Architecture for Positive Peace: the Role of Architecture in the Process of Peacebuilding Within Conflict and Postwar Contexts

ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE: THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE PROCESS OF PEACEBUILDING WITHIN CONFLICT AND POSTWAR CONTEXTS

A Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

The School of Architecture and Interior Design

Of the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture

Venus Suleiman Akef

March 2019

ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE: THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE PROCESS OF PEACEBUILDING WITHIN CONFLICT AND POSTWAR CONTEXTS

Venus Suleiman Akef University of Cincinnati 2019

ABSTRACT This dissertation introduces architecture as an active platform in the process of structural conflict transformation for positive peace in post-war and conflict contexts. It is an interdisciplinary research in which architecture operationalizes the theories of peace and peacebuilding.

Architecture for/of positive peace is also a response to the United Nations’ objectives in its 2030 agenda for sustainable development through a subject as distinct as architecture and relates it to the process of conflict transformation and sustainable peacebuilding.

This research is initiated by questioning whether architecture can be employed as an active platform for positive peace. Further, it considers the role of architecture in the process of peacebuilding, its key devices, and operating characteristics.

This dissertation analyzes both the existing discourses of ‘architecture and war’ and

‘architecture and peace’ to derive a set of themes and implications that reveal the role of architecture in the process of peacebuilding in post-war and conflict contexts. The research emphasizes theories of peace and peacebuilding, specifically the propositions of Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach from the discipline of peace studies, in the aim of building a theoretical

ii framework for peacebuilding through which it is possible to activate the role of architecture for positive peace.

Based on the concluded theoretical framework, architecture for positive peace is distinguished from architecture for negative peace, and its characteristics are defined.

Architecture for/of positive peace is a complex, inclusive, belonging, and common-ground platform. It manifests either as an ‘assemblage’ (the physical visible form of architecture), as a space of ‘relational identity,’ or both.

iii

For Iraq

For Peace and Peacebuilders

For Mark W. Harris,

MLOW and ELS Educational Services

For Ramu Damodaran

The United Nations Academic Impact

For Aveen and Vivian

And,

For my beloved parents, may their soul rest in peace

To those who took my hands and helped me continue when I was about to quit

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

1.01 Every Death Mapped in Iraq, [Source: Simon Rogers, The Guardian of London 3 at https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wikileaks- iraq-data-journalism].

1.02 This map shows that the social structure within the urban fabric of Baghdad 7 was a mix population in 2003. There was no ethnic majorities and enclaves. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2003_lg.jpg 1.03 By 2006, the mix social structure within the urban fabric of Baghdad in had 8 begun to transform into ethnic and religious neighborhoods. The mix population had started to dissolve. Ethnic and religious enclaves had begun to emerge. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2006_lg.jpg 1.04 By late 2007 – mid 2008 the demographical structure of Baghdad 9 transformed from a coherent heterogeneous society into fragmented homogeneous groups. The city was clearly divided into Ethnic and religious enclaves. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2007_late_lg. jpg 1.05 Scope and limitations of the research: the two scenarios of post-conflict 23 context in relation with peace missions, theories of peace, and architecture, [Source: diagram by the author].

2.01 The fortified aid compounds in South Sudan. [Source: Diana Felix da Costa, 35 2012 in http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/global- insecurities/migrated/documents/felix.pdf]. 2.02 Image of the concrete walls in West Bank and an Israeli military watchtower 37 [Source: APA images] 2.03 The Israel’s security wall along and in the West Bank [Source: Photo by Flickr 37 contributor Wall in Palestine at

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43405897@N04/4401887379/in/photostre am/] 2.04 The Samarra mosque, (the sacred al-Askari Shrine): before and after terrorist 40 attack [Source: Public domain] 2.05 On September 12, 1992, during the Bosnian War, cellist Vedran Smailovic 46 plays Strauss inside the National Library in Sarajevo which was bombed-out in August 1992 by the forces of JNA and the Army of the Republic of Serbia (VRS). [Source: Public Domain]. 2.06 Cellist Kareem Wasfi plays music in front of the destroyed historical Al- 46 Hadba' Minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, which was bombed-out by ISIL on 21 June 2017, during the Battle of Mosul in Iraq. [Source: Middle East Online, Public Domain]. 2.07 Sarajevo Times: After 24 years of the city Hall and the national Library 47 destruction. [Source: Sarajevo Times, 2016]. 2.08 A so-called "Peace Line" in Belfast, separating a Protestant and Catholic 66 neighborhoods from each other. The peace line along Cupar Way in Belfast, seen from the predominantly Protestant side. [Source: Public Domain]. 3.01 The Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd, Palestine, designed by Malkit 90 Shoshan and FAST, is the first community structure for Ein Hawd and was constructed in July 2008. [Source: Foundation for Achieving Seamless Territory FAST at http://seamlessterritory.org/the-golden-heart-pavilion-first-community- building-for-ein-hawd/ , and Architecture of Peace Case Studies, In Volume: http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/ein- hawd-one-land-two-systems-palestineisrael/] 3.02 Ein Hawd in Palestine. [Source: Architecture of Peace Case Studies, in 91 Volume: http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case- studies/ein-hawd-one-land-two-systems-palestineisrael/] 3.03 The World Peace Park Area in the DMZ between North and South Korea. 98 [Source: The DMZ Forum http://www.dmzforum.org/gallery/maps] 3.04 The De-militarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea; the most 98 heavily militarized and fortified border in the world. [Source: The Korean

vii

Times, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/08/113_135526.html] 3.05 The location of the Israeli military base (Oush- Grab) on top of the hill at the 105 entrance of Bethlehem/Beit Sahour area, Palestine. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/]. 3.06 Throughout the second Intifada, the Israeli army used the base as 105 headquarter for incursion into Bethlehem and other towns and villages; 195 homes were damaged by gunfire originated in the camp. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/].

3.07 Design Destruction, the Oush- Grab military base. Perforating and drilling 106 holes through the walls of the military base to transform them into screens. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/]. 3.08 Design Destruction, the Oush- Grab military base. The buildings were to be 107 partially buried in the rubble of their own fortifications. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/]. 3.09 Design Destruction, the Oush- Grab military base. [Source: The Decolonizing 108 Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/]. 3.10 The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace 111 and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. [Source: the official website of Foster+ Partners, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and- reconciliation/]. 3.11 The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace 112 and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners,

viii

2006. Section to show the holistic structure of the pyramid which is made up of two parts (above and under the ground levels). [Source: archis.org, Architecture of Peace Case studies, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/palace- of-peace-and-reconciliation/]. 3.12 The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace 113 and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. The upper two rows of triangles, 4 triangles per side, form a glazed apex featuring a design of stained glass by Brian Clarke, incorporating pictures of 130 doves. [Sources: the official website of Foster+ Partners, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and- reconciliation/ and, archis.org, Architecture of Peace Case studies, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/palace- of-peace-and-reconciliation/ ]. 3.13 The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace 114 and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. The pyramid is bathed in the golden and pale blue glow of the glass, colors taken from the Kazakhstan flag. [Source: the official website of Foster+ Partners, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace- and-reconciliation/]. 4.01 Moving towards “Peacekeeping” and “Peacebuilding” after the “End of the 134 War” deploying “Peace-Enforcement forces” [Source: diagram by the author]. 4.02 Moving towards “Peacekeeping” and “Peacebuilding” through a Treaty or 134 Ratified Agreement (without deploying any militarized forces): to end the war/conflict via diplomatic “Peacemaking” mission, [Source: diagram by the author].

4.03 Conflict and Violence are not the same; Violence is the exacerbated phase of 172 unresolved and polarized conflict. [Source: diagram by the Author]. 4.04 Defining negative and positive peace through the thematic definitions – 175 [Source: the Author]. 4.05 Peacebuilding, violence breeding, conflict resolution for negative peace, and 178 conflict transformation for positive peace [Source: diagram by the Author]. 4.06 The Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework, the content of the conflict, the 180 broader context, and the history. [Source: the Author]. 5.01 The concrete walls installed in Baghdad during the sectarian violence in 2006- 206 2008. [Source: the BBC news at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8034522.stm]. 5.02 The concrete walls installed in Baghdad in 2006-2008 sectarian violence. An 206 Iraqi boy squeezes through a gap in a stretch of security barrier erected in Baghdad's Adamiyah neighborhood. [Source: the SF Gate at https://www.sfgate.com]. 5.03 Artists have created a visual history of Iraq on a blast wall on Abu Nowaz 207 Street in Baghdad. [Source: The National at https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/artists-add-colour-to-grey- baghdad-1.507254 ]. 5.04 Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; it depicts the details of the 225 Ishtar Gate and the walls in the ancient city of Babylon, about 575 BCE –the ancient history of Iraq [Source: public domain]. 5.05 Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; the Kahramana statue 225 which depicts one of the characters from One Thousand and One Nights mythical folk tales compiled during the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad [Source: public domain]. 5.06 Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; the details of the traditional 226 and almost vanished courtyard houses in Baghdadi alleys- the old city and

the traditional urban fabric of Baghdad [Source: courtesy Caecilia Pieri, December 2009, https://www.ibraaz.org/essays/96#author102]. 5.07 Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; this metaphoric painting 226 depicts the urban image of Baghdad before the war, Sunni and Shiite mosques, and Churches, and a dove on the Tigris river [Source: public domain]. 5.08 The concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; this particular image of the concrete 227 walls was edited by Iraqi artist, using Photoshop, to depict images from the proud ancient history of Iraq (from left to right): The Sumerian Lyre which is the first musical instrument in the history of the world, the statue of Hatra Queen, the historic Minaret at the Great Mosque of Samarra, The Ishtar Gate of the Babylon, Abo Ja'afar AlMansour Monument (the founder of the Baghdad the round city), and the al-Hadba’ ("the hunchback") the minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri. The edited copy went viral on social media in Iraq [Source: public domain]. 5.09 Example of Cuneiform Writing from Mesopotamia Exhibited in the British 230 Museum London. [Source: published in Ancient History Encyclopedia, by Jan van der Crabben on 26 April 2012, https://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/]. 5.10 Example from Osama’s graffiti and paintings on concrete walls in Baghdad. 230 The meaning: Iraq victories if we unite [Source: Courtesy Osama Art]. 5.11 As-Samawah Public Library and cultural center in Al Muthanna Governorate, 234 Iraq, 2010 [Source: Courtesy Safa'a J. Al-Mu'maar- Nudhum Al-Benaa Consultancy]. 5.12 The General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in Iraq, designed by Iraqi 235 architect Manhal Habbobi, 2011. [Source: Official website of Manhal Habbobi at http://www.manhal-habbobi.co.uk/general-secretariat-of-the- council-of-ministers]. 5.13 The Cuneiform letters on the cylindrical seal of ancient Mesopotamian 235 civilization is employed to design the central tower of the General Secretariat

of the Council of Ministers in Iraq, designed by Iraqi architect Manhal Habbobi, 2011. [Source: Official website of Manhal Habbobi at http://www.manhal-habbobi.co.uk/general-secretariat-of-the-council-of- ministers]. E.01 The award-winner design of the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park 250 in Baghdad, designed by architect Venus S. Akef, 2009. E.02 Sources of the architectural form - The award-winner design of the Multi- 253 Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park in Baghdad, designed by architect Venus S. Akef, 2009. E.03 The award-winner design of the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park 256 in Baghdad, designed by architect Venus S. Akef, 2009.

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESCRIPTION PAGE ABSTRACT i DEDICATION v LIST OF FIGURES vi

CHAPTER ONE: WHY ARCHITECTURE FOR/OF PEACE? 1.1. BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1 1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT & RESEARCH QUESTIONS 10 1.3. HYPOTHESIS AND GOALS 12 1.4. EXPLORING THE DISCOURSE: LITERATURE REVIEW 13 1.5. RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATION 20 1.6. THE DISCUSSION OF’ BOTH/AND’ BETWEEN THEORIES OF PEACE AND 24 VENTURI’S MANIFESTO OF POSTMODERN ARCHITECTURE. 1.7. ORGANAIZATION OF THIS DISSERTATION 27

CHAPTER TWO: ARCHITECTURE AND WAR/VIOLENCE 2.1. WHY ARCHITECTURE AND WAR/ VIOLENCE? 29 2.2. TO CONTRIBUTE TO PEACE, ONE MUST KNOW ABOUT THE CONFLICT 30 2.3. THE ACT OF SEPARATION: ARCHITECTURE AS A WEAPON 35 2.4. THE ARCHITECTURE OF DESTRUCTION: WARCHITECTURE AND 38 POSTWARCHITECTURE 2.5. THE SYSTEMATIC TARGETING OF ARCHITECTURE 44 2.6. THE DESTRUCTION OF ARCHITECTURE: THE DESTRUCTION OF MEMORY 49 2.7. ARCHITECTURE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF OCCUPATION 52 2.8. URBAN PARTITIONS: SOURCES OF NEW CYCLES OF VIOLENCE 63 2.9. THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS 71

xiii

CHAPTER THREE: ARCHITECTURE AND PEACE 3.1. THE DISCOURSE OF ARCHITECTURE AND PEACE 81 3.2. ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE IN POST-CONFLICT CONTEXTS 81 3.3. NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE PEACE? THE WORLD PEACE PARK IN THE DMZ 92 3.4. OUSH GRAB: A TRANSFORMATION OF MILITARIZED ARCHITECTURE 99 3.5. THE PALACE OF PEACE AND RECONCILIATION: ARCHITECTURE AS A SYMBOL OF 109 RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, PEACE, AND CO-EXISTENCE 3.6. THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS 115 3.7. CONCLUSIONS 120

CHAPTER FOUR: PEACEBUILDING AND THEORIES OF PEACE 4.1. WHY THEORIES OF PEACE? 123 4.2. UN’s DEFINITIONS OF PEACE MISSIONS: 123 PEACEKEEPING, PEACEMAKING, PEACE-ENFORCEMENT, AND PEACEBUILDING 4.3. THEORIES OF PEACE AND PEACEBUILDING 135 4.3.1. JOHAN GALTUNG 136 4.3.2. JOHN PAUL LEDERACH 151 4.4. BUILDING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF PEACEBUILDING 170 4.4.1. THE THEMATIC DEFINITIONS 171

 Conflict and Violence 171

 Transformation and Depolarization 172

 The Direct and Indirect Violence 173

 Visible and Invisible Patterns 173

 Conflict Transformation and Conflict Resolution 174

 Negative and Positive Peace 174 4.4.2. PEACEBUILDING: THE PROCESS 179

 Building the Whole Picture of the Conflict (Mapping- Diagnosis): 179 The Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework

 Possible Future Trajectories (Legitimizing- Prognosis) 181

xiv

 Designing Platforms for Constructive Conflict Transformation 182 (Bridging- Therapy) 4.4.3. PEACEBUILDING: THE CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION 182 4.4.4. ACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR POSITIVE PEACE: THE CHARACTERISTICS 183

 Rebuilding Peace: Rebuilding Common-Ground Platforms 183

 The Past: The Source of Common-Ground Platforms For Peace 185

 Platforms For Positive Peace Are Inclusive 187

 Platforms For Positive Peace Are Multiplex 187

 Platforms For Positive Peace Are Complex 187

 Peacebuilding And The Concept of Relational Identity 188

 Tangible Platforms For Peacebuilding: the Moral Imagination 189

CHAPTER FIIVE: REREADING ARCHITECTURE BASED ON THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF PEACEBUILDING - ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE 5.1. MOVING TO THE TANGIBLE: REALIZING THE MORAL IMAGINATION OF 190 PEACEBUILDING IN ARCHITECTURE 5.2. ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE: ARCHITECTURE OF NEGATIVE PEACE, ARCHITECTURE 191 OF POSITIVE PEACE 5.3. ARCHITECTURE FOR PEACE: THE ROADMAP 201 5.4. LOCATION 210 5.5. THE STRUCTURAL PATTERN OF ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE: BOTH/AND 212 5.6. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE 216 5.6.1. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS INCLUSIVE 216 5.6.2. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS BELONGING 220 5.6.3. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS A COMMON-GROUND 221 PLATFORM 5.6.4. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS A COMPLEX 236 5.7. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS AN ASSEMBLAGE, A SPACE OF 239 RELATIONAL IDENTITY, OR BOTH

5.7.1. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS AN ASSEMBLAGE 239 5.7.2. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS A SPACE OF RELATIONAL 243 IDENTITY 5.8. IMPLICATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE 245

EPILOGUE 250 BIBLIOGRAPHY 257

xvi

CHAPTER ONE

WHY ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE?

1.1. BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Growing up in a country which has lived through long successive wars for four decades makes peace and peace-building my very first priority.

Since 1980, Iraq has gone through three major regional wars: the Iraq/Iran eight-year war, and the first Gulf War in 1990 which was ended with a severe economic embargo that continued until the close of the second Gulf War in 2003. Deterioration in every aspect of life was a consequence of several long years of successive wars. Following the end of the Second Gulf War in May 2003, the situation in Iraq became rapidly complicated. Life, particularly in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, was being pushed to the edge. The continuously rising conflicts had increased the intra-state violence to such an extent that by 2006-2007 a civil war broke out.

The intra-state violence added much more destruction and devastation than the military operations of the previous three cross-border wars. Everyday explosions and bombing have not left a spot in Baghdad without a scar [Figure 1.01].1 In addition to the unprecedented rising rates of violent deaths and urban and architectural destruction, a massive population movement was among the most serious casualties of the heavily exacerbated direct violence in Baghdad in 2006,

2007. Within less than one year, by April 2007, there were believed to be well over 4 million

1 Simon Rogers, “Every Death Mapped in Iraq,” The Guardian of London. theguardian.com, Saturday 23 October 2010 00.05 BST, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-data-journalism.

1 displaced Iraqis around the world.2 2.2 - 3 million Iraqis escaped from Baghdad to neighbor countries like Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, and later they became refugees mainly in United States,

Europe, and Canada. Moreover, 1.7 million Iraqis fled and internally displaced into places where they found majorities of their same ethnic description. Every day, violence displaces an estimated 1.300 more Iraqis in the country; every month at least 40.000. UNHCR projected that the number of internally displaced Iraqis would grow to about 2.7 million by year’s end (2007).

This displacement crisis was described by (UNHCR) as the largest population migration and the largest movement of people in the Middle East since 1948.3 Important to highlight is that these statics announced by the UNHCR was only covering the situation in Iraq up until April 2007. The migration crisis continues until this moment and the number of Iraqi refugees has increased dramatically that by 2018 the UN refugee agency UNHCR announced that the situation in Iraq is desperate; millions of Iraqis have been forced to abandon their homes after decades of conflict and violence.4 This massive population movement transformed Baghdad’s demographical structure from a coherent heterogeneous society into fragmented homogeneous groups [Figure

1.02], [Figure 1.03], and [Figure 1.04].5 Architecture, being a reflection of its greater social,

2 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Statistics on Displaced Iraqis around the World,” UNHCR, September 2007, https://www.unhcr.org/470387fc2.pdf (accessed January 2018).

3 IRIN, “Iraq 10 years on: The forgotten displacement crisis," IRIN, humanitarian news and analysis: a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 23 April 2013, http://www.irinnews.org/report/97905/iraq- 10-years-on-the-forgotten-displacement-crisis (accessed February 20, 2014).

4 The UN refugee agency UNHCR, Iraq Refugee Crisis, 2018, at https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/iraq/ (accessed January 18, 2019).

5 Michael Izady, “Atlas of the Islamic World and Vicinity (Infographs, Maps and Statistics Collection),” Category II. Ethnographic and Cultural, Section A, Ethnicity: Baghdad, Iraq, Ethnic composition 2003-2008. Gulf/2000 (as the host). New York, Columbia University, Gulf 2000 Project: 2006-present, http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml (Accessed February 20, 2014and January 2018).

2 cultural, and political contexts, couldn’t remain immune for long. The more the social structure is destroyed, the urban fabric of the city is segregated, leaving fewer opportunities for peace to prevail.

As a war-survivor architect who experienced this trauma first hand, I witnessed and gradually came to realize that architecture, in such a highly violent context, does not manifest as only a reflection; it also operates (instrumentalized) as an influential force to serve agendas of war, control, and oppression (as Warchitecture).6 Among many examples is the catastrophe of targeting the Samarra Mosque in Iraq (architecture that has a particular religious symbolism) which incited outrage, fear, and a degree of resentment that was strong enough to cause the outbreak of the civil war of 2006 in Baghdad after more than three years of intense conflicts in

Iraq following the 2003 military operations.

If architecture is systematically instrumentalized to serve political agendas of violence and war, wouldn’t it be better deployed to promote more peaceful environments?

At this point, before expanding further in this question, it is worth mentioning that the increasing rate of internal conflicts is not a case limited only to Iraq following the military operations of 2003. Rather, it is the expected scenario in almost every post-war case, especially when international peacekeeping and peacebuilding missions are not deployed accordingly.7 In

6The term ‘Warchitecture’ is conceptualized and proposed by Andrew Herscher, and it will be addressed in detail in the second chapter (architecture and war), particularly in “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume: Cities Unbuilt 11, (2007):68-77. 7 Major Thomas M. Murray, United States Marine Corps. “Peacekeeping or Peace-Enforcement: There is a Difference.” Strategic Issues/ The Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MTM.htm

“Wars of the World”, Nik Dimopoulos and Timothy Moore revealed the fact that as we move further from mid-twentieth century (the Second World War) there has been a distinct shift from wars across borders to intra-state violence. The 1990s particularly witnessed a devastating increase of internal conflicts.8 This latter point has directed the focus and efforts of peacebuilders towards developing strategies for rebuilding peace within contexts of intra-state violence because such contexts require strategies that are structurally different than those employed for cross-borders conflicts. Another important point is that wars and conflicts are not over when the shooting stops; they are only fought with other means.9 In addition, the major casualties of wars are not limited to the actual duration of the war itself. In fact the impact of any war transcends many years following what is commonly known as the ‘End of the War.’

Civil wars, extremist groups, segregation and destruction of social structures, destroyed infrastructure, fragmented urban fabrics, internally displaced people, frightening number of refugees, widows and orphans, polluted environment, decline in agricultural lands, in addition to collapsed economies, poverty, hunger, Illiteracy, and almost all other serious problems, are the consequences of conflicts and wars all over the world. For the seriousness of these issues, war and its consequences are considered as fundamental global problems and placed on the top of the missions of the United Nations. In 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 United

Nations agenda for Sustainable Development which has 17 goals and 169 targets that will stimulate action over the next fifteen years in all problems of critical importance for humanity

8 Nik Dimopoulos and Timothy Moore, “Wars of the world” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 20-21. 9 Gred Junne, interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman, “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace #4 (2010): 16-19.

4 and the planet. But since there can be no sustainable development without peace, it is crucial, before addressing any problems, to initiate a process of structural transformation to shift the world towards a more peaceful, sustainable, and resilient path. Therefore, building sustainable peace is considered one of the top priorities of the 2030 United Nations agenda for sustainable development; bold steps and action plans for creating sustainable peace are announced as being urgently needed.10

Simultaneously, with the efforts of the United Nations, reactions to the rapidly increasing rate of wars and violence all over the world had begun to emerge and develop focusing on peacebuilding as an equitable force robust enough to forestall future conflicts. By the 1980s, peace institutions had been established, and peace research and conflict studies had introduced theoretical frameworks, key operational concepts, mechanisms, and experience-based recommendations about how an approach to a sustainable peace can be constructed with the aim of shifting the world to more peaceful human settlements.11 Peacebuilding was declared as a collaborative work, practitioners and scholars from other fields are highly encouraged to reactivate the basic framework of the theories of peacebuilding and reflect it on their own experiences and area of expertise. Standing on this ground, the importance of this proposed dissertation, “Architecture of/for Peace,” comes from two main directions.

10 Sustainable Development Goals, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” The United Nations, un.org, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.

11 Peace research, key operational concepts, mechanisms, and experience-based recommendations about how an approach to a sustainable peace will be addressed in detail in Chapter Four.

The first: As a response to the 2030 United Nations agenda for sustainable development,

(particularly Goal #11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable). This dissertation proposes that there is a role for architecture in contributing to the process of peacebuilding and the structural transformation of conflicts and violence towards more sustainable peace in our cities and societies.

The second: as a response to the Theories of Peace and Peacebuilding (which declared the process of peacebuilding as a collaborative work, and urgently encouraged both practitioners and scholars to activate the basic framework of the theories of peacebuilding in their fields of expertise), this proposed dissertation is an attempt to examine the role of architecture as one of the active platforms contributing to the collaborative work for peacebuilding.

Figure 1.01: Every Death Mapped in Iraq, [Source: Simon Rogers, The Guardian of London at https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-data-journalism].

Figure 1.02: This map shows that the social structure within the urban fabric of Baghdad was a mix population in 2003. There was no ethnic majorities and enclaves. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2003_lg.jpg The color yellow is the mix population; Green is the Shi’a majorities; Red is Sunni majorities; Blue is the Christians Majorities. [Source: “Atlas of the Islamic World and Vicinity (Infographs, Maps and Statistics Collection),” Category II. Ethnographic and Cultural, Section A, Ethnicity: Baghdad, Iraq, Ethnic composition 2003-2009. This mapping project conducted by Michael Izady, through the Gulf/2000 Project, Columbia University, New York, http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml (Accessed February 20, 2014and January 2018)].

Figure 1.03: By 2006, the mix social structure within the urban fabric of Baghdad in had begun to transform into ethnic and religious neighborhoods. The mix population had started to dissolve. Ethnic and religious enclaves had begun to emerge. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2006_lg.jpg The color yellow is the mix population; Green is the Shi’a majorities; Red is Sunni majorities; Blue is the Christians Majorities. [Source: “Atlas of the Islamic World and Vicinity (Infographs, Maps and Statistics Collection),” Category II. Ethnographic and Cultural, Section A, Ethnicity: Baghdad, Iraq, Ethnic composition 2003-2009. This mapping project conducted by Michael Izady, through the Gulf/2000 Project, Columbia University, New York, http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml (Accessed February 20, 2014and January 2018)].

Figure 1.04: By late 2007 – mid 2008 the demographical structure of Baghdad transformed from a coherent heterogeneous society into fragmented homogeneous groups. The city was clearly divided into Ethnic and religious enclaves. http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2007_late_lg.jpg The color yellow is the mix population; Green is the Shi’a majorities; Red is Sunni majorities; Blue is the Christians Majorities. [Source: “Atlas of the Islamic World and Vicinity (Infographs, Maps and Statistics Collection),” Category II. Ethnographic and Cultural, Section A, Ethnicity: Baghdad, Iraq, Ethnic composition 2003-2009. This mapping project conducted by Michael Izady, through the Gulf/2000 Project, Columbia University, New York, http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml (Accessed February 20, 2014and January 2018)].

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT & RESEARCH QUESTIONS Architecture of/for peace is an interdisciplinary research which essentially requires crossing the boundaries into the disciplines of peace studies and conflict resolution/transformation. Exploring the critical thoughts outside of architectural discourse has long proved its effectiveness both in rethinking architectural theory and vitalizing architectural practice.12 What is new in this dissertation is the field that architecture could possibly cross boundaries and engage with, the theories of peace and peacebuilding, particularly the mechanisms and operating strategies of peacebuilding. In an attempt to build this interdisciplinary discourse, it is important to carefully examine the discipline of theories of peacebuilding; study its experience-based propositions, mechanisms, and core principles; derive its main pillars and reactivate them in architecture.

Architecture cannot be separated from its social, political, and cultural contexts. In cities of war and conflicts, the image of the city and its architecture become the very first evidence of the cruelty of war. This idea is emphasized by Eyal Weizman who defines it as “Forensic

Architecture.”13 In addition, Reem Al-Rawi in The Architecture of War: A Conflict Generator

Architecture, states that architecture, being among the major casualties of wars and conflicts, defines the region of the war.14 Lebbeus Woods, in his War and Architecture, reveals the fact that

12 Neil Leach, “Introduction,” in Rethinking architecture, A Reader in Cultural theory, ed. Neil Leach (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), xiv, xvii.

13 Eyal Wiezman, “Forensic Architecture, Notes from Fields and Forums: 100 Notes, 100 Thoughts: Documenta Series 062,” Hatje Cantz Verlag GmbH & Co KG, 2012.

14 Reem Al-Rawi, The Architecture of War: A Conflict Generator Architecture. A master Thesis submitted to Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism, Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2010.

10 in the contexts of violence and war, targeting architecture is a systematic strategy to target a unit of identity that represents a whole group of people. This process is further discussed by Andrew

Herscher through the concept of 'Warchitecture.'15 He states that “Building have, of course, been damaged and destroyed throughout the history of warfare. As Warchitecture, however, this violence is framed not only as marginal or exceptional form of violence, but a systemized and potentially crucial aspect of warfare.”16 These experience-based propositions proved that architecture is not only a real reflection of its highly tensioned and violent context, but also an influential force. The key question here is: if architecture has an influential role within contexts of violence and wars, does it have a role in contexts of peace and peacebuilding?

The rapidly increasing rate of conflicts and tension both on the global and local scales indicates that it is time for every active platform to take responsibility of rebuilding positive and sustainable peace in our cities and societies. The United Nations urgently called for global efforts and collaborative work for peacebuilding. The theorists of peace and peacebuilding are calling all influential fields to collaborate and to activate the framework of peace and peacebuilding in their field of expertise.

In response to the United Nations objectives and as a means of operationalizing theories of peace and peacebuilding, the general research question is:

Can architecture be employed to contribute to the process of peacebuilding?

15 The concept of ‘Warchitecture’ will be addressed in detail in Chapter Two (architecture and war) through the propositions of Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture / Post-Warchitecture.” In Volume: Cities Unbuilt, Issue #11 (2007): 68-78.

16Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):68.

In other words: is it possible to initiate a role for architecture to operate as one of the active platforms contributing to the process of rebuilding a sustainable and positive peace in our cities and societies? If the answer is yes, then the following question is how? How can architecture be employed to contribute to the process of peacebuilding?

Moreover, if it is possible to operationally define the architecture that can contribute to the process of peacebuilding as “Architecture for/of Peace”, then the question is: What is

“Architecture for/of Peace”? More specifically: How does “Architecture for/of Peace” work?

What are its key devices, mechanisms and operating characteristics? Is it possible to build a new theoretical framework of architecture for/of sustainable peace?

1.3. HYPOTHESIS AND GOALS

This dissertation is based on the hypothesis that architecture can operate as an active platform in the process of building sustainable and positive peace in our societies.

Research goals:

The goal of this dissertation is to seek a role for architects and architecture in the process of building sustainable and positive peace in our cities and societies. Specifically, the goal is to build a theoretical framework for “Architecture for/of Peace” that provides a mechanism

(operating strategy) to activate the role of architecture in the process of peacebuilding. This framework is also to incisively define the key characteristics of what is operationally proposed as

“Architecture for/of Positive Peace”.

1.4. EXPLORING THE DISCOURSE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Conflict and post-conflict situations become realities which are confronted with rising calls and actions for change, recovery, and conflict transformation towards achieving peace.

Architects and architectural scholars have raised the possibility for architecture to have a positive role in the collaborative efforts of rebuilding sustainable peace. Reviewing the literature on

‘Architecture and Peace’ shows a unanimous agreement on the crucial role of architecture in the reconstruction process within post-conflict/war contexts and the structural transformation from

‘negative peace’ to ‘positive peace’.17 Architecture is supposed to add something positive and improve the situation.18 The role of architects is considered as absolutely necessary, central, and proactive in post-war recovery and peacebuilding.19 Designers can intervene in order to create a peaceful situation, and architecture can become an instrument for intervention.20 The related literature approached architecture and peace from different perspectives. However, it is possible to generally categorize and summarize the examined knowledge under two main themes:

- ‘Architecture and War’ which includes a set of experience-based recommendations of the

don’t s.

- ‘Architecture and Peace’ which includes the must dos recommendations

17 Peace is defined by Johan Galtung as ‘Negative Peace’ and ‘Positive Peace.’ These definitions will be addressed in detail in Chapter Four (Theories of Peace).

18Arjen Osterman, “Peace Fight,” Volume: Architecture of Peace 26, (2010):12.

19 Sultan Barakat, “Provide and Enable: The Role of Architects in Post-War Recovery” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 22.

20 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 32-41.

Architecture and Violence:

In conflict and post-conflict contexts, architecture is approached from different perspectives but under one general concept: in order to contribute to peace, one must know about the conflict.21 Architecture and violence is discussed from political view showing that architecture has a role in generating violence in post-conflict/war contexts.22 Such architecture manifests in different ways such as barbed wire, road block, concrete walls, watch towers, and fortified walls. The case of the fortified aid compounds in Sudan is one of the examined examples which shows that architecture, with specific characteristics, has affected and disempowered the process of rebuilding peace in Sudan following what is commonly known as the Second Sudanese

Civil War (1983-2005). 23 Despite being employed for peacekeeping forces, these structures are perceived by Sudanese as militarized buildings.24 Other propositions introduced some strategies that history proves they breed and cause conflicts, such as separation, divide and rule, dispersal, and dilution (to dilute minority).25 For example, while investigating the architecture of the West

Bank, Eyal Wiezman defines the architecture of violence. It is the architecture that operates as an act of separation to exercise control. For him, this architecture has the potential to be used as

21 Volume: Architecture of Peace 26, (2010).

22 Gred Junne, interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman, “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace #4 (2010): 16-19.

23 Mark Duffield, “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace #4 (2010): 56-65.

24 Ibid., 57.

25 Arjin Oosterman, “Peacebreeding” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace #4 (2010): 80.

14 a weapon.26 More specifically, such architecture has the potential to disunite people and intensify violence within conflict contexts.27

From a different perspective, Ole Bouman investigates the destruction of architecture during warfare. He discusses that targeting architecture is systematically used to serve specific political agendas, particularly architecture that has a specific symbolic values such as the World

Trade Center in New York or the Samarra Mosque in Iraq. Stated by Bouman, in the 21st

“destruction of architecture is no longer the outcome of blind rage but increasingly a matter of meticulous calculation.”28 This statement (the systematic violence against architecture during warfare) is further supported by Andrew Herscher who analyzed the destruction of architecture in Bosnia and Croatia in early 1990s through the concept of ‘Warchitecture’. This concept reveals the relationship between architecture, human being, and war: targeting human beings through targeting their architectural identity during war.

Carefully analyzing these propositions, on architecture and war, reveals some important aspects related to the discourse of architecture and peace. Chapter Two in this dissertation

(architecture and war) expands further on these propositions.

26 Eyal Wiezman, “Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence,” Al Jazeera English, Sep 2, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwJaCeeA9o.

27 Esther Charlesworth, “The Architect: Keeping the Pace” in Volume# 26: Architecture of peace, (2010): 24-27.

28Ole Bouman, “The Architecture of Destruction,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):4-5.

Architecture and Peace:

The examined propositions reveal a general idea: if architecture is systematically used to serve agendas of violence and war, then it definitely has the potential to serve peace-achieving agendas. Some propositions provided a set of the must-do recommendations. For architecture not to be of conflict, it should focus on a common interest and serve as a binding factor.29 If architecture is for peace, it should be built in the right place, with the right people, using the right symbols.30 In the contexts of intra-state violence, architects must adopt new approaches that are small-scale, bottom-up, and community-driven. For reconstruction, in order to move from relief to recovery, it must foster inclusive identities.31 Other propositions introduce important aspects related to architecture and peace. The following three examples are among the most relevant:

The first is the public space in ‘Ein Hawd’ (a village of internal Palestinian refugees). 32 This example revealed several important points that should be considered when designing architecture for peace. Among the most important are the relationships between architecture, planning, the history of the land, the real need for the project, and the need to understand the related legislative, social, political, and ideological contexts. In this example the design decision was to create a flexible inflated structure which can be easily removed because the Israeli political legislations forbid any permanent construction in that village.

29 Gred Junne, interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman, “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 16-19.

30 Ibid.

31 Sultan Barakat, “Provide and Enable: The Role of Architects in Post-War Recovery” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 22-23.

32 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 32-41.

The second example is Oush Grab military base which was transformed into a public park open for Palestinian families in the besieged Palestinian town ‘Beit Sahour.’ 33 This project is an example of bottom-up strategies of architecture for peace. It shows the possibility to structurally transform ‘architecture of violence’ into ‘architecture of peace.’34 The process of transformation went through several phases starting from the moment of evacuation, moving to the moment of commotion (the most radical condition of architecture), and reaching to the moment of ‘No

Violence’ in which the old uses are gone signing the end of the site as a military outpost.35 Within one year a re-use design strategy was initiated to transform the site into a public park open for

Palestinians. However, this example never penetrated to the idea of considering this project as architecture of/for peace; the focus was on architecture of violence.

The third and last example in this general literature review is the World Peace Park placed in the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea.36 This project is an example of architecture that is employed to serve peacebuilding agendas. The main idea is to introduce the World Peace Park as a dialogical space in the aim of creating peace in that politically charged condition between the two Koreas. In this example, the definitions of ‘negative peace’ and

33 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 6-23.

34 These terms will be discussed in chapter two (architecture and war) and chapter three (architecture and peace).

35 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), p10.

36Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” Volume: Architecture of Peace Reloaded 40, (2014): p, 40,43.

‘positive peace’,37 from peace studies were included. However, engaging these definitions into the discussion lacks theoretical reasoning, particularly the main proposed argument: that the

World Peace Park is better to operate as a dialogical space than being a form of positive peace because architecture, by using these definitions without criticality, could turn into instrument of power and ultimately serve to collaborate the dominant hegemonic power.38 However, this discussion opened the doors not only to expand in studying the definitions of negative and positive peace, but also to deeply examine the discourse of the theories of peace. Realizing this new step was crucial to understand the theoretical structure of the process of peacebuilding, to reveal the main pillars of peacebuilding, and finally to study and examine the possibilities of efficiently reactivating peacebuilding pillars in architecture.

At this level, reviewing the above literature revealed the following implications:

1- The existing propositions on architecture and peace mainly address architecture in

contexts of violence and war. Examining these propositions reveals some important

aspects related to this dissertation: architecture for/of peace. Thus, it was important to

further expand in this area of research by including a chapter on the role of architecture

during warfare within the structure of this dissertation. This chapter, architecture and

war, is to introduce answers to the following question: What are the aspects that can be

37 Definitions of peace by Johan Galtung in Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (London:SAGE, 1996), 223. These definitions will be addressed in detail in chapter four (theories of peace).

38Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” Volume: Architecture of Peace Reloaded 40, (2014): p, 42.

derived from the discourse of architecture and war and are important to demonstrate a

clear understanding of architecture of/for peace?

2- The propositions on architecture and peace, just as architecture and war, elucidate

different aspects from different perspectives related to the role of architecture in

contexts of war and peace. It was possible also to derive a set of experience-based ‘do’

and ‘don’t’ recommendations in terms of operating architecture for peace. Nevertheless,

the most important ‘How’, ‘What’, and ‘Why’ questions remained unanswered: what are

the aspects related to architecture of/for peace that can be derived from the existing

discourse of ‘architecture and war’ and ‘architecture and peace’? Is the derived

knowledge sufficient enough to demonstrate a clear understanding of architecture of/for

peace? On what basis do the ‘dos and the don’ts’ recommendations work? How can

architecture contribute as an active platform for peacebuilding and why? What are its key

devices and characteristics? These exact un-answered questions comprise the knowledge

gap related to addressing ‘Architecture for/of Peace’ which will be examined through the

chapters of this research.

3- In order to build this interdisciplinary discourse on architecture for/of peace, it is

inevitable to direct the research towards examining the discipline of peace studies,

particularly theories of Peace and Peacebuilding. It is important to examine the

possibilities of deriving and developing a theoretical framework from the discourse of

peacebuilding that could be re-activated in architecture.

1.5. RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATION

Post-war and conflict contexts (the state of no war-no peace) are the general scope of this dissertation. The role of architecture, in such contexts, turns from being only a reflection into an influential force which can be either instrumentalized to serve political agendas for violence, or employed as an active platform to serve creative conflict transformation and peacebuilding agendas.

