Economics from the University of
California at Riverside, a M.A. in International Relations from the University
of Southern California, and a PhD in Political Science from Washington State
University.
Introduction. Walls: Ways of Being, Ways of
Functioning, Ways of Being Transformed

Alberto Gasparini

The reality contained within a wall, and a border, is very complex, as is the con-
text in which it is embedded. This introduction analyses that complexity and
examines practical examples of walls which are still highly visible in the towns
or cities crossed by, or located close to, a border but which are also present in
rural or other non-urban settings.

Walls Hard and Soft: Images and Historical Experiences

The idea of a wall evokes classic models such as the Great Wall of China, the
Roman limes, the modern fence, the ghetto, the metropolitan banlieue, the favela,
the gated community. Walls thus conceived generally function for empires and
(less frequently) states and within cities; they are built by wealthy social groups
and nations to protect themselves from or marginalise the poor and the differ-
ent. There are also ethnic and ideological groups which erect walls or see them
erected around them. Walls have been present in every age and every society;
although they may be metaphorical and invisible, they are no less effective
than physical walls.
Such walls abound in descriptions in the literature and in personal experi-
ence. I am put in mind of the invisible wall between Jews and Christians in
a village street near Manchester described by Harry Bernstein (2006). I recall
the state of affairs in a country village (population 2,000) in Emilia (Italy)
in the 1950s. It was divided into two impenetrable parts; what might today be
called ‘no-go areas’:1 Communists on one side and Christian Democrats and
Catholics on the other. On one side people gathered in the social centre (casa
del popolo), children enrolled in the Pioneers and the cinema showed social-
ist films. That part of town had its own bakery and its own bar, and everyone
shopped at the cooperative. Weddings were held in the Town Hall and funer-
als were non-religious. On the other side people went to church, belonged to
Azione cattolica and other Catholic associations, and watched films at the
parish cinema. That side of town had its own bakery, its own bar and its own

1 From personal experience.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004272859_002

2 Gasparini

general store; weddings and funerals were held in church. Crossing the wall
between the two sides was not an option. If a Communist wanted to attend
Mass s/he had to go to another town, and the further away the better.
One feature distinguishing the various types of wall is the form of protec-
tion it is supposed to provide. Protection against the loss of freedom is the type
characterising empires which have achieved an external-internal balance and
seek to assure their global position and at the same time prevent the immigra-
tion of the world’s poor, who would jeopardise their internal social equilibrium.
The Chinese and Roman empires built walls as a protection against barbarian
invasions, to defend their territorial and political integrity. Modern “empires”2
such as the United States and the European Union protect themselves against
immigrants from impoverished countries seeking a decent life and an escape
from war, terrorism and persecution. They either prevent such immigration
or adopt quota-based regulations. The justification given for quota systems
(in use at Ellis Island from 1892 to 1954) and closure to the outside is the need
to prevent the poverty imported by immigrants from disrupting the balance
between the indigenous classes living in the empire.
Put otherwise, walls are erected to preserve (defend) the social, economic,
cultural and political equilibrium within the empire, the state, the metropoli-
tan city and every town.
Not only are there highly visible and extremely long walls between empires,
between states lying on imperial borders (North and South Korea, Greece and
Turkey, the Berlin Wall) and between large states with unresolved border prob-
lems (India and Pakistan); there are also walls around poor or rich minorities,
between different cultures and different ethnic groups within states or more
often within towns and cities. They produce ghettos, refugee camps, slums,
favelas, gated communities, lazar houses and metropolitan banlieues.
The ghetto (from the Venetian “geto”—meaning an iron foundry—
which the local German-born Ashkenazi Jews pronounced “ghèto”) was
the name given to that part of Venice from the 14th century (Calimani 1995;

2 The term “empire” is used here in a sense more metaphorical than with regard to earlier
empires (Chinese, Roman, Persian, Holy Roman, Spanish, Habsburg, German, and so on),
which were marked by territorial continuity and one overarching state power. These modern
empires are an expression of the current process of globalisation of states. They are empires
in which a dominant state lies at the centre of an international system which exercises its
imperial function through political and economic power but also cultural and ideological
power, and through circles of states which coalesce around the dominant state. In truth
something of the kind developed under the Roman empire with the formation around it of
client states such as Judaea, Commagene, Pergamon, Armenia and others in Anatolia.
Introduction 3

Quétel 2013:65–66). It was only a century later that it became identified as a

poor district. It was surrounded by a wall, and within it the Jews lived, worked
and ran their shops; in the evening the wall was sealed by the gates built into it.
In 1555 Pope Paul IV decreed the establishment of the Rome ghetto; the Papal
Bull “Cum nimis absurdum” compelled the Jews to live in a circumscribed area
and laid down a series of restrictions that remained in force for centuries
(Calimani 2000:94–95; Quétel 2013:67). The ghettos were later dismantled,
and the walls around them were abolished in the 19th century. The last one
to disappear in western Europe was in Rome, when the temporal powers of
the Papal States were virtually abolished in 1871. Forms of ghetto also existed
in Muslim cities; they went by the name of Mellah in Morocco and Hara or
Mahale in Persia (Quétel 2013:70).
Other types of walled districts (physical, social or cultural) take various forms:
Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan (Sacca 2007; Fashtanghi
2014); refugee camps in Darfur (Quach 2004; Darren 2008; Duta 2009) and
Jordan (holding Syrians);3 favelas, squatter areas (United Nations 1971; VV. AA.
2012) and communities of migrants from rural to urban areas; slums and new
ghettos formed by immigrants from abroad;4 the Parisian banlieues (Chombart
de Lauwe 1960; Boumaza 1988; Caldiron 2005; Pironet 2006; Marconi 2007;
Melotti 2007), largely inhabited by families from former colonies; what were
known as the “Coree” in northern Italian cities (especially Milan) formed by
immigrants from the south;5 the “Borgate” on the periphery of Rome inhabited
by former residents of the city centre and southern immigrants in the 1960s;6

3 A consequence of the Syrian civil war and the recent rise of ISIS.
4 In particular the slums formed and being formed as a result of immigration from former
Communist countries, as well as African and Asian countries in an attempt to escape politi-
cal violence and poverty.
5 The “Coree” were common in and around Milan in the 1960s and early 1970s. In the Milanese
dialect “Corea” means “a place of poverty, hunger, degradation and death. It is set in contrast
with Milan, the metropolis of luxury, opulence, work and the future” (Alasia and Montaldi
1975:10). Formed by immigrants from southern Italy and poor areas in the north (such as
Polesine in Veneto), they were created by the occupation and conversion of farmhouses and
rural buildings in the area around Milan and by the illegal construction of houses by the
immigrants, who found work as building labourers and street traders. In a period of eco-
nomic boom and rapid industrial modernisation the immigrants arrived illegally and did
their best to get by and avoid being sent back to their home towns. Promoted by Danilo Dolci,
Franco Alasia and Danilo Montaldi, research published in 1960 sheds light on the subject.
A 1975 edition is entitled Milano, Corea. Inchiesta sugli immigrati (Feltrinelli, Milan).
6 Since it became capital of the kingdom of Italy, the development of Rome has never been
planned along the lines of an industrial city. Fascist policy was to make it the heir of the
4 Gasparini

unauthorised camps set up by Roma originating from eastern Europe;7 Indian,

Pakistani and Filipino quarters in cities in the Arab Emirates; other districts
marked by a radical social and ecological difference from the rest of a city. The
sharp differentiation of these marginalised quarters—which are further dis-
cussed in various parts of the book—from the rest of the city and the nation
assumes the characteristics of a wall. That is because their populations are
both homogeneous with and different from the populations outside the wall,
and the latter have no effect on the equilibrium achieved and consolidated
inside it.
The focus of the research carried out by the scholars of the Chicago School
was the community and its borders. In some cases borders are characterised as
walled; in others the community is divided from the outside by its strong inter-
nal cohesion in the form of “natural areas”. The School concentrated above all
on how borders change over time as a result of “invasion” from the outside and
the “succession” (Zorbaugh 1983:230–235) of new ethnic groups. Typically, a
quarter was initially inhabited by Anglo-Saxons, who were replaced by Irish,
who were in turn replaced by Scandinavians, and the process continued
with the arrival of Germans, Poles, Russians, Italians, Afro-Americans, Puerto

