Hope At BordersAlternatives to a Fear-Led Approach

ByYamen A. Kharsa

Word Count ≈ 11,777

Dissertation submitted in partialfulfilment for the degree of

Master of Art In Architecture (MA Architecture)

Faculty of Architecture andthe Built Environment

LondonUnited Kingdom

September 2016

Acknowledgment

- I -

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my committee in the University of Westminster foraffording me the unimaginable opportunity to complete my postgraduate study here. I would first liketo thank my thesis advisor professor Samir Pandya , and professor Nasser Golzari . Both continually andpersuasively conducted a spirit of adventure in regard to research and scholarship and an enthusiasm inregard to teaching. Without their supervision and steady support, this dissertation would not havebeen possible.In addition, a thank you to Professor Richard Difford, Professor Davide Deriu, and Professor KrystalliaKamvasinou who supported me through the MA course , and whose passion for the “underlying struc-tures” had a lasting effect. I thank the University of Westminster for consent to be part of the best andwith the best.

Finally, my very profound gratitude goes to my parents and relatives for providing me the continuousassistance and unfailing encouragement throughout my years of study and through researching andcompleting my Master course. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them.Thank you.

Author

Yamen A. Kharsa

Acknowledgements..................................................................................i

Table of Contents.....................................................................................ii

List of Figures............................................................................................iii

Chapter One

(Intro.)1. Introduction.............................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Context.........................................................…..1

1.2 Research focus……………………………………………...3

1.3 Overall Research Aim ……………………………………6

1.4 Value of this Research………………………………..…7

Chapter Two

(Towards A theory of Border Walls)

2. Fences and Borders in a Globalized World………………9

2.1 Is it Frear of the Other or Policy of Fear?.….…………..12

2.2 The Sacred Borders……………….…………………….…………..13

2.3 A Thriving Furture Of Borders……………….…….…………14

Chapter Three

(EU Borders Control) 3. Managing EU Borders ..................................................................15

3.1 Transforming Borderlines to Borders Spaces…..…….16

3.2 EU Southern Borders: Walls Of Money……………………19

3.3 Architecture Of Border Wall…….….……….……….……..23

3.3.1 Green Wall (Environmental).….……….……..….…..…25 3.3.2 Solar Wall (Ecological).….….….….….……….…………26 3.3.3 Burrito Wall (Social).….….….….….………………...……26

Chapter Four

4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………..27

4.1 Summary & Reccomendation....................................................27

References...................................................................................................29

Contents

- II -

List Of Figures

- III -

Figure 1 Thr Iron Curtain ..........................................................................2

Figure 2 Sao Paulo, Brazil ............................................................................2

Figure 3 EMCDDA................................................................................................4

Figure 4 Macedonia - Greek Border Fence.........................................5

Figure 5 Balkan Route Fences....................................................................6

Figure 6 Western Sahara sand Berm....................................................10

Figure 7 DMZ jointKoreans border.....................................................10

Figure 8 Berlin Wall.......................................................................................11

Figure 9 Greece Border fence..................................................................12

Figure 10 Greece - Macadonia Border fence..................................15

Figure 11 Surveilance Systems..................................................................17

Figure 12 Smugglers methods..................................................................18

Figure 13 Trump Wall.....................................................................................19

Figure 14 Solidarity & Management Program .............................20

Figure 15 Amnesty International Statistics...................................21

Figure 16 Greece Border Fence...............................................................22

Figure 17 US- Mexico Border wall.........................................................23

Figure 18 Macadonian Border fence..................................................24

Figure 19 Green Wall.....................................................................................25

Figure 20 Solar Wall......................................................................................26

Figure 21 Burrito Wall.................................................................................26

Chapter 1Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction

“A nation is not defined by its borders or the boundaries of its land mass Rather, anation is defined by adverse people who have been unified by a cause and a value

system and who are committed to a vision for the type of society they wish to livein and give to the future generations to come.”