However, Post-war and conflict contexts could possibly continue in two scenarios depending on whether peacebuilding missions will be activated or not [Figure 1.05]. In order to narrow the general scope of this dissertation down into more specific area of research, it is important to discuss each of the two scenarios and decide within which direction this dissertation will continue. Each of the two scenarios will be discussed on the following bases:

- The definitions of the UN peace missions and the nature of their operations,

- The definitions of peace, by Johan Galtung, from peace studies,

- The role of Architecture

The first scenario is when peacekeeping forces continue in post-war context without peacebuilding missions being activated.

In this case, despite being in a ‘no-war’ state, peace is yet to be achieved. Any rapid escalation by one or more of the pre-belligerents can cause direct violence to breakout at any moment. The peacekeepers eventually become ineffectual and vulnerable, and the chances for peace-enforcement forces to directly intervene again to replace peacekeeping forces become

20 highly expected. 39 The reasons behind the state of ‘no-war, no-peace’ is that peacekeeping forces can only achieve a temporary halt in the conflict. Peacekeeping forces neither address the underlying causes of violence nor work to create societal change towards achieving a lasting peace. In addition, establishing peace by forceful means or by donors is only a temporary solution to violence. 40

According to theories of peace, particularly the definitions of peace by Johan Galtung, this exact context (post-war/direct violence contexts in which peacekeeping forces continue to be active) can be considered as ‘Negative Peace.’41 It is a process of reducing, or the absence of, direct violence. It is a defensive non-military defense in which war is ceased but peace has not yet been achieved; ‘tension’ is what describes the case.42

Architecture in this context reflects the state of ‘no-war, no peace.’ It manifests differently in different contexts but still conveys one common message: ostensible peace and active conflicts. The case of the fortified aid compounds in Sudan is one of the examples.43

39 The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html

40 Thomas M. Murray, “Peacekeeping or Peace-Enforcement: There is a Difference.” Strategic Issues/ the Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MTM.htm.

41 The definitions of peace by Johan Galtung are discussed in detail in Chapter Four.

42 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1996), 9-23.

43 Mark Duffield, “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace#4 (2010): 56-65.

Generally, architecture in such contexts is employed as an ‘Act of Separation.’44 The DMZ which separates the Korean peninsula,45 the barbed wires and watchtowers between Israeli settlements and Palestinian villages,46 the walls of Belfast and Beirut,47 are examples of architecture as an ‘act of separation’ within post- war/direct violence contexts. Architecture in these examples is instrumentalized either for ‘negative peace’ or for intensifying conflicts as

“architecture of violence” to serve strategic political agendas of violence, occupation, and wars.48

However, the state of ‘negative peace’ must be creatively and structurally transformed into the state of ‘positive peace,’ in order to prevent breeding more cycles of violence.

The second scenario is while the peacekeeping missions are still active, peacebuilding missions emerge in the form of a collaborative work activating a structural transformation towards achieving a sustainable peace in the future. Peacebuilding missions are capable of activating the structural conflict transformation because it is the core of their mission to address the underlying causes of conflicts and work on creating societal change towards achieving a sustainable peace. 49

44 Eyal Wiezman, “Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence,” Al Jazeera English, Sep 2, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwJaCeeA9o

45 Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” In Volume: Architecture of Peace Reloaded 40, no. 2 (2014): 40.

46 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013).

47 Jon Calame, and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 2009).

48 Eyal Wiezman, “Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence,” Al Jazeera English, Sep 2, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwJaCeeA9o

49 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace," Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992, New York: United Nations, 1992, http://www.un-documents.net/a47-277.htm.

Based on ‘Theories of Peace,’ peacebuilding and conflict transformation is a process of building the state of ‘Positive Peace.’ 50 “It is a process of life enhancement.”51 This process is structural; it activates the transition of the post- war/direct violence context from the state of

‘negative peace’ to ‘positive peace’.

In this dissertation, it is within this second scenario—the collaborative work for structural conflict transformation—that the role of architecture is examined and activated.

Figure 1.05: Scope and limitations of the research: the two scenarios of post-conflict context in relation with peace missions, theories of peace, and architecture, [Source: diagram by the author].

50 The definitions of peace by Johan Galtung are discussed in detail in Chapter Four.

51 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1996), 9-23.

1.6. THE DISCUSSION OF’ BOTH/AND’ BETWEEN THEORIES OF PEACE AND VENTURI’S

MANIFESTO OF POSTMODERN ARCHITECTURE.

Derived from theories of peace, this dissertation builds and proposes a theoretical framework of peacebuilding through which it is possible to activate platforms, such as architecture, for positive peace. In this theoretical framework, ‘Both/And’ is introduced as the structural pattern underlying platforms for positive peace. However, it is important to highlight that ‘Both/And’ as a way of rethinking and operationalizing architecture was also introduced by

Robert Venturi in his manifesto for postmodern architecture, Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture in the 1960s. This manifesto was a reactional criticism to what Venturi calls “the

Orthodox Modern Architecture,” especially its international style; it was a new counterrevolutionary way of seeing architecture as ambiguous, rich in meaning, complex, and contradictory.

Despite these two different directions from which the ‘Both/And’ is seen and proposed in architecture, it is important to reveal that both of them are opposition to the idea of operationalizing architecture as an instrument of power and control (using architecture as a platform for asserting and maintaining political and economic power). The ‘Both/And’ — as it is proposed in this dissertation based on theories of peace — is the structure through which it is possible to dissolve the ‘Either/Or’ disrupted systems underlying architecture and other platforms of violence and war. Whereas, for postmodernism, ‘Both/And’ can be understood as one of the proposed mechanisms through which it is possible to save architecture from being

24 instrumentalized for the rapidly growing power of capitalism that according to Manfredo Tafuri, ended the entire project of Modernity.52

However, the ‘Both/And’ as it proposed in this dissertation is different than the

‘Both/And’ prposed in Venturi’s manifesto in their motivations, theoretical basis, purposes, goals, and the structures of their envisioned physical manifestations. Therefore, the following points are important to be revealed. In both cases, by embracing ‘Both/And,’ complexity becomes inevitable. For Venturi, complexity in architecture is a reactional criticism to the principles embraced by the Modern Movement, particularly simplification which, as he described, is manifested in architecture as primitive and simple forms. Whereas, complexity in architecture for positive peace is a characteristic that — based on the theoretical framework of peacebuilding which built in this dissertation, is a reaction to the destructive reductionism that generates the dualistic polarities underlying the repeated cycles of violence. When unsolved conflicts enter the violent phase, the complex social reality became reduced into dualistic polarities. Peacebuilding, from this perspective, relies on complexity because from complexity emerge new opportunities to break the dualistic social polarization. Social reality is complex, whereas the dualistic patterns are artificial and made to serve agendas of war and violence.

In addition, by using the idea of ‘Both/And,’ complexity in Venturi’s manifesto is interrelated with contradiction. However, it was all about the richness of meaning and ambiguity as opposed to clarity of meaning and singular expression of architecture of modern movement.

Ambiguous architecture evokes many levels of contradictory meaning; it involves the paradoxical

52 Manfredo Tafuri, “Toward A Critique of Architectural Ideology,” in Architecture theory since 1968, ed. K. Michael Hays, (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1998), 28.

25 contrast implied by the conjunctive “yet.” For example, Le Corbusier’s Shodhan House is a cube closed by its corners, yet randomly opened on its surfaces—it is both closed and open design.

This was a reactional criticism to the orthodox modern architecture, where a sun screen, for example, is probably nothing else. However, this is not the case in architecture for positive peace in which complexity is correlated with inclusiveness; the ‘Both/And’ is embraced as a system of relationships that is necessary for depolarization and structural conflict transformation.

Peacebuilding requires dissolving the ‘Either/Or’ and ‘Self/Other’ destructive patterns underlying violence and replacing them with the ‘Both/And’ constructive patterns for positive peace. In architecture, the platform that can activate the ‘Both/And’ system of relationships can be a space

(exterior or interior space that embraces the idea of relational identity), architectural form, or both.

Finally, architecture based on Venturi’s complexity and contradiction is proposed, envisioned, and defined as a ‘difficult whole.’ The ‘whole’, from Venturi’s perspective, is a difficult unity of elements concerning the number of parts in a whole. It is a rejection to the easy unity and the exclusion of elements of orthodox modern architecture and the pure and simple form that follows its function. The ‘difficult whole’ is a translation to ‘less is bore’ as opposite to Mies van der Rohe’s paradox, ‘less is more.’ Moreover, the ‘difficult whole’ as a unity of elements is a composition which employs and acknowledges duality. The duality of contradictory meanings and elements that makes the eye does not want to be too easily or too quickly satisfied in its search for unity within a whole. Unlike the idea of the ‘difficult whole,’ the complexity that is embraced by the architecture as a platform for positive peace rejects and avoids duality; rather, it embraces multiplicity to dissolve any dualistic structures that might be

26 active as a root cause of conflicts. This dissertation—based on the theoretical framework of peacebuilding— introduces, envisions, and proposes these complex platforms in architecture as

‘assemblages’ for positive peace. The ‘difficult whole’ and ‘assemblage’, therefore, are two essentially, conceptually, and physically different structures.

1.7. ORGANAIZATION OF THIS DISSERTATION

This dissertation is an interdisciplinary research project. Filling the knowledge gap, providing possible answers for the research questions, and addressing the research’s goals, required a careful examination of the existing literature related to architecture and peace.

Examining and analyzing the discourse of ‘architecture and peace’ revealed that most of the literature and case studies are actually addressing architecture in contexts of violence and war.

This scholarship is crucial as it provides important aspects related to the question of the role of architecture for peace. Therefore, the discourse of ‘architecture and war,’ is decided to be in

Chapter Two, preceding the discourse of ‘architecture and peace’ in Chapter Three.

At the end of these two chapters it was possible to derive a set of themes and implications which not only provided answers for some of the research questions but also defined the knowledge gap: a clear theoretical framework of architecture for/of peace was found missing.

Despite that the discussion is the role of architecture in contribution to peace and peacebuilding, not any of the propositions engaged theories of peace reasoning and peace studies in the discussion.

Solving the research problem and filling this knowledge gap require and direct the research towards the next two chapters.

Chapter four is the first step towards filling the knowledge gap is to explore and carefully examine the discipline of peace studies. The goal is to build a holistic theoretical framework through which it is possible to activate the role of architecture as one of the platforms for building a positive peace. Through this chapter, it was also possible to precisely defining the associated key thematic terms related to the process of peacebuilding. This might be the first research that dives deeply into the theories of peace and peacebuilding to order to activate its main pillars in architecture.

Chapter five is to reread architecture based on the concluded theoretical framework of peacebuilding (weaving the themes and implications derived from the discourses of ‘architecture and war’ and ‘architecture and peace’ with the concluded theoretical framework from theories of peace and peacebuilding). The goal is to provide possible answers for the research questions and to clarify the reasoning behind these answers. It is a process of activating the concluded theoretical framework of peacebuilding in architecture with an ultimate goal: building the theory and introducing architecture for/of positive peace.

CHAPTER TWO ARCHITECTURE AND WAR/VIOLENCE

2.1. WHY ARCHITECTURE AND WAR/ VIOLENCE?

With the unprecedented rising rate of conflicts and wars, the twentieth century was “the bloodiest century in modern history, far more violent in relative as well as absolute terms than any previous era.”53 Conflicts and post-conflict situations became realities which have confronted with rising calls and actions for change, recovery, and conflict transformation towards achieving a sustainable peace in our cities and societies.

The discourse of ‘Architecture and War’ is not the specific scope of this dissertation.

However, the first exploratory literature review to the discourse ‘architecture and peace’ revealed that most of the discussions of architecture were actually related to wars and violence more than to peace. Some aspects of why and how architecture is specifically targeted and instrumentalized during war were found crucial to be examined in-depth throughout the process of moving forward to building the discourse of architecture and peace in this dissertation.

The followings are the key themes and propositions which were derived from the discourse of architecture and war for being essentially related to the discourse of architecture and peace.

53 Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2006).

2.2. TO CONTRIBUTE TO PEACE, ONE MUST KNOW ABOUT THE CONFLICT

“If Architecture can have a negative impact, couldn’t the opposite be an option too?”54

Volume is an internationally distinguished journal established by Rem Koolhaas, Mark

Wigley, Ole Bouman, and Arjen Oosterman, to activate an international long-term research and action project with the aim of discussing the potential role of architecture and Urbanism in Post- conflict situations.55 This project is Architecture of Peace; 56 it is supported by the research and action projects of seven active agencies within conflict zones around the world.57 It consists of local case studies, interventions, university research studios, debates, publications and exhibitions included in a series of volumes.58

Volume 26, Architecture of Peace, in particular, has approached architecture in post- conflict context from different perspectives but under one general concept; that “to contribute to peace, one must know about the conflict.”59 Within this volume, the following are the most related themes:

54Arjen Osterman, “Peace Fight,” in Volume #26: Architecture of Peace, ed. Arjen Oosterman, Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley (Stichting Archis, 2010):12.

55 See Volume at http://volumeproject.org/

56 See Architecture of Peace at http://architectureofpeace.org/

57 See the Active Agencies for architecture of Peace: http://architectureofpeace.org/links/

58 See Volume Project, Architecture of Peace at http://volumeproject.org/architecture-of-peace/

59 Arjen Oosterman, Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, Volume # 26: Architecture of Peace (Stichting Archis, December 17, 2010). See Volume #26 at http://archis.org/publications/volume-26-architecture-of-peace/; http://architectureofpeace.org/; and http://volumeproject.org .

In this Volume, important fact is revealed about the rising rates of conflicts following the

Second World War. According to Nik Dimopoulos and Timothy Moore, “as we move further from mid-twentieth century, there has been a distinct shift from wars across borders to intra-state violence. Accompanying this shift, there is also a move from wars about ideology to ones of identity (ethnicity).”60 This fact increases the importance of the ideas proposed by Gerd Junne61 in “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?”62 As Junne discusses the post-conflict situations from political perspective, he asserts on the collaboration and cooperation between multiple parties in their contribution to the reconstruction after violent conflict. Because, unlike wars across borders, which requires more diplomatic efforts of ‘peacemaking’ missions, intra- state violence requires more collaborative ‘peacebuilding’ efforts as the confronted groups of belligerents engaged in war or conflict belong to the same context. Moreover, in post-conflict contexts, both the act of separation and the act of militarization cause nothing but the proliferation of more violence as conflicts, according to Junne, are not over when the shooting stops, they are only fought with other means. In order to avoid generating more violence in post- conflict/war contexts, the peacebuilding process should be not militarized, not external, and there should be no barbed wire, no road block, otherwise stones will be thrown.63

60 Nik Dimopoulos and Timothy Moore, “Wars of the world,” in Volume #26: Architecture of peace. # 4 (2010): 20- 21.

61 Gerd Junne is a professor of International Relations at the Department of Political Sciences, University of Amsterdam.

62 Gred Junne, interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman,“The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?,” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace. #4. (Stichting Archis, 2010): 16-19.

63 Ibid.

Supporting Junne’s proposition, Mark Duffield,64 In “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society,”65 asserts on the seriousness of building exclusively used and fortified structures in the reconstruction of post-conflict/war contexts. He bases his argument on the case of post-conflict context in Sudan following what is commonly known as the Second

Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005). Following the return to formal peace in 2005, the number of aid agencies and peacekeeping forces has increased. However, instead of building celebratory inclusive structures to empower the post-war reconstruction and the process of rebuilding peace, peacekeeping forces were still active but fortified inside militarized buildings. The wide spread withdrawal and encampment of donors, UN agencies and the larger international NGOs into what, in effect, are fortified aid compounds have created enclaves that are exclusionary and disempowering in their working appearance. These fortified compounds become the signature architecture in Sudan confirming that the end of the war in 2005 was only an ostensible peace.66

As a result, after decades of war and dislocation, the structures of aid agencies, which were supposed to become materials or built expressions of peace, turned into militarized buildings creating what is described by Duffield as “fortified aid compounds”. With their double gates and inner and outer walls and fences topped with razor-wire, the bordered international spaces, typically have strengthened “the act of separation”, and the segregated living become necessary

64 Mark Duffield is a professor Emeritus at School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies- University of Bristol, and former Director of the Global Insecurities Centre.

65 Mark Duffield, “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society,” in Volume #26: Architecture of peace. #4 (2010): 56-65.

66Ibid., 57.

32 or even desirable. 67 Civilian aid industry, according to Duffield, should neither be militarized nor should it be segregated otherwise its associated architectural form would be such as ‘the fortified aid compound’68; an architecture that disempowers the process of peacebuilding. This same issue is highlighted by Diana Felix da Costa69 in Working in Challenging Environments: Risk

Management and Aid Culture in South Sudan (Field report South Sudan).70 Stated by Felix, the architecture of aid is characterized by high compound walls with barbed wire at the top. Despite that

South Sudan falls under the ‘post-conflict’ banner, peace is never the reality. Peace in South

Sudan following 2005 agreement, was only a political narrative. The reality, according to Felix, is much more fluid and boundaries between ‘peace’ and chronic insecurity are blurry and the resemblance between fortified aid compounds and prisons is remarkable [Figure 2.01].

Another point is raised in this Volume, it is the social divisions in post-war/direct violence contexts and the role of architecture in reuniting the divided social structures. In an interview with Esther Charlesworth,71 important questions have been raised by Rory Hyde and Timothy

Moore and left with no answers: “After a war has ended and physical line of division within a city is dismantled, often a psychological division remains within the minds of people. How can

67 Mark Duffield, “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society,” in Volume #26: Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 56.

68 Ibid., 60.

69 Diana Felix da Costa is a researcher and analyst at Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

70 Diana Felix da Costa, Working in Challenging Environments: Risk Management and Aid Culture in South Sudan (UK: University of Bristol libraries, 2012), http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/global- insecurities/migrated/documents/felix.pdf.

71 Esther Charlesworth is the founding director of Architects without Frontiers (Australia) and associate professor in Architecture and Design at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

33 architecture play a role in integrating a city?”72 Charlesworth, despite not answering the question, highlighted its importance as “that is the question.” She asserts on the fact that she has seen more examples of ‘the design disaster’ where architecture tends to disunite people.

This exact point brings an important question to the surface: If architecture is capable of disuniting people in during wars and active conflicts, isn’t it better deployed to re-unite them in a step forward to activating the process of rebuilding a positive peace in post-war contexts?

Finally, Arjin Oosterman, introduces the strategies that initiate conflicts, such as separation, divide and rule, dispersal, and dilution (to dilute minority). 73 For example, in creating conflicts, ‘separation’ and ‘Divide and rule’ are important for “weakening internal powers, diverting energy to a local level,” and for “combining different groups in territorial units to prevent unity on state level.” 74 Introducing these ‘towards conflict’ strategies is to reveal what

‘not to do’ when activating the structural transformation towards a sustainable peace.

72 Esther Charlesworth, “The Architect: Keeping the Pace,” in Volume #26: Architecture of peace. #4 (2010): 24-27.

73 Arjin Oosterman, “Peacebreeding,” in Volume #26: Architecture of peace. #4 (2010): 80.

74 Ibid.

Figure 2.01: The fortified aid compounds in South Sudan. [Source: Diana Felix da Costa, 2012 in http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/global-insecurities/migrated/documents/felix.pdf].

2.3. THE ACT OF SEPARATION: ARCHITECTURE AS A WEAPON

Eyal Wiezman75 defines ‘architecture of Violence’ in his Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence.76 As Wiezman is investigating the architecture of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, in Palestine, he is trying to identify the causes of the increased violence within conflicts zones. He sees that architecture has the potential to be used as a weapon; that is when architecture, at its structural level, is used as a way of maintaining separation and exercising control. In such contexts, architecture and the built environment

75 Eyal Wiezman is an architect, intellectual, activist, writer, founding member of the Architectural Collective Decolonizing Architecture (DAAR) in Beit Sahour, Palestine, and a professor of Spatial and Visual Cultures and the director of Forensic Architecture research agency at Goldsmiths, University of London that provide support to the project of Architecture of Peace.

76 Eyal Wiezman, “Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence,” Al Jazeera English, Sep 2, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwJaCeeA9o

35 become a kind of ‘slow violence.’ Wiezman states that the crime was done when the border itself was drawn. This ‘act of separation’, which can adopt different architectural manifestations (e.g., concrete walls with watch towers, barbed wires, or even housing settlements like the “1967’s

The Living Wall Around the City”), has the potential to be used by architects as a weapon. The occupied West Bank is an example of this intersection of architecture and violence [Figures 2.02,

2.03]. The occupation, according to Wiezman, has strangulated Palestinian communities, villages, and towns and created an environment that is unlivable for the people there. The process of eliminating the identity of the Palestinian architecture in the occupied West Bank, and the act of separation (in form of border walls which separates Israel from Palestine, red roofs that distinguishes the Israeli landscapes from the Palestinian ones, settlements that are placed around the hilltops controlling the view on the Palestinian towns and villages down in the valleys, and even the Israeli highways and the checkpoints,) they all, are being used by architects as a weapon turning any conflict context into a battle field.77

Wiezman has clearly highlighted “when violence is enacted through architecture, architecture must somehow rise to resist it. It must find tools and it must find these tools within its own box,” yet, the question is how? How can architecture find the tools from its own box to resist violence and enhance the process of rebuilding a positive sustainable peacefulness in post conflict zones?

77 Eyal Wiezman, “Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence,” Al Jazeera English, Sep 2, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwJaCeeA9o

Figure 2.02: Image of the concrete walls in West Bank and an Israeli military watchtower [Source: APA images]

Figure 2.03: Israel’s security wall along and in the West Bank [Source: Photo by Flickr contributor Wall in Palestine at https://www.flickr.com/photos/43405897@N04/4401887379/in/photostream/]

2.4. THE ARCHITECTURE OF DESTRUCTION: WARCHITECTURE AND POSTWARCHITECTURE

In an attempt to challenge architecture to go beyond itself, Volume 11 (Cities Unbuilt)78 has been published focusing generally on the concept that destruction of architecture during warfare has an agenda.

Ole Bouman,79 in “The Architecture of Destruction,” criticizes the international architecture discourse for not taking a counter action to the agenda of the destruction of architecture during warfare leaving post-conflict cities unbuilt (Architects remain silent, therefore cities remain unbuilt).

In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, Bouman states: “we have started to realize that violence in the 21st century isn’t necessarily directed at people, but is also inflicted upon buildings.”80 Destruction, according to Bouman, is no longer the outcome of blind rage, but increasingly a matter of meticulous calculation; it is a new trend in warfare not only to fight the enemy, but also his habitat. 81 The target is the architecture that has symbolic value. Bouman states: “As a symbol of the value system of the enemy (like the Samarra Mosque), they are attacked or blown up in order to incite outrage, fear, and a degree of resentment that

78 Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, Volume #11: Cities Unbuilt (Stichting Archis, March 2007). http://volumeproject.org/issues/volume-11-cities-unbuilt/

79 Ole Bouman is an architecture critic, editor in chief of the international architecture magazine Volume contributing editors included Rem Koolhaas and Mark Wigley, and founding director of the Shekou Design Museum.

80Ole Bouman, “The Architecture of Destruction,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):4-5.

81Ibid.

38 appears to be stronger than any mass murder can engender.”82 The 2006 Samarra Mosque bombing intensified the violence in Iraq to its highest levels after three years of conflicts following the 2nd Gulf War and set off what the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called at the time the largest population movement in the Middle East since 1948 [Figure 2.04]. 83

The most important strategic questions raised by Bouman are: How should architects react in this context? “Architecture”, according to Bouman, “often reveals itself currently as a criminal tool of oppression and destruction…witness Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon: modern violence is pervasive, abstract and dehumanizing. It destroys buildings and communities with a frequency never seen before.”84 What does it mean to stand up for those who are victimized? Is there a space for architecture on that side of spectrum and if so, where? 85

Bouman clearly criticizes the global professional community for the lack of investigations to reveal possible answers for his questions. “It is quite remarkable”, Bounam states, “that there seems to be virtually no discourse on this subject within the global professional community.

While there is a dramatic proliferation of unbuilt cities worldwide, most architects remain

82Ole Bouman, “The Architecture of Destruction,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):4.

83 IRIN, “Iraq 10 years on: The forgotten displacement crisis," IRIN, humanitarian news and analysis: a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 23 April 2013, http://www.irinnews.org/report/97905/iraq-10-years-on-the-forgotten-displacement-crisis (accessed February 20, 2014).

84Ole Bouman, “The Architecture of Destruction,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):4-5.

85Ibid.

39 silent.”86 He adds, all architectural engagement with this subject has remained at the level of incidental interventions.

Figure 2.04: The Samarra mosque, (the sacred al-Askari Shrine): before and after terrorist attack [Source: Public domain]

86Ole Bouman, “The Architecture of Destruction,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):4-5.

“Warchitecture: Postwarchitecture”87 by Andrew Herscher88, is among the most important contributions not only in Volume 11 (Cities Unbuilt) 89 but also in the whole discourse of architecture and war. By introducing the concept of ‘Warchitecture’, Herscher shed light on a very new area in the relationship between architecture, human beings, and war; that is, targeting human beings through targeting their architectural identity during warfare. Herscher states:

“During the war years of the early 1990s in Bosnia and Croatia, a unique

sort of violence was thought to have emerged, a violence that was aimed precisely

at architecture. The perpetrators of this violence termed it either a military

necessity or collateral damage, both terms that legitimate destruction according

to the reigning rules of war.” 90

The systematic destruction of architecture in warchitecture never reveal the main target: human beings. That is because the violence against architecture during war is impossible to sanction.

According to Herscher, this concept ‘Warchitecture’ provides a new way of understanding the destruction of architecture during wars and other forms of political violence. On one hand, according to Herscher, buildings have been damaged and destroyed throughout the history of

87Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):68-77.

88Andrew Herscher is an assistant professor of architecture at the University of Michigan, was co-director of the Department of Culture of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, and founded the Kosovo Cultural Heritage Project.

89 Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, Volume #11: Cities Unbuilt (Stichting Archis, March 2007). http://volumeproject.org/issues/volume-11-cities-unbuilt/ 90Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):68-77.

41 warfare; this destruction could be marginal or collateral damage. However, in Warchitecture, violence against architecture is systematized and potentially crucial aspect of warfare. On the other hand, the boundary between war and architecture is negated. Architecture in general, within the context of war, could be a target of violence. However, ‘warchitecture’ is the systematic process of targeting what is typically narrated as the ‘heritage’. Since architectural heritage is systematically destroyed within conflict zones, then rebuilding, preserving, and reviving architectural heritage could be one of the pillars of architecture of peace within post- conflict zones. 91 In Kosovo the documentation includes several distinct episodes of violence and counter-violence. Based on the documentations:

- Ethnic cleansing waged by Serb forces against Kosovar Albanians in 1998-1999;

- The NATO bombing of Serbia in the summer of 1999;

- Violence waged by Kosovar Albanians against Serbs from 1999

‘Warchitecture’ in this documentation refers to the violence that targets buildings instead of human beings, and it includes another version that refers to a form of ethnic cleansing that targets human beings through targeting their architectural heritage. 92

The concept of ‘warchitecture’ is important as it reveals the hidden lines of the systematic violence against architecture. However, the ‘post-warchitecture’ has another scenario. According to Herscher, the destruction in ‘warchitecture’ often endows buildings with historical significance in ‘post-warchitecture’ period. For example, the architectural targets of destruction in Kosovo,

91Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):68-77.

92Ibid., 68.

42 later, have been narrated as the ‘heritage’. “The targets of ‘warchitecture’, therefore, comprise counter-heritage: architecture rendered historically valuable by virtue of the violence inflicted against it.” 93

Another important point raised by Herscher is the language of damage. “Violence against architecture,” stated Herscher, “is, among other things, a form of communication that enlists architecture as its medium. In this sense, violence does not simply damage or destroy its targets, but also endows those targets with new social meanings.”94 Moreover, “the communicative function of architectural violence is foregrounded when that violence includes graffiti messages.”95 In Kosovo, graffiti frequently accompanied damage, elucidating the audiences and contexts of that damage.” 96 Example: 97

- Albanian graffiti written on Serbian Orthodox architecture damaged by Kosovar Albanians

in 1999.

- Serbian graffiti written on Islamic architecture damaged by Serb military and paramilitary

in 1989-99.

93Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):69.

94Ibid.

95Ibid.

96Ibid.

97Ibid., 72, 73.

2.5. THE SYSTEMATIC TARGETING OF ARCHITECTURE

The contribution of Lebbeus Woods,98 in his War and Architecture,99 is based on studying and analyzing the case of Sarajevo (the city which its citizens, at the time of writing and publishing in 1992-1993, were still under the Siege of Sarajevo,100 the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare). It is worth mentioning that despite the title alluding to focus on the

War/Architecture relationship, however, the ideas implied by Woods in this pamphlet open new doors forward to forming some of the basic characteristics of ‘Architecture for/of Peace’. Thus,

Woods’ propositions will also be analyzed and scrutinized in the next chapter, architecture and peace. On the matter of architecture and war, Woods’s ideas support the concept of

‘Warchitecture’ introduced by Andrew Herscher in the previous section: architecture is being systematically destroyed during warfare for ethnic cleansing. He proves that targeting and destroying the architecture which has specific symbolic values for a particular group of people, is a systematic targeting and destroying that group of people themselves [Figures 2.05 and 2.06].

According to Woods, during ‘the Bosnian War for independence, 1992-1995,’101 destroying the minarets and domed mosques, the great library, the post office, the university

98 Lebbeus Woods (1940-2012) was an American architect and artist known for his unconventional and experimental designs. The majority of his explorations deal with the design of systems in crisis.

99 Lebbeus Woods, War and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993), 3.

100 The Siege of Sarajevo was the siege of the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the longest of a capital city in the history of modern warfare. After being initially besieged by the forces of the Yugoslav People's Army, Sarajevo was besieged by the Army of the Republic of Serbia from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996 (1,425 days) during the Bosnian War. 101The Bosnian War was an international armed conflict that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina on April 1992- and ended on December 1995.The war was part of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the Slovenian and Croatian secessions from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991, the multi-ethnic Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina – which was inhabited by mainly Muslim Bosniaks (44 percent), as well as Orthodox Serbs (32.5 percent) and Catholic Croats (17 percent) – passed a referendum for independence on 29 February 1992. The

44 buildings, and all others that symbolized reason and its promise of human civil life, by the Serbs, was a process of ethnic cleansing [Figure 2.07]. It was a process of targeting the Bosnian Muslims through targeting their architecture. In addition to the bitter facts and the casualties of the ‘Siege of Sarajevo’ and the ‘Srebrenica Massacre’102 against more than 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks, Woods was able to shed light on two of the important characteristics of that highly conflicted context:

‘hierarchical’ societies and the ‘either/or’ principles. From this research’s perspective, in highly tensioned contexts, if hierarchy is the system and ‘either/or’ is the principle, the questions of

“who is on top of that hierarchical system?” and “which set of ‘either/or’ principles is to

independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina was declared but rejected by the political representatives of the Bosnian Serbs. the Bosnian Serbs, supported by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milošević and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), mobilised their forces and the war soon spread across the country, accompanied by ethnic cleansing. The conflict was initially between the Yugoslav Army units in Bosnia which later transformed into the Army of the Republic of Serbia (VRS) on the one side, and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) which was largely composed of Bosniaks, and the Croat forces in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) on the other side. Tensions between Croats and Bosniaks increased throughout late 1992, resulting in the Croat–Bosniak War that escalated in early 1993.[13] The Bosnian War was characterised by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing and systematic mass rape, mainly perpetrated by Serb (against Muslim Bosniaks), and to a lesser extent, Croat and Bosniak forces. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre later became iconic of the conflict.In 1994, the Bosniaks and Croats allied themselves against the Republic of Serbia and created the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina following the Washington agreement. In 1995, NATO intervened with Operation Deliberate Force targeting the positions of the Army of the Republic of Serbia, which proved key in ending the war. The war was brought to an end after the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Paris on 14 December 1995. The most recent estimates suggest that around 100,000 people were killed during the war. Over 2.2 million people were displaced, making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II. In addition, an estimated 12,000–20,000 women were raped, most of them Bosniak.

102 The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide was the July 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim Bosniaks, mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. The killings were perpetrated by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of the Republic of Serbia (VRS). The forcible transfer and abuse, of between 25,000 and 30,000 Bosniak women, children and elderly which accompanied the massacre was found to constitute genocide (Bosnian Genocide case,) when accompanied with the killings and separation of the men. In 2005, Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations described the mass murder as the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War.

45 dominate?” are more than enough for a war to break out. In the case of Sarajevo, the result was the tragic trauma of the ‘Siege of Sarajevo’ and the ‘Srebrenica Massacre’.

Figure 2.05: on September 12, 1992, during the Bosnian War, cellist Vedran Smailovic plays Strauss inside the National Library in Sarajevo which was bombed-out in August 1992 by the forces of JNA and the Army of the Republic of Serbia (VRS). [Source: Public Domain].

Figure 2.06: Cellist Kareem Wasfi plays music in front of the destroyed historical Al-Hadba' Minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, which was bombed-out by ISIL on 21 June 2017, during the Battle of Mosul in Iraq. [Source: Middle East Online, Public Domain].

Figure 2.07: Sarajevo Times: After 24 years of the city Hall and the national Library destruction. [Source: Sarajevo Times, 2016].

The postwar context is totally different than the classical contexts of long-term stable societies. According to Woods, “as long as society is dominated by institutions of authority that require a basis external to themselves for their existence (divine right of kings, social contract), monumental architecture can be employed to embody objective knowledge.”103 Whereas the objective knowledge should be embodied in the monumental architecture within long term stable societies, “the subjective knowledge,” Woods states, “ is relevant only within personal spheres, and is therefore embodied in idiosyncratic private works and can be tolerated publicly as works of art.” 104 Nevertheless, as a result of the shift in powers and the destruction during war and direct postwar periods, society can no longer define itself in classically deterministic,

103 Lebbeus Woods, War and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993), 6.

104 Ibid.

47 objective terms, but only in terms of continuously shifting dynamics. Architecture, according to

Woods, in such conflicted contexts “must forsake the monumental,” because there is no hierarchy to valorize, no fixed authority or body to be monumentalized. 105 In such contexts, the question of ‘which set of principles is true?’ rises again in terms of which set of principles to be monumentalized? Such questions causes violence because the objective structure of the context is yet to be stabilized.

The old cities, according to Woods, are made up of “complex layers of buildings and open spaces, of uses and reuses, woven over centuries and generations into a living tissue of meanings.”106 These old cities absorbed hierarchies into their complexity. When violence and wars destroy the cities’ complexity, hierarchies grow stronger and manage to absorb cities’ complexity. According to Woods:

“War levels the old cities in much more than physical sense: it reduces their

multilayered complexity of meanings to one-layered tableaux embodying the

mono-logical, monomaniacal structure of hierarchy at its most logical and terrible

extreme: the all or nothing polarity imposed by radical ideology and its rational

over-determinations.”107

If that multilayered complexity of meanings in the old cities is reduced to one layered tableaux by violence, then the same question rises again: which layer should dominate? And,

105 Lebbeus Woods, War and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993), 6,8

106 Ibid., 8.

107 Ibid.

48 again this question is more than enough to break out conflicts between the previously existed layers as each layer would claim its right to be the dominant.

2.6. THE DESTRUCTION OF ARCHITECTURE: THE DESTRUCTION OF MEMORY

By searching through world history, in his The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at

War, Robert Bevan108 shows that architecture in the 20th century has increasingly become a weapon of war.109 Wars and culture don’t match very well. Nature, architecture, innocent civilians, and culture are all victims of wars. 110 However, stated by Bevan in “Cultural

Cleansing,”111

“There is a difference between being a victim, collateral damage,

and being victimized. In the latter case the act of destruction becomes

systematic. That’s where design is involved. Pursuing political goals by

destructing a culture or cultures is just one expression of this mode of

operation. But it is a powerful one.”

Architecture from this perspective, becomes an instrument for assassination and mass murder, the range of wars and conflicts in which the destruction of architecture was systematic and pivotal reveals the interrelationship between the fate of architecture and the fate of people,

108 Robert Bevan: London-based critic and author with a special interest in architecture in conflict.

109 Robert Bevan, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War (London, UK: REAKTION LTD, 2016).

110Robert Bevan, “Cultural Cleansing,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):6-8

111Ibid.

49 individually and collectively, during conflicts. 112 Bevan argues that such systematic acts of destruction not only shatter a nation’s culture and morale but is also a deliberate act of completely destroying a culture’s memory and, ultimately, its existence. That because the

‘destruction of memory’ exposes not only the cultural war behind architectural annihilation but also the hidden aim of exterminating a particular group of people. The architectural annihilation culminated in ethnic riots in Kosovo, Bevan states, “Orthodox churches and monasteries in

Prizren and elsewhere were damaged or destroyed. The violence spread to Serbia where

Belgrade’s only remaining mosque was burned in retaliation. UNESCO Director – general Koichiro

Matsuura said of this latest wave of ethnic cleansing: ‘Beyond monuments and heritage it is memory and cultural identity that is being destroyed.”113

According to Bevan, “the attacks on buildings are often carried out well away from front lines, reflecting their purpose; this is not designed to rout an opposing army. Rather, it is an ethnic cleansing, genocide or conquest, a way of re-writing history.” 114 When architectural totems, such as mosques with spiritual values to specific groups in Iraq or the World Trade Center towers in New York, are destroyed by conflicts and the ravages of war, more than mere buildings are being destroyed:

112Robert Bevan, “Cultural Cleansing,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):6-8

113 Robert Bevan, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War (London, UK: REAKTION LTD, 2006-2016).

114Robert Bevan, “Cultural Cleansing,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):6-8

“A mosque is not simply a mosque but the symbol of the presence

of a community marked for erasure. A library or art gallery is a cache of

historical memory, evidence of a community’s historic presence and

emblem of its right to a continued existence.” 115

The genocide of Armenians which was accompanied by the eradication of Armenian monuments; the Chinese conquest of Tibet by ravaging the monasteries and Tibetan vernacular architecture; Nazi destruction of hundreds of synagogues during the night of 9/10 November

1938, and so many other kind of attacks which continue to this day, stated by Bevan, are examples of how the destruction of architecture within conflict zones could be systematic and being used as a means to destroy memory. 116

For the act of systematic destruction of architecture, during conflicts, exposes not only the aim of destroying a culture’s memory and, ultimately its existence (cultural genocide), but also exterminating a particular group of people who belong to that culture, Bevan strongly proposes to categorize the cultural genocide as a crime to be sanctioned by international law instead of considering it as only “collateral damage”.

115Robert Bevan, “Cultural Cleansing,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007):6-8

116Ibid.

2.7. ARCHITECTURE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF OCCUPATION

What is the role of politics within architecture and what is the role of architecture within politics? By raising these questions, in A Civilian Occupation, 117 Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman help generate a new way of seeing the relationship between architecture and politics within the

Palestine and Israel conflict.118 According to Weizman and Segal, architecture is systematically instrumentalized and employed to serve strategic and political agendas; architecture itself became an instrument of occupation as the executive arms of the political agenda. Planning and design decisions do not often follow criteria of economic sustainability, ecology or efficiency of services, but are rather politically employed. Space becomes the material embodiment of a matrix of forces, manifested across the landscape in various ways such as the construction of roads, hilltop settlements, development towns and garden suburbs.119 Architecture, in the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is presented as political issue, and furthermore as the material product of politics itself. 120

A Civilian Occupation is a group of articles. The following articles reveal how architecture is systematically employed as an instrument of occupation with examples of planning and design decisions that followed political agendas.

117 Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman, eds., A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003).

118 Sharon Rotbard, “Preface,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture, ed. Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 16.

119 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 19.

120 Ibid., 20.

In “Settlements as Reflex Action”, Oren Yiftachel121 argues that the new settlements, within or outside Israel’s international borders, are built and used for political reasons.122

According to Yiftachel, “new settlements damage Arab-Jewish relations,”123 and due to their mentality, “new settlements deepen social disparities.”124 This statement confirms that architecture is capable of affecting the relationships between given groups of people if it is mentalized in a particular way.