Roman Empire, which resulted in the demolition of the old (medieval) working-class areas
in the city centre to make way for Via dei Fori Imperiali and refurbish Piazza Venezia, and
the area between Borgo Santo Spirito and Borgo Sant’Angelo to make way for Via della
Conciliazione between Castel Sant’Angelo and St. Peter’s Square. The people living and
working in these (and other) areas were moved to new social housing built on the outskirts
of the city. These new residential areas were augmented or expanded as a result of immi-
gration from 1946 onwards, but above all in the 1960s. This expansion was conducted with-
out any official authorisation and took no account of any urban planning. In one case “the
Borghetto Alessandrino was started following the unauthorised parcelling out of some ‘war
allotments’ immediately after the war. The numerous immigrants . . . built their houses first
in wood and then with bricks and mortar. Once the war allotments had been used up, the
immigrants began building on adjacent land which was almost exclusively state property”
(Antiochia 1968–1969:105). This phenomenon and its social consequences were studied in
social research and in other disciplines, which produced a large body of literature and films
for the purpose of informing public opinion and exposing the scandal. The prime mover in
the sociological studies was Franco Ferrarotti, who worked through the journal “La critica
sociologica”, founded by him in 1967; further research was carried out by Corrado Antiochia
(1968–1969), Franco Martinelli (1986), Giovanni Berlinguer (1976), Giovanni Berlinguer and
Piero Della Seta (1976). In cinematic studies the leading light was Pier Paolo Pasolini and the
best films on the subject were “Accattone” (1961) and “Mamma Roma” (1962).
7 A relatively recent development in Italy and Spain, this is a result of Roma immigration
following the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and the opening of EU internal
borders.
Introduction 5

Ricans, Asians, and so on. The School centred most of its studies on particular

areas in the city of Chicago. Such areas were often slums of what was known as
the “zone in transition” (Burgess in “The City”, 1925), where the groups replaced
by new arrivals moved to more stable neighbourhoods. As part of this pattern,
improvised settlements of vagabonds sprang up alongside urban railway lines
(“The Hobo” by Nels Anderson, 1923); inner city waste areas became the gang-
lands used by young delinquents organised in groups of varying sizes (“The
Gang” by Frederic M. Trasher, first published in 1927); other quarters took
on the form of a ghetto (“The Ghetto” by Louis Wirth, 1928), with the social,
religious, cultural, cohesive and commercial features, and the dividing lines,
typical of a Jewish community; of the Lower North Side of Chicago Harvey W.
Zorbaugh (1929) analysed the many “natural areas” in “The Gold Coast and the
Slum”,8 observing and comparing their processes of change—one such area
was Little Sicily; low-rent areas saw a spread of “Taxi-Dance Halls”9 (Paul G.
Cressey, 1925/1932), which were indicative of ethnic succession trends because
they attracted the interest of members of ethnic groups with high-up political
connections (see Hannerz 137).

Walls: Security and Freedom

It is clear that in all these areas in transition in a city (specifically Chicago)

and in these “natural areas” there are walls, of varying degrees of hardness,

8 The Gold Coast and the Slum were the socially opposite poles of the “natural areas” located
in the zone in transition on Chicago’s Near North Side. The Gold Coast was inhabited by
the city’s upper classes and the Slum was composed of at least two parts. The former was
inhabited by society’s outcasts—hoboes and gangs of youths—and had a certain cosmo-
politan dimension. The latter was inhabited by Italian immigrants, mostly from Sicily, who
conserved their traditions and family solidarity; Zorbaugh called it Little Sicily and Little
Hell. Between the two extremes were the World of furnished rooms, rented by spatially
mobile single people; Towertown, the artists’ quarter; the Rialto of the Half World, centred
on North Clark Street, which “at night . . . is a street of bright lights, of dancing, cabareting,
drinking, gambling, and vice” (Zorbaugh 1983:115), “and its people, it ways of thinking and
doing . . . are incomprehensible to the people of the conventional world” (Zorbaugh 1983:126).
9 The taxi-dance halls were places where three groups met: the dance-hall owners, the girls
who danced for money and the customers. Such places were widespread in the United States
in the 1920s and 1930s. In Chicago they were located mostly on North Clark Street (Rialto) and
were frequented by the singles renting furnished rooms and young taxi-dancers originating
mostly from the Slum, Little Sicily and other nearby natural areas (Hannerz 1992:136–141).
6 Gasparini

made up of arterial roads, canals and railway lines but also of radical differ-
ences between what is inside and what is outside the perimeter (see also
research carried out in Udine to identify the walls between the town’s quar-
ters: Gasparini 1979). The hardness of an area’s borders is also affected by the
changes of population resulting from the successive invasions of ethnic groups
referred to above; same may occur in the handover from the first to the second
generation of a single ethnic group before it is replaced by new immigrants.
The process of succession in urban area, but also within national borders,
brings to the fore another feature of walls: that of the security and at the same
time the freedom that a wall is expected to ensure. To this our attention now
briefly turns.
It may be pointed out firstly that in general terms walls represent a prin-
ciple of order in spaces which would otherwise be in the sway of chaos and
disorder. One example of perceived chaos is described by Dino Buzzati in his
novel Il deserto dei Tartari (The Tartar Steppe) (Buzzati 2012/1940), where it
represents the hic sunt leones from which the enemy may appear at any time:
an enemy such as Warsaw Pact troops advancing on Italy and western Europe.
The wall, represented in the book by the Bastiani outpost, divides order (on
this side) from the disorder and chaos beyond it.
Walls are erected with the purpose of achieving individual, family, commu-
nity and social security, but also in order to act out individual and collective
will within the space they define, to secure within them a complete privacy,
particularly in the functions described by Westin (1970). They are also a way to
asserte and consolidate identity.
A wall may thus be interpreted as a factor determining security and pri-
vacy in that it is an autonomous sphere and transforms disorder into order.
One example is provided by the American pioneers: in the early days, in the
absence of state law or its enforcement, they were at the mercy of predatory
gangs, Indian tribes and the overweening interests of local elites (landown-
ers, bankers, corrupt lawmen). Under these conditions they were compelled
to defend themselves by erecting the best walls they could, such as the not
particularly daunting walls of their own homes.
In sum, walls serve to ensure security from outside and freedom of action
and planning inside (privacy). But it is clear that although such freedom and
security produce order, such order is not necessarily shared and “just”. It is one
order among many, seen from an internal and an external standpoint alike.
In other words, a wall is a hard and rigid border, and the security it defends
may be objective (experienced) or subjective (perceived and interpreted); fur-
thermore the security it provides may be almost absolute, but hardly ever abso-
lute. This also applies to the system of walls, real and tangible, represented by
Introduction 7

the home for individuals and families—the wall may easily be breached. But
such almost absolute security provided by a wall must, by analogy, apply to a
group, a community and a nation. Yet the adoption of hard technology, as used
in wall-fences, shows that even these can be breached or circumvented, dem-
onstrating that absolute security is extremely difficult to achieve. Examples
are legion: the Roman limes, the Maginot Line, in the present day the fences
around Ceuta and Melilla, between Israel and Palestine and the United States
and Mexico, in Kashmir—and many others—have been built, are being built
or are being planned. But hardly any of them have withstood or will withstand
pressures coming from outside, or even from within.