- Tara Fela-Durotoye -

1.1 Background and Context

We live in a world of barriers and walls. These barriers may not necessarily be visible, but they arrange

our daily life practices, reinforcing our belonging to, and identity with, places and people, while at the

same time extend and show the notions of difference and othering. We have been constructing walls

and fences around cities, across borders, along disputed lands; to keep out, protect, demarcate and

separate. For some, the notion of a 'borderless' world has become a synonym word for globalization.

But it is not possible to imagine a world which is completely borderless. Even the globalization theorists

would accept that the basic ordering of society requires categories and groups, and that borders create

order. (van Houtum and van Naerssen 2002 ,125-136).

In the past, many borders were not officially defined lines but were neutral zones called Marchlands. In

modern times, the notion of a Marchland has been replaced by a clearly bold, defined and demarcated

border walls and barriers. Currently, the latest constructed barriers and fences are taking a place on the

Balkan countries borders such as Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Hungary. In addition to these

ex-pensive and massive barrier on long stretches of the Balkan borders, in the 24 years since the fall of

the Berlin Wall, 27 other new walls and fences have been raised on political borders around the world.

These walls are built by both dictatorial regimes and democracies, including US –Mexico, India,

Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the European Union. Constantly, the barriers are

justified in multiple languages such as security, control, and sovereignty. And as a country must be

protected from the intruders, drug smugglers, insurgents, and armed militias waiting on the other side.

This is largely due to the sense of fear of the ‘outsider’ due to the post 9/11 world. Part of this is true,

much of it is a socio-political construction which let governments to justify the construction of new

border fences as a means of keeping out the ‘alien’ and the desire to establish an utter sovereign

control over the state’s territory. However, the fall of the Berlin Wall emerged a new international

order at that period which opened an era of globalization that seemed to support irrevocably the

- 1 -

predictions of a world with-out borders. Vallet (14-15, 2014)

suggests that ‘while observers assumed that, following the fall of

the Berlin Wall, the world would never be the same, the borders,

walls and barriers that were symbolic of the bipolar world and

were expected to perish with it returned with a vengeance in the

aftermath of 9/11 accompanied by a new border discourse.’

  In current times, the expanding political issues in the developing

countries have increased the demands and construction of fences

and barriers among other generally stable countries, mainly to

curb migrants and refugees coming from crises areas. Balkan

countries such as former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia

mis-placed its faith in a supposedly invulnerable multi layer barbed

fence on its border along with Greece. Three decades ago,

concrete and barbed wire were slicing Germany's former capital in

half. The French Maginot Line was useless and the Berlin Wall did not last to keep east and west

Germany apart. Even though, walls and fences have not stopped going up. Indeed, since the Iron

Curtain (Fig.1 an imaginary barrier separated the former Soviet bloc from the West prior to the reject of

Soviet communism that followed the

political events in eastern Europe back in

1989) came down a twenty-five years ago,

the world has been busy raising separation

barriers at an average rate perhaps like

never before in history: at least 8,000 miles

of wire, concrete, stone, sand, steel,

intricate meshes; anything to keep peoples

out, or maybe to keep them in. However,

walls may separate and divide two

territories, as a result, it sometimes sepa-

rates communities and increases ideological barriers between people living on both sides, such as the

US - Mexico borders, or surrounded sealed compounds to divide rich from poor like in São Paulo, Brazil.

(Fig.2)

Fig.1 The Iron Curtain BordersThis was how the map of Eastern Eu-rope looked in 1989

- 2 -

Fig 2. São Paulo, Brazil.