The articles following Yiftachel’s article in A Civilian Occupation are to clarify the significant aspects of the mentality of the Israeli architecture which, according to Yiftachel, has increased the tension in the context of Palestine-Israel conflict. The articles also explain how architecture can become an instrument of occupation to serve particular political agendas.

“Wall and Tower,” by Sharon Rotbard,125 scrutinizes ‘Homa Umigdal’ as an example of how Israeli political ideology and architectural doctrine are interdependent.126 “Rotbard demonstrates how the pre-state strategy of the paramilitary ‘Wall and Tower’ co-operative settlements made use of the double function of fortification and observation – a protective

121 Oren Yiftachel is an Israeli professor of political and legal geography, urban studies and urban planning at Ben- Gurion University of the Negev, in Beersheba. He holds the Lynn and Lloyd Hurst Family Chair in Urban Studies.

122 Oren Yiftahel, “Settlements as Reflex Action,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 32, 38.

123 Ibid., 33.

124 Ibid., 34-35.

125 Sharon Rotbard is an architect, publisher and author, senior lecturer at the Architecture Department in the Bezalel Academy, Jerusalem.

126 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 39, 56.

53 enclosure – that dominated their surroundings by the power of vision.” 127 ‘Wall and Tower’ became the mold in which the image all future Israeli urban planning was crafted.

In Israel, according to Rotbard, architecture, just like war, is communication of politics through other means.128 The first ‘Homa Umigdal’ outpost was initiated in 1936. It is “a system of settlement seemingly defensive but essentially offensive in form.” 129 It was erected at the site that later became Kibbutz Tel Amal in the Jezreel Valley by the members of Kibbutz Tel Amal.

The system of ‘Homa Umigdal’ outpost was based on a “construction of a wall made of prefabricated wooden molds filled with gravel and surrounded by a barbed wire fence.” 130 The walls together form an enclosed square-shaped space of 35m by 35m. Within this enclosure, there were a “prefabricated wooden tower that commanded the surrounding area and four shacks that were to house a ‘conquering troop’ of forty people. Between 1936 and 1939, some fifty-seven such outposts were set up throughout the country, outposts which rapidly developed into permanent settlements of the ‘Kibbutz’ and ‘Moshav’ type.”131

127 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 21.

128 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 40-42.

129 Ibid., 42.

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid.

These walls “developed into double walls built as molds and filled in with gravel up to the height of the window.” 132 In addition, the observation posts in the corners were built as defensive fortifications against the Bedouins who were armed with British rifles.133 ‘Homa Umigdal’, according to Rotbard, “is the origin, the prototype, the model and the mold of Israeli architecture, as well as, to a large extent, the Israeli city….it is a translation of a political agenda into the act of construction, occupation of territory through settlement and infrastructure.”134 It is the ceremonial expression of modern architecture’s industrial utopia (prefabrication, possibility of rapid construction and dismantling, spectacular presence (‘rhetorical’ building-type). The Homa

Umigdal project was a concrete implementation of “when you allow the prototype to freely multiply itself: it turns into the ultimate ‘machine of invasion’.”135 At this point it is important to highlight that this exact understanding of The ‘Homa Umigdal’ becoming a ‘machine of invasion’ explains how architecture, in similar contexts, could be employed as an “instrument rather than only a place.”136 In this case, ‘Homa Umigdal’ became an instrument of occupation.

Furthermore, for architecture to be a vital instrument of occupation, it requires a carefully chosen site. Location has proved to be one of the most important aspects of politicized

132 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 43.

133 Ibid.

134 Ibid., 46.

135 Ibid., 47.

136 Ibid., 48.

55 architecture, “the ‘point’ on map is much more important than the settlement’ itself.”137 In the case of ‘Homa Umigdal’, Rotbard explains: “As a strategy, Homa Umigdal realized the impulse for expansion through territorial conquests by establishing new ‘settlement points.’ “The

‘location’ of the settlements a part of a greater strategic plan was of greater importance than its actual existence…every outposts had eye contact with another, enabling the towers to transmit messages...”138 Moreover, to prevent the dismantling of the Kibbutz, the settlement point on the map must be within a strategic network of points (in connection with each other and with the surroundings), “but on the ground it is first and foremost an observation point.”139

In addition to location, configuration is the other aspect of instrumentalized architecture for control and occupation. According to Rotbard, “as time went by and new settlements were founded using more sophisticated means, the two essential functions of ‘Homa Umigdal’ – fortification and observation – held fast and repeated themselves on every scale.”140 ‘Homa

Umigdal’ outposts stipulated that the wall was to be built first, then the observation points (the towers) and, only at the end, the houses themselves.141

137 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 48.

138 Ibid.

139 Ibid., 50.

140 Ibid.

141 Ibid., 52.

Another essential characteristic of architecture as an instrument of control and occupation to deepen social disparities and discrimination implied in this article, is being

‘autonomous’. Rotbard States: 142

“They dictated the location of the new settlements on mountain

peaks and hilltops. They molded the entire landscape as a network of

points, as an ‘autonomous’ layer spread above the existing landscape,

transforming the country by dividing it, not according to natural, territorial

divisions, but according to the speed of transportation and the lines of

infrastructure.”

The point is when architecture is autonomous, it intensifies the political dualities under either/or relationships. The Israeli autonomous layer is imposed on the existing landscape and divided the country into two layers. Thus, Rotbard states, “in the occupied territories today we find two countries superimposed one on the other; on top, ‘Judea and Samaria’, the land of the settlements and military outposts, bypass roads and tunnels; and underneath, ‘Palestine’, the land of the villages and towns, dirt roads and paths.” 143 This case, “maps out the values themselves: the observers versus the observed, a Cartesian ghetto versus a chaotic periphery, a

142 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 52.

143 Ibid., 52, 53.

57 threatened culture versus ‘desert makers’, a city versus desert, future and past versus present,

Jews versus Arabs.”144

Activated by politicized architecture (architecture of violence), these dualities (in addition to oxymorons highlighted by Rotbard “‘offense through defense’, ‘intrusive siege’, ‘the camp as a home’, introverted expansion’, ‘permanent temporality’, ‘house-arrest’),”145 were effective enough to keep the Palestine/Israel context in tension and conflicted as a battlefield for more than 7 decades.

At this point, an urgent question surfaces: If architecture is instrumentalized to serve political agendas of war and occupation, isn’t it better to be instrumentalized to serve also political agendas but those of peace and peacebuilding? Moreover, if architecture, as instrument of war, has specific characteristics (e.g., being fortified with walls and watchtowers, and autonomous), what are the characteristics of architecture as instrument of peacebuilding agendas?

While Rotbard’s article revealed one of the effective characteristics of architecture of occupation and violence being autonomous (which initiates and strengthens dualities under either/or relationship), the following article in A Civilian Occupation provides examples of autonomous architecture, by examining the client-architect relations. “To start a city from

144 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 53.

145 Ibid., 48.

58 scratch,” is an interview with Thomas Leitersdrof,146 by Eran Tamir. 147 This article, according to the editors of the book, “constitutes a first-hand account of the architect’s role as the executive arm of political decisions.”148 About the Ma’ale Edummim, Leitersdrof was asked if he looked at the existing Arab neighborhoods while taking the design decision. He answered:

“We quickly realized that the route between Jerusalem and Ma’ale

Edummim that went through Azaria and Abu-Dis was a politically unstable

connection. Once every few weeks there was a stone-throwing incident.

We realized that the only way to strengthen the connection between

Jerusalem and Ma’ale Edummim was to create an alternative route that

did not go through these neighborhoods.”149

The decision was to exclude the Arab neighborhoods from the strategic connection between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Edummim rather than exposing the problem itself that causes the stone-throwing incidents. The design decision was taken based on the politics of the

“either/or” relation as the other side (Arab neighborhoods) was excluded from the equation.

“The decision about Ma’ale Edummim‘s location,” Leitersdorf states, “was without doubt,

146 Thomas Leitersdrof is an architect and town planner (planner of the two cities built from scratch: Ma’ale Edummim and Emanuel in the West Bank).

147 Thomas M. Leitersdorf, interviewed by Eran Tamir- Tawil, “To start a city from scratch,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 151-161.

148 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 21.

149 Thomas M. Leitersdorf, interviewed by Eran Tamir- Tawil, “To start a city from scratch,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 156.

59 political.”150 Similar to Ma’ale Edummim, the design decision of Emanuel was taken. The architecture of the city Emanuel was determined by the specific needs of population, characterized by religious requirements of the Israeli side combined with limited resources and large families.151

The most important point is revealed when the architect was asked if he had applied the same design politics when designing other cities from scratch. Asked by Tamir: “you have three examples of cities you built from scratch or almost from scratch: Abidjan in the Ivory Coast,

Ma’ale Edummim and Emanuel in Israel. Are there any similarities in the design?” 152 According to Leitersdorf, in the Ivory Coast, the design decision was serving all involved sides (the French and the other European communities and tourists, in addition to the traditional African villages in the area who needed to remain there).

“In Abidjan,” stated by Leitersdorf, “when commercial center sits

next to an existing village, it does not touch it. This allows for necessary

accessibility and provide the village with the possibility of growing and

developing, while retaining the existing separation. People like to meet out

of choice, not because someone forces them to. This is the principle we

150 Thomas M. Leitersdorf, interviewed by Eran Tamir- Tawil, “To start a city from scratch,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 153.

151 Ibid.

152Ibid., 159-160.

applied. In Abidjan there are two communities that need to cohabit,

whereas in Emanuel there is a distinctively homogeneous community.”153

So, in Abidjan the two communities that exist on the site were involved and included in the process of designing the new city, and the design decision is taken based on the need to cohabit both communities together. Whereas, in Palestine/Israel context, both the two new cities

Ma’ale Edummim and Emanuel situated in the West Bank, were designed exclusively to serve only the Israeli side. The design decision is taken based on a political agenda that excludes the presence of the Palestinian neighborhoods from the site.

Finally, in “In the Light of the Morning After” Meron Benvenisti,154 concludes this book, A

Civilian Occupation, stating that bordering on racism is the source of aggressive incursion into the homogeneous Palestinian fabric.155 Imposing building on the site of a destroyed culture does not end with the past being disappeared. Rather, the new built states will remain in tension fearing the claims of the uprooted cultures for return.

“Relics of the waning past refuse to disappear. Wherever you may look,

you can come across a signposts of lost civilization in the remains of which

lives another, different people that adjusted the remains to their own

153 Thomas M. Leitersdorf, interviewed by Eran Tamir- Tawil, “To start a city from scratch,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 159-160.

154 Meron Benvenisti is a distinguished writer and columnist, former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem and expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

155 Meron Benvenisti, “In the Light of the Morning After,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 184-188.

needs and tastes. In the process, signs of the past are ignored and the

unique cultural characteristics of the uprooted are willfully demolished as

the fears grow that these may later serve claims for return.” 156

The main idea is that “the civilian occupation relies on the presence of civilian architecture to demonstrate a Jewish presence across the landscape.”157 “Architecture replaces human presence,” and “the effect of domination is achieved by the mere presence of these buildings.”158

The settlement is a backdrop of activities; it is a site of violence, domination and fear. 159

The map of the West Bank, researched and charted by Eyal Weizman for B’Tselem, shows how the distribution of settlements across the landscape managed to generate a complete fragmentation of the terrain. The map marks precisely, and for the first time, the location, size and form of settlements and the enormous disparity between the area they cover, the boundaries of their jurisdiction, and the areas intended for their future growth. The settlements, were strategically placed, and managed to generate complete territorial control. Through their forms and locations, planning and architecture of the settlements in the West Bank are used as territorial weapons; they are effectively executing a political agenda through spatial manipulations. Settlement are manipulated for the bisection of a Palestinian traffic artery (e.g.

156 Meron Benvenisti, “In the Light of the Morning After,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 185.

157 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 22.

158 Ibid., 22-23.

159 Ibid.

62 to surround a village, subvert a major city or strategic crossroad). In the very act of design, the architect engaged in the reversal of his professional practice.160

“Planning and architecture must still be carried out to the benefit of the society.

That is if architect draws a particular angle, line or arc, or makes any other design

decision that is explicitly and practically aimed at disturbance, suppression,

aggression or racism, and when these stand, clearly and brutally, in breach of basic

human rights, a crime has been committed….. Building matter, just like the tank,

the gun and the bulldozer, is a weapon with which human rights are violated and

crimes are being committed.”161

2.8. URBAN PARTITIONS: SOURCES OF NEW CYCLES OF VIOLENCE

Divided Cities, is a comparative analysis between five divided cities (Belfast, Beirut,

Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia) in which Jon Calame162 and Esther Charlesworth163 explore the logic of violent urban partition within conflicted contexts.164 Defensive walls in divided cities are

160 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 24, 25.

161 Ibid.

162 Jon Calame is the interim Dean of Maine College of Art and partner and operations officer for Minerva Partners in New York. He holds a B.A. in Art History from Yale and an M.S. in Historic Preservation from Columbia.

163 Esther Charlesworth is the Founding Director of Architects without Frontiers ‘Australia’, a design non-profit organization committed to working with communities in need. She is Associate Professor in Architecture and Design at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

164 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).

63 a response to chronic social ills and a source of new cycles of violence.165 This book identifies patterns of urban partitions and assesses the effectiveness of their response. The recent history of urban partitions supports the suggestion that walls built between ethnic groups can result in short-term improvement in social stability. Nevertheless, ethnic partition is critiqued as a weak strategy in the face of conflict, unrest, and institutional discrimination. “Partitions are sometimes embraced by rival communities and urban managers as practical alternative to chronic violence.

In none of the five cities examined here was a respite from hardship and insecurity fully realized.”166

In the case of “Belfast,” the losses have been associated with inter-ethnic violence between Catholics and Protestants during the years 1969-1998.167 The antagonism between them was for being involved in a two–sided conflict of Republicans v. Loyalists, Nationalists v.

Unionists. As a result of the increasing local violence, each side of the conflict grouped together forming enclaves of ethnic communities, of either Catholics or Protestants, within the city.

Subsequently, the interfaces between the two communities became so sensitive that they became the fields of chronic episodes of sectarian violence as they were the areas occupied by the two rival communities. In the aim of controlling and halting the violence in these sensitive interfaces, physical partitions were constructed separating the two opposing sides of the conflict.

165 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 162.

166 Ibid., 165.

167 Ibid., 61-82.

These physical partitions were known as ‘peacelines,’ [Figure 2.08]. 168 The first ‘peacelines’ were constructed spontaneously in the conflict zones in northwest Belfast. Many were subsequently constructed as sectarian violence migrated away from these places and erupted at other sensitive interfaces. The irony is that what was known as ‘peacelines’ have become informal battlegrounds. These ‘peacelines’ physically divided the city into ethnic enclaves. The more the city was divided (by ‘peacelines’) into homogenized enclaves of either Catholics or Protestants communities, the more new sensitive interfaces had emerged increasing the fields of chronic episodes of local violence. According to Calame and Charlesworth,

The partitions, affirm the prejudice and paranoia that made them

appear to be necessary in the first place. Interfaces, and the partitions

defining them, are not just expressions of conflict. In advanced stages, the

conflict is incubated by these fortified enclaves, and its message confirmed

in them…. Walls that decrease localized violence can simultaneously

provide fertile conditions for the roots of the conflict to spread.169

168 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 61-63.

169 Ibid., 78.

Figure 2.08: A so-called "Peace Line" in Belfast, separating a Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods from each other. The peace line along Cupar Way in Belfast, seen from the predominantly Protestant side. [Source: Public Domain].

Another important point in the discourse of architecture and war is highlighted through scrutinizing the case of Belfast. Throughout the year since the trouble began in the late 1960s, a measurable increase in deaths related to sectarian violence was seen to have taken place in later summer (particularly associated with Protestant Orange Order marches every summer on 12 July: the Glorious Twelfth or Orangemen's Day). This pattern is linked to the marching schedule of

Protestant fraternal organizations such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Independent Orange

Order, and Loyal Orange Institution. These marches are part of the Irish Protestant culture

66 heritage, with no equivalent among Catholics.170 The Glorious Twelfth or Orangemen's Day celebrates the Glorious Revolution (1688) and victory of Protestant king William of Orange over

Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne (1690), which began the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland.

Approximately twenty traditional marching dates are observed

annually in Belfast by one or more of these groups, many in July and August

to commemorate key historic events such as the Battle of the Boyne, the

fall of Irish protestant soldiers at the battle of the Somme, and the Relief

of Derry. Because these commemorations so often bring strong emotions

and painful memories to the foreground of community consciousness,

they have routinely provoked sectarian strife in Northern Ireland and

Belfast in particular.171

Calame and Charlesworth consider these commemorations as an ‘act of intimidation’ which accelerate the homogenization of the city’s ethnic enclaves. These commemorations also multiply and strengthen the interfaces between rival communities.172 That means commemorations (practiced by either sides of the conflicts) have intentions and potentials far beyond the practice itself, particularly when there is no equivalent practice among the other side of the conflict. On one hand, such commemorations have their own symbolisms that are very

170 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 61.

171 Ibid., 63.

172 Ibid., 76.

67 well perceived by the two sides of the conflict. However, it reveals the power and the control practiced by one side on the other. It is a covered act of oppression and intimidation with potentials high enough to intensify the level of tension within conflicted contexts and routinely provoke sectarian strife. This explains the reasons behind the rising rates of violence associated with the Orange Order marches in Belfast during the war of 1969-1998. On the other hand, this discussion proves the relationships between violence and memories. Not only ‘the Destruction of Memories’ provoke more violence in conflicted zones, but also the act of reviving memories

(commemorations with curtain symbolisms and no equivalent practice among the other side of the conflict) has the capacity to wage war and violence.

The other divided city discussed by Calame and Charlesworth is “Mostar”.173 Examining the case of Mostar in Divided Cities, highlights two important points in the discourse of architecture and war. The first: the partition is not only a physical act of separation (such as concrete walls, barbed wires, checkpoints, highways, etc.); partitions could also be mentally drawn. When open spaces (such as a boulevard) turn into mentally drawn partitions, then the separation has been rooted deeper than only being represented with walls or barbed wires. In

Mostar the antagonist parties were Croatians v. Bosniaks, Catholic Christians v. Muslims.

Whereas East Mostar was predominated by Bosniak and Muslim, West Mostar, was predominated by Croatian and Catholic. The partition was a ‘Boulevard’. The Boulevard, during the Bosnian War, became a battle site because one side of the street was occupied by the Croats and the other by Bosniak Muslims. The severe hostilities were continuous and when someone

173 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 104-120.

68 was killed on the Boulevard, the body would sometimes remain there for months; it was too dangerous to try and retrieve the body for burial. The partition line continued from north to south through the years 1992-1995 in parallel to the Neretva River as it passed through the dense sections of the city. Mostar has been unified since the creation of the Federation of Bosnia-

Herzegovina on 18 March 1994. After that time, partition line fortifications and checkpoints were dismantled, but willingness to cross over the former boundary which used to separate hostile forces in the city was very slow to evolve.174 In such cases, removing the physical walls does not mean the end of the war as there are deeper partitions to be removed in order to settle the conflict. Constructing or removing the physical partitions addresses the symptoms, but not the problem. As mentioned by Calame and Charlesworth, “If my windows are being broken every night, putting a twenty foot fence in front of my windows can stop them from being broken. It does not do anything to address what it is that makes that person want to beak my windows.”175

The second point is a new triple relationship between war, destruction of memories, and the sense of belonging (the destruction of memory during war eliminates the sense of belonging).

The case of Mostar is an example of this point. During the war, Muslims were forced by the

Croatian soldiers to leave their houses; they had been collected all together without their belongings and taken to the front line and ejected there.176 The process of expulsion, according to Calame and Charlesworth, appeared to have been well planned in advance, yet it was not the

174 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 104-105.

175 Ibid., 144.

176 Ibid., 105.

69 worst. Events such as the ‘Siege of Sarajevo’ and the ‘Srebrenica massacre’ committed against

Muslim Bosniaks later became iconic of the conflict. Thus, Mostar, as a divided city, became an example of uprooting real and perceived groups of people who were a primary force in shaping the structure of the city.177 The long-term consequences of such aggressive ethnic cleansing, thus, transgress into deeper levels than only the physical representations of partitions. By 1996, upon the return to Mostar, the city was physically and socially shattered; “the physical ruins of the city affected Mostar’s residents in a mostly subconscious way…. It has been difficult to retain a positive and hopeful outlook due to the sluggishness of the city’s recovery. ” 178 A person would find few friends and relatives remained or returned, perhaps 20%of the original residents could be found there by 1996. Tens of thousands of Bosnian refugees from the country-side had moved to Mostar, though they had never lived in the city before. 179 Since the second phase of the war, there are more Mostarians all over the world than there are in Mostar; they don’t belong to the existing city, the city became a memory. People, in such cases lose their sense of belonging to the city, they rather belong to their past memories.180

177 Jon Calame and Esther Charlesworth, Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 143.

178 Ibid., 107.

179 Ibid.

180 Ibid.

2.9. THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS

In this chapter, architecture in contexts of wars and conflicts has been approached from different perspectives with a time span that covers more than six decades of wars and conflicts in different places. By examining the discourse of architecture and war, it was possible to reveal some important aspects related to the discourse of ‘Architecture and Peace.’ The following are most important themes and implications:

1- Conflicts are not over when the shooting stops; they are fought with other means. The

end of the war is only an ostensible peace. Tension defines the post-war/conflicts

contexts. How can post-war context be defined if it is not a state of peace? What is the

role of architecture in post-war contexts (the state of no war-no peace)?

2- Within conflicts, war, and post-war contexts, architecture is proved to be systematically

targeted, mentalized, instrumentalized and employed to serve specific strategic and

political agendas. In such contexts, architecture is not just a consequence or a victim of

collateral damage, nor is it only a reflection of its context. Analyzing the discourse of

architecture and war revealed the fact that architecture is often employed as an

influential force to promote more violence during conflicts and warfare. In many cases

architecture was the means through which the political agendas have been implemented.

Architecture is used as a weapon (instrument of war) through which it is possible to turn

tensioned contexts into battlegrounds. Architecture is presented as a political issue, and

furthermore as the material product of politics itself. Such architecture is defined as

architecture of violence. One of the examples is the Israeli settlements that damaged

Arab-Jewish relations as they deepened social disparities and discrimination against

Palestinians.

If architecture proved to be systematically instrumentalized to serve political

agendas of wars, occupation, destruction of memory, and cultural cleansing, couldn’t it

be also instrumentalized to serve strategic and political agendas of peace? If architecture

is systematically destroyed during warfare, then its reconstruction in post-war contexts

should not be conducted randomly. Architecture, when employed for peacebuilding,

must be systematically reconstructed in post-war context; the question is: How?

Moreover, is there a clear agenda for post-war architectural reconstruction for peace? If

architecture can be an instrument of ‘violence’, then it definitely could be employed for

peacebuilding. The question is: How? And, on what basis?

3- In conflicts, war, and post-war contexts, architecture is employed as an ‘act of separation’

which can take any physical representation such as partitions, buffer zones, concrete

walls, barbed wires, blocked roads, highways, or even housing settlements like the

“1967’s The Living Wall Around the City”. However, architecture as an ‘act of separation’

is found to be employed to serve two different strategies. Whereas the first strategy is

with the aim of ending direct violence, the second strategy is to practice control and serve

violence-breeding agendas.

In the first strategy, architecture as an ‘act of separation’ can temporarily halt

chronic violence and results in short-term improvement in social stability. However, in

the long-term, architecture as an ‘act of separation’ is critiqued as a weak strategy in the

72 face of rising conflict, unrest, and violence; in none of the examined cases it was a respite from hardship. Rather, in the long-term, architecture as an ‘act of separation’ becomes a source for violence breeding as it causes nothing but the proliferation of violence. One of the examples of this case is the ‘peacelines’ of Belfast which, in the long-term, became informal battlegrounds. These ‘peacelines’ physically divided the city into ethnic enclaves.

The more the city was divided (by ‘peacelines’) into homogenized enclaves of either

Catholics or Protestants communities, the more new sensitive interfaces had emerged increasing the fields of chronic episodes of local violence. Walls that are employed to decrease local violence can simultaneously provide fertile conditions for the roots of the conflict to spread. The question at this point is whether it is possible to define this architecture as architecture for peace, and, why? How can this architecture be defined?

How can architecture that is employed to halt chronic violence, become a source of violence itself?

In the second strategy, architecture is particularly instrumentalized as an ‘act of separation’ to serve specific political agendas of violence and occupation. In this case, architecture as an ‘act of separation’ is defined as ‘architecture of violence’. One of the examples is the architecture of the Israeli settlements. In its structural level, this architecture is used as a way to maintain separation, to disunite people, and to exercise control. However, if violence is enacted through the architecture of violence, is it possible for peace to be also enacted through architecture for/of peace?

4- The architecture of violence as an ‘act of separation’ is not only a physical representation;

it could also be mentally drawn. Following the end of the war, even when the physical

lines of division (architecture as an act of separation) within a city are dismantled, often

a psychological division remains. When open spaces turn into mentally drawn partitions,

then the separation has been rooted deeper than only being represented with walls or

barbed wires. In such cases, removing the physical partitions does not mean peace is

returned, because deeper mental and psychological partitions are yet to be removed in

order to settle the conflict down. One of the examples is the Boulevard of Mostar. If

architecture has a crucial role in maintaining separation, both physically and mentally,

then the counter question is whether architecture can play a role in re-integrating a city,

physically and mentally? And, How?

5- The ‘site’ of the ‘architecture of violence’ is one of its vital aspects. In order for

architecture to be instrumentalized to serve a specific political agenda, its site must be

carefully chosen. Based on the examined case studies, the strategic point on map is much

more important than the architecture itself. For example, ‘FAST’ and ‘BAD’ architects have

mapped most of the army bases in Kosovo. These maps show how they are all located on

strategic points, such as crossroads, next to large water reserves, and where

infrastructures, net-works and natural resources are coming together. The strategic

placement of the Israeli settlements is also another example of this point. If the

architecture of war and violence requires to be strategically located, can this strategy also

be adopted for generating peace?

6- The examined literature revealed that there are specific characteristics (physical

appearance) of architecture of violence such as being militarized, external, autonomous,

and exclusive.

Militarized architecture manifests in different forms such as buffer zones,

concrete walls, watching towers, double gates and walls topped with razor wires. One of

the examples is the fortified aid compounds which disempowered the process of post-

war reconstruction and peacebuilding in Sudan following the Second Sudanese Civil War.

The wall and tower are also one of the characteristics of the Israeli architecture in the

West Bank and other Palestinian cities.

The architecture of violence is ‘external’, ‘autonomous’, and ‘imposed’ in the

context (such as the Israeli settlements which are imposed on the West Bank with

completely different characteristics than that of the local architecture of the existing

Palestinian cities).

The other essential characteristics of architecture of violence is being exclusive.

The design decision is determined by including and considering specific needs,

requirement, and politics of only one side of the conflict. The other side is excluded. For

example, Ma’ale Edummim is an Israeli city built from scratch; its design decisions

completely excluded the requirements of the existing Arab neighborhoods.

The appearance of the architecture, thus, has its own communicative power

through which it is capable of empowering or disempowering the process of

peacebuilding within conflicted contexts. At this point, the following question surfaces:

What are the characteristics of architecture that empowers the process of peacebuilding?

In other words, if architecture of violence and war has its own characteristics, what are

the characteristics of architecture for peace?

7- The mentality of the ‘architecture of violence’ is based on the ‘either/or’ system of

relationships. The presence of such architecture is to exercise control, and to exclude,

oppress and discriminate the other side involved in the conflict.

8- The mentality of the ‘architecture of violence’ activates ‘hierarchical systems’ within

highly tensioned contexts. ‘Hierarchical systems’ dissolve and eliminate the complexity of

the cities.

Complexity, based on the examined literature, is one of the key characteristics of long-

term stable cites (old cities). These cities are made up of ‘complex layers’ of buildings and

open spaces, of uses and reuses, woven over centuries and generations into a living tissue

of meanings. In long-term stable cites ‘hierarchies’ are absorbed by the complexity of the

cities. When violence and wars destroy the complexity of the city (e.g. by genocide and

ethnic cleansing) hierarchies grow stronger. Wars and violence level the old cities in much

more than physical sense. The mentality of violence reduces the multilayered complexity

of meanings to one-layered tableaux embodying the mono-logical based on ‘hierarchical

systems’ (the all or nothing polarity imposed by radical ideology). In such cases, the

question of ‘who is on top of that system?’ and ‘which layer is to take control and

dominate?’ are more than enough to breed violence. Thus, rebuilding complexity is vital

in rebuilding peace in post-war contexts. So, how can architecture be employed to forsake

hierarchy and contribute to rebuilding the complexity of the city in conflict and post-war

contexts?

9- There are objective and subjective hierarchies. In complex and long-term stable cites,

objective hierarchies could be the valued system because the society has defined its set

of principles and institutional authorities. Objective hierarchies, in such contexts, could

be embodied by monumental architecture. In conflicted contexts, the society is

continuously shifting power dynamics, thus it can no longer define its objective principles.

In such contexts, architecture should forsake the monumental because there are no

defined objective principles to be monumentalized.

Regarding subjective knowledge, in both stable and conflicted contexts, it should only be

relevant within personal spheres (private work, work of art).

10- ‘Warchitecture’ is a systematic agenda-based process of targeting particular groups of

human beings through targeting their architecture. In ‘warchitecture’ the destruction of

architecture could not be defined anymore as ether ‘marginal military necessity’ or

‘collateral damage.’ The violence in ‘warchitecture’ is aimed precisely at architecture, and

it is systematized and potentially crucial aspect of warfare.

However, in ‘warchitecture’, architecture is not randomly targeted. The target of

‘warchitecture’ is particularly the architecture that typically narrated as heritage, the

architecture that has special symbolisms, and the architecture that represents nation’s

culture and moral values. Architecture in this process is not anymore merely a building,

it is a symbol of the presence of a community marked for erasure.

This point opens the discussion of using architecture with special symbolisms that

represent a nation’s history, culture, and morals as a valid strategy of architecture for

peace. Moreover, from this point, a new trajectory for further research is revealed; to

investigate and examine the idea of preserving architectural heritage for peace in post-

war contexts. In addition, reviving the architectural heritage in contemporary architecture

is also a vital strategy that needs further investigations.

Moreover, this concept of ‘warchitecture’ reveals the relationship between war,

human beings, and architecture. The question is whether it possible to replace ‘war’ with

‘peace’ and create a new relationship between peace, human beings, and architecture.

What are the key dynamics of the new relationship? Moreover, if architecture is

systematically destroyed during warfare, could it also be systematically reconstructed as

a part of strategic agendas of peacebuilding during post-war/conflict contexts? How? If

architecture is instrumentalized for assassination, mass murder, ethnic cleansing,

genocide, and conquest, could it be instrumentalized for peace? How?

11- Involved in the discourse of ‘architecture and war’ is the discussion of memory,

particularly the collective memory of a specific group of people or culture. In

‘warchitecture,’ the ‘destruction of memory’ and ‘commemoration’ are the strategies for

which architecture was employed.

In ‘warchitecture’, the destruction of architecture, that is the evidence of a community’s

historic presence and the emblem of its right to a continued existence (monuments and

heritage), is a deliberate act of completely destroying that culture’s memory and

ultimately, its existence. Beyond monuments and heritage it is the memory and the

cultural identity that is being destroyed.

In addition to the destruction of memory, the commemoration or memorialization also is vital in provoking violence. In this case, commemoration brings strong negative emotions and painful memories to the foreground of community consciousness. Such commemorations accelerate the polarization and the homogenization of the city’s ethnic enclaves, and multiply and strengthen the interfaces between rival communities. In conflict contexts, commemorations (particularly which are practiced by one side of the conflict with no equivalent on the other side) strengthen the ‘either/or’ system of relationships. Such commemorations are considered as an ‘act of intimidation’ with politics and potentials extend far beyond the practice itself; they have their own symbolism that is very well perceived by the two sides of the conflict (it reveals the power and the control practiced by one side on the other). One of the examples is the rising rates of deaths and violence between Protestant and Catholics associated with the Orange

Parades in Belfast during the war of 1969-1998. The event was a commemoration of the victory of one side of the conflict over the other in one of the historic events (the victory of Protestant King William of Orange over Catholic King James II at the Battle of the

Boyne).

The ‘past’, from this perspective, stands as womb of memories; its collective cultural and historical memories, monuments, symbolisms, events and forms, etc. can be considered as sources of architectural forms in the present time.

12- During warfare, architecture acquires its communicative power either from the aggressor

or from the victim. When architecture is employed by the aggressor, the result is the case

of ‘warchitecture.’ But, when architecture becomes medium, a form of communication

used by the victim, the results manifest in different forms, the most important and

meaningful is graffiti. The voice of the victims, and the people who involved in a conflict

can be heard through their graffiti. In some contexts, like Baghdad, the message is

conveyed through graffiti. Can architecture employ the messages conveyed through

these graffiti for building peace?

CHAPTER THREE ARCHITECTURE AND PEACE

3.1. THE DISCOURSE OF ARCHITECTURE AND PEACE In the previous chapter (the discourse of architecture and war) it was possible to identify several starting points for investigating the role of architecture for peace. In contexts of wars and conflicts, architects and scholars raised the possibility for architecture to have a positive role in the collaborative work of rebuilding a sustainable peace. If architecture is instrumentalized to serve political agendas of war and violence as ‘architecture of violence,’ then instrumentalizing architecture for peacebuilding agendas is also possible. The question is: what is architecture for/of peace? how architecture can be instrumentalized for peacebuilding? If there are specific characteristics through which architecture operates to intensify violence, what are the characteristics of architecture that operates as an active platform for peacebuilding? In order to provide possible answers for these questions, in this chapter, the existing discourse of

‘architecture and peace’ is explored and carefully examined, the knowledge gap is revealed, and the research’s scope is narrowed down to its specific boundaries.

3.2. ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE IN POST-CONFLICT CONTEXTS

Architecture of Peace (Volume 26), published in 2010, in an attempt to contribute to peace by advocating architects to take a step forward to intervene in conflict areas.181 The following

181 Arjen Oosterman, Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, Volume #26: Architecture of Peace (Stichting Archis, December 17, 2010). See Architecture of Peace at Archis.org http://archis.org/publications/volume-26- architecture-of-peace/ ; See Architecture of Peace at http://architectureofpeace.org/ .

81 propositions implied in the articles are found to be the most related to the discourse of architecture and peace.

Architecture of peace is proposed by Gerd Junne,182 as a ‘binding project’ in post-conflict contexts.183 In “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?” Gerd Junne, interviewed by

Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman, discussed the post – conflict situations from political view.184

The discussion addressed the challenges of cooperation between multiple parties wishing to contribute to reconstruction after violent conflict, particularly the role played by architecture and the discipline of design during post-conflict reconstruction. Based on his experience in Beirut,

Afghanistan, Sudan, East Timor, Bosnia, Jordan, and Palestine-Israel, Junne asserts that in general, when shooting stops, architecture should have a vital role in the transition from

‘negative peace’ to reconstruction and ‘positive peace’. According to Junne, in order to avoid generating conflicts during post-conflict reconstruction, it is better to integrate existing systems in new structures.185 For architecture not to be of conflict, it should focus on “a common interest: marketplaces, community centers, and others.”186 People in such critical contexts need a vision, a binding factor, Junne states “architecture of peace can be a binding projects.”187 However, it

182 Gerd Junne is a Professor of International Relations at the Department of Political Sciences, University of Amsterdam.

183 Gred Junne, interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman, “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?,” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace. #4. (Stichting Archis, 2010): 18.

184 Ibid., 16-19.

185 Ibid., 17.

186 Ibid., 18.

187 Ibid.

82 must be built in the right place, with the right people, and with the right symbols, otherwise they create ‘architecture of conflict’.188 Finally, an important point to the discourse of ‘Architecture of

Peace’ is implied in this interview, particularly when Junne questions how architects can improve the feeling of security. “It is more than just erecting buildings with a less threatening appearance.”189 The appearance of architecture can improve the feeling of security which is a point that confirms what is implied in Mark Duffield’s proposition in “Better Safe than Sorry:

Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society,”190 that the militarized appearance of the fortified aid compounds in Sudan has disempowered the process of peacebuilding.

Converges with the idea of architecture of peace as a binding projects, are the facts revealed by Nik Dimopoulos and Timothy Moore, in “Wars of the world.”191 They maintain that as we move further from mid-twentieth century (the Second World War), “there has been a distinct shift from wars across borders to intra-state violence. Accompanying this shift, there is also a move from wars about ideology to ones of identity (ethnicity).”192 Unlike wars across borders which requires more diplomatic top-bottom efforts of ‘peacemaking’ missions, intra- state violence requires more ‘peacebuilding’ and bottom-top reconciliation efforts as the

188 Gred Junne, interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman, “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?,” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace. #4. (Stichting Archis, 2010): 18.

189 Ibid.

190 Mark Duffield, “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post- Interventionary Society,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. #4 (2010): 56-65.

191 Nik Dimopoulos and Timothy Moore, “Wars of the world,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4 (2010): 20- 21.

192 Ibid.

83 confronted groups belong to the same context. Architecture as a ‘binding project’ in contexts of intra-state violence becomes vital to peacebuilding efforts; it brings confronted groups together in contexts where in any ‘act of separation’ should be eliminated.

The change in the nature of the conflict from interstate into intra-state, and the role of architects in post-war recovery is further discussed by Sultan Barakat,193 in “Provide and Enable:

The Role of Architects in Post-War Recovery.”194 Barakat asserts that the central and proactive role of a generation of conflict–sensitive architect who are capable of navigating and transforming complex post-war contexts towards recovery and peacebuilding is absolutely necessary.195 According to Barakat:

Changes in the nature of war from interstate rivalries to internal

instability and civil conflicts have radically altered our perception of

reconstruction and the role of architects in post-war recovery processes…..

In the new context of state fragility and internal conflict, the architect must

adopt new approaches that are small-scale, bottom-up, and community-

driven. 196

193 Professor Sultan Barakat is the Founding Director of the Post-war Reconstruction and Development Unit (PRDU), University of York.

194 Sultan Barakat, “Provide and Enable: The Role of Architects in Post-War Recovery,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 22-23.

195 Ibid.

196 Ibid.

Another important point highlighted by Barakat, is the importance of the reaffirmation of identity at community levels in pot-war reconstruction. Contemporary reconstruction interventions frequently ignore the demands for identity, for empowering communities in the process of reconstruction. According to Barakat, experience over the past 50 years has shown the need for long-term prospects for peace and peacebuilding; in order to move from relief to recovery, post-war reconstruction must incorporate long-term process of greater protection for cultural heritage, and foster inclusive identities.197

Other key points are raised in an interview by Arjen Oosterman and Timothy Moore with

Malkit Shoshan,198 in “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result.”199 Shoshan talks about her project ‘Atlas of the Conflict’ which mapped the former war zones between Palestine and Israel and unveiled the details of the emergence of Israel and disappearance of Palestine over the past century. In this interview, Shoshan confirms that designers can intervene in order to create a peaceful situation, and architecture can become an instrument for intervention. She confirms that architects can undertake and reclaim the instruments that create spaces in which society exists, and bring it back to basic human values. The Golden Heart Pavilion, a public space in Ein

Hawd is an example brought into the discussion by Shoshan, offering important

197 Sultan Barakat, “Provide and Enable: The Role of Architects in Post-War Recovery,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 22-23.

198 Malkit Shoshan is a Lecturer at Harvard University Graduate School of Design, and the founder of the Amsterdam-based architectural think tank FAST: Foundation for Achieving Seamless Territory.

199 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 32- 41.