Walls and Borders in the Academic Literature

The literature on borders has often been a residual (or perhaps “creeping”)
category, part of the prevalent analysis of the centre of a social system and
relations among the elements within it. Interest in borders, more implicit than
explicit, varies according to the type of system in question—states, organisa-
tions, metropolitan areas, or social systems in general. Or it varies according to
the approaches developed in a range of academic fields—politics, sociology,
cultural anthropology, geography, psychology, architecture, law and so on. One
of the first works to present a systematic analysis of borders (and frontiers)
was “Théorie des Frontières et des Classes”, published in 1908 by the Belgian
sociologist and economist Guillaume De Greef. Other writers who explored
the subject in the first half of the last century include Frederick Jackson Turner
(1894), George Nathaniel Curzon (1908), Lionel William Lyde (1915), Thomas
Hungerford Holdich (1916), Vittorio Adami (1927), Karl Haushofer (1927), Paul
de Lapradelle (1928), W. J. Rose (1935), Derwent Stainthorpe Whittlesey (1935)
and Roderick Peattie (1944).
A considerable amount of study has been devoted to tangible borders,
above all state borders, while much less work has been done on borders of
organisations, which in fact are replaced by relations between a social system
and its task environment: that is to say, all aspects of the environment that
are “potentially relevant to goal setting and goal attainment” (Dill 1958:410;
Scott 1982:188), and in the case of state borders on international relations.
In the field of political borders there are theoretical studies on and schol-
ars of borders, but they are mostly niche studies and scholars. More fre-
quently found are studies and scholars dealing with borders as the result
of a need to solve problems concerning the particular borders in question.
In both cases the scholars have often been trained and have developed
8 Gasparini

their studies in research institutes and universities located in border areas.

These include the “International Sociology Institute of Gorizia” (Istituto di
Sociologia Internazionale di Gorizia—(ISIG)), the “Institute of Sociology” of
the University of Graz, the “Centre for International Borders Research” (CIBR)
of the Queen’s University of Belfast, the “Israeli/Palestine Center for Research
and Information” (IPCRI) in Jerusalem, the “Jerusalem Institute for Israel
Studies” in Jerusalem, the “International Peace and Cooperation Center” in
Jerusalem, the “Institute for Policy and Economic Development” (IPED) of the
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), the “Centre for Baltic and East European
Studies” of the Södertörn University of Huddinge, the “Center of International
and European Negotiations and Mediation” at the Babes-Bolyai University of
Cluj-Napoca, the “Conflict Resolution Trainers Group” in Nicosia, but there
are many others. Such cultural and research institutes generally study peace,
cooperation and cooperation strategies, all in a cross-border dimension. There
is also a range of journals which have been set up in such border areas: “Journal
of Borderlands Studies” (founded in 1986), “ISIG Journal” (founded in 1991),
“Eurolimes” (founded in 2006), “IUIES Journal” (founded in 2007).
The literature on walls has diverse features. Research conducted in border
areas characterised by walls tends to analyse how walls can be transformed
over time by actions which make them softer, more akin to borders and more
likely to disappear. Such actions take the form of meetings and discussions
between stakeholders, involving local populations and immigrant groups, on
the one hand, and the relevant state authorities on the other. The aims of these
actions are to effect a change in the rules, starting with attenuation or modifi-
cation of their enforcement. In this book the chapters by Hadjipavlou, Lundén,
Donnan & Jarman, and Gasparini analyse walls from the perspective of over-
coming walls and borders.
Recent years have seen an increased interest in walls. This is reflected in
the publication of books by Chaichian (2014), Weber and Pickering (2014),
Quétel (2013) and Brown (2010), in which walls are considered from varying
standpoints: as the walls of empires, as death-producing walls, as fantasies of a
walled democracy, among others.
In much of the literature in which they are featured, walls are considered in
specific cases and in the present, which leads to conclusions prevalently
expressed in terms of denunciation, with conflict analyses and ideological
analyses designed for immediate political action. Such writing can become
an end in itself, producing statements that add little to understanding of the
wall. The academic process stops without proceeding further with the scien-
tific method, which is not confined to a description and explanation of the
Introduction 9

­ henomenon in question but is also an attempt to predict how it can be over-

p
come, to identify and explore actions and decisions which could change the
wall in the immediate and more distant future—in a possible, probable and
desirable future. It is hoped that some of the original contributions in this
book will lead in that direction.

About this Book. Aims and Conceptual Grounds

This book deals with the security and privacy of the group living in the com-
munity and the nation in relation to the outside, and relations between the
majority group and the minority group within the nation, a group which
differs from the majority in terms of social, ethnic or cultural conditions or
other criteria.
Put briefly, a wall can take on a variety of meanings. Of these, discussion
centres here on the fact that a wall is a hard border which may: 1) represent a
profound injustice, if emphasis is placed on the consequences of the expan-
sion and openness of a society/nation, but in this case the wall may be hard
for certain functions (political, sovereign, administrative, fiscal, etc.) but
not for those of exchange (of power, economic, and so on); and/or 2) represent
a rejection of diversity, real or imagined, and a desire for ethnic and/or social
cleansing and homogeneity; and/or 3) separate spaces and territories accord-
ing to the principle of territoriality (Somner 1969) and privacy (Altman 1976);
and/or 4) represent the conditions for lasting peace, in that it neutralises the
factors that may produce conflicts (tangible or ideological, cultural, ethnic,
etc.); and/or 5) emphasise a form of rationality, in that it introduces and rein-
forces a division between the inside and the outside that passes along the
(or a) border.
This book is addressed to academic specialists and intellectuals in general.
It presents a number of original ideas designed to improve the understanding
of walls and borders. It introduces concepts which go beyond the consider-
ation of walls which remain hard; consideration which is often solely nega-
tive and expressed as a denunciation implying a duty to eliminate them. Here
treatment is given to the variable of a wall’s time and dynamics. In this dimen-
sion, from the “moment after” its construction, the wall begins to change into
something softer, more of a gateway, as a result of the relations which arise
in the locality (the cross-border area) and gain the upper hand over relations
between states and between cities in states. The logic of the closed system,
implicit in the construction of a wall around a system, is based on a rejection
10 Gasparini

of the resources (or some of them) coming from outside, which leads to an
increase in the entropy and dissipation of energy10 in the system itself and a
depletion of its creative capacity. This may be gradually replaced by the oppo-
site logic of openness and external relations.
The contents of this book are also designed to contribute to a definition of
the concepts of the border and the wall. Borders and walls are formed by the
­association, or the overlap, between a line and an area which become a bor-
derline and a border area respectively. A balance between the two produces a
border, and above all autochthony in the area of cooperation between the pop-
ulations which straddle the border. By contrast, a border composed of a line
without an area produces a wall, since the state (as the national centre) extends
its homogeneous reach right up to the line which separates it from another
state. Understanding of what happens at a border and a wall is assisted by the
introduction of the cultural, social and economic component of cooperation
between the populations living in the area which gravitates around the border
as a line. This cooperation is able to activate a state of peace which is based on
and experienced in everyday life, mediation and intermediate values which
mitigate and demobilise the harshness of the clash between two opposed
homogeneous entities bent on the pursuit of ultimate values. Cooperation, or
even revolt, are the keys to a change in which a wall in particular, but also a
border, is transformed into something else or even disappears—because coop-
eration comes about through macro-political decisions, or through a popular
revolt. A case in point is the events in East Germany between September and
November 1989 (exodus to the West through Hungary and Austria), followed
by the fall of the Berlin Wall.
This stands as evidence that a wall, which may be taken as an instance of
static reality, is part of a time, and progressively transforms itself into a border
and may even cause it to disappear. In other words, the time variable (short and
medium term) is essential for understanding how a wall can be changed. That
is because a wall is always something that gives wrong solutions to problems
which are sometimes real and sometimes invented out of the distorted dreams
(see Brown 2010:110–142) of a culture that rejects what is different, thinks that
radical solutions are the most effective (“once and for all!”) and is convinced
that drug trafficking and terrorism can be kept at bay with barriers. But such
barriers can be circumvented by criminal organisations; they are very expen-
sive to build; and some elements of the public do not approve of them, starting