85 recommendations.200 This project, designed by Malkit Shoshan and FAST,201 is the first community structure for Ein Hawd and was constructed in July 2008 [Figure 3.01].202 It can be perceived as a re-figuration of the traditional public covered spaces which is locally known as

‘Diwan’ where local ceremonies such as weddings, funerals, parties, and festivals were used to be held. In “Palestine/Israel Ein Hawd: One Land Two Systems,” the history of the land is provided

[Figure 3.02]:203

Ein Hawd was an old Palestinian village on Mount Carmel. During

the War of Independence in 1948, the Israeli army occupied the village,

and the 900 villagers became refugees overnight. One group fled to nearby

family land on the mountain and began building a new village, called Ein

Hud after the old one. In the early 1950s, the picturesque old village

became inhabited by Jewish artists who called it Ein Hod. It became a

flourishing tourist destination whilst the Palestinian Ein Hud stayed

unrecognized and illegal without proper infrastructure. In 2004 it was

200 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 36.

201 The Foundation for Achieving Seamless Territory, FAST, is initiated by Malkit Shoshan with Michiel Schwarz, Willem Velthoven and Alwine van Heemstra to address the role of architecture in times of conflict. The first project, One Land Two Systems, focused on Ein Hawd. After One land Two Systems many projects, publications and exhibitions have followed. http://seamlessterritory.org/ .

202 FAST, Palestine/Israel Ein Hawd, One Land Two Systems, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of- peace/case-studies/ein-hawd-one-land-two-systems-palestineisrael/; Architecture of Peace Case Studies at http://architectureofpeace.org/casestudies/

203 Ibid.

finally recognized but with a master plan that restricted the area and the

Palestinian identity.

Before 1948, Ein Hawd’s villagers used to build these structures out of stone arches and covered with textile.204 Currently, this village of internal Palestinian refugees lacks any public spaces because such constructions are illegal; the Israeli government uses aerial photographs to trace illegal constructions. To intriguing the eyes of the authorities, the new proposed public covered space is designed as a heart shape, flexible and easy structure, could be inflated in five minutes, removed and stored quickly. According to FAST, the Golden Heart Pavilion is charged with cultural references: Temple Mount (the golden dome on top of the hill). 205 It also has another important function: plantation, “the golden heart is surrounded by a blossoming garden.

Moving or removing the Golden Heart Pavilion will leave a beautiful garden behind.”206 The garden is permanent to support and legitimize the function of the site as a green landscape.

The first point that should be gleaned out of examining this experience is to understand and master the relationships between architecture, planning, and the history of the land which is what ‘Atlas of the Conflict’ offers. This is recommended because “what we build comes on top or instead of something else. Emptiness is never a natural condition of working.” 207 Ein Hawd, for example, is a tiny dot on the map: a village of internal Palestinian refugees which witnessed

204 The Foundation for Achieving Seamless Territory (FAST), see http://seamlessterritory.org/the-golden-heart- pavilion-first-community-building-for-ein-hawd/

205 Ibid.

206 Ibid.

207 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 32.

87 many stories about Israel and Palestine conflict. It was like a complete mirror of everything that had happened within the country during the last hundred years. All the layers of conflict were wide open and visible at this point on map.208 The second point is to carefully charge the shape with cultural references to strengthen its belonging status. The third point is, in order to create a peaceful situation there has to be a real need for the project - a point on which Shoshan confirms

Gerd Junne’s propositions. This point enables architects to use architecture not just as an object but rather as an instrument for intervention, for changing a status quo.209 The lack of public spaces in the Ein Hawd village gives more importance to build the project and to be welcomed and absorbed in its context despite being a temporary construction. The fourth recommendation is to study and realize the hierarchical conditions in which architecture is operating. According to

Shoshan, “architecture does not happen by itself; it has a legislative, social, economic, political and ideological context in which it need to become a part.”210 This point strongly contributed to the final shape and structure of the project (being flexible, can be removed and reconstructed when needed within minutes. The last point is the site of the project (the location), the point in time and space must be chosen carefully.211 The location of this project was chosen carefully to embrace the new shape without being clearly visible to the aerial photographs. More example on this point, in Kosovo ‘FAST’ and ‘BAD’ architects have mapped most of the army bases in

Kosovo. These maps show how they are all located on strategic points, such as crossroads, next

208 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 33.

209 Ibid., 36.

210 Ibid., 33.

211 Ibid., 36.

88 to large water reserves, and where infrastructures net-works and natural resources are coming together. 212 If the army bases require strategic points, isn’t it better for Architecture for/of Peace to occupy these spaces for better causes?

Location, the relationships between architecture, planning and the history of the land, employing cultural references to strengthen architecture’s belonging status, and a real need for the project are among the most important points in this proposition. However, carefully examining and comparing The Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd with the next example, the

Korean World Peace Park in DMZ, opens the door to question whether this project (The Golden

Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd) could be considered as architecture of peace, and why? Does it help solve the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis? Or it only temporarily halt the tension? And why? Is the Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd a more valid comparison to the World Peace Park to be placed in the DMZ? Why?

212 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result,” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4. (2010): 36.

Figure 3.01: The Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd, Palestine, designed by Malkit Shoshan and FAST, is the first community structure for Ein Hawd and was constructed in July 2008. [Source: Foundation for Achieving Seamless Territory FAST at http://seamlessterritory.org/the-golden-heart- pavilion-first-community-building-for-ein-hawd/ , and Architecture of Peace Case Studies, In Volume: http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/ein-hawd-one-land-two-systems- palestineisrael/]

Figure 3.02: Ein Hawd in Palestine. [Source: Architecture of Peace Case Studies, in Volume: http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/ein-hawd-one-land-two-systems- palestineisrael/]

3.3. NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE PEACE? THE WORLD PEACE PARK IN THE DMZ

In 2014, four years following Volume 26 of 2010 (Architecture of Peace), Architecture of

Peace Reloaded was published in Volume 40.213 The new volume was reloaded to focus on the role of architecture in the context of post-conflict reconstruction. In his Editorial to this Volume,

Arjen Oosterman confirms that Volume 26 was to highlight the subject indicating some major themes, whereas Volume 40 is “a zoom-in on what’s happening on the ground.”214 According to

Oosterman, “construction, consciously designed or not, intimately connected to the post-conflict condition.”215 He further states, “The situation is complex and so is the role of architecture.” 216

Different articles, included in Volume 40, approached architecture within post-war and conflict zones from different perspectives. Yet, the content is not very different. The article that is most relevant to this dissertation and has something to add to the discourse of ‘Architecture and Peace’ is “Towards a Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,”217 by Dongsei Kim.218 In this article, Kim introduces the Korean ‘World Peace Park’ as an example of his perspective on what it could be considered as ‘architecture of peace as a dialogical space’ [Figure 3.03].

213 Arjen Oosterman, Brendan Cormier,Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, Volume # 40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded (Stichting Archis, July, 2014). http://archis.org/publications/volume-40-architecture-of-peace- reloaded/ http://architectureofpeace.org/ http://volumeproject.org

214Arjen Osterman, “Loaded,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 2.

215Ibid.

216Ibid.

217 Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 40, 43.

218 Dongsei Kim is an architect, urban designer, and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Architecture at Columbia University

The Korean ‘World Peace Park’ is a project proposed by South Korea, personally by

President Park, to be placed in the no-man’s land, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which separates the North from South Korea. With Its 4 km-wide and 250 km-long barbed wires, watchtowers and landmines dot, the DMZ is the most heavily militarized and fortified border in the world

[Figure 3.04]. The DMZ separates North and South Korea since the Armistice agreement of 1953.219

According to Kim, “this Armistice Agreement, as the name suggests, was not intended as peace treaty but a temporary measurement to stop the three-year-old Korean War that was accumulating casualties in the millions.” 220 The objective of this agreement was, Kim quotes,

“establishing an armistice which will ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and all kinds of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.”221 At this point, Kim highlights that “the first thing the Armistice Agreement did was to spatialize the negotiated peace.” 222 The DMZ is designed as a buffer zone with specifications and features to serves the politics of the Armistice Agreement. Kim brings the ‘World Peace Park’ into the discussion and questions the political impulses of this project; whether the ‘World Peace Park’ will establish sustainable peace on the Korean Peninsula or it is as a part of “Establishing the Foundation for a

Unification Era on the Korean Peninsula.”223 Kim maintains that “there is no doubt that this is an

219Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 40.

220 Ibid.

221 Ibid.

222 Ibid.

223 Ibid.

93 inherently political act driven by multiple political agendas.” 224 In this politically charged context,

Kim asks “what is the potent role can architecture have in this context?” the answer according to

Kim is that “architectural thinking is capable of spatializing an open-ended platform for ‘dialogic’ spaces to emerge in the DMZ.” 225 One of the basis from which stems the idea of ‘architecturally constructed dialogic space’, according to Kim, is the critical interpretations of peace informed by

Johan Galtung’s idea of negative and positive peace.226 Kim discusses ‘peace types’ in order to further understand “what it means to ‘build’ or ‘construct’ peace that has direct architectural connotations in this specific political context between the two Koreas.”227 Kim clarifies that

Galtung distinguishes between two types of peace: negative and positive. Negative peace is a process of reducing, or the absence of, direct violence. Positive peace is a process of life enhancement. He also mentions that peace is not only an absence of all three types of violence— direct, structural, and cultural—but it is also about creative conflict transformation.228 On this basis, Kim states:

“We can state in simple terms that the Armistice Agreement for the

DMZ is a form of negative peace. It has been a step towards peace, one

that has been successful in ending the majority of direct violence of the

224 Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 40.

225 Ibid., 40,42.

226 Ibid.

227 Ibid.

228 Ibid.

Korean War. Consequently, under Galtung’s framework, proposing a peace

park in the DMZ can be seen as a form of positive peace that not only

attempts to eliminate all kinds of violence, but also works towards what

Galtung refers to as creative conflict transformation.”229

Based on this understanding, Kim sees that proposing the ‘World Peace Park’ in the DMZ for peace is politically charged; there might be no place for architecture. “The concept of peace

– without criticality,” states Kim, “can be easily appropriated by dominant powers.” 230 From this his perspective, architecture, through the ‘peace types’ could turn into instrument of power. He states, “peace without criticality is susceptible to becoming an imposition of the hegemonies just like architecture can be instrument of power. Who defines peace for whom and for what purpose

– consciously and unconsciously – matters.” 231 Kim also brings into the discussion and rejects the concept of resolution which is a results from building a common ground, “This resolution can be seen as a desired state of peace that is dominated by multiple hegemonies oppressing the others.” 232

From this critical interpretations of architecture based on the ‘idea’ of ‘negative and positive peace,’ and in contrast to resolution, Kim suggests to approach the Korean ‘World Peace

229 Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 42.

230 Ibid.

231 Ibid.

232 Ibid.

Park’ from another perspective, which is: the park as a dialogical space. 233 According to Kim,

“the ‘peace’ in the peace park should be critically framed as an open-ended conversation, a dialogical one that is more about producing deeper understanding of oneself and the other.

Dialogic in this case helps one to actively resist a naïve notion of peace often based on consensus that ultimately serves to collaborate the dominant hegemonic power.”234

At this point, it is possible to conclude that in this article Kim introduces new example which is important as it currently happening on the ground. He also incorporates the discipline of peace into the discussion through what he describes as ‘peace types.’ However, Kim’s propositions and critical interpretations bring several questions into the surface. The first and the most important is related to Kim’s interpretations of the ‘peace types’ (negative and positive peace) from peace studies. Does de-contextualizing these definitions from their discipline and directly appropriating them into architecture provide a solid foundation for criticism? The discipline of peace studies is neither a naïve notion, as it considered by Kim, nor is it limited to certain definitions of positive and negative peace. Before adopting any statements in architecture, it is crucial to demonstrate a clear understanding of the definition of negative and positive peace within the structure of the discipline of peace studies and theories. Only at this level of in-depth examination, it will be possible to decide whether architecture through the

‘peace types’ could turn into instrument of power and incorporate dominant hegemonies.

233 Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 42.

234Ibid.

Hence, this example opened the doors to further explore the discipline of peace studies, to demonstrate a clear understanding of the conditions and contexts within which the ‘peace types’ (negative and positive peace) operate. It is also important to investigate whether the concept of (negative and positive peace) has the potential to be appropriated into architecture for peace, or it turns architecture into instrument of power. How can architecture be seen through these definitions? Moreover, is it possible for architecture as a dialogical space to operate for peacebuilding? Or, it contradicts the concepts of peace studies? How and why?

Figure 3.03: The World Peace Park Area in the DMZ between North and South Korea. [Source: The DMZ Forum http://www.dmzforum.org/gallery/maps]

Figure 3.04: The De-militarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea; the most heavily militarized and fortified border in the world. [Source: The Korean Times, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/08/113_135526.html]

3.4. OUSH GRAB: A TRANSFORMATION OF MILITARIZED ARCHITECTURE The transformation of Oush Grab, the military base, into a public park is one of the examples of interventions for peace introduced, in Architecture after Revolution, by Eyal

Wiezman, Alessandro Petti, and Sandi Hilal.235 This project (Oush Grab) is typical of the kind of interventions deployed by DAAR. 236 Through this example, Weizman, Petti, and Hilal introduce their vision; they focus on architecture to move beyond fictions, to act for peace and not in the service of a pre-existing agendas of war and occupation.237 Oush Grab (in English, the “Crow’s

Nest”) is an Israeli military base located at the entrance of the besieged Palestinian town Beit

Sahour [Figure 3.05].238 Besides being a military base, Oush Grab, at the time of the First Intifada, was used as a prison and storage for confiscated goods from local Palestinians.239 As it is stated in DAAR, “throughout the second Intifada, the Israeli army used the base as headquarter for incursion into Bethlehem and other towns and villages; 195 homes were damaged by gunfire originated in the camp” [Figure 3.06].240 After an ongoing struggle of local and international

235 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013).

236 Eyal Wiezman, with Alessandro Petti and Sandi Hilal lead the Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, an art and architecture collective based in Beit Sahour, Palestine, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/about/. The studio, as it described in Archis Interventions, is mobilizing architecture as a tactical tool within the unfolding struggle for Palestine. It seeks to employ physical interventions to open an arena for speculation and a possible horizon for further transformations for peace. What is important in their work is that they start from what exists in the aim of mobilizing architecture politically in order to act, to subvert, reuse, profane and recycle the existing infrastructure of a colonial occupation and transform it to work not in the way they were originally designed for. Their propositions are based on the idea that if architecture has been militarized, then it definitely has the potential to serve peace achieving agenda. http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/return-to-nature-palestine/ .

237 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), p27.

238 Ibid., 7, 8.

239 Ibid., 13.

240 Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, Palestine: Return to Nature, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/ .

99 activists against the oppressive presence of the base, the military troops finally evacuated the area in April 2006. They left their militarized architecture there, the walls, barbed wires, and the watch towers of the base and the prison. This exact moment of evacuation signed the start of the process of the structural transformation of the military base.

The morning after evacuation, the moment of commotion has begun. The base was overrun with local Palestinian people from around Bethlehem who, for the first time, occupied the place. The experience of occupying the watchtower, which has long been used by Israeli soldiers, is a means of sharing the perspective of the oppressor. Wiezman describes this state as

“the most radical condition of architecture- the very moment that power has been unplugged.”241 Local Palestinians smashed the windows, walls, and the doors of the prison.

Others tried to salvage and takeaway whatever they could, leading to partial collapse of some structures such as the water tower. In Return to Nature, this the moment of commotion and destruction is defined as a spontaneous architectural moment of re-appropriation which should not be prevented or controlled; It is only after the indeterminate result of this moment of first encounter and within the possible rubble of its physical results that architectural construction may begin.242 However, the access to the military base provided a new point of observation over the city itself. The evacuation of the military base “offered local people the opportunity to see

241 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 13.

242 Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, Palestine: Return to Nature, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/

100 their own city from this direction for the first time.” 243 However, the moment of commotion was only a step within the process of the structural transformation of the military base which went through several phases. Once the moment of commotion takes its time, the moment of no- violence will gradually emerge. According to DAAR, “since its evacuation, the summit and its buildings were at the center of various contentious confrontations between Jewish settlers, the

Israeli military and Palestinian organizations.” 244 The Israeli settler groups decided to “use the emptied buildings of the military base as the nucleus for a new settlement-outpost.” Stated by

DAAR architects:

The topographical location of the base on the summit and its

existing fortification would easily lend themselves, they thought, to their

regimented and securitized way of life. The military declared the site a

‘closed military zone’ but nearly every week settlers come back to occupy

the base, hold picnics there, heritage tours, Torah lessons; and raise the

Israeli flag. Israeli soldiers are present to ‘protect’ the settlers. Palestinian

and international activists, including members of our office, also occupy

the site and confront the settlers. A set of competing graffiti written by one

side and then obliterated by the other testifies for a ‘revolving door’

243 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 13.

244 Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, Palestine: Return to Nature, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/

101

occupancy. Our proposal for the reuse of this site also becomes an

intervention in the political struggle for this hilltop. 245

Despite that reaching to the no violence moment in Oush Grab took a long time, it signed the end of the long life of the site as a military outpost. At this point in the process, the old uses are gone and the new uses not yet defined.246 However, in the base of Oush Grab, the first stages of the architectural proposal has been decided; it is design by destruction.247 According to the designers, it was important to systematically destroy the remaining existed structures on the site because the danger of the place’s appropriation by settlers always exist:

It was important to first render the building less amenable to be

used before allowing for new functions to inhabit them. The first stage of

design was proposed to perforate the buildings of the military base by

drilling holes into their walls. When the building is finally appropriated

these would render walls into screens.248

The huge concrete walls which used to define the threatening appearance of the military base, based on this vision, will be transformed into more transparence screens [Figure 3.07]. By

245 Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, Palestine: Return to Nature, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/

246 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 10.

247 Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, Palestine: Return to Nature, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/

248 Ibid

102 this strategy of design destruction, the physical act of separation is eliminated; the ‘Other’ behind the walls is not the unseen oppressor anymore. The wall which used to fortify and define the military base has been transgressed. The destruction of the walls, in this sense, was the first step of the design process.

In Return to Nature, the architects clarify another way of design destruction and intervening within the base; it is the transformation of its existed landscape. 249 It was possible to transform the relationship between the existed buildings on the site and the landscape. The buildings were partially buried in the rubble of their own fortifications [Figures 3.08, 3.09].250

One year later, by 2007, the collective thinking about the future of this place begin.

Wiezman, Petti and Hilal “started to organize ‘tours’ of Oush Grab, planting olive trees and using watchtowers for bird-watching.” 251 The transformation continued and the site became a public park with places for picnics, playgrounds for children, restaurant and open garden for events.

“Oush Grab is at present the only open public space in the Bethlehem area.” 252

Wiezman, Petti and Hilal through this example are proposing the strategy of “re-use” to structurally transform what is used to be ‘architecture of violence’ into architecture that activates the process of structural transformation towards more peaceful environment. The proposition

249 Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, Palestine: Return to Nature, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/

250 Ibid.

251 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 16.

252 Ibid.

103 precisely defined the military base as architecture of violence, but never defined the current state in which the park is now operating. With the new experience, the old uses have gone and new uses have emerged. But, the site is still occupied by only one side of the conflict. The other side is still excluded. This situation leads to question whether Oush Grab as a public park for local

Palestinians could be considered as architecture for/of peace, and why. Providing possible answers for this question requires engaging peacebuilding reasoning in order to clarify ‘how’ this project could operate as ‘architecture for/of peace.’ How can this project, in its current state, be best defined? And why?

104

Figure 3.05: The location of the Israeli military base (Oush- Grab) on top of the hill at the entrance of Bethlehem/Beit Sahour area, Palestine. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/].

Figure 3.06: Throughout the second Intifada, the Israeli army used the base as headquarter for incursion into Bethlehem and other towns and villages; 195 homes were damaged by gunfire originated in the camp. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/].

105

Figure 3.07: Design Destruction, the Oush- Grab military base. Perforating and drilling holes through the walls of the military base to transform them into screens. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/].

106

Figure 3.08: Design Destruction, the Oush- Grab military base. The buildings were to be partially buried in the rubble of their own fortifications. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/].

107

Figure 3.09: Design Destruction, the Oush- Grab military base. [Source: The Decolonizing Architecture Art Residency DAAR, http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/texts/].

108

3.5. THE PALACE OF PEACE AND RECONCILIATION: ARCHITECTURE AS A SYMBOL OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, PEACE, AND CO-EXISTENCE

The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace and Accord, designed by Lord Norman Robert Foster and Partners, is a symbol of unity and peace in

Kazakhstan [Figure 3.10]. 253

In September 2003, Kazakhstan − the largest of the former Soviet Republics − hosted the inaugural Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in the capital, Astana. Spurred by the Congress’ success, the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbaev, decided to make it a triennial event.254 He also suggested the idea of building the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation as a permanent venue for the congress and a global center for religious understanding, the renunciation of violence and the promotion of human equality. According to Archis Case Studies, it is intended as a symbol of religious tolerance, peace and co-existence.255

The building was realized in 2006. Foster and Partners describe the project as programmatic diversity unified within a one pure form: a pyramid (62 meters high with a 62 x 62- metre base).256 The holistic structure is made up of two parts (upper and lower levels). The pyramid portion of the building is 62m high sits on a 15m high earth covered block. Both parts

253 See the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, official website: http://astana-piramida.kz/en/

254 See Official website of Foster and Partners, Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2006: https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/

255 Archis Interventions, Architecture of Peace, Casecstudy, KAZAKHSTAN: Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/ http://architectureofpeace.org/casestudies/

256See Foster and Partners, Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2006: https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/

109 together include five "stories" of triangles, each triangle being 12 m on a side. All of this construction is above ground level. Though the landscaping of the park rises up to cover the lower levels, these are not in fact basements [Figure 3.11].257

The lower portions, three stories of triangles, are clad in pale granite. The upper two rows of triangles, 4 triangles per side, form a glazed apex; instead of stone cladding the triangles of the apex feature a design of stained glass by Brian Clarke, incorporating doves. There is a picture of

130 doves that symbolize 130 nationalities living in Kazakhstan [Figures 3.12].258

Clad in stone, with glazed inserts that allude to the various internal functions. Spatially, it is organized around a soaring central atrium, which is animated by shifting colored light patterns.

A glass lens in the floor of the atrium casts light down into the auditorium and creates a sense of vertical continuity from the lowest level of the building to the very peak. The assembly chamber is raised at the top of the building, supported on four inclined pillars – ‘the hands of peace.’ Lifts take delegates to a garden-like reception space from where they ascend to the chamber via a winding ramp.

The pyramid is bathed in the golden and pale blue glow of the glass, colors taken from the Kazakhstan flag, [Figures 3.13]. The Pyramid of Peace expresses the spirit of Kazakhstan, where cultures, traditions and representatives of various nationalities coexist in peace, harmony and accord.

257 See Foster and Partners, Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2006: https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/

258 See the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, official website http://astana-piramida.kz/en/

110

The pyramid represents the world’s religious faiths, it contains accommodations for different religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism and other faiths. In addition, the Palace houses a national research center for Kazakhstan’s various ethnic and geographical groups, library, a 1,500-seat opera house, a national museum of culture, a new

"university of civilization," exhibition and conference rooms. This rich programmatic diversity, based on this research’s approach, could be re-read as not as much a diversity of functions, but more as functions that support diversity. This point uncovered a new level of diversity

(programmatic diversity) that could be employed in architecture when contributing to peace.

That diversity could be included under one pure form (country, city, society) only when that one form is inclusive enough to embrace all the minorities and ethnicities and support them equally.

Figure 3.10: The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. [Source: the official website of Foster+ Partners, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/].

111

Figure 3.11: The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. Section to show the holistic structure of the pyramid which is made up of two parts (above and under the ground levels). [Source: archis.org, Architecture of Peace Case studies, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case-studies/palace-of-peace- and-reconciliation/].

112

Figure 3.12: The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. The upper two rows of triangles, 4 triangles per side, form a glazed apex featuring a design of stained glass by Brian Clarke, incorporating pictures of 130 doves. [Sources: the official website of Foster+ Partners, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and- reconciliation/ and, archis.org, Architecture of Peace Case studies, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture- of-peace/case-studies/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/ ].

113

Figure 3.13: The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, also known as The Pyramid of Peace and Accord, in Kazakhstan designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, 2006. The pyramid is bathed in the golden and pale blue glow of the glass, colors taken from the Kazakhstan flag. [Source: the official website of Foster+ Partners, https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/].

114

3.6. THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS

1- If architecture is instrumentalized during warfare to be of negative impact, then the opposite

is an option too. Architecture has been militarized to serve political agendas of war and

occupation, and it definitely has the potential to serve peace achieving agendas. Architecture

can become an instrument for positive intervention in order to create a peaceful situations.

The role architects play, in post-war recovery and peacebuilding, is proactive and absolutely

necessary. A generation of conflict–sensitive architects are required to be part of the process

of navigating and transforming complex post-war contexts. The question is: how can

architecture have a positive impact in conflict and post-war contexts?

2- The post-conflict reconstruction process should not only address the physical and built

environment, it should also embrace the healing and the recovery of the destroyed and

divided social structures. Architecture, in this process, is not only an object but a means to

improve the feeling of security and inclusion. So that, the social structure is a crucial layer

that should be addressed in the process of design decision making in the reconstruction of

post-war contexts.

3- Architecture that is not of conflict and has a positive impact should integrate the existing

systems into new structures. It should also focus on common interest and operate as a

binding factor.

4- The distinct shift from wars across borders to intra-state violence became a fact with which

the hostilities move from being about ideology to ones of identity (ethnicity). In such contexts

of intrastate violence, architecture as a ‘binding project’ can be one of the vital platforms for

reconciliation and rebuilding peace.

115

5- Architecture of positive impact (not of conflict) manifests either as a space, such as the World

Peace Park in the DMZ between the North and South Korea, or as a physical built form such

as the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Kazakhstan.

6- It is implied in the reviewed literature that the appearance of the building (the characters of

the building form) is influential and must be designed carefully. Architecture that is not of

conflicts is more than just erecting buildings with less threatening appearance. However, a

clear vison about the characteristics of architecture that is not of conflicts is found missing.

7- The architecture of not of conflict must consider the right place, right people, and right

symbolisms. The right symbolism is one of the most important recommendations for

enhancing the impact of architecture in the process of conflict transformation. Architecture

acquires its power of impact from different layers. One of the most important layers is the

symbolism it associates or is charged with. In the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in

Kazakhstan, specific symbolisms are employed in designing the interior spaces such as the

color of the national flag and the 130 doves to represent the nationalities that comprise the

society of Kazakhstan. The programmatic diversity that is unified under one pure form, the

pyramid, also has its own symbolisms. The message is that different programs can be

embraced peacefully in one world (a country, a city, a society, or a building). The pyramid as

a pure form is one of the powerful symbols of charging, attracting, meditation, and healing.

Such symbolisms enhances the capacity of the building as an architecture of positive impact

within the highly diverse ethnic contexts like that of Kazakhstan.

8- For architecture (both as a space and as a physical built form) to contribute to the process of

moving the contexts from relief to recovery, it must foster inclusive identities.

116

An example of architecture as a space is the World Peace Park. In order to operate as

architecture for/of peace, this space has to be inclusive to bring multiple points of view

together without necessarily resolving themselves or negating each other’s presence. The

example of architecture as a physical built form is the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation. The

design of this structure is charged with inclusive symbolisms that celebrate diversity on

different levels. In both cases, inclusiveness is to get different groups and different units of

identity to peacefully co-exist with each other without oppression or use of hegemonic

power.

9- Diversity is embraced as one of the important aspects that features the architecture of ‘not

of conflicts.’ Diversity in this discourse is approached on different levels: the diversity of the

social structure within conflicted contexts that must be included in the spaces of social

interaction and represented in their architecture; the diversity as a physical characteristic of

the form; and the programmatic diversity (the multiplicity of functions that serves diversity).

In the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Kazakhstan, programmatic diversity is included

under one pure form, the pyramid.

10- Incorporating greater protection for cultural heritage is highlighted as one of the means to

enhance the positive impact of architecture in the process of conflict transformation. The

question is how and why. This exact point supports the concept of ‘Warchitecture,’ in which

the target of destruction is mainly the architecture that narrated as heritage.

11- ‘Location’ is vital to the architecture that is described in the literature as being ‘not of

conflict.’ Examining the discourse of architecture and peace shows that the location of

architecture enhances its capacity to be of impact. Thus, it is important to understand and

117

master the relationships between architecture and its location, particularly the history of the

land. For example, the World Peace Park project is placed specifically in the DMZ Because of

the history of the land and its strategic location between the two Koreas.

12- The point in time is as much as important at the point in place, and both must be chosen

carefully. If architecture is intended to be of impact, then the context (time and place) in

which this architecture is going to operate needs to be analyzed carefully. To choose the

specific time and place depends on what this architecture is intended for. During war and

direct violence, architecture operates differently than in post-war contexts.

13- There is a confusion between architecture that is part of peacekeeping efforts and

architecture that contribute to the process of peacebuilding. Each of these peace missions

has its conditions in which architecture is supposed to operate differently for different

purposes. Architecture of peacebuilding, operates within contexts of active conflicts but not

direct violence. However, it is important to demonstrate a clear understanding to the

differences between the roles architecture plays in each of the missions.

14- For architecture to create a peaceful situation, it has to be welcomed and absorbed in its

context. Thus, there has to be a real need for the project.

15- Architecture of peace could be either a transformation from a previously established state

(neutral or architecture of violence), such as the Oush Grab project in which the strategy of

“re-use” was employed to transform a military base into a public park. Or, it can be a new

project that is intended to be for/of peace such as The Golden Heart Pavilion, and the Palace

of Peace and Reconciliation.

118

16- Exploring the existing discourse of architecture and peace reveals several yet very limited and

superficial recalls to Johan Galtung’s definitions of ‘positive peace’ and ‘negative peace’, in

particular Dongsie Kim’s propositions. However, these propositions did not engage deeply in

the theories of peace and peace studies. The definitions were decontextualized and

translated into architecture without deeply scrutinizing their theoretical roots and reasoning.

This point, in addition to the unanswered questions, directs the research towards the

discipline of peace studies to be in-depth examined in the aim of discovering the possibilities

of engaging its potentials in architecture.

17- Can we consider The Golden Heart Pavilion, designed by Malkit Shoshan and FAST, in Ein

Hawd in 2008 as architecture for/of peace? Did it help to end and transform the conflict

between Palestinians and Israelis? OR, it only temporarily work to halt the tension? Does the

comparison between this flexible structure (which could be inflated in 5 minutes, removed

and stored quickly) in Ein Hawd is valid with the DMZ, or with the World Peace Park to be

placed in the DMZ? And why?

The same questions apply in the case of Oush Grab Public Park in Beit Sahour, Palestine.

Can we consider this site, in its current state as a public space open for local Palestinians, as

architecture for/of peace? Or, does it still in the process of becoming of peace, for building a

sustainable peace in future? And why?

The need to provide possible answers for these questions further emphasizes on the

importance of, and requires, exploring and scrutinizing the discipline of peace studies in order

to demonstrate a clear understanding of how these projects operate for peace according to

the theories of peacebuilding.

119

3.7. CONCLUSIONS:

 Examining the existing discourse of architecture and peace in this chapter reveals that

the key aspects through which it is possible to demonstrate a comprehensive

understanding of architecture for/of peace were limited. In addition, different aspects

were found scattered in different literatures and approached from different

perspectives. Some of the aspects are implied in the examples. Other aspects, directly or

indirectly, are provided as an experience-based set of ‘do’ and ‘don’t’ recommendations.

Thus, as a first step, it was important to re-articulate, re-correlate, and re-weave the

derived points with each other. The result was a set of themes and implications

introduced previously at the end of this chapter.

 The concluded set of themes and implications failed to demonstrate a comprehensive

theoretical framework for the proposed idea of architecture for/of peace. Many core

questions remained unanswered and the reasoning behind some of the answers were

also missing. The following are the most important ‘How’, ‘What’, and ‘Why’ questions

which remained unanswered:

- How does architecture operate in order to activate the structural transformation

for peacebuilding? Why?

- What are the key devices and characteristics of Architecture for/of Peace?

Why?

- Is the approximation between the ‘DMZ and the concept of Negative peace’ and

the ‘World Peace Park and the concept of Positive Peace’ a valid proposition?

Why?

120

- Can we consider The Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd as architecture for/of

peace? Why? Does it help solve the conflict of Palestinians? OR it only

temporarily halts the tension? Does the comparison between The Golden Heart

Pavilion in Ein Hawd is valid with the World Peace Park to be placed in the DMZ?

Or with the DMZ itself? Why?

- Can we consider and understand the Oush Grab public park for local Palestinians

in its current state as architecture for/of peace? Whether the answer is yes or

no, it is important to explain ‘why’.

- Why preserving cultural and architectural heritage is mentioned as a possible

strategy for peacebuilding? How this idea relates to Warchitecture?

These un-answered questions further define and feature the knowledge gap; answers

are required to support the derived themes and to build a clear theoretical framework

of architecture for/of peace.

 The knowledge gap is also found related to the theoretical level of the discussion. The

questions that remained unanswered, and the reasoning behind some of the answers

which was also missing require approaching architecture through peace studies.

There was, also, confusion because of imprecise use of the key thematic terms which

becomes very problematic when theorizing architecture for/of peace.

The most important point, despite this discourse is on architecture and peace, not any of

the propositions engaged peace studies in the discussion except for few recalls to the

definitions of peace at very marginal levels. Peacebuilding is not limited to certain

121

definitions as it is provided in this discourse. Peacebuilding is part of peace studies, a

complex discipline which requires careful and in-depth examination in order to derive

possible answers for the accumulated questions. In addition, demonstrating a clear

understanding of the main pillars of peacebuilding is crucial to build the theoretical

framework through which it will be possible to activate the role of architecture in the

process of peacebuilding.

These findings direct the research towards the next step in this research (chapter four): exploring and carefully examining the discipline of peace studies.

122

CHAPTER FOUR PEACEBUILDING AND THEORIES OF PEACE

4.1. WHY THEORIES OF PEACE?

This chapter is the first step towards solving the research problem and filling the knowledge gap. The goal is to build a clear theoretical framework through which it is possible to consider the role of architecture in the process of rebuilding sustainable peace within post- conflict/war zones. Building this theoretical framework required exploring the existing discourse of theories of peace. However, in the first part of this chapter it is important to demonstrate a clear understanding of the UN’s peace missions in order to precisely decide which peace mission is the target when exploring peace studies. Analyzing each case of peace missions showed that

“peacebuilding” in post-war and conflict zones is the specific scope of this dissertation. Following is the first part in this chapter: the United Nations’ peace missions.

4.2. UN’s DEFINITIONS OF PEACE MISSIONS: PEACEKEEPING, PEACEMAKING, PEACE-ENFORCEMENT, AND PEACEBUILDING

According to the “The UN Charter”, initiated on October 1945, particularly Chapters V, VI and VII, there are differences between Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Peace-Enforcement, and

Peacebuilding. 259

259 The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html

123

In general, distinguishing between each of these peace-forces and missions is crucially important in order to properly deploy them in accordance with the established policy, to understand the environment in which each is effective, and to protect them from unacceptable risks.260 Particular to this research, it is important to demonstrate a clear understanding of each of the peace-forces and missions for the following reasons:

- To precisely use the correct terminologies in response to the problem of terminology-

confusion that was identified in the discourse of architecture and peace

- To elucidate whether architecture can be deployed in any of these peace missions

- Most importantly, to specify within which peace-missions architecture can be deployed

as an active platform for peace. This point is important as it defines the target and the

particular area of research to be in-depth analyzed in the discipline of peace studies.

In general, the mission and the environment with which each force would work comprise the basic differences between each of the peace-forces. The participating groups, preparations, trainings, rules, and military equipment are different from one peace mission to another. Deploying peacekeeping forces, for example, to environments that require peace- enforcement forces places peacekeepers at risk and renders them unable to perform their mission. One force cannot perform the other’s mission.

260 Thomas M. Murray, “Peacekeeping or Peace-Enforcement: There is a Difference.” Strategic Issues/ The Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MTM.htm

124

PEACEKEEPING According to the UN’s An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping, “Peace-keeping is the deployment of a United Nations presence in the field, hitherto with the consent of all the parties concerned, normally involving United Nations military and/or police personnel and frequently civilians as well. Peace-keeping is a technique that expands the possibilities for both the prevention of conflict and the making of peace.” 261 It is the conduct of operations by military forces or civilian groups to monitor and supervise cease-fire agreements agreed to by two or more former combatants. As seen in chapter VII of the UN

Charter, peacekeeping is situated before peace-enforcement and before the sanctions regime, and it proceeds in the atmosphere following the end of the war or where the former combatants minimally prefer peace to continued war.262

To accomplish their mission, peacekeepers observe treaty compliance or interpose a force or group between belligerents. That means peacekeepers are effective only when there is a hope to peacefully solve the dispute (during the conflict), or when disputants exhibit a mutual desire for peace and the cease-fire is in effect. Peacekeeping forces use weapons only in self- defense, and must be impartial (neutral) in order to present no threat to the disputing parties.263

261 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace," Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992, New York: United Nations, 1992, http://www.un-documents.net/a47-277.htm

262 The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html

263 Thomas M. Murray, “Peacekeeping or Peace-Enforcement: There is a Difference.” Strategic Issues/ the Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MTM.htm

125

Conflict Research Consortium at University of Colorado, USA, defines the term “peacekeeping” as “the prevention or ending of violence within or between nation-states through the intervention of an outside third party that keeps the warring parties apart. Unlike peacemaking, which involves negotiating a resolution to the issues in conflict, the goal of peacekeeping is simply preventing further violence.” 264

PEACEMAKING According to the UN’s An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping, “Peacemaking is action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations.” 265

The Charter of the United Nations talks about peacemaking as a non-restrictive list of peaceful, diplomatic negotiations and judicial means of resolving disputes.266 Peacemaking excludes the need for “peace-enforcement” forces only when there is a consent-based recognition of legitimacy between the parties involved.

Peacemaking can be done through diplomatic efforts such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. International law provides another channel through international

264 Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA. Accessed on 8 Oct. 2016. Available from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/glossary.htm

265 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace," Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992 [document on-line] (New York: United Nations, 1992, available from http://www.un-documents.net/a47-277.htm.

266 The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html.

126 courts.267 The diplomatic efforts test the sincerity and the willingness of the parties to live with each other and indicate how well they can design a comprehensive blueprint for peace. They can mobilize the support of local interest groups in peacemaking. The foreign aid coming from the international community in support of implementing the peace-related activities is essential in establishing a commitment to promote human rights as well as economic and social development.268

Moving from a conflict towards peacekeeping and peacebuilding without the need for peace-enforcement forces can be defined as peacemaking. Peacemaking does not address the underlying causes of violence or work to create societal change, as peacebuilding does.

Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA, distinguishes “peacemaking” from “peacekeeping” and “peacebuilding” in that “Peacemaking is the term used to refer to negotiating the resolution of conflict between people, groups, or nations. It goes beyond peacekeeping to actually deal with issues involved in the dispute and ends it with an agreement or a treaty, but falls short of peacebuilding, which aims toward reconciliation and normalization of relations between ordinary people, not just formal resolution that is written on a paper.”269

267 "Peacemaking -- Overview" Conflict Management Toolkit. (Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, Conflict Management Program). Accessed on 8 Oct. 2016. Available from http://www.campus- adr.org/Training_Center/content/The_Conflict_Management_Toolkit_from_Johns_Hopkins_SAIS/.

268 Gabriela Monica Lucuta, “Peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace enforcement in the 21st century,” Peace Insight, Peace Direct, April 2014, https://www.peaceinsight.org/blog/2014/04/peacemaking- peacekeeping-peacebuilding-peace-enforcement-21st-century/. (Accessed February 20, 2014 and January 2018).

269 Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA. Accessed on 8 Oct. 2016. Available from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/glossary.htm

127

PEACE-ENFORCEMENT As opposite to “peacekeeping”, peace-enforcement forces entails the use of armed force including possible combat actions. The forces are from a single nation or coalition of nations that directly intervene between warring parties in order to restore a temporary peace. That means, peace -enforcement requires very different forces than peacekeeping does.270

According to the UN’s An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping, the mission of peace-enforcement forces would be to respond to outright aggression, imminent or actual.271 Such forces are not likely to be available for some time to come. Cease- fires have often been agreed to but not complied with, and the United Nations has sometimes been called upon to send forces to restore and maintain the cease-fire. This task can on occasion exceed the mission of peace-keeping forces and the expectations of peace-keeping force contributors.

The belligerents may or may not be consenting to intervention, and they may be engaged in combat activities but it does not have to end in combat. Peace-Enforcement forces may or may not be under UN command so that an international mandate is required. The United

Nations, through its Security Council per Chapter VII of its charter, has the ability to authorize force to enforce its resolutions and cease fires already created. 272 Intervention force is not

270 Thomas M. Murray, “Peacekeeping or Peace-Enforcement: There is a Difference.” Strategic Issues/ the Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MTM.htm.

271 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace," Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992 [document on-line] (New York: United Nations, 1992, available from http://www.un-documents.net/a47-277.htm.

272 The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html

128 perceived as neutral, so unlike peacekeepers, peace-enforcers are not welcomed by one of the belligerents. Rather, the peace-enforcers are active fighters who must force a cease-fire that is opposed by one or both combatants; in the process, they lose their neutrality. 273

Peace-enforcement cannot solve the underlying problems in most areas of potential application. The insertion of forces to stop combat may be effective in making the continuation of violence impossible; but, it cannot, in and of itself, create the conditions for lasting peace. 274

Although peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations are distinctly different, any rapid escalation, such as reorganization and rearming by one or more of the belligerents during a negotiated cease-fire, can cause a shift from an environment of peacekeeping to one of peace- enforcement. In other words, if a peacekeeping mission escalates to a level at which peace- enforcement becomes necessary, peace-enforcers must replace the peacekeepers.

One of the famous examples of peace-enforcement was the UN intervention during the

Gulf War of 1990 when Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi military forces. Peacekeeping and diplomatic negotiations (peacemaking) did not result in an agreement. The United Nations was thereby able to compel Iraq's compliance with the UN Resolutions which demanded its withdrawal from the region. Worthy of mentioning it is in the 1990s that the differences between peacekeeping and peace-enforcement were established in a report to the United States Army.

273 Chapter III: Peace Enforcement. The global Security Organization. www.globalsecurity.org 274 Ibid.

129

PEACEBUILDING Different from peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace-enforcement, peacebuilding addresses the underlying causes of violence; it works to create societal change and activate the structural transformation from the case of post-conflict/war fragile societies, which can cause more conflicts in future, into the state of lasting peace. According to the UN’s An Agenda for

Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping, post-conflict peace-building action is to “identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict.” 275

Peacebuilding is a process that has a specific post-conflict agenda and more than an instrumentalist method to secure a sustainable peace. It is effective in post-conflict societies when post-war peacekeeping forces are still in action. It involves reconstructing, building and strengthening the local capacities in a process of restoring normal relations between people. “It requires the reconciliation of differences, apology and forgiveness of past harm, and the establishment of a cooperative relationship between groups, replacing the adversarial or competitive relationship that used to exist.” 276

Peacebuilding could never be conceived as of militarized or armed forces. It must retain its original purpose by focusing in areas which consolidate peace in the short-term by managing

275 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace," Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992 [document on-line] (New York: United Nations, 1992, available from http://www.un-documents.net/a47-277.htm.

276 Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA. Accessed on 8 Oct. 2016. Available from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/glossary.htm.

130 the future through conflict prevention and reconciliation strategies rather than resorting to violence. As well, it must include promoting conflict resolution and reconciliation techniques.

Furthermore, according to Gabriela Monica Lucuta, it is possible to talk about deductive versus inductive approaches to peacebuilding. The deductive approaches to peacebuilding are driven by donor tools and capacities which tend to favor institutions over processes and ultimately will result in failed or mixed outcomes. The inductive approach is focused on conflict parameters and strategies that are being employed. It is centered on peacebuilding processes rather than building institutions. Inductive strategies include managing conflict without violence, local participation, and the use of appropriate forms of knowledge; it is based on collaborative efforts.277 Unlike peacekeeping and peace-enforcement forces, peacebuilding forces are not perceived as dominant occupiers or imposed donors. Instead, peacebuilding is an integration of local groups, organizations, and efforts of influential fields using grassroots solutions. The highest levels of planning and coordinating peacebuilding would increase the opportunities for participation in shaping the design of these missions as well as accountability. Moreover, any peacebuilding activity that does not involve local traditional values and culture will not last.278

“Thus, peacemaking and peace-keeping are required to halt conflicts and preserve peace once it

277Gabriela Monica Lucuta, “Peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace enforcement in the 21st century,” Peace Insight, Peace Direct, April 2014, https://www.peaceinsight.org/blog/2014/04/peacemaking- peacekeeping-peacebuilding-peace-enforcement-21st-century/. (Accessed February 20, 2014 and January 2018).

278Ibid.

131 is attained. If successful, they strengthen the opportunity for post-conflict peacebuilding which can prevent the recurrence of violence among nations and peoples.” 279

DISCUSSION

The United Nations has employed peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace enforcement, and peacebuilding for achieving a change towards more lasting peace. Further comprehensive understanding of these four strategies for peace is illustrated in [Figure 4.01] and [Figure 4.02].

[Figure 4.01] illustrates the process of ending the war or direct violence by deploying peace-enforcement forces after the failure of peacekeeping missions to halt the conflict in peaceful, non-militarized way. Any out of control escalation of direct violence, while the peacekeeping forces are active, can shift the environment into a condition that requires an urgent peace-enforcement forces intervention.

In [Figure 4.02], diplomatic peacemaking missions replace the militarized peace- enforcement forces to end the conflict/war, moving context into the post-conflict state in which peacekeeping forces will be active to keep the context in a no-violence state.

In both cases, moving the context into post-war state, following the end of the war, does not mean peace is being established. In fact, tension is what describes the state and peacekeeping forces reconvene their missions. Because neither peacemaking nor peacekeeping forces address the root causes of the conflicts, the breakout of violence is highly possible.

279 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, "An Agenda for Peace," Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992 [document on-line] (New York: United Nations, 1992, available from http://www.un-documents.net/a47-277.htm.

132

Therefore, during this period in post-war contexts, the peacebuilding missions must be activated to move the context from the state of post-conflict/war fragile societies, into the state of lasting peace. In this process, peacebuilding missions address the underlying causes of the conflicts and practically activate the mechanisms and strategies for the structural conflict transformation. The goal is to avoid breeding more cycles of violence in future and build a sustainable peace. If for any reason that peacebuilding missions have not been initiated within postwar contexts, tension can cause violence escalation and the possibilities for violence to breakout at any moment are highly expected. In such cases, peace missions will be considered as have not been completed or have actually failed.

According to this discussion and based on what was established ahead in this dissertation, the role of architecture in in post-war and conflict contexts can be activated for building a sustainable peace through peacebuilding missions. Unlike peacekeeping, peace enforcement forces, and peacemaking, it is the core mission of peacebuilding to activate a collaborative work through platforms —such as architecture—for structural conflict transformation.

On this basis, the process of peacebuilding in post-war and conflict contexts is going to be further explored and examined in the discipline of peace studies.

133

Figure 4.01: Moving towards “Peacekeeping” and “Peacebuilding” after the “End of the War” deploying “Peace-Enforcement forces” [Source: diagram by the author].

Figure 4.02: Moving towards “Peacekeeping” and “Peacebuilding” through a Treaty or Ratified Agreement (without deploying any militarized forces): to end the war/conflict via diplomatic “Peacemaking” mission, [Source: diagram by the author].

134

4.3. THEORIES OF PEACE AND PEACEBUILDING Building the theoretical framework of peacebuilding required exploring the existing discourse in theories of peace and peacebuilding. Two key contributors, Johan Galtung and John Paul

Lederach,280 are influential and their work shows promise in the application to architecture.

The propositions of Galtung and Lederach, identify the core concepts of peacebuilding which have the potential to be activated in architecture. For example, whereas Gatling’s propositions are very much associated with the definitions of peace (negative and positive peace), Lederach is more involved in the process of structural conflict transformation. The most important finding is that the two propositions are essentially consistence with and integrate with one another; both

280 Johan Vincent Galtung, the Father of Peace Studies, the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. He was born 1930 in Oslo, Norway; he obtained a PhD in Mathematics in 1956, and a PhD in Sociology in 1957. He is also the founder of TRANSCEND: A Network for Peace, Development and Environment; the founder of the world’s first academic research center focused on peace studies: the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) in 1959; the founder of the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. He is founder of the TRANSCEND Peace University, the world's first online Peace Studies University in 2000. He was appointed the world's first chair in peace and conflict studies, at the University of Oslo in 1969. He has served as a professor for peace studies at University of Hawaii, a professor of Global Peace at the International Islamic University Malaysia, in addition to universities all over the world, including Columbia (New York), Oslo, Berlin, Belgrade, Paris, Cairo. He has mediated in over 150 conflicts between states, nations, religions, communities since 1957. Galtung is a holder of the Right Livelihood Award (AKA the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize) in 1987, and many other awards of peace. He is the author or co- author of more than 1600 articles and over 160 books on peace and related issues, including Peace by Peaceful Means (1996). https://www.transcend.org/galtung/ https://www.transcend.org/galtung/#bio

John Paul Lederach is an American Professor of International Peacebuilding, born in April 1955. He holds a BA in History and Peace Studies, and a Ph.D. in Sociology in (1988). He became the founding director for the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University in 1994. He served as a professor of conflict studies at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, and as a scholar at Eastern Mennonite University. Lederach is the author of several books on Conflict Transformation, conflict resolution and mediation, among them is: The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005), and Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (USIP, 1997). Lederach is widely known for his pioneering work in conflict transformation and conciliation work in Colombia, the Philippines, and Nepal, plus countries in East and West Africa. In August 2013, Lederach was appointed director of the Peace Accords Matrix, the Kroc Institute's unique source of comparable data on all comprehensive peace agreements that have been signed since 1989. Lederach is a holder of many awards such as the Community of Christ International Peace Award in 2000, Martin Luther King Order of Peace Medal in 2006, and the Distinguished Scholar Award - International Studies Association in 2014. http://kroc.nd.edu/assets/226608/fullsize/john_paul_lederach_cv_2014.pdf

135 the propositions together are crucial for building the whole picture of the process of peacebuilding and conflict transformation. Following in this part of the chapter are the core ideas and concepts introduced by each of Galtung and Lederach.

4.3.1. JOHAN GALTUNG Among the many important concepts and theories developed by Galtung are direct, structural and cultural violence, negative and positive peace, and peacebuilding by peaceful means. Galtung’s main propositions are as following:

PEACEBUILDING Johan Galtung proposes his vision of what peacebuilding is through an analogy with the process of disease healing in the field of health studies.281 In the process of peacebuilding, the triangle of: Diagnosis – Prognosis – Therapy (D,P,T-paradigm), from the medical sciences, can be applied. According to Galtung, the word-pairs well-states/ill-states and health/disease from the health studies, can be seen as, understood, or equalized to ‘peace/violence’ in the discipline of peace.282

Diagnosis, according to Galtung, is the mapping of an empirical system on a set of states of suffering (illness, violence), and on a set of states of bliss, life-enhancement (wellness, peace).

Diagnosis is a database analysis. In health studies, part of the data is known as ‘symptom,’ and

281 Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute; London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), Preface.

282 Ibid., 1.

136 another as ‘anamnesis’ that covers the health-illness career of a patient.283 In the discipline of peace, the data includes causes, conditions, and contexts of various spaces (nature, human, social, world, time, and culture); it should contain as complete of mapping as possible of the conflict/peace formation and history.

Mapping the conflict formation should include data related to all actors (peace actors should be identified as well as violence actors); no one should be excluded. Who are the involved actors? What are their goals/needs/interests?

Mapping and analyzing the conflict history should involve the entire life of the conflict, not simply the beginning and ending of violence. This process requires involving the following questions: what are the roots of the conflict? How did it reach its current stage? It is also important to look at different interpretations/analysis, and to understand how parties involved in the conflict view the conflict history. What matters at this point is that the parties/actors to the conflict do not feel that their perspectives/opinions have been dismissed, which is something too common in most conventional approaches to peace-making.284

It is important to highlight that peace and health have their conditions and contexts which are different from the conditions for violence and disease, but they may also be related to them.

One place for peace studies to start would be by clarifying the cause of the violence, or suffering: what is the cause of violence/disease? Moreover, if the system shows symptoms of ill-states, the

283 Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute; London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 24.

284 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p23.

137 obvious question to answer is whether the system is capable of adequate self-restoration to the well-state, or if some other-intervention is needed. At this point, moving to prognosis, the second corner of the triangle (D,P,T) is crucial.

Prognosis is a diagnosis/ analysis-based prediction about the possible trajectories of the system’s illness/wellness over time, usually from illness to health or from violence to peace.285

Precise diagnosis yields the best estimate of the future trajectory to distinguish between self- healing and intervention. The more serious the case, the lower down in the unacceptable illness/violence region the trajectory will start. There is a bottom line, called death - extinction – just as for violence. But, there are no limits to health- just as for peace.286 Prognosis provides possible answers for questions such as: where the conflict is going? What might happen? What is the conflict, and what are the possible future outcomes? 287

The third corner of the triangle (D,P,T) from health studies is therapy. It is when there will be deliberate efforts or intervention by the Self, Other, or both to move a system from an ill- state/ violence back again towards some well-state/ peace.288 Therapy is the greatest challenge and it is closely related to diagnosis and prognosis. Therapy can be curative, preventive, or both.

Whereas the curative therapy works to make the system symptom-free, preventive therapy

285 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute; London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 24-29.

286 Ibid., 25.

287 Ibid., 24-29.

288 Ibid., 1 .

138 works for building up resistance.289 In peace studies, it is the proposals, ideas, and suggestions that have either short-term vision in the aim of ending violence (make the system violence-free), or they are long-term proposals for life enhancement (to prevent violence from breeding in the future), or both. Therapy, in peace studies, is to transform the conflict creatively and non- violently from (non-peace, conflict, or violence) to our desired goal, peace. However, therapies cannot be imposed upon a conflict from above (leaders, elites, politicians, generals) or outside

(outside leaders, politicians, generals). Just like in health studies, therapy in peace studies must be designed as conflict sensitive, and must be responsive to the particular conflict itself and to the goals and needs of all of its actors.290

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE HEALTH/PEACE

Galtung incisively defines peace through health studies using the terms negative and positive health. Negative health is the state of being symptom-free. Positive health is building up resistance.291 Accordingly, Galtung defines the state of bliss (Wellness or peace): it can either be defined as ‘negative peace’ which is the absence of suffering/violence (the state of being violence-free), or positive peace as enhancement of life.292

289 Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo : International Peace Research Institute; London ; Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, 1996), 24-29.

290 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p23, 24.

291 Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo : International Peace Research Institute; London ; Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, 1996), 24.

292 Ibid., 29.

139

Just as in health studies, building negative and positive peace are two different tasks and each requires different strategies for intervention.293

Building the state of negative peace, just as building the state of negative health, requires employing ‘curative,’ short-term strategies to end violence or to cease the exacerbation of the conflict into more violent phases. It is a process of moving the system from a violent phase into the state of being violence-free. However, the absence of violence does not mean that peace is being achieved, because the root causes of the violence remain active. For this reason, in the state of negative peace, the equilibrium or the system remains so unstable that even a minor issue can tip the system back into an ill-state.294 Examples of the state of negative peace, according to Galtung: when you have a ceasefire, or armistice agreement.295

Building ‘positive peace,’ also, just like ‘positive health,’ requires preventive, long-term strategies and visions that address the root causes of the suffering/conflict. It is a process of creative conflict transformation and life enhancement in the aim of building up the immune system/resistance and preventing disease/violence from breeding in future.296 Thus, in the state

293 Johan Galtung, One on One, an interview to the Al-Jazeera English. Published in 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJf0m-Nz35E

294 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute; London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 1-24.

295 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

296 Johan Galtung, Breaking the Cycle of Violent Conflict, a presentation of University of California Television, and Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego, UC, SD, TV. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16YiLqftppo

140 of positive peace, the equilibrium is more stable, because the system is becoming immune and its capacity for self-restoration has been built.297

In peacebuilding, as in health studies, both curative and preventive strategies are crucially needed for building a sustainable wellness/ peace.298 In the process of overcoming negative peace and building positive peace, there must be trauma conciliation, and conflict solution.

Trauma is the wounds of the past. Trauma conciliation requires not only investigating the past, but also critically reading some kind of consensus in an attempt to remove the causes of revenge.299

CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION: MEDIATION

The process of conflict transformation is crucial to move the system from being violence- free (negative peace), into being an immune system (positive peace). Building a positive peace requires continuous efforts, long-term strategies, and visions to address and constructively transform the root causes of the conflict without violence; it is a never–ending process. 300

297 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo: International Peace Research Institute; London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996), 1-24.

298 Ibid.

299 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

300 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002).

141

In the process of building positive peace, mediation is crucial; it is to introduce a project that makes the confronted parties see a kind of mutual interest.301 Peacebuilding, mediation, according to Galtung, requires going through three stages: mapping, legitimizing, and bridging.

302 Mapping is the diagnosis/analysis of conflict. In this process, Galtung incisively recommends avoiding ‘dualism,’303 because building dualistic systems means polarizing the conflict, a state which facilitates the move into more violent phases. The second stage is legitimizing the goals.

It is to exclude the goals that are not legitimate according to law, human rights, and human needs.

The third stage is bridging; the therapy. It is the process of designing a project that is conflict sensitive, respecting all the involved parties and their legitimate goals. Moving from legitimizing into bridging, requires empathy, non-violence, and creativity.

CONFLICT OR VIOLENCE? TRANSFORMATION OR DEPOLARIZATION?

One of the misleading assumptions often made is that ‘conflict’ and ‘violence’ are one and the same. In the process of peacebuilding, it is important not to confuse conflict with violence.304 In fact, conflict precedes violence; if violence is the smoke, conflict is the fire.305 Like

301 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

302 Johan Galtung, Breaking the Cycle of Violent Conflict, a presentation of University of California Television, and Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego, UC, SD, TV. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16YiLqftppo

303 Dualism, reducing the number of conflict parties to 2 and the number of issues to 1 as dominant discourse. 304 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

305 Johan Galtung, “Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 4.

142 disease, violence is caused by the preceding stages in the prototype; violence is the result of exacerbated, unsolved conflicts. Violence can be avoided if the root causes of the conflict are addressed and structurally transformed.306 The world’s history of violence and war shows the two stages that precede the outbreak of violence: unresolved conflicts and polarization.

The first stage is conflict (parties with incompatible goals). More correctly: it is the unresolved conflict that is problematic as it leads to frustration and aggression because of its blocked goals.307 The unaddressed contradictory goals exacerbate and generate dualistic systems underlying conflicts; these are considered as a major driving force for future violence. At this point it is important to understand what we mean by ‘conflict.’ How does it operate in breeding violence? How do we address the conflicts?

Conflicts arise when there are incompatible goals, ‘issues,’ and contradictions. They are natural to any context and exist at all levels, and experienced every single day within and between individuals of every background, community, culture, class, nationality, age and gender.

Conflicts cannot be prevented but violence can. According to Galtung, conflict has its own organic life cycle; it appears and disappears between individuals and groups (such as nations and states) who have goals.308 These goals may be incompatible and exclude each other, like two states

306 Johan Galtung, Breaking the Cycle of Violent Conflict, a presentation of University of California Television, and Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego, UC, SD, TV. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16YiLqftppo

307 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

308 Johan Galtung, Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: The Transcend Method. United Nations Disaster Management Training Program (DMTP), 2000.

143 wanting the same land, or two nations that want the same state.309 When goals are incompatible, a contradiction, a conflict, an issue is born. If these conflicts are left without solution, or if the parties with unrealized goals are ignored and excluded, then the reaction will be aggression and hatred directed towards the holders of the goals who are standing in their way. The reaction could be verbal or physical violence. Once violence is born it will breed a spiral of counter- violence for the sake of defense and/or revenge. If the root conflict is sufficiently deep and not resolved or transformed, then it may enter a more violent phase.310

The second stage is polarization. It is when conflicts not only remain unaddressed but also exacerbate into sharply divided dualistic incompatibilities under the ‘either/or’ system of relationships: either the ‘Self’ or the ‘Other.’ The ‘Self’ is good, exalted as supreme, sacred or secular, given all the rights, and included, whereas the ‘Other’ is dehumanized, satanized, and excluded.311 Polarization also affects power distribution, particularly when power is not a right for ‘both of us,’ power becomes the exclusive right for the ‘Self’, whereas the ‘Other’ becomes oppressed.312 According to Galtung, the reduction of complex context of conflicts into Manichean dualistic systems of relationships will definitely develop the situation into violence, or, in extreme

309Johan Galtung, Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: The Transcend Method. United Nations Disaster Management Training Program (DMTP), 2000.

310 Ibid.

311 Johan Galtung, “Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 3.

312 Ibid., p 4-5.

144 cases, war. An important point stated by Galtung, is that even under extreme polarization, the actor of the polarization would not harm or hurt the ‘Other’ who has a common identity. 313

In order to transcend violence, depolarization becomes crucial. Reconciliation between the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other,’ and dissolving and transforming the ‘either/or’ system into ‘both/and’ and ‘all together’, are the main lines of depolarization.314 If the polarized conflict is left to exacerbate without being addressed, depolarized, and structurally transformed, the result is war.315

In UN jargon, these two activities (conflict transformation, violence depolarization) are known generically as peace-building and peacemaking- peacekeeping. In medical jargon they are similar to primary and secondary prophylaxis, removing pathogens and strengthening the immune system and the self-healing capacity of the body. These activities lead to the state defined by Galtung as positive peace. Then there is peacekeeping, which aims at controlling violence, reducing it, possibly even removing it to the point called cease-fire. The outcome of this process is the state defined by Galtung as negative peace. In medical jargon that would be curative therapy, removing the symptoms of disease (negative health), as distinct from the two

313 Johan Galtung, “Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 14-15.

314 Ibid.

315 Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, “Peace: The Goal and the Way,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 17.

145 types of preventive therapy mentioned above. In peace as in health the total therapy is the package, not in any one part of it.316

Among the consequences of associating conflict with violence is that people may assume that the absence of direct violence means there must be no conflicts. In such cases, people are not aware that the context is in a state of ‘negative peace,’ and that a collaborative work for a structural conflict transformation is crucial to move the context into the state of positive peace.

In such cases, the failure to carefully address the conflicts leads violence to break out. In other words, when a conflict reaches the point of violence, this is perhaps the clearest sign that it has been mismanaged, poorly addressed or simply ignored until the situation has deteriorated to a destructive level (usually this occurs during long negative peace periods).317 The way we deal with the conflicts decides whether the conflict would cause and exacerbate into violence or not.318 In solving conflicts, it is crucial to address and transcend the underlying dualistic incompatibilities which are often at the root of conflicts between individuals, communities, countries, cultures, and within every single one of us.319 For successful peacebuilding and conflict transformation, it is important to address the conflict which “does not deny, ignore or reject the

316 Johan Galtung, “Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 3-4.

317 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p17.

318 Johan Galtung and Finn Tschudi, “Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of TRANSCEND Approach,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 179.

319 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 16, 17.

146 basic needs of any involved parties.” 320 All parties should feel included in the solution. 321 That is, by introducing a new platform of mutual interests, one could make them see beyond the oppositions of conflicts.322

VIOLENCE CULTURE AND PEACE CULTURE

The question at this point is: what causes unsolved conflict to lead to violence or war? It is the culture of violence (making violence seems normal).323 In cultures of violence, war- provoking responses usually focus on differences and polarizing the context into ‘Self/Other,’ dehumanization of the ‘Other,’ “making them seem somehow less, unworthy, and ascribing to them entirely negative.” 324 In cultures of violence, the victory of one is based upon the defeat of the other, and one actor’s gain comes only at the expense of another actor’s loss. Racism, xenophobia and cultures of imperialism, “Dualism, Manicheism, and Armageddon” are components of cultural violence.325

However, “no culture is entirely black or white, or entirely violent or peaceful. Just as there are elements of cultures of violence within almost every culture in the world, so there are

320 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p20, 21.

321 Ibid.

322 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

323 Johan Galtung, “Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View,” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, ed. Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p 7.

324 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p18.

325 Ibid.

147 elements of peace culture.”326 Rather than polarized dualism, there has to be collective subconscious, cosmologies, memories, heritage known as deep cultures, underlying values, which provide the soil from which our conscious values are developed/expressed.327 These underlying values, deep cultures or structures, are different from context to context, yet they are valid enough to operate as a consensus on which the conflict transformation and depolarization process could be based. In conflict transformation and depolarization, while rebuilding peace, it is the culture itself that is transforming: from violence culture into peace culture. In this process of transformation, indicators can be found in a community or nation’s ‘collective memory,’ focusing upon shared myths, together with moments of shared trauma or glory, which are celebrated in its history.328 The proposed solutions are based on finding mutual interests and making the incompatible goals compatible.329 Cultures, in such contexts, promote peace as a value, respect and celebrate differences, and protect/promote the legitimate political, civil, social economic, and cultural rights of all individuals, communities, and groups.330 Peace Cultures, in this sense, are inclusive (by choice not by force), whereas cultures of violence are exclusive in

326 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p, 18.

327 Ibid., 19.

328 Ibid., 18, 19.

329 Johan Galtung and Han Park, Dialogue of Positive Peace, a lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

330 Johan Galtung, Breaking the Cycle of Violent Conflict, a presentation of University of California Television, and Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego, UC, SD, TV. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16YiLqftppo

148 vision.331 Thus, it is possible to understand the process of peacebuilding as a structural transformation from exclusive into inclusive culture by activating the ‘both/and’ instead of

‘either/or’ system of relationships.332 With the ‘both/and’ relationships, complexity become inevitable. Complexity, when transforming the culture of violence into peace culture, is preferred over simplification. The more actors and interests involved, the greater the opportunity to come up with a creative approach to transform the conflict.333

THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT VIOLENCE/PEACE

Creating negative and positive peace obviously has to do with reducing violence (cure) and avoiding violence (prevention). The question, at this point, becomes what type of violence?

Galtung distinguishes different types of violence based on two perspectives: receiver and sender.334 Violence from the perspective of the receiver could be done to the body or to the mind (physical or mental violence), or both. Whereas, from the perspective of the sender, violence is either direct or indirect (structural, cultural), or both. The direct violence is the visible violent act between the sender and the receiver, whereas the indirect violence is done on

331 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p19.

332 Ibid., 21.

Johan Galtung, Breaking the Cycle of Violent Conflict, a presentation of University of California Television, and Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego, UC, SD, TV. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16YiLqftppo

333 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p22.

334 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo : International Peace Research Institute; London ; Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, 1996), 2 .

149 structural levels and is transmitted through a medium. Indirect violence, Galtung states, “comes from the social structure itself- between humans- between sets of humans (societies), sets of societies (alliances, regions) in the world.” 335 Further developed by Galtung, the violence triangle distinguishes between three separate yet interrelated types or forms of violence: (Direct violence, Structural violence, Cultural violence). 336

- The Direct violence is the physical acts of violence and one of the clearest and most

obvious types of violence. One of its most extreme forms is war.

- The Structural violence, “can often be far more difficult to recognize and understand. This

is the violence built into the very social, political and economic systems that govern

societies, states and the world….Its relation to direct violence is similar to that of the

bottom nine-tenths of an iceberg, hidden from view, while only the tip juts out above the

waterline.”337 Examples of structural violence: apartheid, patriarchy, slavery, colonialism,

imperialism.338

- The third form (or aspect) of violence is cultural violence, those aspects of a culture, the

symbolic sphere of our existence as exemplified by religion and ideology, which can be

used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form. It makes violence seem to be

335 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo : International Peace Research Institute; London ; Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, 1996), 2 .

336 Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend (London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002), p17.

337 Ibid.

338 Ibid.

150

an acceptable means of responding to conflict. 339 Violence, in this culture, becomes

normal to the degree to which it pervades and targets every aspect of a particular culture

such as the arts, language, religion, and literature.340

War is one of the examples of the relation between direct and indirect violence. War is the most extreme form of direct violence. In relation to indirect violence (structural and cultural), the direct violence is only the tip of the iceberg just out above the waterline, whereas the bottom nine-tenths of an iceberg that is hidden from view is the indirect violence. So that, reporting only direct violence and omitting structural and cultural violence does not solve the underlying conflicts.

4.3.2. JOHN PAUL LEDERACH The key and the most important contributions of John Paul Lederach, from the perspective of this research, are his practice-based conclusions, such as conflict transformation as a different strategy than conflict resolution, the idea of relational identity, and investing the past to create creative platforms for peace. Further, the way Lederach theorizes his practice in peacebuilding moves the whole discipline of peace studies into a new level; he opens the doors for other disciplines to imagine their role in the process of peacebuilding, start an action, and contribute. For Lederach, peacebuilding is a moral imagination. In order to be realized, in any

339 Johan Galtung, “Cultural Violence,” Journal of Peace Research, Sage Publications, Ltd. Volume: 27 issue: 3, (1990): 291-305.

340 Johan Galtung, Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (Oslo : International Peace Research Institute; London ; Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, 1996), 2 .

151 discipline or field of expertise, it requires creativity. The following are the key themes and ideas derived from Lederach’s propositions:

CONFLICT SETTINGS: THE STARTING POINT FOR PEACEBUILDING

Lederach maintains that the infrastructure for peacebuilding must be rooted in the conflict setting; it must emerge creatively from the culture and context of the conflict itself.341

Conflict often develops violent and disrupted patterns, yet it has the potentials for the envisioned constructive change; the seeds for peacebuilding lie in the patterns underlying the conflict.342 In other words, the disrupted relationships underlying unresolved conflicts breed more cycles of violence. Yet they are, in themselves, the generative energy from which transcendence of those same cycles bursts forth.343 Therefore, the deeper structural dimensions, which are the underlying causes of conflict, should be the targets of conflict transformation; they must be carefully addressed as they provide the process of peacebuilding with the required constructive patterns for change.344

Among the most important points to be precisely identified is the nature of the conflicts

(whether it is international or intranational in scope); this point, in particular, determines the starting point of the whole process of peacebuilding. Based on a broad overview of conflicts across the global, Lederach maintains that in contemporary settings, “in almost all cases, the

341 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 11.

342 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books,2003), 19.

343 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P34.

344 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books,2003), 25.

152 conflicts are intranational in scope, that is, they are fought between groups who come from within the boundaries of a defined state.”345 A fundamental assertion is that intranational conflict

“is more akin to communal and intercommunal conflict than to international – that is, interstate conflicts.”346 To identify the nature of the conflict, whether it is intranational or international, is crucial to decide the peace strategy to be employed. Strategies of peacebuilding in intranational conflicts are essentially different than those employed for international conflicts. In intranational conflicts, unlike international conflicts, “formal and governmental international mechanisms for dealing with conflict are limited.”347 According to Lederach, in contemporary societies, intranational conflicts emerge because “cohesion and identity tend to form within increasingly narrower lines than those that encompass national citizenship.” 348 In such situations of internal conflicts, “people seek security by identifying with something close to their experience and over which they have some control. In today’s settings that unit of identity may be a clan, ethnicity, religion, or geographic/ regional affiliation, or a mix of these.”349 This experience, in turn, further exacerbates the hatred and fear that are fueling the conflict.350 Sociologists, Lederach clarifies, have identified the relation of the movement from disagreement to antagonism and hostility,

345 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 11.

346 Ibid., 12.

347 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 15.

348 Ibid., 12, 13.

349 Ibid., 13.

350 Ibid.

153 with the strengthening of a group’s internal cohesion in response to the sharpening definition of external threats and enemies.351 With the multiplicity of groups which are divided based on a particular unit of identity, the central authority will be weakened and the possibilities for any disagreement to exacerbate into armed conflict and later into war will increase.352 Therefore, rebuilding peace in such extremely polarized intranational conflicts must targets the root cause of the conflict, particularly the precise unit of identity that defines the narrower lines of division; this target is the problem to be resolved as well as the source of constructive patterns to build the platforms for peace.

CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION Conflict transformation, according to Lederach, is a process of creating a constructive change through conflict by addressing and resolving the root causes of conflict on broader settings beyond the immediate expression of the presented issue.353 The target of conflict transformation, as a change oriented process, is the problems of deeper structures of relationships. The ultimate goal is not only to end the long-standing cycles of violence, but also to prevent them from breeding in future.354 The structural conflict transformation, therefore, is responsive to both the epicenter and the episode of conflict (the content and the context).355 In

351 Ibid.

352 Ibid., 14.

353 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 12-14.

354 Ibid., 19.

355 Ibid., 31.

154 other words, both the immediate issues and the bigger picture of relationships and patterns within which the problem was given birth should be carefully addressed for structural conflict transformation.356

Furthermore, conflict transformation is a complex and systematic process; it is an intentional intervening on three levels: relational, structural, and cultural. It structurally changes the root causes of conflict in each of these three levels from being destructive into constructive patterns (creating positives from the difficult negative). On the relational level, the goal is to minimize poorly functioning communication and to maximize mutual understanding. On the structural and cultural levels, conflict transformation attempts to understand and address the social conditions and cultural patterns that give rise to the conflict. It also attempts to identify and build upon constructive resources and mechanisms within a cultural setting for constructively responding to, and handling, conflict.357 This includes trying to explicitly surface the relational fears, hopes, and goals of the people involved.358 Conflict transformation could also highlight and employ the mutual platforms of collective memories, history, or even collective interest within an envisioned model of future relationships as constructive patterns for peace.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION

Conflict transformation, terminologically, has been long used for the same purpose and meanings as conflict resolution; the term ‘transformation’ has been seen as only a deeper

356 Ibid., 49.

357 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 27.

358 Ibid., 25.

155 expression of the term ‘resolution’. Lederach asserts that transformation and resolution are different; each has its own task and purpose in the process of peacebuilding.359 They are different in the way they look at, and respond to, conflicts.360 Together, they both comprise the process of peacebuilding. Based on his experience in different conflict zones around the world, Lederach expands on the evolution of peacebuilding from being simple conflict resolution to strategic conflict transformation.361

According to Lederach, Re(solution) is built around the notion of seeking immediate solution to problems; “it guides our thinking toward bringing some set of events or issues, usually experienced as very painful, to an end.” 362 Its guiding question is: “How do we end something that is not desired?”363 Since the 1960s to 2007, conflict resolution was the way to express the process of addressing the deep roots of conflict and where they come from in order to solve it.

Lederach refutes this understanding and he introduces his experience -based understanding of resolution as being a conflict-solving strategy that focuses primarily on short-term trajectories and on the most visible expression in those involved in conflict.364 Conflict resolution concentrates mainly on only the content of the problem providing immediate solutions of short-

359 John Paul Lederach, From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

360 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 29.

361 John Paul Lederach, From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

362 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 29.

363 Ibid.

364 John Paul Lederach, From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

156 term relief.365 In this process, the root and structural causes of conflict remain untouched.366

According to Lederach, deeply rooted socio-political problems will not be solved with quick solutions limited only to the content. Such complex problems requires longer-term vision that goes beyond the immediate and visible content into the deeper and invisible patterns rooted in the broader context of the conflict.367

For further clarification, Lederach gives an example: if there is a conflict in the school between two gangs, the mediator for conflict resolution would focus on how to solve the problem by getting these two gangs together. This proposed solution is not about how to change the whole community around why gangs happen.368 Thus, resolution, at the level of practice, is a narrow definition to bring an immediate solution but not change the causes.369

In order to change the root causes of the conflict, Lederach asserts that transformation becomes a more accurate term to use instead of resolution. The idea of conflict transformation has emerged over many years in the search for an adequate language to describe the process of peacebuilding. Unlike resolution, which simply eliminates or controls conflict, transformation provides a more holistic understanding as it focuses on change; it constructively changes the root

365 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 31.

366 John Paul Lederach, Preparing For Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1996), P16.

367 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 30.

John Paul Lederach, From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

368 Ibid.

369 Ibid.

157 causes of the conflict in order not only to end the conflict but also to prevent it from emerging in the future.370 Conflict transformation, in this sense, provides longer-term vision and concerns for the visible content, but it centers its attention on the context of relationship patterns. The guiding question is “how do we end something that is not desired and build something we do desire?”371

The purpose of conflict transformation, therefore, is not only to end numerous immediate problems. Instead, it is to end the problem and create significant constructive change on deeper levels by targeting the invisible patterns that caused the immediate visible expression of the conflict.372 In this process of conflict transformation, the immediate problem is the window to a wider set of patterns.373 These patterns are the generators of the deeply rooted problems, thus, they should be carefully addressed and constructively transformed.

THE MAP OF CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION: A WHOLE PICTURE OF CONFLICT

Conflict transformation, stated by Lederach, is not merely a set of specific techniques; it is more a complicated process with multiple dimensions. The big picture of conflict transformation can be visualized as a map or diagram comprised of three main components or

370 John Paul Lederach, Preparing For Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1996), P17.

371 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 30.

372 Ibid., 28.

373 John Paul Lederach, From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

158 steps. Each of these steps represents a point of inquiry and examination in the development of the strategy in response to conflict.374

Inquiry 1: The Whole Picture of the Conflict: Conflict transformation, according to Lederach, faces challenges such as “what kind of changes and solutions are needed? At what levels? Around which issues? Embedded in which relationships?”375 Addressing these questions requires building a whole picture of the conflict which is the very first step in the process of conflict transformation.

Different dimensions involve in shaping the whole picture of any conflict. These dimensions are all essentially interrelated and overlapped.376 Lederach identifies three dimensions to cover the whole picture of the conflict: the immediate issue, the broader context, and the history of conflict. Systematically addressing these three dimensions is to identify not only the causes of the conflict but also to the potentials, resources, and constructive patterns at each level, and to think how to creatively invest them for peacebuilding within a given setting.377 Resources must be seen as including people, history, and cultural modalities in the setting. Examining the history of the conflict, for example, reveals the root causes of the problems, and provides the process of conflict transformation with the patterns on which the design of the active platforms for peacebuilding can possibly be based. This process essentially requires a capacity to recognize,

374 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 34.

375 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 38-39.

376 Ibid., 10.

377 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 121.

159 understand, and redress the constructive patterns that can be activated for conflict transformation and peacebuilding.378

Inquiry 2: The Progression of Conflict and the Sustainability of its Transformation: A careful analysis of the whole picture of the conflict provides possible scenarios to direct the process of conflict transformation towards the desired future.379 It is to create an interconnected web of aspects related to the immediate issue, context, history, and future (the key paradox here is the connections between the present, the past and the future).380

Inquiry 3: The Development and the Design for Change: It is the response to conflict through a vision that is based on the outcome of the previous two steps.381 Conflict transformation and peacebuilding at this point requires building platforms for constructive change by developing a web of interconnected needs, relationships, and patterns on relational, cultural and structural levels.382 Such creative platforms reduce the escalation of violence and broken relationships, and replace them constructively with positive relationships that ensure reconciliation and a sustainable future peace.383

378 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books,2003), 35.

379 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 79.

380 Ibid., 36-37.

381 Ibid., 37-39.

382 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 40-47.

383 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 84, 85.

160

PEACEBUILDING AND RELATIONSHIPS

Conflict transformation views peace as centered and rooted in the quality of relationships.384 Lederach defines conflict, from this perspective, as a disruption in the natural flow of our relationships. On this same basis, the experience of rebuilding peace can be defined as the process of transforming the disrupted relationships (the root causes of the conflicts) into constructive patterns and structures. According to Lederach, specifically, those who are seeking social change must find the strategic relationships and intentionally work to “link people who are not like-minded and not like-situated in the context.”385

Conflicts are the result of disrupted relationships. However, unresolved and deeply rooted conflicts cause a change in terms of deterioration in the deeper patterns of relationships in a given setting. Unresolved conflict changes its cultural patterns, communication systems, and social organizations.386 The result is breeding more cycles of violence.387 When relationships are

384 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P34.