10 According to the definitions in the General Systems Theory (GST) and its geographical
application.
Introduction 11

with businesses in cross-border areas which profit from being able to pay low
wages to foreign workers. Such internal opposition to the construction of walls
is shared by other elements of the society which immigrants wish to enter,
in particular intellectuals and people of a liberal mindset. It is thus observed in
this book that attitudes in society to the wall are contrasting. On the one side is
political society, or the structural society of rules and public institutions, which
favours the building of a wall. Support for this political society comes from
non-organised public opinion which is formed by the mass media and gener-
ally tends not to question tradition (with its consolidated view of right and
wrong and the mantra “this is how we’ve always done things”) or the authority
of those who use it. On the other side is the civil society, which tends to reject
the wall because it is involved in international relations and shares a cosmo-
politan culture open to the outside, directly and indirectly.
Another question discussed here is that of interpreting peace (as already
mentioned) as the result of cooperation in a border area or across a wall, and
therefore the configuration of such a peace as an active peace formed in the
personal, social, cultural and economic relations of everyday life. This peace is
a process of consolidation over time of the intermediate values established in
everyday activities.
It is also highlighted that walls come in many types, act in different ways,
and are activated by equally various functions, objectives and cultures. De
Greef (1908) observes that these walls (or frontiers, as he calls them) are eco-
nomic, genetic, aesthetic, psycho-collective, moral, legal and political.
An important dimension of the book is methodological in nature, taking
account not only of the walls separating state and society but also of those
which may separate any social system or organisation. The joint application of
these focuses adds a great deal to the understanding of walls. The application
of the paradigm introduced by General Systems Theory (GST) (see Bertalanffy
1968; Gubert 1972, Strassoldo 1973) highlighted the dimensions of the closed
system and the open system. It showed that walls, by tending to emphasise the
state or an organisation as a closed sytem, waste a great deal of resources, both
in their construction and in that they give rise to a logic of autarky towards
the outside and the use of resources which could otherwise be employed to
improve the lives of the population (Ceausescu’s wall in Romania is a case in
point) and the proper functioning of the system itself. Walls have the effect of
increasing the entropy in a society. This book thus highlights the advantage
of using scientific approaches whose specific characteristics are different in
that they allow a reading of empirical reality with the use of diverse heuristic
devices to interpret that reality in analogical terms.
12 Gasparini

Walls in Four Parts and Eleven Chapters

These are the conceptual dimensions on which the explanations of walls are
based, and they are narrated in eleven dimensions: one general and the others
specific to urban contexts, above all European but also referring to continen-
tal divides between Europe and Africa/Asia and between North and Central-
South America.
As regards the meaning and contents of each of these interpretations and
narratives, they are organised into four parts, ranging from the general and the
past to the specifics of cases of cooperation and the future.

The first part of the book illustrates and provides a theoretical explanation
of “public walls dividing the ‘in’ from the ‘out’ from a number of standpoints”

Alberto Gasparini describes these walls in terms of “Walls dividing, walls

uniting: peace in fusion, peace in separation”. The chapter is organised into six
sections. The first defines borders, using the single term “border” to subsume
the range of other words which differ according to national contexts and the
choices of the authors who use them; according to Franco Demarchi’s socio-
linguistic analysis, they arise from the evolutions of the linguistic phases in
which each of them has been used. The condition for the existence of a border
is identified as the fact that it should comprise a line (borderline) between
two entities—states, organisations, social systems—and an area (borderland).
A border may also assume different forms: barrier border, gateway border,
symbolic mental virtual border, administrative border. These forms basically
depend on the equilibrium (or lack of it) between the line and the area. The
second section looks at the duality of borders—introverted and extroverted.
For the state and its system, a prevalently outward-orientated border has lit-
tle importance because strategies for outside connection make it more pro-
visional and mobile. A prevalently inward-orientated border is much more
important and is strenuously defended, since the use of buffer strategies to
defend the internal structure and its way of working (technical nucleus) rein-
forces the identity of the state and social system. The third section examines
the definitions of a wall, identifying it as a closed border (barrier) but also as
something self-contained and different from a border. Its originality lies in the
fact that it is formed as the maximum expression of the line and eliminates
the area, or operates as though the “intermediate area” (De Greef 1908) (that
is, the cross-border area) did not exist. Many types of wall are discussed: the
Roman limes, the medieval city wall, the wall of the modern state, the mod-
ern state wall reinforced by nationalist ideology, the walls of confederations
and unions of states in the age of globalisation. It is pointed out that there
Introduction 13

is a strong link between walls and “fantasies of a walled democracy” (Brown

2013:119ss.). The following section examines the violent face of the wall: a wall
built where there is no border, a wall unlikely to be accepted on both sides,
a wall imposed in response to aims which entail violence, a wall which may
be built inside a single community. The next section looks at nine historical
cases in which walls and borders stand in a relationship more problematic
than the canonical type. These are: 1) the borders and walls of feudal states and
city-states; 2) the process of development from a group of small states (or
quasi-states) to a single state in which the border is a quasi-wall; 3) the border
of an empire as the end of the world; 4) borders and walls in traditional com-
munities; 5) a border which tends to become a wall when a state is treated
as an extended local community; 6) a border and a wall being formed in the
incongruity between the proto-modern state (still based on sovereignty) and
post-modern globalisation; 7) borders and walls within states; 8) modern
organisations as producers of soft borders which, from an individual’s point
of view, are unlikely to become walls; 9) borders and walls which change from
being lines to central points (airports resembling old city walls). The last sec-
tion analyses the positive face of borders and walls and peace in fusion and
separation. This comprises concepts such as cooperation and the operational
assessment of how peace is produced by the reconstitution of a borderland (or
intermediate zone) which goes beyond the borderline marked by a wall. Such
cooperation strengthens identity and belonging; it responds to needs such as
participation, transparency and borderland strategies; it brings forth new insti-
tutions with their own functions, such as Euroregions. All this is developed so
as to bring about an active peace not only between border areas but between
areas once divided by walls—towns along the old Iron Curtain are an example.
Such a peace also asserts itself where there are new and hard walls, because
they prove to be increasingly volatile and pointless. The configuration of this
approach to active peace around walls is extremely useful for an assessment
of whether they can be overcome, especially compared to a solely negative
interpretation of walls that goes no further than a denunciation, leading to a
fatalistic and passive wait for their fall. All this is developed by means of an
integrated scientific method which is not confined to describing the walls and
explaining their effects but predicts their future consequences and explores
and assesses strategies for controlling them.
This complex definition of borders and walls is exemplified in emblematic
cases which are analysed in subsequent chapters. They are also highlighted
below because they each represent a different dimension of a wall.

The second part of the book tackles the general theme of “Macro walls and
macro networks”, examining present-day imperial walls at the borders between
14 Gasparini

North and South (specifically the north and south of Europe and America),
but also networks within empires between towns and the walls, often invisible,
which may form over time and through processes of differentiation and hard-
ening within the empire of Europe. In actual fact, in their initial stages empires
attach little importance to borders, and to walls even less (the Roman empire
until Trajan, the early years of US power, the European Union until the 1980s),
because they are in expansion and are certain of being able to face threats
with adequate (if not brutal) counter-measures or by the creation of buffer (or
client) states (see the Roman empire), or because they have no properly organ-
ised enemies (“hic sunt leones”). It is in their phase of maturity, or of political
and military (as well as social) organisation, that they come to be dominated
by insecurity at their borders which induces them to put those borders under
the highest possible level of control and render them “absolutely” secure.