385 Ibid., P84, 85.

386 John Paul Lederach, Preparing For Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1996), P17.

387 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 25.

161 changed by conflicts, they become complicated, not as easy and smooth as they once were, and communication becomes difficult. Ongoing cycles of violence in a given context reduce complex histories and systems into dualistic polarities.388 People, communities, and most specifically choices about ways they will respond to the conflict are forced into ‘either/or’ categories: we are right, they are wrong; we are violated, they are violators; we are liberators, they are oppressors.

This polarized system of the relationships deeply exacerbates conflicts into more complicated phases of violence.389 Such cases of exacerbated conflicts require more intentional efforts in order to move the context back into its original state as a complex and inclusive structure. This requires developing the capacity of individuals and communities to re-embrace complexity and to imagine themselves in a web of relationship even with their enemies.390 The dualistic polarities of ‘either/or’ disrupted system of relationships, therefore, becomes the target of conflict transformation. At this level, it is crucial to understand how the relationships has changed, and at which exact levels in order to structurally transform the ‘either/or’ into ‘both/and’ constructive patterns of relationships for peace.

The idea is that relationships are key to the process of peacebuilding as they are the results and the causes of both violence and for peace. For further clarification, Lederach introduces the ‘art’ as an example; “Art is what the human hand touches, shapes, and creates and in turn what touches our deeper sense of being, our experience…it arises from human

388 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P35, 38.

389 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 7.

390 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P34.

162 experience and then shapes, gives expression and meaning to, that experience. Peacebuilding has this same artistic quality.”391

Another important aspect pointed out by Lederach is that relationships have visible dimensions, and dimensions that are less visible.392 The visible dimension is defined by Lederach as a face value; it is “the simple and direct way that things appear and are presented.”393 Face values are only the starting point for exploring conflicts; they represent only the window.394 Heart values, states Lederach, “goes beyond the presentation of appearance and ventures into the way things are perceived and interpreted by people.”395 Heart values, could be understood as the invisible system or web of relationships, which forms the context of conflicts, on which constructive social change should be built. “To encourage the positive potential inherent in conflict, we must concentrate on the less visible dimensions of relationships rather than concentrating exclusively on the content and substance of the fighting that is often much more visible.”396 Exploring visible and invisible dimensions (face and at heart values) are the heart of conflict transformational processes.397

391 Ibid.

392 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 17.

393 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P36, 37.

394 John Paul Lederach, From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

395 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P36, 37.

396 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 17.

397 Ibid.

163

COMPLEXITY: THE RELATIONAL INTERDEPENDENCY

According to Lederach, peacebuilding relies on complexity, for from complexity emerges new opportunities, and unexpected potentialities that break and surpass the artificial polarization of dualistic divisions and patterns of repeated violence.398

Targeting and constructively changing the patterns of ‘either/or’ into ‘both/and’ inclusive system of relationships through a processes of conflict transformation ensures that the polarized contexts will regain its complexity back again. Breaking the cycle of violence requires that people see the value of complexity, and understand and accept a more fundamental truth about themselves and their relationships with the others under ‘both/and’ system of relationships.399

To embrace complexity, we must develop the capacity to identify the key energies in the situation and to live with apparent contradictions and paradoxes (to make complexity a friend, not a foe).

Among the most important values and key energies of complexity is the idea of ‘relational interdependency’ in which the role of identity is essential. Lederach further clarifies, “at the deepest level, identity is lodged in the narratives of how people see themselves, who they are, where they have come from, and what they fear they will become or lose.”400 If people could understand and see their identity through the contradictions of others, then complexity becomes a necessity; identity, in this sense, becomes relational. The existence of the other who is different becomes a necessity to identify the self. Lederach gives an example: “if we had no color in the

398 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P37.

399 Ibid., P33.

400 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 55.

164 world than the color blue, then blue would be colorless. To distinguish blue we need a matrix of colors; then ‘blue’ in relationship has identity and makes sense.”401 Such dialogues can be processed through “music, the arts, rituals, dialogue-as-sport, fun and laughter, and dialogue – as- shared work to preserve old city centers or parks.”402 The challenge, Lederach states, is “how do we create spaces and processes that encourage people to address and articulate a positive sense of identity in relationship to other people and groups, but not in reaction to them?”403

Embracing complexity for rebuilding peace, does not mean rejecting the base patterns which are identified with simplicity because these patterns are the dynamics that generates complexity. It is important to highlight that simplicity, in this sense, is a source of energy not a product of reductionism.404

PEACEBUILDING: A MORAL IMAGINATION

The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, is one of the key resources of this research. In this book, Lederach creatively moves the whole discipline of peace studies into a new level. Based on his experience on the level of practice, Lederach proposed a wide range of new ideas through which it was possible to opens new doors for creative acts for peace on tremendously deeper and broader scope. Three main ideas are essentially relevant to this

401 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 55-56.

402 Ibid., 59.

403 Ibid., 56.

404 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P33.

165 research. These dimensions are: building common grounds for peace, the imagination of the past as a common ground for peace, and the imagination of moving to the tangible.

Building common grounds for peace: This is not as a simple process that is based on narrowly shared denominators. Building common grounds for peace is rather a creative process which requires moving beyond what is visible, something that holds apparently contradictory and violently opposed social energies together. Building creative common grounds, in this sense, requires a vision of relationship to explore in much greater detail the deep and invisible dynamics and potentials of networking; it is “the arts of web making and web watching.” 405 In other words, building common grounds for peacebuilding requires diving deep into the invisible patterns, to the history and the context of the conflict, derive and bring into the surface the mutual grounds which have the capacity to activate and stimulate rebuilding constructive relationships between the confronted groups. These common grounds help the two sides in conflict to realize and locate a greater truth about their relationships “if there is no capacity to imagine the canvas of mutual relationships and situate oneself as part of that historic and ever-evolving web, peacebuilding collapses.”406

The Imagination of the Past: In building common grounds for conflict transformation (moving from the current patterns of crisis into more constructive relationships in the future), the creative imagination of the past is crucial. What is important is what part of the past? From his experience of visiting Belfast in the early 1990’s, Lederach concluded that the past was contributing to

405 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P35.

406 Ibid.

166 intensifying the conflict in the city. Lederach recalls that he toured the different neighborhoods of the city and captured the image of the murals that stood out, supporting heroes and denigrating enemies, which from one street to the next would switch perspective. He also recalls the streets of Belfast each year in the parading season “when violence would erupt around who had the right to remember what date in history, in which way, and on whose geography.”407 From this experience, lederach noticed that the past, the womb of memories, is not a bygone, static entity; the past was alive in Belfast through the annual parades that commemorate historic events (the victory of one side of the conflict and the defeat of the other side). The past in this context was playing a key role in strengthening social polarization and supporting the attitudes of “dominate or be dominated.” The creative imagination of the past in the process of conflict transformation, Lederach concludes, is the capacity, to re-story, to discover the potentials embedded in the past in form of common grounds; a potential that is not exclusive to one side of the conflict. Such inclusive and common-ground narratives from the past give meaning to life and to ongoing relationships. 408 The past, in this sense, could be the shared or collective memory of a particular group or setting. However, to re-story a particular pattern from the past is a challenge, because re-storying is not simply repeating the past, attempting to recreate it exactly as it was, or to act as if it did not exist. Rather, it is to function for new purposes within the new context. It is to give meaning and to stimulate the generation of the new relationships for peace by using the potentials of the inclusive collective memory in that particular narrative.

407 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), P134.

408 Ibid., P148.

167

The imagination of moving to the tangible: Lederach considers that the move to the tangible is one of the key dimensions that give rise to the process of peace building as a moral imagination.409 To move to the tangible, according to Lederach, is the provision of space for the creative act to emerge. He further states “when relationships collapse, the center of social change does not hold. And correspondingly, rebuilding what has fallen apart is centrally the process of rebuilding relational spaces that hold things together.”410 Such spaces are key to constructive change as they rebuild the polarized relationships that were divided by ‘either/or’ systems in contexts of conflicts. For further clarification, Lederach uses the analogy with the idea of spiders as web makers to illustrate his vision of the imagined relational spaces.411 Architects, based on this vision, can be imagined as web makers. Peacebuilding as web making, is a process of creating “complicated structures in an unpredictable environment.”412 On finding the soul of place, Lederach states:

“Web making assumes a purpose in our peacebuilding activities: We wish

to put in place something that will help to mold and shape constructive social

change in a given setting. The key to sparking that change and making that

change it stick requires imaginations, new way of thinking, and developing

processes that weave relationships and connections and that create the social

409 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 38-39.

410 Ibid., P75.

411 Ibid., P80.

412 Ibid., P84.

168

spaces that form the invisible fabric of human community within and beyond

the geography of violence.”413

Web making is to envision the canvas that makes visible the relational spaces.414 It suggests

“recognizing and building relational spaces that have not existed or that must be strengthened to create a whole that, like the spider’s web, makes things stick.”415 Fundamental skills for this process is to find invisible connections, to “know-who and know-where.”416 In this process, the location of the space must be strategically chosen, resources must be based on relationships and connections within the setting to create spaces that have a capacity to generate and activate processes of change. 417

413 John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 101-102.

414 Ibid., 86.

415 Ibid., P85.

416 Ibid.

417 Ibid., P80.

169

4.4. BUILDING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF PEACEBUILDING

Carefully examining both the propositions of Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach shows that each of them focuses on certain aspects in the process of peacebuilding. Building a clear theoretical framework of peacebuilding, for the purpose of this research, requires weaving the concluded knowledge from the propositions of both Galtung and Lederach together. Ideas proposed by Galtung can be understood in more detail through Lederach’s propositions.

Additionally, Galtung’s propositions explains the points made by Lederach. For example, Galtung gives incisive definitions to the most important concepts in the discourse of peace and peace building (defining peace as being negative or positive). Lederach, through his practice-based experience, clarifies the process of conflict transformation from the state of ‘negative peace’ to the state of ‘positive peace’. In another example, Galtung distinguishes conflict from violence and clarifies types of violence (direct and indirect), Lederach distinguishes between resolution and transformation. Resolution, targets the direct violence, whereas transformation targets the indirect violence (the structural and cultural). Lederach also expands deep in the practice and brings into the theory dimensions that were not recognized before, such as the idea of building active platforms for peace and creating spaces of relational identity. These ideas activate the structural transformation towards what is described by Galtung as positive peace.

Based on these propositions it was possible to build the theoretical framework of peacebuilding which includes the following parts: The Thematic Definitions; Peacebuilding: The

Process (Roadmap); Peacebuilding: The Structural Conflict Transformation; Active Platforms for

Positive Peace: The Characteristics; Moving to The Tangible Platforms for Peacebuilding.

170

4.4.1. THE THEMATIC DEFINITIONS

The confusion because of the imprecise use of the key thematic terms becomes very problematic when understanding the process of peacebuilding and theorizing architecture for/of peace. This section, therefore, is to demonstrate clear understanding of the following key thematic definitions in the theoretical framework for this dissertation:

CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE Conflicts are natural, exist at all levels, and experienced within and between individuals of every background, community, culture, class, nationality, age and gender every single day.

Conflict arises when there are incompatible goals, (contradictions). If the conflict continues unaddressed, it becomes sufficiently deep. Parties with contradictory goals gradually form a dualistic system of relationships in a process of reduction which reduces the numbers of conflict parties into two confronted groups. Resolving conflicts at this stage requires addressing and transforming the root causes of the conflict (the dualistic systems). Otherwise, the conflict may enter a violent phase.

Violence is a more advance level of exacerbated conflicts; it develops as a result of accumulation of unresolved conflicts. Moving into a violent phase in a given context means that the dualistic ‘either/or’ disrupted systems of relationships underlying conflicts have been polarized into ‘Self /Other.’ Polarization, as it sharply divides the groups involved in a conflict into two confronted sides, makes the process of peacebuilding more complicated. Thus, it is always better to address and structurally resolve and transform conflicts before they exacerbate into more violent phases. If violence has not been depolarized, it might exacerbate into its extreme phase, war. On this basis it is possible to maintain that conflict cannot be prevented as they are

171 natural, however they must be carefully addressed, resolved, and transformed, whereas, violence can and should be prevented.

TRANSFORMATION AND DEPOLARIZATION The proposed peacebuilding strategies for intervention differ accordingly if the case enters a violent phase or is still in the conflict level; each case has different causes, conditions, and contexts. For resolving root causes of conflicts, structural transformation is the strategy.

Whereas, in contexts of violence, depolarization is the first step towards peacebuilding. When a context enters a violent phase, rebuilding peace should target the polarized patterns of

‘either/or’ and ‘self/other’ at all levels and depolarize them. The process of peacebuilding does not end by depolarization, it should continue to address and structurally transform the root causes underlying the unsolved conflicts. In other words, depolarization should be followed by structural transformation of the ‘either/or’ patterns underlying conflicts into ‘both/and’ constructive system of relationships; a process which requires reconciliation between the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other.’ The following is a simple diagram to summarize how conflict and violence are different, and how unresolved conflicts exacerbate into more violent phases reaching to the visible direct violence (war), [Figure 4.03].

Figure 4.03: Conflict and Violence are not the same; Violence is the exacerbated phase of unresolved and polarized conflict. [Source: diagram by the Author].

172

DIRECT AND INDIRECT VIOLENCE Types of violence can be classified based on two perspectives: receiver and sender.

Violence from the perspective of the receiver could be done to the body or to the mind (physical or mental violence), or both. From the perspective of the sender, violence is either direct or indirect (structural, cultural), or both. Direct violence is the visible and physical violent act between the sender and the receiver. War is the most extreme form of direct violence. The indirect violence is the invisible pattern which is either structural or cultural, or both. Examples or forms of structural violence are dehumanization of the other, repression and exploitation.

Cultural violence includes the aspects of a culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence such as religion, ideology, arts, literature or any other cultural expression.

Indirect violence (structural and cultural) is the deeper level of violence. Reporting only direct violence and omitting structural and cultural violence does not solve the conflicts. It only temporarily ends it. To constructively end a conflict and prevent it from emerging in the future, addressing the indirect, structural and cultural, patterns of violence is essential.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE PATTERNS Patterns contributing to conflict, violence and peace have visible and invisible dimensions, which can also be defined as face value and at heart values. The visible (Face value) is the simple direct content of the conflict and how it appears and is presented. The invisible (the Heart value) represents the structural patterns (root causes): both the web of connections which form the context of conflicts and the history of the conflict. The invisible values go beyond the presentation of appearance and ventures into the way these things are formed, perceived, and interpreted by people. The visible and the direct content of the conflict is only a window to the deeper invisible

173 patterns. Also, the positive potentials inherent in conflict contexts exist in its structural patterns, the less visible dimensions.

CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION Resolution and transformation are different strategies in the way they operate and respond to conflicts; each strategy targets different patterns from the conflict for different goals.

Hence, the results they generate are also different. Conflict resolution looks at the direct content of the conflict (the visible dimension) in the aim of providing short-term relief. Resolution brings the undesired set of events or issues to an end. Conflict transformation, despite concerns for content, further expands its focus on the broader context of the conflicts. Transformation is a long-term strategy which targets the underlying patterns and root causes of the conflict (the invisible dimensions). The aim is not only to end the conflict but also to constructively change its causes. It is to end something that is not desired and build something is desired.

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE PEACE

Peace is a state, a condition, or a context which can be defined as negative or positive.

The process of peacebuilding includes strategies for both negative and positive peace. The state of negative peace precedes and sometimes prepares the context to move towards the state of positive peace. Negative peace is not the ultimate goal, but positive peace is.

Creating negative and positive peace, despite being interrelated, are different. They are two different tasks; each of them targets different level from the problem and each requires

174 different strategies to intervene. All the previous thematic definitions contribute to demonstrate a clear understanding of peace being negative and positive [Figure 4.04].

The State Negative Peace Positive Peace Conflict Resolution Structural Transformation

Violence Depolarization Depolarization And Structural Transformation The Scope Short-Term strategy Long-Term strategy

The Focus Conflict Content (epicenter) Conflict Context (episode)

To Address Visible Patterns Visible and Invisible Patterns

The Target Direct Violence Indirect Violence (Structural and Cultural) The Goal To End the Direct Violence To End Direct Violence and Structurally (Curative Aiming) transform the Indirect Violence (Preventive Aiming) The No violence- No Peace Sustainable Peace Condition

Figure 4.04: Defining negative and positive peace through the thematic definitions – [Source: the Author].

Negative peace is the state of being (symptom-free), the absence of violence of all kinds

(direct, structural, or cultural). The state of negative peace either precedes violence, or it is the outcome of the cessation of hostilities (post-war context). The state of negative peace is when conflicts are still active, but are yet to be structurally transformed and resolved.

In all cases, the process of peacebuilding should not stop by building negative peace. The absence of violence does not mean there must be no conflicts. In the first case (the state of negative peace that precedes violence), despite the system is violence-free, conflicts are still

175 active. If conflicts (which is normal to any context) left without being addressed and resolved, they can exacerbate into more violent phases. In the second case (post-war contexts), despite the cessation of direct violence, the system is yet to be stable. That because ending direct violence is a reduction of only the open-armed violence, the structural levels and the root causes of the violence are still active and the immune system has not yet been built to avoid breeding more violence in the future.

Building negative peace, is to reduce and end violence; it is a curative aiming strategy.

The focus at this stage in the process of peacebuilding is only on the epicenter of the conflict, and

‘resolution’ is the employed strategy. The target is only the immediate or the direct content of the issue; in this process, it is only the visible patterns of violence are to be addressed. The goal is to find short-term solutions to end the direct violence. However, the root causes of the conflicts remain active at the deeper structural levels of the context. The example of a context in a state of negative peace is what is commonly known as post-war context which is not exactly (post) war. Ceasing an extreme direct violence (a war) with an agreement, and installing walls and buffer zones to separate the confronted groups create a state of negative peace; it is a state of no violence-no peace. Another example is when a context in a tension as a result of incompatible goals. However, in all cases, it is highly possible for a context in a state of negative peace to enter a violent phase because conflicts are yet to be addressed and the root cause of violence are still active.

Unlike negative peace, positive peace is the enhancement of life. It is the state in which the process of peacebuilding continues beyond negative peace, to systematically improve the

176 cultural and structural patterns underlying the context of conflict. It is to enhance resistance

(building the immune system) in order to make the system more stable with a capacity of self- restoration in case any conflict would breakout. It is not only about ending violence, but also avoiding violence with a preventive aiming strategy. Building positive peace employs structural transformation as a long-term strategy for structural change. Unlike resolution strategies, the focus of conflict transformation is not limited to the epicenter, but rather addresses the episode of conflict. The target, at this stage in the process of peacebuilding, is both the immediate content and the broader context of the conflict. In the process of conflict transformation, in addition to the visible patterns, the invisible disrupted patterns underlying conflicts (root causes) are to be carefully addressed and structurally changed into more constructive patterns. The goal is not only to end the direct violence, but also to end and transform the indirect (structural and cultural) violence, prevent and avoid its breeding into more violent phases in the future.

When violence becomes the case, rebuilding a positive peace becomes a more complicated process. It requires depolarization before conflict transformation. In such extreme violence, focusing only on depolarizing the ‘either/or’ patterns causes nothing but ceasing violence (negative peace). It is only by following the depolarization with constructively transforming the root causes of the conflict that the context will move towards building a sustainable positive peace. Otherwise the context will continue in a state of negative peace; the active and unaddressed dualistic systems underlying conflicts will definitely breed and generate another violence at any possible moment.

177

Building peace requires being clear about the goal, whether it is moving the context to a

state of negative peace or it is at the stage of moving to the state of positive peace. There should

not be any confusion in strategies and goals, otherwise the less expected consequence is a

disruption in the process of peacebuilding. The following diagram illustrates all the previous

points and thematic definitions, particularly Peacebuilding, violence breeding, conflict resolution

for negative peace, and conflict transformation for positive peace [Figure 4.05].

Figure 4.05: Peacebuilding, violence breeding, conflict resolution for negative peace, and conflict transformation for positive peace [Source: diagram by the Author]. Cycles of Violence Breeding and Transformed into Positive Peace

178

4.4.2. PEACEBUILDING: THE PROCESS

After defining the key themes related to the process of peacebuilding, this part from the theoretical framework is to clarify the structure of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding is not a direct act and it does not end at a certain point. It is rather a continuously evolving complex process which requires systematic and intentional actions to constructively transform a ‘particular context’ of active conflicts into the state of positive peace. That particular context could be in a state of negative peace, or a context which already entered a violent phase. Based on the propositions of Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach, it possible to build a structure of the process of peacebuilding which is comprised from three interrelated stages:

- Building the Whole Picture of the Conflict (Mapping- Diagnosis)

- The possible Future Trajectories (Legitimizing- Prognosis)

- Designing Platforms for Constructive Transformation (Bridging- Therapy)

Building the Whole Picture of the Conflict (Mapping- Diagnosis): The Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework This phase is key in the process of peacebuilding; it is defined in this research as a ‘Three-

Dimensional Analytical Framework’ as it maps the following three dimensions: the immediate situation (mapping the content of the conflict), the settings of the broader context, and the history of both the conflict and the context [Figure 4.06].

All the data related to conflict formation and conflict history on both the structural and cultural levels should be carefully examined and analyzed. Mapping has to include all the parties involved in the conflict and all of their goals and issues.

179

The first dimension: the immediate situation. Examining and analyzing the immediate content of the conflict is essential to derive the patterns that are necessary to end the direct violence (resolution). In other words, the derived information are to be used to move the context into the state of ‘negative peace.’

The second dimension: the settings of the broader context of the conflict. Mapping the greater context within which the conflict was given birth is important to reveal the structural patterns that caused conflict formation in a given context.

The third dimension: the history of both the conflict and the context. Analyzing the history of the conflict and the context reveals the deeper root causes of the conflict that contributed to its formation. It also provides information about the way the conflict developed to the stage at which it is now.

Figure 4.06: The Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework, the content of the conflict, the broader context, and the history. [Source: the Author].

180

The process of peacebuilding, at this first and fundamental stage, is not limited to investigating the three-dimensions (content, context, and history) of the conflict. The challenge at this stage, on the one hand is to precisely identify the disrupted patterns that caused the conflict formation, and to question at which dimension are they embedded? Around which issues? Who are the involved parties? On the other hand, the challenge is to discover the constructive patterns inherited in the conflict settings; it is also to unveil the hidden shared values and bonds in the relationships between the confronted groups and reactivate them in platforms for reconciliation and positive peace. This process requires creativity and a capacity to identify and recognize the positive potentials, constructive patterns and resources inherited in the whole picture of the conflict.

Possible Future Trajectories (Legitimizing- Prognosis) Legitimizing or prognosis is to think creatively based on the data, potentials, and resources derived from the Three-Dimensional analysis of the whole picture of the conflict. The goal at this stage is to identify what kind of changes and solutions are needed, and how each solution will direct the process of peacebuilding. It will be possible to envision whether the conflict or the violence is going to increase, stay the same or decrease (whether the system is capable of self-restoration or other-intervention is needed). If intervention is needed, which is the common case, what are the constructive patterns that are the most influential if activated for positive peace? Legitimizing the possible trajectories is required at this stage in order to identify the best trajectory for peacebuilding at that particular conflict setting.

181

Designing Platforms for Constructive Conflict Transformation (Bridging- Therapy) At this stage, based on the outcome from the previous two stages, it becomes possible to design platforms that are conflict sensitive and active for positive peace. Peacebuilding, through these platforms, operates as a process of bridging; it is a deliberate effort systematic intervention

(by Self, Other, or Both) to bridge the divided structures and the disrupted system of relationships within conflict zones. Bridging requires building platforms with potentials to highlight the constructive patterns within the conflict settings, and to develop a web of interconnected relationships on cultural and structural levels. In this process, creative reconciliation capacity is required. The challenge at this stage is how to build upon resources and mechanisms within a cultural setting for constructively responding to, and handling, conflict. In other words, the challenge is how to invest the identified constructive patterns to design the active platforms for structural conflict transformation and positive peace.

4.4.3. PEACEBUILDING: THE CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION

Conflict transformation is a long-term strategy and systematic intentional intervention on three levels: relational, structural, and cultural. The goal is to constructively change the root cause of the conflict and move the context into the state of positive peace.

The Structural Conflict Transformation is centered on relationships; it is to structurally transform the disrupted and poorly functioning ‘Either/Or’ system of relationships underlying conflicts into ‘Both/And’ constructive patterns for positive peace. The ‘Both/And’ constructive patterns and relationships are the platforms that sustain the process of building positive peace.

The process of conflict transformation, from this perspective, could be seen as the art of making

182 a constructive web of relationships. This requires a capacity to explore in much greater detail the inner dynamics and potentials of relationships. It also requires a vision to dissolve the narrower lines which define the sharp divisions between the confronted groups.

Conflict settings is the starting point for the structural conflict transformation. The structural conflict transformation in the process of peacebuilding must emerge creatively from the culture and context of the conflict itself. The potentials and constructive patterns for peace are rooted in the conflict setting. Therefore, building active platforms for positive peace should essentially be based on the derived data from the Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework which, as clarified in the previous sections, includes mapping and analyzing the immediate content of the conflict, its context, and history.

Along the process of conflict transformation, and through the platforms that are activated for positive peace, it is the culture of violence and war that is transforming into the culture of peace. In cultures of peace, the ‘both/and’ become the system of relationships instead of

‘either/or’; inclusivity replaces exclusive systems making complexity and multiplicity inevitable.

4.4.4. ACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR POSITIVE PEACE: THE CHARACTERISTICS Platforms which are active for positive peace are common ground, inclusive, multiplex, and complex. Platforms for positive peace activate the idea of relational identity.

183

REBUILDING PEACE: REBUILDING COMMON GROUND PLATFORMS Under extreme polarization, it is proven that the actor of the polarization would not harm or hurt the other who has a common unit of identity. This statement opened the doors to unveil the role of building common ground platforms for positive peace.

Creating common ground platforms active for positive peace is not the simple process of finding a narrowly shared denominator. It is rather a process which goes beyond what is visible to unveil the hidden constructive patterns between the confronted groups. It requires a capacity to envision a platform with borders broader than the sharp lines that separately define each of the involved units of identity. While dissolving the ‘either/or’ polarized dualism underlying conflicts, the common ground platform operates to rebuild the ‘Both/And’ patterns of positive peace. The idea is to bring into the realization the fact that in divided contexts, the confronted groups share deeper structures that bond them together more than the apparent contradictions and paradoxes which currently separate them. Common ground platform, in this sense, is a tool or a means through which bridging the differences could be possible; it holds apparently contradictory and even violently opposed social energies together, and enhances the communicative abilities in divided societies. These platforms should be long-term active to support the continuous, non-static process of building positive peace. Common-ground platforms maintain a functional and recognizable form and structure. They must be strategically and carefully deployed; it is important to understand how and where exactly things can connect, and how this web of connections occupies the social space and affects it. Creating common ground platforms active for positive peace requires an investigation to find a consensus on the deeper structural levels of conflict (its context setting and its history). These deeper structures

184 are the collective subconscious, cosmology, history, deep cultural heritage, and community or nation’s collective memory. For example, common ground platforms could be the shared myths or moments of shared trauma or glory which are collectively celebrated in the history of a particular context. Even a collective interest within an envisioned model of future relationships operates as a common ground platform to enhance the process of creative conflict transformation.

THE PAST: THE SOURCE OF COMMON GROUND PLATFORMS FOR PEACE The past is one of the structural patterns underlying any context; it is the womb of memories. The past can be employed for intensifying violence as well as for building peace, depending on whether it is to be activated as a polarized or as a common ground platform.

One of the examples is the annual July parades ‘Orange walks’ in Belfast. The early 1990s was the time of ethno-nationalist conflict, ‘The Troubles’ or the ‘guerrilla war’, between

Protestants (the Unionists who wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom) on the one side, and the Catholics (the Irish nationalists, republicans who wanted Northern

Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland) on the other side. The annual July parade used to be associated with the significantly rising rate of violence and hostilities. These parades were seen as sectarian and triumphalist and faced with opposition from Catholics, Irish and Scottish Nationalists. The July parades commemorate the historic event (the Battle of the

Boyne). The event is a commemoration of the victory of one side of the conflict over the other side; it glorifies the ‘Self’ over the ‘Other’ who is defeated in the past. In other words, this parade annually activates patterns from the past that intensify polarization in a context that has not yet

185 been transformed into a state of positive peace. The context was still in a conflict, and was not immune enough to absorb the conflict. This conflict in Belfast was described as being political and nationalistic, but fueled by historical events.418 Analyzing this example shows that there are specific patterns in the past have the potential to intensify violence within conflict contexts.

The past can also be employed as a source of constructive patterns with potential to activate the process of peacebuilding within conflict zones. These constructive patterns from the past should not be exclusive to any of the confronted groups. These patterns that are not equivalent to both sides of the conflict should be prevented. In some cases, such as the July parades (Orange walks), even the collective memory might have different impacts on the two sides of the conflict. A narrative from a collective memory has to be of equal impact on both sides of the conflict so that it gives new meanings to life and ongoing relationships between the different groups in a particular context. In this sense, building common ground platforms based on constructive patterns from the past plays a crucial role in stimulating the process of generating new relationships for positive peace where there are significant past relationships and history, where there are likely to be significant future relationships.

From this perspective, investing in past is not a magical formula that miraculously solves the problems of today. The constructive patterns from the past should not be repeated but rather, they must be creatively re-storied. To re-story is to build platforms for peace by keeping

418 Richard English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA (USA: Oxford University Press, 2003).

186 the positive potential of the past active and alive for new purposes, with new meanings, and for new functions in the context of the present.

PLATFORMS FOR POSITIVE PEACE ARE INCLUSIVE The more the polarization of the ‘either/or’ structural patterns underlying conflicts exacerbates, the more the presence of the ‘Other’ who holds a different identity and goal is eliminated. The result is a highly polarized exclusive context, a culture of violence. Hence, depolarization and structural transformation from the culture of violence into a culture of peace requires creating and activating inclusive platforms to re-include all parties in a given context of conflict. Inclusive platforms empower and enhance the process of dissolving the ‘either/or’ disrupted system of relationships underlying conflicts and building ‘both/and’ constructive patterns of relationships for positive peace.

PLATFORMS FOR POSITIVE PEACE ARE MULTIPLE The dualistic polarity of ‘either-or’ is artificial, whereas multiplicity is real. Reality has more than one dimension and each of them is different. In polarized structures there is only one dimension to be presented; the other dimensions are blurred. As the structure becomes more inclusive under ‘both/and’ structural patterns, its capacity to include the multiple and different dimensions of reality increases. Multiplicity, in this sense, ensures that within one holistic frame, there are spaces for different dimensions to be represented and included.

187

PLATFORMS FOR POSITIVE PEACE ARE COMPLEX With the multiplicity of the inclusive structures, and with the growing web of connections and relationships, complexity becomes inevitable. Cycles of violence reduce complex structures into dualistic polarities that attempt to both describe and contain social reality in artificial ways, so that peacebuilding relies on rebuilding complexity. From complexity new opportunities emerge to break the social polarization and unexpected potentialities to replace the ‘either/or’ patterns of repeated violence with ‘both/and’ constructive patterns for positive peace.

PEACEBUILDING AND THE CONCEPT OF RELATIONAL IDENTITY The key energy in the complex context of the ‘both/and’ system of relationships is the capacity to recognize all the included identities instead of negating or eliminating any of them.

Identity in such inclusive and complex contexts is understood as relational.

This idea of relational identity is the capacity of individuals and communities to imagine themselves in a web of connections (a canvas of mutual relationships), especially with the ‘Other’ who holds a different identity and has contradictory goals. It is to live with, and to see the value of complexity. When the context is more complex, the identity becomes more strongly defined because identity is relational. The ‘Other’ in this structure of relationship is no longer the enemy or the threat. Rather, the presence of the ‘Other’ that is different becomes a necessity to distinguish and define the ‘Self’.419 In Lederach’s discussion of the idea of ‘relational identity,’ the most important questions are: how could the idea of relational identity be translated into spaces?

How do we create spaces that encourage people to address and articulate a positive sense of

419 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 55-56.

188 identity in relationship with, not in reaction to, other groups of people? The suggested answers included processing dialogues through music, arts, rituals, dialogue-as-sport, fun and laughter, and dialogue –as- shared work to preserve old city centers or parks.

TANGIBLE PLATFORMS FOR PEACEBUILDING: THE MORAL IMAGINATION

Creating platforms for positive peace can be imagined as a process of revealing invisible constructive patterns and strategic relationships and connections, and making them visible and active for peace. This idea is an attempt to move to the tangible, to imagine the possible manifestations of the developed conceptual platforms for peacebuilding.

189

CHAPTER FIVE

REREADING ARCHITECTURE BASED ON THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF PEACEBUILDING

ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE

5.1. MOVING TO THE TANGIBLE: REALIZING THE MORAL IMAGINATION OF PEACEBUILDING IN ARCHITECTURE

This chapter is the second step towards solving the research problem and filling the knowledge gap which was identified and gleaned from the discourses of ‘architecture and war’ and ‘architecture and peace.’ Architecture, in this chapter, is going to be analyzed based on the theoretical framework of peacebuilding which was derived and built from theories of peace in the previous chapter; it is an attempt to move the theories of peacebuilding into the tangible.420

The goal is to provide possible answers for the unanswered questions raised throughout the previous chapters, and ultimately to introduce architecture as one of the active platforms for positive peace. In other words, rereading architecture based on the theoretical framework of peacebuilding is a process of activating the main pillars of peacebuilding in architecture in order to theorize architecture for/of positive peace.

420 Moving to the tangible is an idea implied in The Moral Imagination: The Art and The Soul of Building Peace, by John Paul Lederach, 2005.

190

5.2. ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE: ARCHITECTURE OF NEGATIVE PEACE, ARCHITECTURE OF POSITIVE PEACE

Based on the concluded theoretical framework of peacebuilding, peace is a state or a condition of a context, which is defined as being either negative peace or positive peace.

Architecture, in this dissertation, is proposed as one of the platforms that can be activated to contribute to the process of building the states of negative and positive peace. At this point, it is important to clearly state that the ‘architecture for/of negative peace’ is essentially different than the ‘architecture for/ of positive peace’; both together comprise the role of ‘architecture for peace’. Moreover, in relation to the United Nations’ Peace Missions, architecture for negative peace is one of the platforms that are deployed for peacekeeping, whereas architecture for positive peace is one of the platforms that are deployed for peacebuilding. The state of negative peace is the goal of peacekeeping missions, whereas positive peace is the goal of peacebuilding missions. Hence, there is a different architecture to be instrumentalized in each mission.

To incisively distinguish between ‘architecture for/of negative peace’ and ‘architecture for/ of positive peace’ is important because it provides answers for research questions, among them the problems related to the confusion and generalization in using the terms. An example of these problems is when discussing the role of architecture with peacekeeping missions whereas the target is building the state of positive peace—such as the discussion in Volume 26,

Architecture of Peace Reloaded. Another example is when discussing the role of architecture in the process of peacebuilding but using the general term ‘peace’ whereas it is important to identify which peace. Practically and theoretically there is ‘architecture for/of negative peace’ and ‘architecture for/of positive peace’; each of them has its own characteristics, contexts, and

191 conditions. They are different on both the formal and the structural levels; each of them requires a different design strategy and targets different levels of the problem for achieving different goals within the process of building peace. Therefore, it is very important to demonstrate a clear understanding of the differences between ‘architecture for/of negative peace’ and ‘architecture for/of positive peace.’

Architecture for/of negative peace is a temporary platform to serve short-term strategies that address only the immediate content and the visible patterns of the direct violence. It should be a temporary platform because negative peace as a state should be a temporary phase within the process of peacebuilding. The goal of building architecture for/of negative peace is only to end the direct violence; the root causes of the conflicts remain active and unaddressed until they are structurally transformed to create the state of positive peace. Therefore, tension continues in the context of negative peace as a no war-no peace state. Architecture for/of negative peace manifests in different forms; the most common case is to operate as an act of separation such as the DMZ, the heavily militarized buffer zone which separates North Korea from South Korea.

Based on theories of peace, the DMZ is the architecture which was deployed as a platform to implement the Armistice Agreement. It serves a short term strategy with a main goal to end the immediate direct violence (the Korean War) and to move the context from being in war into the no-war, no-peace state (building the state of negative peace in the Korean peninsula).

Understanding this context from this perspective is different than Dongsei Kim’s way of seeing and interpreting the DMZ through what he describes as ‘types of peace’. In “Towards A Dialogic

Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” Kim states that the “Armistice Agreement for the DMZ is a form

192 of negative peace”421 In fact, the DMZ is the architecture which was successfully

‘instrumentalized’422 with specific characteristics to implement the Armistice Agreement of 1953, and ultimately to build the state of negative peace. In this context, throughout the years since

1953, despite the cessation of exacerbated violence, the situation between the two Koreas is yet to be stable. Because in building the state of negative peace, all the deployed platforms, including architecture (DMZ), operate for the reduction of only the open-armed violence (direct violence).

As the state of negative peace has been established, it is possible to define the DMZ, which was built for negative peace, as architecture of negative peace.

Architecture as a platform for building the state of negative peace also manifests as a short-term (temporary) solution to halt the direct violence in a particular context, such as the

Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd, Palestine. Through this project it was possible to end the ongoing and rising violence in Ein Hawd caused by the confrontation between the Palestinians who need a structure for their social ceremonies, and the Israeli authorities who forbid building such structures in that village. By building the Golden Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd, Palestine, it was possible to build a state of negative peace in which the direct content of the conflict was addressed but the root causes of the Palestine-Israel conflict were not. On this basis, the Golden

Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd, can be considered as architecture for/of negative peace.

421Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” Volume: Architecture of Peace Reloaded 40, (2014): p, 40, 43.

422 Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume#11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007).

193

The differences between these two cases of architecture for/of negative peace is that the

DMZ is an up-bottom directed, while the Golden Heart Pavilion is a bottom-up effort.

Unlike architecture for/of negative peace, architecture for/of positive peace is a platform that should be strategically deployed to serve long-term strategies. Building positive peace is an ongoing process and it does not end at specific limits, it requires deploying platforms with a capacity to remain active in the long run. The focus of architecture for/of positive peace is not limited to addressing the immediate content and the visible patterns of the direct violence, but rather expands to address the structural patterns (root causes) of the conflict. The goal is to structurally transform these disrupted patterns (root causes) of the conflict and move the context from being in a state of negative peace into the state of positive peace. Architecture in this context is one of the platforms that can be activated for the structural conflict transformation and building positive peace. Architecture for/of positive peace manifests in different forms but always operates as an active platform for bridging, as a binding project (re-bringing the divided structures together). One of the examples of architecture as a platform for positive peace is the

World Peace Park to be placed in the DMZ between the two Koreas. The World Peace Park was one of the proposed ideas which incorporated architecture as an active platform in contribution to the process of transforming the state of negative peace between the two Koreas into the state of positive peace. As architecture for positive peace, the World Peace Park, targets the structural patterns of the conflict (the disrupted relationships between the two sides involved in the Korean

War). In this context, placing the World Peace Park as Architecture for/of positive peace in the

DMZ does not only dissolve and eliminate the act of separation caused by the DMZ, but also it provides a space to build new constructive patterns of relationships.

194

Understanding the World Peace Park from this perspective refutes Dongsei Kim’s statement that “proposing a peace park in the DMZ can be seen as a form of positive peace.”423

Proposing a project is not a form of positive peace. Rather, the proposed project is one of the platforms to contribute to the process of building the state of positive peace. This further refutes

Kim’s statement that proposing the ‘World Peace Park’ in the DMZ for peace based on Galtung’s definitions is politically charged and there might not be a place for architecture.424 In fact, proposing the World Peace Park in the DMZ is a process of activating the role of architecture as one of the platforms for structurally transforming the context from the state of negative peace into the state of positive peace. Architecture in this context is one of the tools, an active tool that is employed for positive peace.

Further, based on ‘his interpretations,’ Kim states that proposing a peace park in the DMZ as a form of positive peace “is susceptible to becoming an imposition of the hegemonies just like architecture can be instrument of power.” 425 Therefore, instead of peace definitions, Kim suggests to approach the Korean ‘World Peace Park’ as a dialogical space, he states “dialogic in this case helps one to actively resist a naïve notion of peace often based on consensus that ultimately serves to corroborate the dominant hegemonic power.”426

423 Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 42.

424 Ibid.

425 Ibid.

426Ibid.

195

Because these statements are built based on misinterpretations and direct translation of the peace definitions, criticizing and refuting Kim’s proposition becomes crucial.

To begin with, when it comes to critically interpreting the definitions of peace, it is obvious that any attempt to de-contextualize the definitions of peace and directly appropriate them into architecture is not a valid option. The discipline of peace studies is a complex discourse which requires deeper examinations than only appropriating de-contextualized definitions from more general levels of peace studies directly into other disciplines, especially a discipline as complex as architecture. As it was clarified previously in this section, the act of proposing the World Peace

Park is not in itself a form of positive peace (the understanding on which Kim based his statement that there might be no place for architecture for peace). Rather, the World Peace Park is one of the introduced propositions through which architecture is employed as an active platform for building the state of positive peace in the Korean peninsula. These are two essentially different approaches. In addition, introducing the World Peace Park as a dialogic space does not clash or contradict with understanding the space as a platform for positive peace based on the peace definitions. In fact, creating constructive connections and initiating dialogues between confronted groups is among the basic ideas introduces in peace studies. Moreover, the idea of dialogic spaces is further developed, in the propositions of John Paul Lederach, into a space of relational identity or ‘relational interdependency.’ Based on peace studies, the World Peace Park is to create a space for Koreans from both sides to get together after being separated in a state of negative peace for long years. The goal is to structurally transform the context from being in a state of negative peace into the state of positive peace. Through such spaces, it becomes possible to target and address the disrupted patterns of relationship and transform them into constructive

196 patterns by creating a new web of positive relationships. Each side of the conflict will gradually discover that it is possible to peacefully share a space with the ‘Other’ who was once defined as an enemy. The presence of the ‘Other’, in this sense, is no longer a threat. Instead, the presence of the ‘Other’ becomes important in order to initiate a dialogue. However, in this perspective, creating dialogical spaces is part of the process of moving towards the state of positive peace. In other words, creating the state of positive peace requires moving into more advanced levels in building the constructive patterns of relationships; it requires transforming the dialogical spaces into spaces of relational identity. In such spaces, the presence of the ‘Other’ becomes important not only to initiate a dialogue but also to define the ‘Self’. This idea, based on the concluded theoretical frame work of peacebuilding, can be defined as creating spaces of relational identity for positive peace. This is another reason to define the World Peace Park as architecture for positive peace. It has not yet become of peace; it is still in the process of becoming and still employed as a dialogical space.

In this discussion, it is also important to highlight consequences of this problem (the confusion between ‘architecture for/of negative peace’ and ‘architecture for/of positive peace’).

Confusion between the two cases hinders and blocks the process of rebuilding a sustainable peace within conflict zones. The most common case is when building an architecture for/of negative peace and expecting the result to be positive peace. In such cases, the state of negative peace is not seen as a transient (impermanent) step. Therefore, it continues without being structurally transformed into the state of positive peace. Since the root causes of the conflicts in the contexts of negative peace remain active and unaddressed, they will breed more cycles of violence at any moment. The presence of architecture for/of negative peace in such contexts will

197 continue. If any conflict enters a violent phase, the existing architecture of negative peace will be seen and understood in itself as a source of violence. However, the continuation of the state of negative peace and its architecture, without being structurally transformed, becomes the source of the violence. The architecture as an act of separation has been employed for a specific purpose: building the negative peace. It has already achieved its role to end the direct violence; it is not intended to address the root causes of conflicts. In order to prevent violence from breeding in the future, a process of structural conflict transformation should be activated to create the state of positive peace. Proposing the World Peace Park in the DMZ after decades of negative peace in order to build the positive peace between the two Koreas is best example of this point.

Also it is important to distinguish between ‘architecture of negative peace’ and

‘architecture of violence,’ especially if both manifest in a form of an ‘act of separation.’ The architecture as an ‘act of separation’ is not always an architecture of negative peace; it could also be architecture of violence. Architecture when employed as an act of separation is an intentional intervening; it has to have a specific goal. The ultimate goal of this act of separation decides whether it is an architecture of negative peace or it is architecture of violence. In building the architecture for/of negative peace, the goal is to end direct violence and prepare the groundwork for building positive peace. Whereas, in architecture of violence, the goal is to exercise control.

Therefore, building architecture of violence incorporates political hegemonic powers. Comparing the DMZ that separates the two Koreas with the concrete walls that separates Israeli settlements from Palestinian cities is a good example for this point. This point also refutes Kim’s criticism of the possibility of activating peace studies in architecture because it might use architecture as an

198 instrument to incorporate hegemonic power. However, this research proposes that in both cases there is still potential inherent in the particular divided context, that if carefully investigated, can be invested for building positive peace. Instead of concrete walls, there has to be architecture through which it is possible to build new constructive pattern of relationships where everyone is included. Such architecture works to defy separation by bridging.

The last point in this discussion is that architecture can be employed as an active platform to serve strategies that are either ‘up-bottom’ or ‘bottom-up’ directed, or both, for negative and positive peace. When conflicts are international, building the state of negative peace requires

‘up-bottom’ directed strategies. An example of this case is building the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between the North and South Korea. Although architecture was the key instrument, architects had no role. The DMZ, in the form of a 4 km-wide and 250 km-long militarized and fortified buffer zone to separate the two Koreas, was designed based on specifications required in the Armistice

Agreement of 1953.427

In other cases, when conflicts are intra-national, ending direct violence and building the state of negative peace can be a ‘bottom-up’ directed process in which architects have an influential role. Examples of this case are the Oush Grab Park in Beit Sahour and the Golden

Heart Pavilion in Ein Hawd; both are from the Palestine/ Israel conflict.

Oush Grab was an Israeli military base located at the entrance of the besieged Palestinian town Beit Sahour; it has been transformed into a public park for Palestinians in 2007.428 Eyal

427Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” Volume: Architecture of Peace Reloaded 40, (2014): p, 40. 428 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 7, 8.

199

Wiezman and a group of architects and activists led a social and political campaign to prove how the presence of this military base at this particular location intensified tension and caused direct violence between the two sides of the conflict. The group of architects and activists worked on different levels and succeeded in getting the Israeli side to decide the evacuation of the site from the military troops. After the evacuation of the military base, Wiezman with a group of architects, continued their efforts and managed to gradually transform the evacuated base into a public park open for Palestinian families. The immediate violence in that particular context was ended; however, the root causes of the conflict were not addressed. Any confrontation between

Palestinians and Settlers will cause direct violence. However, in this case, architects were successful in leading a ‘bottom-up’ directed strategy for ending the direct violence in that particular context; they were able to use architecture, the public park of Oush Grab in Beit

Sahour, as a platform for building the state of negative peace.

The other example of ‘bottom-up’ directed strategy for negative peace was designing the public space, Golden Heart Pavilion, by Malkit Shoshan, the FAST, in Ein Hawd, Palestine in

2008.429 Shoshan and FAST team initiated bottom-up efforts to investigate the causes of the ongoing direct violence in that village. Based on their findings, Shoshan and FAST team realized the Palestinians’ urgent need for a space for their social activities. The Israeli government’s disapproval of the construction of such structures in the village was intensified tension and anger and caused direct violence between Palestinians and Israeli side. To solve the problem, temporarily, Shoshan introduced a design solution—an inflated structure to be installed as

429 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. # 4 (2010): 36.

200 needed and removed directly after the event. Through this architecture, it was possible to solve the immediate conflict, halt the ongoing direct violence, and build the state of negative peace.

In building the state of positive peace, ‘bottom-up’ strategies are crucial. Positive and sustainable peace cannot be imposed from upper levels of decisions, it has to activate a movement from bottom towards positive peace. Therefore, even in the cases where the decision to build an architecture for peace is ‘up-bottom,’ the design should activate and deploy ‘bottom- up’ strategies for positive peace. In addition to the World Peace Park in the DMZ between North and South Korea, another example of this case is the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in

Kazakhstan. The project was proposed by the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbaev, and designed by Norman Foster who employed a design strategy through which he could create inclusive architecture to activate a ‘bottom-up’ movement towards more religious tolerance, peace and co-existence.

On this basis, activating the role of architecture in the whole process of building peace might incorporate strategies that are ‘up-bottom’ or ‘bottom-up’ directed, or both, with the aim of building the states of negative and positive peace.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE FOR/OF PEACE: THE ROADMAP

The proposed idea of architecture for/of peace in this dissertation is a deliberate effort or intervention by architects to contribute to the process of rebuilding peace and transforming the disrupted system (violence, conflict, tension) creatively, non-violently and constructively into the desired well-state (peace). Throughout the previous chapters, it is been established that peacebuilding is a complex process which requires systematic strategies to collaborate for a

201 constructive conflict transformation (to move the context towards the state of positive peace).

For architecture to contribute to this process as an active platform for peace, it has to be based on a systematic design strategy. Architects must be fully aware of their actions and their goals for which they need a clear understanding of the criticality and the complexity of the situation.

At the end of the previous chapter, it was possible to build a roadmap for peacebuilding. This map could be considered as a conceptual framework for architects (and any activist from other disciplines) when contributing to the process of peacebuilding. The concluded roadmap consists of three interrelated steps:

1- Mapping: The Whole Picture of the Conflict (Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework) 2- Legitimizing 3- Bridging or Web-Making

Mapping: The Whole Picture of the Conflict (Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework) In order for architects to create active platforms for peace, they must build a whole picture of the conflict, for which they need to analyze three dimensions: the content of the conflict, the broader context, and the history of both the conflict and the context.

The in-depth study of all of these three dimensions is the key step in the process of designing architecture as an active platform for negative and positive peace. However, a high level of creativity is required not only to identify the disrupted patterns (root causes of conflict) but also to derive the most influential constructive patterns that have the potentials to be invested in architecture for/of positive peace.

The first of the three dimensions to be mapped and analyzed by architects is the immediate content of the conflict. Architecture has proved to be vital in ending the immediate

202 conflicts (resolution) and building negative peace. However, examining the immediate content of the conflict is not limited to building negative peace. It is also one of the three fundamental dimensions which set the foundation for design decision making of architecture for/of positive peace. The example of Oush Grab (the military base that was transformed into a public park in

Beit Sahour, Palestine) shows how Eyal Wiezman, along with a group of architects and activists, deeply engaged in mapping, studying, and analyzing the immediate content of the conflict on that particular site. They wanted to understand the reasons behind the ongoing rising tension that was a source of continuous cycles of direct violence. As a result, they discovered that the presence of the Israeli military base with all of its architectural representations (architecture of violence) at the entrance of the Palestinian city was intensifying violence and tension in that context. Based on this understanding, they set the goals for evacuating the military base and reusing it for civil purposes in the future. Another example is the Golden Heart Pavilion, by Malkit

Shoshan, FAST, in Ein Hawd in 2008. Designing the Golden Heart Pavilion was also preceded with a process of mapping the immediate content of the conflict. Shoshan found that the village of internal Palestinian refugees lacked any public spaces. The construction of such structures is considered illegal by the Israeli authorities. Aerial photographs are used to trace what is considered illegal construction. In the meantime, the villagers need such structures for their social activities and traditional ceremonies, such as weddings, funerals, parties, and festivals.

Prohibiting construction on this basis was perceived as an act of oppression, which was more than enough to exacerbate tension into more violent phases on that particular site. Based on these findings, Shoshan proposed the flexible structure, which could be inflated in 5 minutes, removed and stored quickly. Such structures as they provide a space the villagers needed, they

203 intrigue the eyes of the authorities.430 This intervention by the architects was vital. The architect designed the project based on the data collected from the immediate content of the conflict on that particular site.

The second dimension of the Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework is the broader context within which the conflict was given birth. Building a whole picture of the conflict is not limited to analyzing the immediate and visible content of the conflict; it also requires further examination of the invisible structural patterns related to the conflict in its broader context.

Moving beyond the content of the immediate conflict enables architects to address the root causes of the conflict and to understand the underlying disrupted patterns of relationships that cause the conflict. Architects in this process are seen as web-makers. Their mission is to transform

(reweave) the disrupted relationships into more constructive patterns through the spaces and the platforms they create for peace. In the envisioned solutions, all identified parties involved in the conflict must be included. Thus, it is fundamental for architects to obtain a clear understanding of who the involved parties are, and what is the exact pattern of relationship that is disrupted? Architects must be fully aware of the kind of relationships they are targeting through their architecture.

Examining the broader context of the conflict also enables the architects to discover the constructive patterns inherent in that context (the patterns that have the potentials to be invested and activated in architecture for/of positive peace). Such constructive patterns open the doors to envision solutions that are derived from and rooted in the context of the conflict itself—

430 Malkit Shoshan, “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result” in Volume 26: Architecture of peace. #4 (2010): 36.

204 as if the context itself suggests to and provides its peacebuilders with the best foundations on which to base their solutions.

In 2006-2008, during the sectarian violence in Iraq, particularly in Bagdad (which is defined by some scholars and journalists as a civil war) huge concrete walls were installed to mitigate the effect of the deadly daily explosions. As a consequence of the ongoing unrest, daily explosions, ethnic cleansing, and systematic assassination based on the religious and political backgrounds of the target victims, the demographical structure of Baghdad has radically transformed from being a heterogeneous society into homogenous groups clustered in ethnic enclaves.431 The concrete walls were mainly separating the Suuni Muslim part of Baghdad from the nearby Shi’ite areas. With the rising rates of ongoing violence, these concrete walls became part of the distorted urban image of Baghdad [Figures 5.01 and 5.02].

By 2008, in that highly tensioned context, paintings started to emerge on the solid concrete walls. This case is going to be further discussed later in the chapter, but what is important at this point is that these paintings and graffiti were highlighting the constructive patterns inherent in their context. The subjects of these paintings remind Iraqis, with all their different affiliations and backgrounds, of their deeper and shared cultural, social, and historical values and bonds [Figure 5.03].

431 See figures 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, and 1.06 in Chapter 1. The Transformation of the demographical structure of Baghdad from a coherent heterogeneous society into fragmented homogeneous groups. The city was clearly divided and segregated into Ethnic enclaves.

205

Figure 5.01: The concrete walls installed in Baghdad during the sectarian violence in 2006-2008. [Source: the BBC news at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8034522.stm].

Figure 5.02: The concrete walls installed in Baghdad in 2006-2008 sectarian violence. An Iraqi boy squeezes through a gap in a stretch of security barrier erected in Baghdad's Adamiyah neighborhood. [Source: the SF Gate at https://www.sfgate.com].

206

Figure 5.03: Artists have created a visual history of Iraq on a blast wall on Abu Nowaz Street in Baghdad. [Source: The National at https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/artists-add-colour-to-grey-baghdad- 1.507254 ].

If analyzed by architects, these paintings can be seen as the seeds for designing their envisioned architecture for positive peace. Without understanding and analyzing the broader context of the conflict in Baghdad (the causes of the conflicts, the involved parties, and the disrupted patterns of relationships), the subject of these paintings would not have any meaning for the architect. Furthermore, most of the paintings reference the history of the country of which all Iraqis are proud. This observation indicates the importance of the next and last dimension in this three dimensional framework: history.

The third and the last dimension to be analyzed by architects is the history of both the conflict and the context. Analyzing the history of the conflict reveals the deeper root causes of the conflict that contributed to its formation. It provides information about how this conflict was born, and how it was exacerbated into more violent phases. Through this process it will be

207 possible to identify the specific disrupted patterns which generate the conflict in a particular context. Thus, architects will be able to define their targets, and therefore, their designed platforms for peace will specifically be directed towards these patterns. In addition to the history of the conflict, architects need to examine the history of the context. The history of the context provides architects and peacebuilders with the constructive patterns on which it is possible to base their envisioned platforms for peace. For example, it is only by examining the history of both the conflict and the context in Baghdad that the architects can see the constructive potentials inherited in the paintings that emerged on the concrete walls in the city during the sectarian violence and the internal conflict of 2006-2008.

By analyzing the immediate content of the conflict, its broader context, and its history, a

Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework will be completed. Architects become capable of building a whole picture of the conflict. Only at this point will it be possible to identify causes of the conflict and derive the key constructive patterns on which it is possible to base the proposed design decisions for positive peace.

Legitimizing Design Proposals Architects, based on the whole picture of the conflict and the data concluded from the three-dimensional analytical framework, should be able to prognosticate the possible trajectories for architecture as an active platform in the process of peacebuilding. Each proposed trajectory provides a solution and a set of patterns that can be activated in architecture for positive peace. These proposals must be legitimized according the requirement and specification of the conflict and its context. The goal at this level is to choose the best proposal, the best

208 trajectory through which architecture is best instrumentalized as an active platform for positive peace in a particular context.

Bridging and Web-Making: Building architectural Platforms for Peace The third and the last step is designing the active platforms for peace. It is a process of design decision making under the main idea: bridging and web-making. The challenge is to design a project that is conflict sensitive with a capacity for bridging the divided structures: a platform which does not exclude any of the involved parties in the conflict. The proposed forms of architecture should be based on the constructive patterns concluded from the three dimensional analytical framework. The envisioned architecture as a platform for peace is a tool or a media through which it is possible to reweave the disrupted relationships. These platforms unveil and activate the hidden constructive patterns inherent in the structural and cultural settings to which the confronted groups belong. Such challenges require creativity. The work of architects in the process of peacebuilding is not limited to investigating the structural patterns and history of the conflict and its context. Creative thinking is also required for architects to discover and read some kind of consensus that is inherent and hidden in these patterns. In other words, creativity is a required capacity for architects in order to:

- Identify the root causes of the conflict, the targets of the proposed projects for peace

- Identify and derive the constructive patterns from the whole picture of the conflict

- Decide which of these patterns can be employed in architecture

- Envision the way these patterns can be translated and employed in architecture to

create active platforms for peace.

209

5.4. LOCATION

Architecture must be strategically located in order to operate as productive, influential, and active platform for positive peace. If architecture is systematically designed to acquire all the concluded characteristics necessary to act for positive peace, but is randomly located, it will neither be productive nor an active platform.

In the Homa Umigdal system of Israeli settlement, the strategic point on map was the key for expansion through the territorial. The ‘location’ of the settlements was a part of a greater strategic plan; it must be within a strategic network of points in order to keep them in connection with each other and with the surroundings.432 The location as a strategic point on map (for example on hilltops, around cities, or according to the speed of transportation and the lines of infrastructure) is also to practice control and domination. Another example, the negative impact of the Israeli military base was greater because of its location on the hilltops at the entrance of the besieged Palestinian town Beit Sahour.433 In other cases, for example in the occupied territories of Palestine, imposing an ‘autonomous’ layer of architecture on specific locations within the existing landscape generated a complete fragmentation of the terrain. 434 In such cases, location is a vital to the act of dividing and polarizing the site into ‘Either/Or’ and

‘Self/Other’ patterns for violence and war.435

432 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 48, 50.

433 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 7,8.

434 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 24.

435 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 52.

210

However, as location is influential aspect of architecture for/of violence and war, it is influential for peacebuilding as well. The best example is the World Peace Park which is strategically placed in the DMZ between the North and South Korea. In this example location is the key aspect for the project to operate as an active platform for positive peace. The park is strategically placed to be in equal distance from both countries in order to provide equal opportunities for both sides of the conflict to access the place. Moreover, placing this park particularly in the DMZ is a process of dissolving the current status of the site as an act of separation and transforming it into an act of bridging. It is a process of transforming the uses of the site from being a highly militarized no man’s land into inclusive space for both sides of the conflict to re-discover their common grounds for building future positive peace.

Similar strategies of placing architecture to operate as active platforms for positive peace can be realized on different scales in other conflict zones. In Baghdad, for example, building spaces of relational identity for positive peace is of crucial importance. As the population and the built environment it is growing dramatically, there is an urgent need to open public parks, open spaces, lungs for the city to breath and for people to get together. Such spaces, in context like that of Baghdad (that is divided by concrete walls), should not be designed and placed anymore based on pure functional considerations. Instead, these spaces must be designed and carefully placed based on analytical studies of the sectarian division in the city. The location of these parks must be carefully chosen in order to activate them as platforms for rebuilding positive peace.

Serious efforts are needed to investigate the urban and social fragmentation in the city, to define the major division lines and to study the possibilities to transform the act of separation into platforms for bridging the divided social and urban structure in the city.

211

5.5. THE STRUCTURAL PATTERN OF ARCHITECTURE FOR/OF POSITIVE PEACE: BOTH/AND

‘Both/And’ is the structural pattern of architecture for/of positive peace. Peacebuilding, as a collaborative work, requires all the contributing platforms to be active in the transformation of ‘Either/Or’ disrupted systems underlying conflicts into ‘Both/And’ constructive patterns of relationships for positive peace. For this reason, the process of conflict transformation is seen as the art of making a constructive web of relationships. Architects, in this sense, are seen as web- makers.

As web-makers, to create ‘Both/And’ patterns of relationships, architects must have the capacity to explore in much greater detail the inner dynamics and potentials inherent in the relationships in the particular context of the conflict. They must also be very precise and careful in identifying the narrower lines which define the sharp divisions between the confronted groups.

The envisioned architecture for positive peace is as an active platform through which it is possible to support and sustain the positive patterns of relationships. Architecture of ‘Both/And’ structural patterns functions socially as a bond; it dissolves the divisions and brings the incompatible differences together. Based on the previous chapters, any form of architecture that might be considered a platform active for positive peace is found to be based on a ‘Both/And’ structural pattern.

The Oush Grab public space in Beit Sahour, Palestine is one of the examples of the possibility to structurally transform the ‘Either/Or’ disrupted systems underlying conflicts into

‘Both/And’ constructive patterns for positive peace through architecture.436 This site was an

436 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 6-23.

212

Israeli military base and at the time of the First Intifada, was used as a prison and storage for confiscated goods from local Palestinians.437 With its oppressive presence and militarized architecture (the walls, barbed wires, and the watch towers of the base and the prison), this site was an example of architecture that was an active platform for violence and war.438 The problem is not only that such architecture intensifies the ‘Either/Or’ system of relationships, but it further polarizes the ‘Either/Or’ into ‘Self/Other,’ where the power and control is obtained by the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ is oppressed and excluded. The result of this polarization was ongoing cycles of direct and indirect violence.

Transforming this site into a peaceful public space for Palestinian civilians, in its deep structures, is a process of depolarization; it is a part of the process of structural transformation from the polarized ‘either/or’ system into ‘both/and’ constructive patterns for positive peace. In this project, the old uses of the site have been structurally transformed; the same space where the Palestinians were imprisoned and oppressed became a public park with places for picnics, playgrounds for children, and a restaurant and open garden for social events. However, despite that this project was successful in dissolving the polarized system of ‘Self/Other,’ the ‘Both/And’ patterns of relationships has not yet been achieved because the site is still opened to include only one side of the conflict: local Palestinian families. Any confrontation with the settlers generates a direct violence. Based on the proposed map of peacebuilding, the structural transformation, in this case, still in progress; it is not yet completed. If positive peace is the target, this process must continue until civilians from both sides of the conflict are included together, in that space,

437 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 13.

438 Ibid., 27.

213 far from any political agendas. Only at this point will it be possible to consider this project as architecture for positive peace. Currently, it is architecture for/of negative peace as it was successfully instrumentalized to halt the direct violence on that particular context. The

‘Both/And’ system of relationship is yet to be achieved.

Another example is the Peace Park placed in the DMZ between North and South Korea.

This project is to provide a space for people from both Koreas to get together after more than 60 years of separation. The World Peace Park structurally transformed the DMZ from being an ‘act of separation’ into a space for bridging and web-making. Along this process, it is the ‘Either/Or’ disrupted systems of relationships that is being systematically and gradually transformed into

‘Both/And’ constructive patterns of relationships. Once it is possible to include both sides of the conflict together in this space, it will turn into a dialogical space opening the possibilities for moving towards the spaces of relational identity. Such spaces are based on ‘Both/And’ relationships; however, the presence of the ‘Other’ who is different is not only important to initiate a dialogue but also to further define the different identity of the ‘Self.’ Together, these different identities will comprise the whole structure of the ‘Both/And’ patterns of relationships for positive and sustainable peace.

The third and the last example in this point is the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, designed by Lord Norman Foster and Partners, in Kazakhstan, 2006.439 In Kazakhstan there are

130 nationalities living in the country with different religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity,

Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism and other faiths. The building was intended to be a symbol of

439See Foster and Partners, Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2006: https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/

214 religious tolerance, peace and co-existence, and a platform for ‘Both/And’ constructive patterns of relationships.

In this example, the ‘Both/And’ constructive pattern is structured on and realized through the programmatic diversity; the programmatic level of the design includes all the cultural and religious backgrounds which represent the holistic identity of Kazakhs. Furthermore, this programmatic diversity is included in one unified structure: a pyramid. The idea is to confirm that in one country, different cultures, traditions and representatives of various nationalities can coexist in peace, harmony and accord. Each culture has accommodations that celebrate its traditions; all cultures together represent the country. Such programmatic diversity, based on this dissertation’s approach, is to be re-read as not as much diversity of functions, but more as functions that support diversity. Creating unified structures, in this example, was never a reason for the ‘Either/Or’ system of relationships to be the structure, nor is it a reason for any unit of identity to negate the presence of the ‘Other’. The idea of ‘altogether’ under the ‘Both/And’ system of relationships creates unified structures that celebrate diversity. The differences of each included unit of identity is crucial to creating the holistic identity of the structure, whether this structure is a building, a society, a city , a country, or any other form of structures.

To conclude, the function of such projects, such as these three examples, moves beyond its architectural limits; they rather function as active platforms for positive peace.

215

5.6. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE

Based on the discourses of ‘architecture and war’, ‘architecture and peace’, and ‘theories of peace and peacebuilding’ it was possible to develop the following characteristics of architecture for/of positive peace:

5.6.1. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS INCLUSIVE

Architecture for/of positive peace should be an inclusive platform. The polarized

‘Either/Or’ patterns underlying conflicts are exclusive structures. They not only keep the tension active but also exacerbated into more violent phases leading to the extreme phase of direct violence (war). ‘Either/Or’ is the deep structure of exclusive systems; it is usually polarized to keep the ‘Other’, who holds a different unit of identity and goal, eliminated, negated and excluded. The increasing rates of the exclusive platforms within any context will transform it into a culture for extreme violence. Thus, in the process of rebuilding peace, it is important to build inclusive structures and structurally transform the exclusive and polarized systems in order to create a culture for positive peace.

By analyzing examples and experiences provided in the previous chapters, it is possible to maintain that architecture can be operated as an exclusive platform for violence, or as an inclusive platform for positive peace either through its visible characteristics, or through its function (uses), or both.

Homa Umigdal (the mold in whose image all future Israeli urban planning was crafted) is introduced by Sharon Rotbard as an example of exclusive architecture.440 In addition to being

440 Sharon Rotbard, “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 39, 56.

216 exclusively used by the Settlers, the image of this architecture is characterized with specific features: walls and watchtowers. Such features are described as being defensive but essentially offensive forms.441 It is offensive to the ‘Other’ who is excluded. Another example is the Fortified

Aid Compounds in Sudan following the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005) which are criticized by Mark Duffield for its exclusive visible features and its exclusive uses as fortified structures.442 These structures are exclusively used by ‘peacekeepers’ and are fortified with inner and outer walls, watchtowers, double gates, and fences topped with razor-wire. The Fortified Aid

Compounds disempowered the peacekeeping efforts instead of empowering the post-war process of peacebuilding.443

The Oush Grab military base in Beit Sahour, Palestine,444 was also an example of architecture as an exclusive platform that operates for intensifying violence and war. In addition to its exclusive uses as a military base (architecture of violence) on top of the hill at the entrance of the city, its exclusive militarized visible characteristics (concrete walls, prison, and watchtowers) was a source of ongoing violence on that particular site. With its transformation from being an Israeli military base into to a public park for Palestinian families, its militarized visible characteristics have been also transformed. However, it is still being exclusively used by

Palestinians under ‘Either/Or’ system of relationships.

441 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. “Introduction,” in A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 21.

442 Mark Duffield, “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society” in Volume 26 : Architecture of peace.#4 (2010): 56-65.

443 Ibid., 57.

444 Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman, Architecture after Revolution (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013), 6-23.

217

Exclusive characteristics systematically generates ‘autonomous’ architecture which represents and considers the needs and the requirements of only one side of the conflict. The

Israeli settlements within and outside the international borders are the example. In Ma’ale

Edummim and Emanuel, which are new cities designed from scratch in the West Bank, the designer (Thomas M. Leitersdorf) exclusively considered the requirement of only the Israeli side.

Whereas, when the same architect designed another new city from scratch, Abidjan in the Ivory

Coast, he applied different design politics. In the Ivory Coast, according to the designer, the design decision was serving all involved sides (the French and the other European communities and tourists, in addition to the traditional African villages in the area who needed to remain there). In Abidjan, stated by Leitersdorf, there are two communities that need to cohabit, whereas in Emanuel there is a distinctively homogeneous community.445 In the West Bank, the red roofs and the placement of the Israeli settlements around the hilltops, controlling the accessibility and the view on the Palestinian towns and villages down in the valleys, clearly distinguish the Israeli landscapes from the Palestinian ones. Such architecture, according to

Wiezman, is being used as a weapon to eliminate the identity of the Palestinian architecture, to maintain separation, and to exercise control. In fact, it is possible to maintain that such architecture eliminates the presence of Palestinians by eliminating the identity of their architecture (the idea of targeting human being by targeting their architecture:

Warchitecture).446 In highly tensioned contexts, like that of the occupied West Bank, the exclusive

445 Thomas M. Leitersdorf, interviewed by Eran Tamir- Tawil, “To start a city from scratch,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 159-160.

446Andrew Herscher, “Warchitecture/Post-Warchitectre,” Volume: Cities Unbuilt 11, (2007):68-77. And, Lebbeus Woods, War and Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993).

218 architecture sharpens the division lines between the self and the other (exclusive architecture is instrumentalized for polarization). Thus, it causes nothing but rising rates of direct violence.

According to Oren Yiftachel, such architecture damaged Arab-Jewish relations because they deepen social disparities and discrimination against Palestinians due to their exclusive political mentality.447

Now, just like exclusive architecture is effective in the highly tensioned contexts for intensifying violence, inclusive architecture is effective when rebuilding positive peace. Being inclusive is one of the potentials through which architecture can build the ‘both/and’ constructive patterns for positive peace. Inclusiveness activates the role of architecture as an active platform for positive peace. The examined examples and experiences throughout the previous chapters revealed that architecture can be inclusive through its functional program, symbolism and visible characteristics, or its uses as a space.

The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation designed by Norman Foster in Kazakhstan can be considered as one of the examples of architecture as an inclusive platform for positive peace due to the diversity of its functional program. The Pyramid is designed with accommodations and functional programs that ensure the inclusion of all the cultural and religious backgrounds that shape the holistic identity of Kazakhstan. The functional program is strategically designed to support diversity and inclusion. In addition to the diversity of the functional program, inclusive symbolism is employed in the interior spaces of the Pyramid. For example, the apex of the

Pyramid features a design of stained glass by Brian Clarke, incorporating doves as symbol of

447 Oren Yiftahel, “Settlements as Reflex Action,” in A Civilian Occupation, ed. Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman (London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003), 34-35.

219 peace. It is a picture of 130 doves that symbolize 130 nationalities living in peace in Kazakhstan.448

Using such inclusive symbolism conveys the message that the Pyramid of Peace expresses the spirit of Kazakhstan, where cultures, traditions and representatives of various nationalities coexist in peace, harmony and accord.

In addition to the Pyramid of Peace and Accord in Kazakhstan, the World Peace Park placed in the DMZ between the North and the South Korea is an example of architecture as an inclusive space. This park provides a space to include groups from both sides of the conflict together. In this inclusive space, the presence of each side of the conflict is equally important in order to initiate dialogues that are necessary to build the ‘both/and’ constructive relationships for positive peace. This park, as an inclusive platform, defies the existence of the DMZ as an act of separation, and gradually will dissolve the ‘ether/or’ patterns enforced by war and segregation and replace it with ‘both/and’ constructive patterns of relationships for positive peace.

5.6.2. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS BELONGING

In order for architecture to operate as an inclusive active platform for positive peace, it has to be belonging. It must emerge creatively from the culture and context of the conflict itself in order to be meaningful and capable of activating the ‘Both/And’ structure of relationships within a particular context. The proposed design as an active platform for positive peace should not be imposed on the conflict settings. It must employ the potential, constructive patterns, and cultural resources that exist and are rooted in the same conflict settings in order to be effective

448 EXPO 2017, future energy, Astana, Kazakhstan, http://astana-piramida.kz/en/

220 and meaningful to all those who are involved in the conflict and those living in communities affected by the conflict. For example, the symbolisms that belong to the ancient Iraqi civilization, such as the cuneiform writing, are not effective and meaningful if they are employed by architects to design a platform for positive peace in Belfast. Likewise, the annual parade (Protestant Orange

Order marches every summer on the 12th of July) in Belfast used to associate with a measurable increase in deaths related to sectarian violence. This parade is effective and meaningful to both sides of the conflict because it belongs to their past and it is a part of their cultural heritage. It used to bring strong emotions and memories to the foreground of community consciousness.

However, this same parade would not be effective nor would it evoke any emotions for Iraqis in

Baghdad because it does not belong to their culture, memories, past, present or future.

5.6.3. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS A COMMON-GROUND PLATFORM

It is very important to incisively state that architecture for positive peace should not only be belonging but also a common-ground platform. That because not every belonging platform is common-ground. Some platforms are belonging and they are meaningful to all those who are involved in the conflict within a particular context, but they have different indications and effects on each group. Whereas they are celebratory for one side of the conflict, they are offensive and oppressive for other side. Such platforms, despite being belonging, are exclusive. They might be more destructive than un-belonging platforms; they operate as active platforms for intensifying polarization and breeding more cycles of violence within highly tensioned settings.

221

In the same example of Belfast, during ‘The Troubles, in the early 1990’s, the annual July parades (the Orange walks) is an event that belongs to the nation’s history; it commemorates the historic event (the Battle of the Boyne). This annual parade, as it was earlier clarified, used to be associated with significantly rising rates of violence and hostilities every year within that highly tensioned ethno-nationalist setting. The reason is, despite the fact that this event is belonging to the history of both sides of the conflict (‘Unionists-Protestants’ and ‘republicans-Catholics’) and is meaningful to both of them, it commemorates the victory of one side of the conflict over the other side who was defeated at that same historical battle. The political and nationalistic conflict, in this case, was being fueled by this historical event. This example is important to show that there are some patterns and resources that belong to the conflict settings, yet they cannot be considered common-ground platforms for positive peace. Such patterns (in this case historical events—resource from the past) if activated, will operate as destructive platforms within conflict settings because they intensify polarization and ‘Either/Or’ settings.

Thus, in design decision making, architects (peacebuilders- web makers) must be very careful in their assessment to the patterns and resources they choose to base their proposed design on. Patterns inherited in the conflict settings operate as resources for positive peace only when they are potentially constructive, inclusive and/or common ground. Such patterns, if activated in the conflict settings through architecture and other platforms, will operate actively for depolarization and building ‘Both/And’ patterns for positive peace. The past, in such settings, as one of the resources of common ground patterns, becomes a vital resource for architects.

In Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, during what is commonly known as the civil war of 2006-

2008, the city was waged with high level of sectarian violence. In order to halt the effect of the

222 continuous waves of deadly explosions and to protect civilians from car bombs and suicide attacks, miles of concrete barriers/walls with checkpoints were constructed around all the relentlessly attacked neighborhoods. With the increasing miles of concrete walls planted within the urban fabric of the city of Baghdad, destruction, direct violence, segregation, and architectural and urban deformation became a reality. The presence of this architecture—the concrete walls— continued even in the aftermath of halting the direct violence. However, its function began to shift from being architecture for defensive purposes into architecture of violence that not only operates as an act of separation (separates the Sunni from Shia neighborhoods) but also as a constant reminder of war and segregation. The concrete walls have deepened the social division, and the social structure has been polarized into the ‘Self’ and the

‘Other’. The other who is behind the walls became a threat; direct violence became expected to breakout at any moment. By the end of 2008, the continuous presence of the concrete walls was faced with rising backlash and refusal by the people of Baghdad. The concrete walls, for Iraqis, have turned their city into a military camp.449 The gray walls of war and violence represented nothing but a constant reminder and a witness that the life in Baghdad was going through an extreme internal violent phase. 450

In that tense context, paintings have started to emerge on these same concrete walls.

Through these paintings, Iraqi activists, artists, and art students have expressed their resistance

449 Tim Albone, “Artists add colour to 'grey' Baghdad,” The National World. December 5, 2008, https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/artists-add-colour-to-grey-baghdad-1.507254

450 Ibid.

223 to violence and desire for peace and reconciliation; they transformed the gray walls of war into colorful painting tableaus. However, the most important point is the subject of these painting.

Careful examination of these paintings shows that the majority of the paintings are sharing subjects that can be defined as belonging common-ground patterns with potentials to include and represent Iraqis with all their different political affiliations and religious backgrounds.

It was as if Iraqi artists were neutralizing and eliminating any exclusive symbolisms that may endure the violence between the conflicted groups. The subject of these paintings included historical monuments and events, such as: Iraqi cultural and architectural heritage, Iraq’s ancient civilizations such as ancient kingdoms of Sumer and Babylon, characters from One Thousand and

One Nights mythical folk tales compiled during the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad, rural Iraqi landscapes, Tigris and Euphrates, palm groves, and proud moments in Iraqi history that touch the collective memory of the Iraqi people [Figures 5.04, 5.05, 5.06, 5.07, 5.08].

Through the subjects of these paintings, the Iraqi activists and artists, consciously or unconsciously, were re-building common-ground platforms and showing their desire for peace.

Such common-ground platforms are necessary for bridging the divided groups and re-connecting the destructed social system in Baghdad in the aftermath of the war and the sectarian violence.

Examining this particular case in Baghdad reveals two important points related to the idea proposed in this dissertation: architecture for/of positive peace.

224

Figure 5.04: Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; it depicts the details of the Ishtar Gate and the walls in the ancient city of Babylon, about 575 BCE –the ancient history of Iraq [Source: public domain].

Figure 5.05: Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; the Kahramana statue which depicts one of the characters from One Thousand and One Nights mythical folk tales compiled during the Islamic Golden Age in Baghdad [Source: public domain].

225

Figure 5.06: Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; the details of the traditional and almost vanished courtyard houses in Baghdadi alleys- the old city and the traditional urban fabric of Baghdad [Source: courtesy Caecilia Pieri, December 2009, https://www.ibraaz.org/essays/96#author102].

Figure 5.07: Painting on the concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; this metaphoric painting depicts the urban image of Baghdad before the war, Sunni and Shiite mosques, and Churches, and a dove on the Tigris river [Source: public domain].

226

Figure 5.08: The concrete walls in Baghdad, 2008; this particular image of the concrete walls was edited by Iraqi artist, using Photoshop, to depict images from the proud ancient history of Iraq (from left to right): The Sumerian Lyre which is the first musical instrument in the history of the world, the statue of Hatra Queen, the historic Minaret at the Great Mosque of Samarra, The Ishtar Gate of the Babylon, Abo Ja'afar AlMansour Monument (the founder of the Baghdad the round city), and the al-Hadba’ ("the hunchback") the minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri. The edited copy went viral on social media in Iraq [Source: public domain].