In the chapter “Why empires build walls: The new Iron Curtain around the
European Union” Max Haller describes the origin of the idea of building a secu-
rity barrier along the border of the Mediterranean Sea, and walls, in the form
of fences, at the most sensitive locations in Ceuta and Melilla. Haller draws on
historical and comparative sociology to reach an understanding of the relation
between empires and great walls. He describes how for centuries the Great
Wall protected the internal security and peace of the Chinese Empire, and how
the various limes of the Roman Empire ensured security and gave the impres-
sion of preventing, or at least controlling, invasions by enemy armies and bar-
barian tribes. Subsequently, there arose states in which the role of walls was
fulfilled by natural barriers, such as the Pyrenees in the case of Spain. Some
smaller states had no need of walls because they did not require the finances
needed for the armies necessary to sustain the weight of empires. The borders
of states such as Switzerland, the Low Countries and Portugal thus remained
untouched by the big powers of the time. Recent times have seen the construc-
tion of the Iron Curtain, a wall between Western Europe and the communist
East built by the regimes in the latter to prevent their citizens fleeing west-
ward. A number of lessons on contemporary borders derive from Haller’s use
of comparative sociology. Trying to identify how the European Union exhibits
features of a new empire, he observes that it is tempted to build a new Iron
Curtain around itself. The EU certainly has no army of its own (though the
Lisbon Treaty provides for the nucleus of one), neither does it have a real
political centre. Yet, he argues, the Union is configured as an empire consider-
ing that 1) it is a numerically large socio-political and economic community;
2) it may be seen as an ­influential political power at a global level. It is a “civil
and soft power” based not on military strength but on normative principles
Introduction 15

and international negotiation in which a central role is played by the principles

of peace, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. In
this sense the EU can be configured as a new form of empire; 3) the border
question shows clearly that the EU considers itself as some sort of new empire
because it has instituted a free internal market (including the job market),
the Schengen area and freedom to travel without national border controls,
but more stringent controls on its external borders; 4) the Treaty of Lisbon
comprises a general paragraph which states that EU member states are obliged
to provide mutual assistance in the event of a military attack from outside.
If the EU can thus be considered a new type of empire, the question arises
as to the reasons (if any) for building a new Iron Curtain, and what form
it might take. There are many reasons for, and some against. The factors in
favour include relations between Europe and Africa (enormous differences
in income, birth rates, political stability, etc.) and internal political trends (the
rise of extreme right political parties and support for them in the mass media).
Among the factors militating against the idea of a new Iron Curtain, Haller cites
the need of European industry for cheap labour from outside the EU and the
influence of humanitarian organisations, often closely allied to the Catholic
and Protestant churches and a number of progressive political parties. He then
considers the forms of border control which, if implemented together and
intensively, amount to a new Iron Curtain: 1) the selective use of visas; 2) border
controls effected by specialised national and European paramilitary personnel
(Frontex); 3) cooperation between European and African states with bilateral
agreements to establish preventative measures against illegal immigration;
4) internal EU controls on personal identity and the possession of papers
establishing immigrants’ rights to remain in a European country. These fac-
tors seem to confirm the development of an Iron Curtain. Haller is convinced,
however, that three general factors show that such a curtain, should it exist,
will be short-lived: 1) the contradiction between the Curtain and the basic right
(UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948) of every individual to move freely
within the borders of each state and to leave his/her own state to go to another;
2) the identification of possible alternatives to the Iron Curtain between
Europe and Africa; 3) the negative myths about immigration prevalent in
Europe which identify migration from the south as a threat to Europe itself,
but which take no account of the complexity of emigration, which may be per-
manent, temporary, circular or conclude with a return home in old age. Max
Haller’s chapter has the merit of providing a macro approach to the state and
border system of an EU which has very recently been forced to face the fact
that a new Iron Curtain shows profound weaknesses. Its low level of politi-
cal integration means that the EU is not able to deal with mass immigration,
16 Gasparini

because national governments react to it by demanding a hardening of their

borders—founder members and countries of recent accession alike.
Walls have lives; they are born hard and then grow softer, after which they
may become symbolic and then even tourist and cultural attractions. This is
seen in cases such as the Berlin Wall; they may go from hard to psychological,
or turn into something else or even disappear altogether. Walls and their func-
tions change, and this may occur more frequently with walls formed within
empires. Here walls are very often invisible, since they are not clear in geo-
graphical space, taking on the form of political, economic and social discrimi-
nation, even to the extent of denial of full citizenship, thus contributing to the
formation of a variable-geometry (or multi-speed) European Union. Over time
such invisible walls in the EU empire vary in substance.
This leads to consideration of a second type of wall: one which is possible,
and may disappear and then reappear. Such a wall may appear and disappear
in that it may be visible or invisible, or may have a material and non-material
character, because it may divide for reasons which are economic, political,
social, psychological and cultural. It is more likely to appear within large states,
where walls (old and new) are impalpable but real.

In the chapter “The Enlargement process and the ‘dividing lines’ of Europe”
Melania-Gabriela Ciot traces the development of the European Union from
the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC, 1951) and the European
Economic Community (EEC, 1957) to emphasise the economic integration of
the member states and the removal of customs barriers and restrictions on
trade in raw materials. In this process the EU enlarged to encompass other
countries, first in Western Europe and then in 2004, 2007 and 2013 to include
states in Eastern and Central Europe. Its organisation was enshrined in rules
and institutions of increasing complexity, designed to create a spirit of inte-
gration “to find a solution for the management of diversity, in order to erase
the existing dividing lines from its interior. Enlargement policy was meant to
increase the competitiveness of the European Union, but has it succeded?”.
In this enlarged Europe it seems that policies of differentiation rapidly cre-
ate invisible internal walls between north and south and between large and
small countries, giving rise to such phenomena as Euroscepticism. To ascertain
whether dividing lines exist or are disappearing, Ciot starts from the European
Social Model (ESM), defined by Butler, Schoof and Walwei as a model of
­integration policy and unity in diversity; based on a combination of economic
efficiency, it comprises dividing lines at the political, societal, economic and
psychological levels. At each of these four levels the author finds ­dividing
Introduction 17

lines, or walls, between the original EU member states and those which joined
later. On a political level she identifies at least three overlapping dividing
lines (walls). The first is two-speed Europe: the line between its northern and
­southern member states. The second separates a federation formed by the
15 states which were members before 2004 and a confederation of the 13 coun-
tries which joined the Union after that year. This line represents a two-class
Europe in which closer cooperation between one group of member states
leads to their irreversible separation from those outside it—and irreversible
means permanent. A social dividing line (wall) is built above all on the differ-
ence in social spending between member states: on the welfare state, the job
market and labour costs. In 2009 there was a marked percentage difference
in these terms between the countries which joined before 2004 and those of
later accession, and between the western countries (and some southern states)
and those in Central and Eastern Europe. The same pattern emerges in eco-
nomic dividing lines, which are clearly marked in terms of purchasing power,
unemployment and the migration of workers and students. The author also
highlights how these dividing lines characterise people’s psychology and cul-
ture, particularly in the form of a fear of invasion by migrants from Central and
Eastern Europe. At the present moment, new walls are being built on national
borders in the form of heavily policed fences: between Italy and France, France
and Britain, Croatia and Slovenia, Austria and Hungary, Hungary and Croatia,
Hungary and Serbia, and elsewhere. Is this to be ascribed to EU enlargement—
too much, too soon? Rather, the author is convinced that the responsibility lies
in hesitation in taking the decisions necessary to deepen European integration.
The last chapter of the section on walls seen from a macro standpoint
returns to the theme of the hard continuous wall represented by the fence
between the US and Latin America.

Dennis L Soden and Alejandro José Marìa Palma ask the question “Are walls
a national security issue? A view from the United States-Mexican border”. They
document the deep and sometimes arbitrary contradictions: 1) between the
functions of a fence/wall between countries with different levels of power
such as Mexico and the US, with few border controls on one side and highly
stringent controls on the other, and a consequent difference in spending; and
2) between the many poor countries of one continent (Latin America) and
one rich country which is almost a continent in its own right (or with Canada).
The authors list the problems caused by the fence between the US and Mexico
built in pursuit of contradictory interests (homeland security and national
security). They conclude that it is a failure because politicians are afraid to
18 Gasparini

redefine national security while the illegal flow of immigrants increases pan-
demics, pollution, poverty, drug trafficking and human trafficking, particularly
on the American side of the fence, which is an extreme point of a continental
border (between South and Central America and the North). In this b­ order/
wall area there is indeed a high level of violence in the form of murders,
child kidnappings, disappearances, drug wars and so on. Both countries have
developed specific policies. Mexico (starting with president Felipe Calderon)
has invested heavily in a war on the drug cartels. The US did likewise in the
construction of the fence, which subsequently required further spending on
a network of surveillance cameras and sensors. In one episode, the Mexican
police arrested six Mexicans who were tearing down the fence and selling the
steel as scrap metal. However, the authors consider that the recent decrease in
illegal immigration is due not to the Americans’ investment in the fence and
the technology attached to it, but to the fact that the economic recession has
discouraged immigration itself. As well as running through wide expanses of
uninhabited frontier territory, the fence crosses areas containing towns which
have developed at specific points. In such towns the wall has given rise, as said
above, to some of the most violent communities in the world—Ciudad Juàrez,
close to El Paso, is a case in point. To assure the function of border control and
keeping criminal gangs out of the country, however, the concepts of homeland
security and national security will have to be redefined. These two types of secu-
rity entail different tools. The fence may succeed in halting illegal immigration
and thus achieve its goals in terms of homeland security, but it does little to
impede drug trafficking and terrorism and thus fails to ensure national secu-
rity. To the latter end, the first requirement is to rethink US-Mexican relations.
The fence-wall is not a national security solution because it was desired and
built by one side only, while Mexico is simply unable to play an active role in
preventing terrorist threats—different policies are required for that purpose.

The third part of the book focuses on borders and walls of a more limited
nature—for the most part within urban spaces, although the real reasons for
them are political, religious and governmental, in which security plays a funda-
mental role. It has thus been named “State, security and ethnic-political walls”.
Five emblematic situations are examined: the Berlin Wall as a means to prevent
a state’s citizens from escaping (from East Berlin) to the West (Gabanyi); the
wall between the Vatican City and Italy as a means to ensure the sovereignty
of the universal state and peace in relations between the two (Mogavero); the
wall dividing Nicosia and Cyprus and their sovereign political dimensions
which resist fusion, and the people on either side of the wall who feel the need
to take possession of the other side of the city and the state (Hadjipavlou);
Introduction 19

security and other factors underlying the establishment of the Israel-Palestine

wall and its possible consequences for the borders (Ben-Rafael and Ben-Rafael
Galanti); the walls for peace in Belfast—from the need for security to normali-
sation (Donnan and Jarman).
The end of the Second World War gave rise to many cases of the division of
single territories among the victorious powers: Vienna, Berlin and Germany,
but also Venezia Giulia, particularly Trieste and Istria, are cases in point. In
the Italian journal Futuribili Savino Onelli and Fausto Rotelli (1999:165–173)
even presented a “retrospective forecast” (see also Besthuzev-Lada 1969:526–
534; Choucri & Robinson 1978:110; Gasparini 1999:17–21) on what might have
happened in 1945 if Italy had been divided into four spheres of influence.
The Berlin Wall was a particularly telling instance of the negative impact on
everyday life caused by the continental wall that went by the name of the Iron
Curtain, which was its extension.

In “The Berlin Wall” Anneli Ute Gabanyi analyses the harbingers, construc-
tion and thirty-year consequences of the Wall, interpreting it as a complex
fulcrum of international politics, even world politics. The Wall was built in a
post-war era which began with a bipolar Europe (1945) and ended with the
collapse of one of the poles, the Soviet Union, and the reunification of the two
Germanies (1990). During that timespan the Wall went up in 1961 and came
down in 1989. In 1945 Germany and Berlin had been divided and as such stood
as the heart of the Iron Curtain separating western and eastern Europe. The
Soviet Union envisaged Berlin as an integral part of Communist East Germany,
but the city was itself divided into four sectors, three under western control
and one under the Soviets. The result was the Soviet blockade on land access
to the city from West Germany in 1948, to which the West responded with the
Berlin Air Lift—227,264 flights carrying supplies of food and other materials
to keep the city going. On May 12th 1949 the Soviet Union had to admit defeat,
and the blockade ended. In 1952 Stalin proposed a peace treaty whereby he
would acquiesce to the reunification of Germany in exchange for its demilita-
risation and neutral status. West Germany’s rejection of his proposal brought
it closer to the Western Allies and their institutions such as NATO and the
treaties which paved the way for the subsequent formation of the European
Union. The factors which kept Berlin divided and led to the construction of
the Wall were the desire to stop East Germans fleeing to the West and to pre-
vent German reunification. It has been calculated that between 1949 and 1960
2,686,942 refugees escaped to the West. For Khrushchev, putting a stop to this
flight and the consequent construction of the Wall were essential for the vital-
ity of East Germany, for Communist ideology and for his own political survival.
20 Gasparini

The desire to ­prevent German reunification, however, was in fact shared by the
West, though it expressed that desire differently. The Soviets made their inten-
tions clear by authorising the construction of the Wall in August 1961 and rap-
idly bringing East Germany into the Warsaw Pact when West Germany joined
NATO. Official and unofficial reactions to the Wall revealed Western attitudes:
French minister of defence Pierre Messmer said that the French were not ready
to “die for Berlin”; the British ambassador in West Germany stated “I person-
ally have always wondered that the East Germans waited so long to seal this
boundary”; US president Kennedy opined in private that the construction of
the Berlin Wall “is not a very nice solution, but a wall is a hell of a lot better than
a war”; German chancellor Willy Brandt confessed that the building of the Wall
had been at the root of his new Ostpolitik. The end of the Berlin crisis and the
advent of the Wall thus marked an explicit change in Anglo-American policy
on German reunification. It was not until the end of the 1980s and the fall of
the Wall that reunification returned to the political agenda. In the four-power
negotiations, Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to prevent a linkage between the
prospect of the reunification of a demilitarised Berlin and a reunified Germany
outside NATO, but he was frustrated by American support for the West German
government. In the resulting Two plus Four Agreement (the two Germanies
plus the four victorious World War II powers) signed in 1990 not all the par-
ticipants showed the same attitude to reunification—reservations were voiced
by the British and the French, and by countries outside the grouping such as
Giulio Andreotti’s Italy.

In the chapter “Vatican City—Italy wall: consolidating social and political

peace” Domenico Mogavero considers another function of a wall—laying the
foundations for political peace between new states which have radically new
roles. Thus, since 1871 a wall in Rome has separated the Vatican City from Italy,
originating from the need to make and consolidate peace between the two
states. The passage from Papal State to Vatican City in 1871 was the result of
a series of previous upheavals and required a series of subsequent rearrange-
ments. In 1859 and 1860 there began a chain of events which culminated in the
political unification of Italy, with the exception of Rome and Veneto. It started
with a war between Austria and the King of Sardinia (and Piedmont) Victor
Emanuel II of Savoy, allied with France under Napoleon III—the outcome
was the annexation of Lombardy by the victorious House of Savoy. Against the
wishes of the French emperor, Victor Emanuel then proceeded to annex the
independent states of the Duchy of Modena, the Duchy of Parma, the Grand
Duchy of Tuscany and the Papal States (Romagna, Marche and Umbria), leav-
ing only Rome and Latium to the Pope. In 1860 Giuseppe Garibaldi fought his
Introduction 21