227

The first point: choosing to paint such constructive patterns on the gray walls of war and transforming them into painting tableaus, in its deep structures, is a process of resisting, challenging, defying, and dissolving the presence of these walls as an act of separation and architecture of violence. These paintings transformed the status and the function of these concrete masses from being an act of separation into common-ground platforms for re-bridging the divided social structures in Baghdad. The concrete walls which were a constant reminder of violence and war transformed into a constant reminder of all the shared cultural, social, and historical values and bonds. Through these paintings, it was possible to transform architecture of violence and war into active platforms for peace. They were the voice of rejecting violence and calling for rebuilding peace.

The second point: by sharing and reactivating common-ground social and historical values, Iraqi artists are reminding Iraqis of what had united them along their prestigious history until the walls of wars separated them. The city’s past, in this sense, is invested to overcome its present and to dismantle the current status of Baghdad as a site of war. Peace and glory were exhibited as a permanent status in the history of the country, proving that the current state of war and social division is and should be temporary. Through art, it was possible for artists and activists to reveal and highlight positive qualities and potentials inherited in their context. Like art, architecture can also build common-ground platforms active for positive peace. Art and architecture can employ and invest the same resources; art and architecture can be employed to pass the same message.

228

For example, employing the ‘cuneiform writing’451 patterns from the ancient Sumerian

Civilization of Mesopotamia c. 3500-3000 BCE, as a constructive pattern and source of design in both art and architecture [Figure 5.09]. Osama, a young Iraqi artist uses Cuneiform patterns and letters in his paintings on the concrete walls [Figure 5.10]. 452 He adds:

“We want to dissolve the presence of these gray walls in our city. We did not install

them and we can’t remove them but we can turn them into painting tableaus. We

want to remind Iraqis of our prestigious history in which peace was not a dream;

it was a reality. We want to live that reality again”

Cuneiform writing is a constructive pattern for Iraqis as it belongs to their glorious shared history. It is a common-ground that is positively meaningful to all Iraqis regardless of their different political and religious backgrounds.

451 Cuneiform is a technique or a system of writing originated in ancient southern Mesopotamia and first invented by the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia c. 3500-3000 BCE. This technique was subsequently adapted for writing in the Akkadian language, of which Babylonian and Assyrian are dialects. It is considered the most significant among the many cultural contributions of the Sumerians and the greatest among those of the Sumerian city of Uruk which advanced the writing of cuneiform c. 3200 BCE. The name comes from the Latin word cuneus for 'wedge' owing to the wedge-shaped style of writing. In cuneiform, a carefully cut writing implement known as a stylus is pressed into soft clay to produce wedge-like impressions that represent word-signs (pictographs) and, later, phonograms or `word-concepts' (closer to a modern-day understanding of a `word'). Most of the clay tablets were sunbaked, making surviving tablets very fragile. The earliest texts in cuneiform script are about 5000 years old. https://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/ ; http://pages.mtu.edu/~scmarkve/2910Su11/WrSys/evolofcuneiform3100-600BC.htm

452 Interview with Osama as a representative of “Hope is always there”, a self-supported group. March 20, 2015.

229

Figure 5.09: Example of Cuneiform Writing from Mesopotamia Exhibited in the British Museum London. [Source: published in Ancient History Encyclopedia, by Jan van der Crabben on 26 April 2012, https://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/].

Figure 5.10: Example from Osama’s graffiti and paintings on concrete walls in Baghdad. The meaning: Iraq victories if we unite [Source: Courtesy Osama Art].

230

What is important at this point is that this same pattern (cuneiform writing ) is employed as a main source of the architectural form of As-Samawah Public Library and cultural center in Al

Muthanna Governorate, Iraq, in 2010 [Figure 5.11]. According to its designer, the Iraqi architect

Safa'a J. Al-Mu'maar, employing these patterns was an attempt to design a structure that belongs to its place. The site of the project is located in the southern part of Iraq. This place is the cradle of civilization and the home of the first Sumerian civilization who invented the first written letters in the history of the world (cuneiform writing). The constructive patterns inherited in the place comprise a rich resource for architectural design. Choosing this particular pattern (the cuneiform writing), according to Al-Mu'maar was also based on its association with the programmatic level of the design and the building’s function, being a library. However, according to the idea proposed in this dissertation, such architecture can be employed as an active platform for peacebuilding due to the positive potential and constructive patterns invested in its design. This project can be, if strategically located, invested as a common-ground platform active as much as, if not more than, the paintings on the concrete walls for rebuilding ‘Both/And’ constructive patterns of relationships for positive peace within the highly tensioned context in Baghdad.

Another example of architecture that could be considered as architecture for positive peace due to the constructive patterns invested in its design is the proposed project of the

General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in Iraq designed by Manhal Habbobi in 2011

[Figure 5.12]. This project was an outcome of an international design competition announced in

October 2011 and awarded in 2012. According to the designer, the vision for this project was to create a masterpiece building to serve as a symbol of Iraqi civilization, unity, and democratic and political emergence. “The concept of the cylindrical seal of ancient Mesopotamian civilization

231 inspired the creation of the architectural composition.”453 However, from the perspective of this dissertation, the cylindrical seal of ancient Mesopotamian civilization is employed to design only the central tower. The project incorporates other layers of architectural forms and details derived from the bright history and rich architectural heritage of Iraq. In addition to the cylindrical seal which shapes the central mass, the design employs and focuses on the Cueniform writing patterns which are enlarged in size to define the fenestration on the Façade [Figure 5.13].

Further, the circular shape surrounding the central mass also associates and recalls the historic walls of Baghdad, the Round City. These incorporated layers, based on the theoretical framework of this research, are belonging common ground constructive patterns from the past that associate with bright moments from the collective memory of Iraqis; thus, they have the capacity to be invested in designing the active platforms for positive peace in Iraq.

Another resource for common-ground patterns to be invested in architectural design for peace is found in the example of the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Kazakhstan. The designer employed the flag of Kazakhstan, particularly the golden and pale blue colors, in the interior design. The flag of Kazakhstan is a common-ground platform which represents all nationalities living in the country with different religions. Such common-ground platforms dissolve the narrower borders of division created based on any unit of identity within the broader borders of the country.

At this point, it is important to mention that common-ground patterns are already exist in its context. Investing them as resources for architectural design for positive peace does not

453 The General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in Iraq, official website of Manhal Habbobi at http://www.manhal-habbobi.co.uk/general-secretariat-of-the-council-of-ministers

232 mean repeating them but rather re-discovering or creatively re-storying them. To re-story the potentials of any common-ground pattern, such as a particular narrative from the past, is not to repeat the past; it is to build platforms for positive peace by keeping the constructive potential of the past active and alive but for new purposes and functions, and loaded with new meanings in the context of the present.

Finally, a common-ground platform for positive peace can also be a common interest. For example, in Baghdad, as the population and the built environment are rapidly growing there is an urgent need to create open spaces and public parks. If this point is invested, the new proposed public parks can be constructively activated as spaces for building positive peace. However, in all cases, architecture as a common-ground platform for positive peace operates as a binding factor for bridging and web-making.

233

Figure 5.11: As-Samawah Public Library and cultural center in Al Muthanna Governorate, Iraq, 2010 [Source: Courtesy Safa'a J. Al-Mu'maar- Nudhum Al-Benaa Consultancy].

234

Figure 5.12: The General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in Iraq, designed by Iraqi architect Manhal Habbobi, 2011. [Source: Official website of Manhal Habbobi at http://www.manhal- habbobi.co.uk/general-secretariat-of-the-council-of-ministers].

Figure 5.13: The Cuneiform letters on the cylindrical seal of ancient Mesopotamian civilization is employed to design the central tower of the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in Iraq, designed by Iraqi architect Manhal Habbobi, 2011. [Source: Official website of Manhal Habbobi at http://www.manhal-habbobi.co.uk/general-secretariat-of-the-council-of-ministers].

235

5.6.4. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS COMPLEX

Transforming the destructive and polarized ‘either-or’ systems into ‘both/and’ constructive patterns, in the process of rebuilding positive peace, requires activating inclusive, belonging, and common-ground platforms. The patterns invested in these platforms are derived from different historical, cultural, political, and social settings. By activating such platforms, multiplicity and complexity become inevitable. Architecture as one of the active platforms for positive peace is characterized with, and embraces complexity.

At this point, it is important to highlight that the discussion of complexity as one of the characteristics of architecture for positive peace might bring into the surface, be misunderstood as, or confused with, the concept of complexity introduced by Robert Venturi in his manifesto,

Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture in the 1960s.454 For this reason, it is important to demonstrate a clear understanding of the fact that they are essentially different in their motivations, theoretical basis, purposes, goals, and the structures of the envisioned physical manifestations.

For Venturi, complexity in architecture is a reactional criticism to the principles embraced by the Modern Movement, particularly simplification which, as he described, is manifested in architecture as primitive and simple forms. Whereas complexity in architecture for positive peace is an experience-based characteristic concluded from theories of peace, it is proposed as a reaction to the destructive reductionism that generates the dualistic polarities underlying the repeated cycles of violence. When unsolved conflicts enter the violent phase, the complex social

454 Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2008).

236 reality became reduced into dualistic polarities. Peacebuilding, from this perspective, relies on complexity because from complexity emerge new opportunities to break the dualistic social polarization. Social reality is complex, dualistic patterns are artificial and made to serve agendas of war and violence.

In addition, complexity, in Venturi’s manifesto, is interrelated with contradiction using the idea of “both-and.” However, it was all about the richness of meaning and ambiguity as opposed to clarity of meaning and singular expression of architecture of modern movement.455 Ambiguous architecture evokes many levels of contradictory meaning; it involves the paradoxical contrast implied by the conjunctive “yet.” For example, Le Corbusier’s Shodhan House is a cube closed by its corners, yet randomly opened on its surfaces—it is both closed and open design. This was a reactional criticism to the orthodox modern architecture, where a sun screen, for example, is probably nothing else.456 However, this is not the case in architecture for positive peace in which complexity is correlated with inclusiveness; the ‘Both/And’ is embraced as a system of relationships that is necessary for depolarization and structural conflict transformation.

(exterior or interior sapce that embraces the idea of relational identity), architectural form, or both.

455 Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2008), 16, 22.

456 Ibid., 23-33.

237

Finally, architecture based on Venturi’s complexity and contradiction is proposed, envisioned, and defined as a ‘difficult whole.’ 457 The ‘whole’, from Venturi’s perspective, is a difficult unity of elements concerning the number of parts in a whole. 458 It is a rejection to the easy unity and the exclusion of elements of orthodox modern architecture and the pure and simple form that follows its function. The ‘difficult whole’ is a translation to ‘less is bore’ as opposite to Mies van der Rohe’s paradox, ‘less is more.’459 Moreover, the ‘difficult whole’ as a unity of elements is a composition which employs and acknowledges duality. The duality of contradictory meanings and elements that makes the eye does not want to be too easily or too quickly satisfied in its search for unity within a whole.460

Unlike the idea of the ‘difficult whole,’ the complexity that is embraced by the architecture as a platform for positive peace rejects and avoids duality; rather, it embraces multiplicity to dissolve any dualistic structures that might be active as a root cause of conflicts.

This dissertation—based on the theoretical framework of peacebuilding— introduces, envisions, and proposes these complex platforms in architecture as ‘assemblages’ for positive peace. The

‘difficult whole’ and ‘assemblage’ are two essentially conceptually and physically different structures.

457 Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2008).

458 Ibid., 88.

459 Ibid., 16.

460 Ibid., 104.

238

5.7. ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS AN ASSEMBLAGE, A SPACE OF RELATIONAL

IDENTITY, OR BOTH

ARCHITECTURE FOR POSITIVE PEACE IS AN ASSEMBLAGE

Architecture as complex, inclusive, belonging, and common-ground platform for positive peace is proposed in this dissertation as an ‘assemblage’. This architecture as an ‘assemblage’ for positive peace is structured on activating different levels of expressions, representations, symbolisms, elements, functions, spaces and activities to create platforms with potential to build connections, and to reveal and highlight the hidden constructive patterns in a particular context.

Architecture as an ‘assemblage’ for positive peace, in this sense, embraces multiplicity and diversity with which complexity becomes inevitable.

On this basis, by embracing diversity, architecture as a complex ‘assemblage’ for positive peace not only avoids but also dissolves the dualistic structures because of their destructive potential for conflicts. The embraced diversity is best defined by Carl S. Sterner as heterogeneous components that enhance the adaptive capacity of any system and limit the likelihood of any excluding act.461 In architecture as an assemblage for positive peace, these heterogeneous components should not be randomly included. Instead, they must be carefully chosen (based on the Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework) for being belonging, common-ground, and inclusive patterns. The arrangement and organization of these heterogeneous components into

461 Carl S. Sterner, “Designing Resilience: Sustainable Design from complex Systems perspective” in New directions In Sustainable Design, ed. Adrian Parr and Michael Zaretsky (London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2011), 152-170.

239 a productive entity produce ‘assemblages.’462 In architecture, the arrangement and organization of the carefully chosen heterogeneous components from different cultural, historical, and social settings will produce assemblages that can be employed as active platforms for positive peace.

With these heterogeneous components, diversity is unified in a structure (an assemblage) that does not negate the differences. Unification, in this sense, is more an act of inclusion; it is the unification that celebrates diversity and differences. Thus, it creates complex structures with potential to be employed for building positive peace.

Further, deeper comprehension of architecture for positive peace as an assemblage is possible through Deleuze’s propositions, particularly the ideas developed by Deleuze and

Guattari. Stated by Graham Livesey,463 “assemblages, as conceived of by Deleuze and Guattari are complex constellations of objects, bodies, expressions, qualities, and territories that come together for varying periods of time to ideally create new ways of functioning.”464 According to

Jeffrey A. Bell,465 “an assemblage, for Deleuze, entails a consistency of elements irreducible to a traditional dualism.” 466 The diversity and multiplicity of its components maintain and prevent the assemblage from being reduced to either side of a dualistic relation; therefore, it avoids collapse

462 Graham Livesey, “Assemblage” in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed. Adrian Parr (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2010), 18-19.

463 Graham Livesey is associate professor and director of the architecture program (Faculty of Environmental Design) at the University of Calgary. He was a principal in Down Livesey Architects of Calgary from 1995 to 2004.

464 Graham Livesey, “Assemblage” in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed. Adrian Parr (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2010), 18-19.

465 Jeffrey A. Bell is a Professor of Philosophy in Southeastern Louisiana University.

466 Jeffrey A. Bell, “Assemblage +Architecture” in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed. Adrian Parr (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2010), 19.

240 and deterioration.467 Bell further states, “Crucial to connecting Deleuze’s understanding of assemblage with architecture is the important role multiplicity plays for Deleuze in developing a philosophy that avoids dualism.” 468 Building assemblages is a processes of arranging, organizing, and fitting together multiplicity of heterogeneous components. These arrangements are productive and have function; they are intended and desired to produce connections, to define relationships between a particular set of forces. The assemblages deal with forces that unmake and make territories that are necessary for the spatial definition of the earth (what Deleuze and

Guattari define as deterritorialisation and reterritorialization).469 According to Graham Livesey, an assemblage transpires as a set of forces coalesces together and form one mass or whole. The concept of assemblages applies to all structures, from behavior patterns of an individual, the organization of institutions, and arrangement of spaces, to functioning of ecologies.470

Reflecting and connecting this concept into architecture supports and further elucidate the idea of architecture as an active platform for positive peace. Architecture, as an assemblage, is a complex structure, a product of a process of carefully deriving and reorganizing the belonging, common-ground, and inclusive components together. These components derived from the forces that make a particular territory. Thus, they have the potential to define and re-define the relationships within that territory.

467 Jeffrey A. Bell, “Assemblage +Architecture” in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed. Adrian Parr (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2010), 19.

468 Ibid.

469 Ibid., 18-19.

470 Ibid.

241

As they emerge from heterogeneous elements into a productive entity, assemblages can be diagramed at least temporarily. The diagram is a map of the function of an assemblage. A diagram is, according to Deleuze, the map of destiny. It defines the relationships between a particular set of forces and the arrangement by which the assemblage operates.471

In architecture, the diagram is also a map of destiny, of the desired future: that is positive peace. The map for positive peace is the systematic design strategy that is based on the Three-

Dimensional Analytical framework (concluded in the previous chapters). Through this analytical framework it is possible to determine the forces that unmake and make territories; these forces, baesd on the Three-Dimensional Analytical framework, are the constructive patterns and the components that will shape the assemblage —the structure of the physical representation of architecture as an active platform for positive peace.

The result of productive assemblages, stated by Graham Livesey, is a new means of expression, a new territorial/ spatial organization, a new behavior, or a new realization.472 The new realization, based on this dissertation, is the positive peace.

471 Graham Livesey, “Assemblage” in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed. Adrian Parr (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2010), 18-19.

472 Ibid.

242

ARCHITECTURE OF POSITIVE PEACE IS A SPACE OF RELATIONAL IDENTITY

Architecture as an active platform for positive peace is either a physical representation which is introduced as an ‘assemblage,’ or it is a space of ‘relational identity.’

The discussion of the World Peace Park in the DMZ, by Dongsei Kim, introduces the park as a dialogical space and rejects the capacity of peace studies to activate this space for positive peace. According to Kim, “the peace in the peace park should be critically framed as an open- ended conversation, a dialogical one that is more about producing understanding of oneself and the other.”473 Deep examination of theories of peace shows that creating dialogical platforms is one of the basic ideas the theories of peace calls for. However, it might be not enough to establish positive peace; it only keeps the context in a state of negative peace. Theories of peace, particularly propositions of John Paul Ledearch, further developed this idea (creating dialogical platforms) and introduced the concept of the ‘relational interdependency’ in which identity is relational.474

According to this new understanding, creating dialogical spaces is a step forward to create spaces of ‘relational identity.’ In such spaces the presence of a matrix of the ‘Others’ who hold a different unit of identity becomes a necessity not only to understand but also to define the ‘Self.’

In this case, the ‘Self’ is defined by its relationship with the different ‘Other’. The color blue, in this sense, is defined in relation to other different colors, otherwise (if there is no matrix of other

473Dongsei Kim, “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone,” in Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded, (Stichting Archis, 2014): p, 42.

474 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 55-56.

243 different colors) blue is colorless.475 The ‘Self’ and the ‘Others’ who are different comprise the diverse and complex whole that is structured on ‘Both/And’ patterns of relationships. The more complex the context is, the more identity is better defined because identity is relational. Spaces of relational identity recognizes all the included identities; it is neither to negate (eliminate) any unit of identity, nor to melt (fuse) them together. Building such spaces for positive peace depends on the capacity of individuals and communities not only to initiate dialogues, but to further imagine themselves in a web of connections (a canvas of mutual relationships) with the ‘Others’.

Such spaces encourage people to address and articulate a positive sense of identity in a relationship not in reaction to other groups of people. ‘Minorities,’ as a term, in such spaces, should be replaced with ‘components, or parts of the whole.’

475 John Paul Lederach, The Little book of Conflict Transformation (PA: Good Books, 2003), 55-56.

244

5.8. ARCHITECTURE FOR/OF POSITIVE PEACE: IMPLICATIONS

 This dissertation is a contribution to the current academic initiatives for building

innovative interdisciplinary researches. Activating the main pillars of peacebuilding—

from the discipline of peace studies— for the first time in architecture is expected to not

only push the theoretical boundaries of the discipline of architecture beyond its existing

limits, but also constructively impact the professional practice. Architecture from this new

perspective is not only a building but is also an active platform for better causes; in this

dissertation, it is architecture for positive peace. The hope is that with such contributions

it will be possible to make a positive impact on broader contexts and reshape the

disrupted patterns in the contemporary urban environments, especially within conflict

zones.

 In this dissertation, the role of architecture is activated and integrated with the efforts of

the United Nations to achieve its 2030 agenda of sustainable development.

Because there can be no sustainable development without peace, the UN made

peacebuilding a top priority in its agenda and announced the urgent need to activate

every possible platform on a global scale for peace and sustainable development.

Architecture for/of positive peace is a response, particularly to the UN’s calls for a

collaborative work for building sustainable peacefulness in our cities and societies.

The hope is to raise awareness about the necessity of integrating practical interventions

from different professions and fields of knowledge with the UN’s 2030 agenda for

sustainable development. This agenda with its 17 goals and 169 targets stimulates action

and provides models for designing effective strategies to address all problems of critical

245

importance for humanity and the planet. Activating the role of architecture for peace

does not only open the doors for architects but also for other activists from other fields

of expertise to examine their roles in activating any of the goals and targets of the United

Nation’s agenda for sustainable development. Only with this scale of collaborative work,

achieving the sustainable development goals and targets becomes possible.

 The hope for this dissertation is to open the doors for a new way of seeing and reworking

sustainability in architecture. Peacebuilding is as important and fundamental as the three

dimensions of sustainability (economic, cultural, and environmental). Within conflict

zones, almost all of the violence and wars consequences are related to the deterioration

and destruction of the economic, cultural, and environmental structures. These

consequences persist for many years following what is commonly known as the end of

the war. Hence, by contributing to peace, one can effectively contribute to sustainability.

 Building positive peace is an ongoing process, it does not end at specific limits. Thus, it

requires employing platforms that are active in the long-term and in a continuous

interaction with human beings. Building architecture for positive peace, in this sense, is a

process of building constructive platforms for ongoing interaction with human beings for

positive peace. Human beings are in constant interaction with architecture and the built

environment. It is true that human beings create the built environment. However, once

the habitat is constructed, human beings become affected by it. As it is said by Winston

Churchill “We shape our buildings, and afterwards, our buildings shape us.” Therefore,

architects must be careful in the way they design their buildings; they must be fully aware

246

of what kind of messages their architecture might convey because these messages can be

employed to serve agendas of peace and war as well.

 As it established in this dissertation, the target of ‘Warchitecture’ is the architecture that

is narrated as heritage, the architecture that represents the value system in a particular

culture, and the architecture that represents the historical, cultural, or religious identity

of a particular group of people. The systematic destruction of this architecture is proved

to be a potentially crucial aspect of warfare. This point directs the research towards one

of its future trajectories: preserving architectural heritage for positive peace. This

research is to focus particularly on the systematic destruction of architectural heritage in

Iraq and the potential of preserving heritage for positive peace.

The systematic destruction of architectural heritage in Iraq also has a political

dimension. For example, the 14th of July Revolution in 1958, led to the end of the

monarchy and marked the beginning of the new era: the Republic of Iraq. This radical

political change was accompanied with a systematic destruction to the architecture of the

monarchy. The same happened with all the successive ruling parties; each one destroyed

the architecture of the previous ruling era for political reasons. The direct result is a tragic

loss of a huge architectural heritage. Yet, the indirect and the deeper consequences are

the fear and the outrage that this systematic destruction causes to the group of people

who see themselves as represented with this architecture.

However, among living examples of ‘Warchitecture’ in Iraq is the systematic and

brutal annihilation of architectural heritage in Mosul, north of Iraq, committed by ISIS

terrorists, 2014-2017, which is announced by UNESCO as a cultural cleansing. The target

247

of this ‘Warchitecture’ was the architecture that represents every historical, cultural, and

religious unit of identity in the city and the architecture that associates with the collective

memory of its people. It was a process of assassinating the diversity of the existing social

structure in the city in order to impose the extreme terrorist ideological model of ISIS.

Among the destroyed sites in the city:

- Dair Mar Elia, the oldest monastery in Iraq (1,400 years),

- Various ancient artifacts in the ancient city of Hatra (now a UNESCO World Heritage

site),

- Nearly 3,000-Year-Old Assyrian Ziggurat of Nimrud which was the ancient city’s

central temple,

- The city of Nimrud was demolished and the local palace was bulldozed, while

Lamassu statues at the gates of the palace of Ashurnasirpal II were smashed.

- In June 2017, the historical leaning minaret of the Great Mosque of Al-Nuri which

gave the city its nickname "the hunchback" ( al-Ḥadbāˈ), first built in the late 12th

century, was blown up and completely destroyed by ISIS in the aftermath of their

defeat by Iraqi military forces in the Battle of Mosul.

In the current post-war context in Iraq, raising the awareness of the importance of preserving architectural heritage is crucial not only to save our rich architectural heritage but also to promote more peaceful environments and enhance the structural conflict transformation for positive peace. Highlighting this important issue in this dissertation directs the research towards its future trajectory: Preservation of Architectural Heritage for Positive Peace.

248

 In this dissertation, examples are provided to unveil different aspects of architecture for

positive peace. Some of these examples are part of ‘bottom-up’ efforts, other examples

are part of ‘up-bottom’ efforts in contribution to the process of peacebuilding within

conflict zones. As far as this research has reached, in both cases architecture can operate

as a platform for positive peace if it is activated based on the characteristics provided in

the theoretical framework that is derived in this dissertation from theories of peace.

However, this point can be further examined as one of the possible future trajectories of

this research. It is important to reveal whether being part of ‘bottom-up’ efforts affects

the capacity of architecture to operate as an active platform for positive peace.

249

Epilogue

The award-winner design of the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park in Baghdad can be considered or introduced as an example of architecture —as an assemblage and a space of relational identity— for positive peace [Figure E.01].

Figure E.01: The award-winner design of the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park in Baghdad, designed by architect Venus S. Akef, 2009.

In 2009, while Baghdad was still undergoing the violent conflict crisis, the Council of the

Arab League, through the Council of the Arab Ministers of Housing and Construction, announced the architectural competition of the year: the Architect Award of the Arab World. The competition was that each entrant design a Multi-Purpose Covered Hall. The key required criteria in the competition was to reflect the architectural and cultural heritage of the country. In

250 addition, the designer should add more activities to enrich the functional program of the project considering the requirements of its context.

Architectural firms and institutions from all the Arab countries were invited and participated in the competition. By June 2009, after a long and complicated process of assessment, the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall in Baghdad, designed by the architect Venus S. Akef, was announced as being the first-prize winner on the national level and nominated to the finals to represent The Republic of Iraq at the Headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Arab

League in Cairo. By September 2009, the proposed design by Iraqi architect Venus S. Akef was announced as being the winner of the Architect Award of the Arab World, 2009.

The important point for this dissertation is that the process of creating this project at that critical context, during the civil war, gives an example of what can be considered as architecture for positive peace in Baghdad —both as an assemblage and a space of relational identity.

In Iraq, choosing a particular pattern from the rich cultural and architectural heritage of the country to be the source of architectural form for designing the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall in Baghdad was not an easy mission. Iraq is the cradle of civilization, there is almost no part in this country that is not a home of a rich architectural heritage from different periods in the history. Moreover, people from different religious, regional, and cultural backgrounds comprise the holistic social structure of the nation; groups under each unit of identity have their own traditional and cultural heritage.

The question of what particular cultural and architectural pattern should this design proposal reflect, I think, was the first and the most important step in the design process.

251

Providing possible answers for this question opened the doors to think carefully about the context to which this project is designed. Since Iraq, particularly Baghdad, is known for its heterogeneous society, the first design decision was to exclude the patterns that represent only one unit of identity or one component of the society. The target, then, became all the patterns that not only belong to the cultural and architectural heritage of the country, but also are common-grounds patterns to which all Iraqis are deeply bonded. I believe that this decision was the first step towards wining the competition, especially that all the other proposals which employed exclusive patterns in their designs were excluded from the competition by the judging panel in the early stages of the assessment process at the national level.

By carefully mapping the history of the country and the history of Baghdad, it was possible to identify three moments from the country’s bright history. Each moment is a layer of cultural and architectural patterns to be employed in the design; together, the three layers shape the holistic and final composition of the project.

The concept, on this basis, was decided to be a journey via the Magical Carpet through the history of the Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization. Each layer represent a stop in this journey

[Figure E.02]. These layers – stops – are:

1- The ancient civilization of Mesopotamia, the city of Babylon, about 2800 BC and its

architectural treasures (the urban layout of the city which is believed to be the first

geometric urban layout in history; the Ziggurat of Babylon, the amphitheater, Ishtar Gate

and Processional Way).

252

2- The historical Round City, Baghdad (762- 767 AD), and its cultural and architectural

heritage (the urban layout of the round city with its gates and walls, Abbasid architecture

details, and the Magical Flying Carpet from the mythical story inherited in the traditions

of Baghdad: A Thousand and One Night).

3- The traditional urban fabric and the courtyard houses on the particular site of the project

in the present Baghdad. The location of the project was carefully chosen to be on the

same site which is believed to be the place of the historic Round City, Baghdad, at the

heart of Baghdad the present capital of Iraq.

Figure E.02: Sources of the architectural form - The award-winner design of the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park in Baghdad, designed by architect Venus S. Akef, 2009.

253

These patterns were chosen as they provide a dynamic journey through time and place in the history of the country moving from the ancient to the present time, and from the wider borders of the country into the very specific site of the project.

In addition, each of the patterns employed in the design must fit the requirements of the function and the program. For example, in the first layer (the architectural heritage of Babylon), the Ziggurat of Babylon is a form that fits the requirements of the form and function of the main space — the multi-purpose covered hall. The historic and geometric urban layout of the city of

Babylon fits the requirements of the landscape especially that a park was added to the program to enrich its activities. Processional Way was translated into the main axis in the project.

However, the process of translating these patterns into the new project was not this simple; each pattern invested in a layer should converge — at a particular level— with the patterns of the other two layers. For example, the traditional urban fabric and the courtyard houses converges with the main axis and divisions of the urban layout of the city of Babylon, both together are invested to design the landscape of the project. The amphitheater of Babylon converges with the layout of the historic Round City. The gates, the axis, the details, and all the other patterns are invested to create a complex composition that is best defined in this dissertation as an ‘assemblage.’ What makes this ‘assemblage’ a platform for positive peace in post-war context in Baghdad is that all its components are inclusive, belonging, and common- ground patterns that belong to the collective memory of all Iraqis. With such constructive patterns it was possible to design a monumental architecture charged with symbolisms that

254 represent nothing but the country’s glorious history of which all Iraqis are proud to belong. This architectural assemblage, just like the paintings on the concrete walls which emerged in Baghdad in this same context, has the potential to remind Iraqis of all what had long united them until the walls of the wars have separated them. It reminds them that they share deeper bonds than the current narrower lines of divisions.

Moreover, responding to the requirements of the competition, I decided to add a park into the project (a landscape to support the masses of the project). With the rising rates of population, the built environment is growing dramatically yet randomly in Baghdad. There is an urgent need to open public parks and open spaces in the city; the last public park opened in Baghdad was built in the 1970s. Thus, adding this activity into the project was expected to enrich its functional program. However, the most important point, from the perspective of this dissertation, is that adding these exterior spaces enhanced the capacity of the project to operate as a platform for peacebuilding. The assemblage, in this sense, is supported with exterior spaces [Figure E.03]. We can imagine how the visitors would perceive all the symbolisms and the patterns that were employed to create the assemblage on the site, especially when they approach the project from the outside (the outside that is already divided by the walls of wars).

Constructive patterns from different moments in the history of the country were brought together and revived to stand on the site of the project, shaping a moment of new realization in the present time. With these constructive patterns, the park became an inclusive space with potential that encourages people not only to create connection but also to realize how their

255 identity is relational. Such spaces are best defined in this dissertation as ‘space of relational identity’ for positive peace.

Hence, this design can be considered as an example of architecture (both an assemblage and a space of relational identity) that operates as an active platform for positive peace.

Bridging through such architecture becomes possible as architecture operates as a binding project.

Figure E.03: The award-winner design of the Multi-Purpose Covered Hall and Peace Park in Baghdad, designed by architect Venus S. Akef, 2009.

256

Bibliography

 Archis Interventions, Architecture of Peace, Case study, KAZAKHSTAN: Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, http://archis.org/interventions/architecture-of-peace/case- studies/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/ http://architectureofpeace.org/casestudies/

 Architecture of Peace at http://architectureofpeace.org/

 Atlas Obscura, Palace of Peace and Reconciliation: Iconic pyramid from famed British architect Norman Foster designed to represent all of the world's religious faiths. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation

 Barakat, Sultan. “Provide and Enable: The Role of Architects in Post-War Recovery.” In Volume 26: Architecture of peace, #4. (2010): 22-23.

 Bevan, Robert. The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. London, UK: REAKTION LTD, 2016.

 Benvenisti, Meron. “In the Light of Morning After.” In A Civilian Occupation, edited by Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, 184-188. London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003.

 Bouman, Ole, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley. Volume #11: Cities Unbuilt. Stichting Archis, March 2007. http://volumeproject.org/issues/volume-11-cities-unbuilt/

 Bouman, Ole. “The Architecture of Destruction.” In Volume #11: Cities Unbuilt, (2007).

 Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. "An Agenda for Peace." Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992 [document on-line] (New York: United Nations, 1992. http://www.un- documents.net/a47-277.htm.

 Brand-Jacobsen, Kai Frithjof. “Peace: The Goal and the Way.” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand- Jacobsen. London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002.

 Calame, Jon and Esther Charlesworth. Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

257

 Chapter III: Peace Enforcement. The global Security Organization. www.globalsecurity.org

 Charlesworth, Esther. “The Architect: Keeping the Pace.” In Volume #26: Architecture of peace (2010): 24-27.

 Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA. Accessed on 8 Oct. 2016. Available from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/glossary.htm

 Dimopoulos, Nik, and Timothy Moore. “Wars of the world.” In Volume #26: Architecture of peace. (2010): 20-21.

 Duffield, Mark. “Better Safe than Sorry: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Spciety.” In Volume #26: Architecture of peace (2010): 56-65.

 EPIC Education for Peace in Iraq center http://thegroundtruth.blogspot.com/2009/11/columbia-university-charts- sectarian.html

 Ferguson, Niall. The War of the World. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2006.

 Galtung, Johan. Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute; London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

 Galtung, Johan, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend. London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002.

- Galtung, Johan. “Conflict, War and Peace: A Bird’s Eye View.” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002.

- Galtung, Johan and Finn Tschudi. “Crafting Peace: On the Psychology of TRANSCEND Approach.” In Searching for Peace, the Road to Transcend, edited by Johan Galtung, Carl G. Jacobsen, and Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. London. Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, 2002.

 Galtung, Johan. “Breaking the Cycle of Violent Conflict.” A presentation of University of California Television, and Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, University of San Diego, UC, SD, TV. 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16YiLqftppo

 Galtung, Johan, and Han Park. “Dialogue of Positive Peace.” A Lecture at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University. Published in 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40PPh2K71fQ

258

 Galtung, Johan. Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: The Transcend Method. United Nations Disaster Management Training Program (DMTP), 2000.

 Galtung, Johan. “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Research, Sage Publications, Ltd. Volume: 27 issue: 3, (1990): 291-305.

 Galtung, Johan. “How to Define Positive Peace.” A Lecture at the Envision Peace Museum, Published 2012.

 Galtung, Johan. “One on One.” An Interview to the Al-Jazeera English. Published in 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJf0m-Nz35E

 Herscher, Andrew. “Warchitecture / Post-Warchitecture.” In Volume #11: Cities Unbuilt (2007): 68-78.

 IRIN. “Iraq 10 years on: The forgotten displacement crisis." IRIN, humanitarian news and analysis: a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 23 April 2013. http://www.irinnews.org/report/97905/iraq-10-years-on-the-forgotten-displacement-crisis (accessed February 20, 2014).

 Izady, Michael. “Atlas of the Islamic World and Vicinity (Infographs, Maps and Statistics Collection).” Category II. Ethnographic and Cultural, Section A, Ethnicity: Baghdad, Iraq, Ethnic composition 2003-2008. Gulf/2000 (as the host). New York, Columbia University, Gulf 2000 Project: 2006-present, http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2003_lg.jpg http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2006_lg.jpg http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2007_early_lg.jpg http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2007_late_lg.jpg http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2009_lg.png http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Baghdad_Ethnic_2015_lg.png (Accessed February 20, 2014and January 2018).

 Junne, Gred. Interviewed by Lilet Breddels and Arjen Oosterman. “The Social Scientist: Did someone say collaboration?.” In Volume 26: Architecture of peace, edited by Arjen Oosterman, Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, 16-19. Stichting Archis, 2010.

 Kim, Dongsei. “Towards A Dialogic Peace in the Demilitarized Zone.” In Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded. (2014): p, 40, 43.

 Lederach, John Paul. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

259

 Lederach, John Paul. From Conflict Resolution to Strategic Peacebuilding. From the 2010 Summer Institute for Faculty, University of Notre Dame. Published on Mar 25, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsThUncRxE

 Lederach, John Paul. Preparing For Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1996.  Lederach, John Paul. The Little book of Conflict Transformation. PA: Good Books, 2003.

 Lederach, John Paul. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

 Leitersdrof, Thomas. “To start a City from Scratch.” In A Civilian Occupation, edited by Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, 153-160. London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003.

 Lucuta, Gabriela Monica. “Peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace enforcement in the 21st century.” Peace Direct, Peace Insight, April 2014. https://www.peaceinsight.org/blog/2014/04/peacemaking-peacekeeping-peacebuilding-peace- enforcement-21st-century/. (Accessed February 20, 2014 and January 2018).

 M. Murray, Thomas. “Peacekeeping or Peace-Enforcement: There is a Difference.” Strategic Issues/ the Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/MTM.htm.

 Osterman, Arjen. “Loaded.” In Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded. (2014.

 Oosterman, Arjin. “Peacebreeding.” In Volume #26: Architecture of peace (2010).

 Osterman, Arjen. “Peace Fight.” In Volume #26: Architecture of Peace, edited by Arjen Oosterman, Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley, 12-15. Stichting Archis, 2010.

 Oosterman, Arjen, and Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley. Volume #26: Architecture of Peace. Stichting Archis, December 17, 2010. http://archis.org/publications/volume-26-architecture-of-peace/; http://architectureofpeace.org/ http://volumeproject.org

 Oosterman, Arjen, Brendan Cormier, Ole Bouman, Rem Koolhaas, and Mark Wigley. Volume #40: Architecture of Peace Reloaded. Stichting Archis, July, 2014. http://archis.org/publications/volume-40-architecture-of-peace-reloaded/ http://architectureofpeace.org/ http://volumeproject.org

 "Peacemaking -- Overview" Conflict Management Toolkit. (Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, Conflict Management Program). Accessed on 8 Oct. 2016. http://www.campus- adr.org/Training_Center/content/The_Conflict_Management_Toolkit_from_Johns_Hopkins_SAIS/.

260

 Petti, Alessandro, Sandi Hilal, and Eyal Weizman. Architecture after Revolution. Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2013.

 Richard English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA (USA: Oxford University Press, 2003).

 Rotbard, Sharon. “Wall And Tower (Homa Amegdal) The Mold of Israeli Architecture.” In A Civilian Occupation, edited by Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, 39-57. London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003.

 Rogers, Simon. The Guardian of London. theguardian.com, Saturday 23 October 2010 00.05 BST, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq- data-journalism

 Foster and Partners. the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, Astana, Kazakhstan, 2006. https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/palace-of-peace-and-reconciliation/

 The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, official website http://astana-piramida.kz/en/

 Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, eds. A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Architecture. London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003.

 Shoshan, Malkit. “The Architect: Small Change, Big Result.” In Volume 26: Architecture of peace, #4. (2010): 32-41.

 Sustainable Development Goals. “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The United Nations, un.org, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.

 The Foundation for Achieving Seamless Territory (FAST), see http://seamlessterritory.org/the-golden-heart-pavilion-first-community-building-for- ein-hawd/

 The United Nations. “The Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations Conference on International Organization, signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, came into force on 24 October 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html

 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Statistics on Displaced Iraqis around the World.” UNHCR, September 2007. https://www.unhcr.org/470387fc2.pdf . (Accessed January 2018).

 Volume at http://volumeproject.org/, and Volume Project, Architecture of Peace at http://volumeproject.org/architecture-of-peace/

261

 Wing, Joel. “Columbia University Charts Sectarian Cleansing of Baghdad.” Musings On Iraq. November 19, 2009, http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post.html. (Accessed February 20, 2014and January 2018).

 Wiezman, Eyal. “Rebel Architecture - The architecture of violence,” Al Jazeera English. Sep 2, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwJaCeeA9o.

 Woods, Lebbeus. War and Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993.

 Yiftahel, Oren. “Settlements as Reflex Action.” In A Civilian Occupation, edited by Segal, Rafi and Eyal Weizman, 32-37. London and Israel: Babel Publishers, 2003.

262