way northwards from Sicily to Abruzzo, and met Victor Emanuel at Teano,
where he presented him with his conquest of the southern half of Italy, the
Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Following the proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy
in 1861, the capital was moved from Turin to Florence (in 1865) pending its
definitive transfer to Rome. However, the King of Italy (of a secular disposi-
tion, like the rest of the elite which unified the country) did not dare to occupy
Rome—the Pope enjoyed the explicit support of France and the tacit back-
ing of other Catholic states, but above all the majority of the Italian popula-
tion (unlike the elite) were Catholics. So he bided his time until Napoleon III
was defeated by the Prussians (Franco-Prussian War, 1870) and then moved his
capital to Rome. However, the Italian government felt bound to find a solution
acceptable to Pope Pius IX, who would not agree to confinement within the
walls of what was to be called the Vatican City. Domenico Mogavero argues
that the solution eventually adopted led the Catholic Church to a full recovery
of its spiritual and religious vocation, enhancing its position as a global point of
reference for ecclesiastic and diplomatic relations. His analysis of relations
between the new Vatican State and Italy shows how the walled city—more
politically than physically—of the Papacy, of globalised religion, co-exists with
a normal national state, which takes account of the importance of the Catholic
community worldwide but particularly in Italy. The author starts by looking
at the Leggi delle guarentigie (guarantee laws) enacted and implemented by
the Italian state, though not accepted by Pius IX. They recognised, among
other things, that the person of the Supreme Pontiff was sacred and inviolable
(Art. 1), that the Italian government rendered sovereign honours to the
Supreme Pontiff in Italy (Art. 3), that the Supreme Pontiff would continue to
have at his disposal the Apostolic Palace within the Vatican walls, and also the
Lateran Palace, the Archbasilica of St. John Lateran and the Papal residence at
Castel Gandolfo (Art. 5), and that the Supreme Pontiff was free to perform all
the functions of his spiritual ministry (Art. 9). From these articles alone it tran-
spires that the Papal State was formally abolished, a fact to which the Pope had
by this time resigned himself, but also that he was no longer sovereign of the
state of the Holy See. That was the principal reason for the Pope’s determined
opposition to those laws, which led to a long period of his isolation inside the
Vatican walls, and with him (in a broader sense) all Italian Catholics. Mogavero
goes on to recount 59 years (from 1870 to 1929) which saw a gradual shift in
relations towards formal reconciliation by means of the integration of Italian
Catholics into the everyday and political life of the state, and of the Papacy
in its sole function of religious and spiritual ministry. With the signing of the
Lateran Treaty in 1929 the wall between Italy and the Holy See no longer con-
stituted a prison; it was the recognition of a formal border between two states.
22 Gasparini

“Italy recognises the international sovereignty of the Holy See as an attribute

inherent to its nature” (Art. 2) “thereby creating the Vatican City for the spe-
cial purposes and in the manner laid down in this Treaty” (Art. 3). Combined
with the Lateran Treaty was a Concordat, which “assured religious peace for
the Italian faithful, no longer compelled to choose between loyalty to the Pope
and loyalty to the unified Italian state with Rome as its capital” (Mogavero).
Fifty-five years later the Holy See and the Italian state proceeded to a revision
of the 1929 Concordat with an Accordo con protocollo addizionale (Additional
Protocol), signed on February 11th 1984. Among the factors necessitating this
agreement, Mogavero cites the Second World War, the fall of Fascism, the inte-
gration into the Italian constitution of the Treaty’s recognition of the sover-
eignty of the Holy See, the Second Vatican Council, and the changes which
Italian society had undergone.

In the chapter “The ‘crossing’ along the divide: the Cypriot experience”, Maria
Hadjipavlou analyses a feature of walls familiar to her by virtue of her studies
on peace and conflict resolution: when their physical, social and psychological
substance starts to crumble and the process of reconciliation can begin, no
matter how long it may be. In Cyprus this process began with people cross-
ing from one side of the wall to the other, which enabled them to return to
the homes they had left when the wall was built—in those homes they found
“the others”, who were men and women just like them. Hadjipavlou observed
this on both sides of the 112-mile wall which has separated Greek and Turkish
Cypriots since 1974. On April 23rd 2003 five crossing points were opened to
allow visits to the homes that Greek Cypriots had been forced to abandon on
the Turkish side, and vice-versa. From this event the author observes how the
reconciliation process develops and the stages through which it must pass to
gain decisive momentum. The crossings brought to light the humanity of the
Other—the individual perceived as a wrongdoer, but who proves to be no less
a victim, living in the home of a family forced to abandon it and conserving
the photographs of that family. The long reconciliation process (years if not
decades) generates new systems of conviction, world views, attitudes, moti-
vations, objectives and emotions which could form the bases of peaceful
relations. But reconciliation must be supported by economic justice, power
sharing, equality and the recognition of separate and multiple identities. Such
a process clearly entails democratic governance and respect for human rights
in the period following the conflict. The theoretical framework tested in vari-
ous contexts around the world is here examined in Cyprus. Privileging the
socio-psychological perspective and the idea of reconciliation, the chapter
presents a number of individual stories of personal reconciliation after thirty
Introduction 23

years of “mutual quarantine” on both sides of the island. The data are collected
from individual interviews, direct observation and media reports. In divided
societies, maintaining contact across ethnic, religious or geographical barriers
is paramount for two significant reasons: first, it helps soften stereotypes and
misperceptions and gradually complicates the “enemy image”; second, without
institutional support these contacts can reaffirm old stereotypes or mispercep-
tions (Allport 1954). Reconciliation is needed not only between the two com-
munities but also within each of them, and not only by Greek and Turkish
Cypriots but also within the broader Greek and Turkish communities, above
all in political and social relations. Reconciliation also requires a re-learning
and re-teaching of history on the basis of the principles of conflict resolution.
Among other things, this should lead to the replacement of provocative sym-
bols and military statues with monuments celebrating a common peace. It is
argued that whereas individual contacts form part of an unofficial reconcilia-
tion process and constitute an element of informal peace education, they are
not sufficient unless decision-makers legitimise these processes and provide
adequate institutional infrastructures. On the strength of her experience in
international organisations, the author concludes that those same organisa-
tions and the state should allocate resources for the creation of reconciliation
centres where people can go to discuss and recover from their sense of loss,
injustice and sorrow. The state should therefore encourage dialogue and the
exchange of stories yet to be told. It should also promote socio-cultural aware-
ness of the importance of the crossings by means of the mass media, intellec-
tuals and universities on both sides.

In “Israel-Palestine: concrete fences and fluid borders” Eliezer Ben-Rafael and

Sigal Ben-Rafael Galanti illustrate another possible relationship between
a wall/fence and a border. In this case there is a clear contrast between the
fixed character of the wall erected for the security of the Jews in Israel and
the fluidity, or rather mobility, of the border—dozens of Jewish commu-
nities are allowed to establish settlements in Palestine, while individual
Palestinians are left on the Israeli side of the border. To this should be added
the continual changes among Israelis and Palestinians in zones A, B and C
of the West Bank established by the Treaty of Oslo (Hilal and Petti 2011:180–
184). From these premises the authors draw a number of conclusions. The first
is that the Israeli-Palestinian border is not fixed, which means that the stronger
party—Israel—has no interest in defining a border because it can always shift
it to its own advantage, though this can add further conflicts to the existing
one produced by the wall/fence. The authors present a historical overview of
Israeli-Palestinian relations, the Intifadas and the Gaza wall (barrier), and a
24 Gasparini

prediction of the conflict’s future. Focusing on the fence, the interpretation

of how it came into existence is the centre of a great deal of controversy. On
the Israeli side it is seen as means of security from terrorist attacks, while the
Palestinians say it is an aggressive tool in a strategy of annexation. The Israel’s
High Court of Justice has made frequent pronouncements against the fence,
and it has been condemned by many Israeli and Palestinian organisations,
the United Nations and other international bodies, the European Union, the
United States and the World Council of Churches. Some of the consequences
of the fence are unexpected. Among these the authors indicate the non-­
separation of Israelis from Palestinians in some segments of the population,
the repair of damaged roads and buildings and the return to a sort of normal-
ity; the fence has significantly improved the lives of many people by reducing
terrorism and other illegals acts, and it continues to enjoy the overwhelming
support of the Jewish population despite the campaigns against it. It is often
featured in paintings, graffiti and political pamphlets. Under these conditions,
awareness has grown that the fence provides security but does not ensure the
prevention of terrorist attacks (which may pursue other avenues) and that it
is there for the present but could in the future be taken down or forgotten. In
these new conditions, therefore, borders become increasingly fluid and their
fixing is postponed to a future time. Consequently, the only thing that we can
certainly assume is that whenever Israelis and Palestinians finally decide to
proceed from relative tranquillity towards peace itself, everything that was
considered as acquired and definitive will be re-questioned and redrawn. The
barrier will undoubtedly become outdated, be demolished, and most probably
will soon fall into oblivion.

In “Ordinary everyday walls: normalising exception in segregated Belfast”

Hastings Donnan and Neil Jarmal contribute to discussion about the lon-
gevity and persistence of barriers in Belfast and offer an overview of the
situation in the city. They provide a brief comparative review of the use of bar-
riers as means to deal with conflict; outline the overall number and location
of security barriers in Belfast; explore the wider framework of designing for
security; and finally consider the attitudes of residents to the barriers as part
of a wider debate about when and how they might begin to be removed some
twenty years after the armed conflict was brought to an end. They thus look at
another way of being for a wall. It has been seen that a wall tends to disappear
over time, and here the focus is on how a wall (in this case a fence or barrier)
changes function over time. When the original function of the wall has been
lost, the time tends to be long. In general terms the change of function in time
and space has been seen in cases of walls built in or around cities to defend
Introduction 25

rulers and citizens (the castle, the walled city, the Alcazar, the Kremlin). The
wall’s defensive function declines, and it may be replaced by a park around
the wall, a symbolic monument, a representation of community identity, a pub-
lic place. These and other themes are explored by the authors in the context
of Belfast, starting in 1969 with the outbreak of violence between Protestant
unionists and Catholic nationalists. The state, first in the form of the Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland and after 2009 the Ministry of Justice, responded
to these disorders with the construction of barriers and fences under military
surveillance (therefore walls) to keep the two communities apart. Set up as an
immediate solution to security problems, in the short term they were merely
palliatives for deep-seated social and political problems, whereas in the long
term the question was tackled by other means: debate, dialogue, negotiation
and other political initiatives. Though these were the approaches eventually
adopted by the state and the two communities, once the barriers had been
built they developed inertias of their own which were difficult to remove. They
thus reinforced differences and divisions and heightened feelings of territo-
rial belonging, even though they might take on other meanings. With these
walls, and even before their construction, the authors identify cycles of segre-
gation between the Protestant unionists and Catholic nationalists. There were
models of segregation in Belfast before 1969, manifested in better economic,
social, educational and cultural prospects for Protestants, as well as favourable
voting rights, all at the expense of the Catholics, who settled in Belfast later
and inhabited the poorer areas of the city. The flaring of violence at the end
of the 1960s resulted in the erection of walls (by 2011 there were 99 separate
barriers in Belfast) and their militarisation to minimise the risks of violence
and reciprocal intimidation. The first barriers (1969–70) divided, among other
areas, the Falls from the Shankhill Road in west Belfast and Ardoyne from
Glenbryn in the north. The authors’ analysis of these and other walls of later
construction is based on a survey of the attitudes expressed by people living
in six neighbourhoods of Belfast, from which it appears that the maintenance
of the walls is certainly linked to security, but value is also attached to their
aesthetic dimension and their potential for tourism. Another significant factor
is the realisation that the question was not simply the number of walls to be
built to pacify the Protestant unionist community and the Catholic nation-
alist community by means of reciprocal security; it was also the streets and
quarters where the walls were located and the decision-making processes lying
behind the construction of what came to be called “peace walls”. The primary
decision-­makers were central ministries and the local police, but subsequently
municipal authorities and local parties and associations were involved in
decision-­making. This means that the decisions to build the walls, and later
26 Gasparini

to modify them, derived from an increasingly broad consensus among the

actors in everyday urban life. These increasingly intensive social contacts pro-
duced “peace walls”, which are now perceived more positively as the mean-
ings of security become more widely shared. Underlying this process is the
new principle according to which good fences make good neighbours—this is
true in Belfast insofar as good neighbours are also those who remain unseen
and unheard. Here the state is variably present in interface areas; places where
extraordinary historical events have left a trace that continues to generate
novel political meanings and an exceptional response—the p ­ resence of barri-
ers that help to sustain and reproduce perceptions of otherness and difference.
To sumarise these analyses of walls (or fences) it should be said that they
are tangible and they are generally found within cities—places of high rela-
tional density which require a substantial detaching factor (a wall) if artifical
separation is to be achieved. But none of these walls (or fences) lasts forever.
They fall because the factors which legitimised them disappear (the Berlin
Wall and the Iron Curtain), or they take on new functions which tend to soften
them and make them more compatible with everyday life (a tendency noted
in the cases of Nicosia-Cyprus and Israel-Palestine), or they even become ele-
ments of peace and separation which do not separate, assuming the symbolic
meanings of spaces (see Gasparini 2000:199–230), as is happening in Belfast.
The only wall which remains a wall is the one dividing the Vatican City from
Italy in Rome. That is because it does not mark a divide in everyday life (which
is highly complementary across the two sides, if not integrated), but marks
a political division between two states which are founded on, and legiti-
mised by, radically different principles: the worldwide religious “empire” of
Catholicism on the one hand, and the modern secular state, of which there are
many, on the other.
The book concludes with a question around which its fourth part is organ-
ised: “What happens after the wall? ”, which, as we have seen, is fated to change
its nature and function or disappear. And that is all the more true when the
wall is hard, when it is a fence.
One instrument for changing that hardness is identified in cooperation
between the areas or cities which have been separated for years. A significant
example has been seen in Belfast. Cooperation strengthens the weaker forms
of the informal relations between the two sides, followed by mutual (non-
stereotyped) awarenesss which fosters a positive vision of the other, and sub-
sequent cooperation leads to an accentuation of the fusion of the two civil
societies and their respective institutions, or at least to differentiated integra-
tion (see Gasparini 1994a) between the two areas and/or towns. Cooperation
is more marked in twin towns (Schultz 2009), which may even go so far as to
Introduction 27

plan a new town in an original form. This trajectory is the subject of the two
chapters which constitute the fourth part of the book.
Cooperation has a more positive future where it is a necessary condition
for development, and twin towns are a case in point. These towns are gen-
erally engendered by, or at least have undergone, violent conflicts as a result
of imperial interests or confrontations or highly conflictual political-strategic
situations. The Rhine, for example, was for centuries a line of confrontation
between France and German states. Between Germany and Poland there was
confontation across the border drawn in 1945 (Frankfurt-am-Oder-Słubice,
Görlitz-Zgorzelec, Guben-Gubin), as there was between Poland and what is
now Belarus (Brest-Terespol), but also on national borders inside the Soviet
Union, between Estonia and Russia (Narva-Ivangorod) and Estonia and Latvia
(Valga-Valka). Such twin towns have experienced and overcome their walls
(ethnic as well as political) out of both necessity and self-interest, first devel-
oping close cooperation because it was convenient to do so, and then realising
that the objectives were the same on either side of the wall and they should be
pursued with the same means.

In “European twin cities: models, examples and problems of formal and informal
co-operation” Thomas Lundén discusses the definition and current state of
twin towns. The examples he provides are located on the borders of what was
once the Tsarist Russian empire and is now the Russian Federation; in the inter-
vening period most of them were borders between Soviet Socialist Republics.
Situated at contiguous points on state borders, the twin towns in question
are Tornio-Haparanda on the Finnish-Swedish border, Narva-Ivangorod on
the Estonian-Russian border, and Valga-Valka on the Estonian-Latvian border
with the appendage of a road—Savienība—located in Valka (Latvia) but with
a majority of Estonian inhabitants. In each of the three cases, plus that of the
road, the author analyses questions of internal integration, ethnicity, educa-
tion, the mass media, communication and language, and in some of them citi-
zenship, and interaction in shopping and daily life. Cross-border cooperation
is flourishing between the Finnish Tornio (part of the Russian empire from
1809 to 1917) and the Swedish Haparanda, reflecting the intertwining histories
of the two ethnic groups. Many people in the two towns know both languages,
though the two bilingual schools are both in Haparanda and cross-border
contacts are conducted increasingly in English. A particularly attractive fea-
ture of cooperation is a golf course built on the border wetlands separating
Tornio and Haparanda. In spite of fairly successful cooperation, there is still
much to be done in terms of language schools, health and ambulance services,
fire and ­rescue services and the service sector in general. The construction of
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.