What is odd is that this barriers construction is happening at a period when less physical walls appear to

be falling apart. This is the age of the global economy, multi-cultural, fading trade barriers; the free

movement of people, goods, services and capitals, unprecedented transportation and in lightening

communication. So why build new barriers, particularly when, as history shows, the old ones barely did

what they have been built for? For there is almost always a way through, over, under or round a wall. It

sounds a fair mechanism to mark out territories and lands ownership in term of making order planning

and organizing. On the other hand, it’s useless primitive solution when employed against humans to

defend, control, and keep people out or fencing others in. Therefore, this would be understood as to go

further and build another more strict and expensive multi layered barriers and walls provided with

drones, observation towers, infrared cameras, and ground sensors. Janet Napolitano, the US secretary

of homeland security in 2013, once said: ‘Show me a 50ft wall, and I'll show you a 51ft ladder’.

Fencing and walling on a mass scales may slightly decrease the numbers of people attempting to cross

international borders such as migrants and those who seek refuge but it will never be a permit solution.

‘Some scholars would suggest that the decline we are witnessing with people emigrating across the

border was more related to the changing economic conditions that were pushing and pulling people to

migrate rather than the increased enforcement at the border’ (Jones 24, 2012) In another word, it’s a

very expensive solutions that could only delay but not prevent people from crossing. In fact, the threats

prompting these constructions have changed over time. Pretexts for border barriers range from

territorial defence line to the threat of terrorism. Increasingly, however, today’s builders aren’t

fortifying border walls to stop armoured vehicles or armies with heavy artillery. Their targets are

primarily unarmed migrants: people seeking to move from one country to another, driven by fear of

wars or by dreaming of better life and opportunities. Their construction speaks to an era dominated by

giants conflicts and interests, a world already cracked and ripped apart by political and economic

disputes.

1.2 Research Focus

There is some confusion and sometimes misleading information about the benefits and the efficiency

of border walls. This confusion emerges when politicians present walls and barriers solutions to the

public as a panacea or as an X factor to the enigma of controlling borders front lines. Therefore,

building fences can be one of the most visible measures possible to face public anxiety about the scale

of illegal immigration. It’s a rapid way to cope with the problem in order not to lose electoral support.

Thus, signifying that something has been done. So basically, it’s something more effective and

important to the politicians than the efficiency of the Barrier itself. ‘Which explains why democracies

also set about fortifying their boundaries’ (Jones, 2012) so they can prove their ability to recover control

- 3 -

of their borders. ‘Since 2001, the purpose of

new walls has been not so much to convert a

front line into a de facto border as to address

two threats: migrants, and terrorists’ (Vallet

15-16, 2014). In some respects, walls may even

be said to be delusory, as they give the

motivation and opportunity to human

traffickers, drug and arms smugglers by

raising the bypass strategies and alternative

routes. Thus, they can fund their illegal and in

many cases inhuman black market businesses

such as slavery. In fact, one may raise a

question as why is this border not sealed

against the smuggling of drugs with the same

consistent efforts taken against illegal

immigration? Heroin, cocaine, cannabis , all

major drugs are as easily smuggled into the European borders nowadays. According to the EU Drug

Markets Report, published by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

(EMCDDA) the drugs retail market value estimated at 31 billion Euros. Yet, drugs trafficking from the

producer countries is continuing to move smoothly across the European ‘sealed’ borders, including

Greek- Macedonian borders. On the other hand, migrants choose to come across dangerous routes

through rivers, forests, and the Mediterranean. It has been suggested that the walls true purpose is to

assert a sense of security and identity (Ritaine, 2009, 161). Walls provide visible tangible proof that

governments are doing a progress. But in the post 9/11 period, decision makers seem to lean toward

conservative internal politics rather than foreign policy and diplomacy. The image of a fortified border

is becoming more significant than its actual effectiveness. In this period of risk-taking and

managements, the wall and its various functions (division, separation, and connection – see Land

Policy, 2012) and sometimes segregation are all dedicated to obey the logic of perception as they are

not only the most important functional elements but also the most visible components of a correlated

surveillance systems. However, border walls seem to be something new and unique in term of its

proportional dimensions among public relations. Meanwhile, border walls could be an artefact that

stretches back in time through history. The wall has embraced diversified types of structures built with

various motivations on different borders. This dissertation takes into consideration the border walls as

a global phenomenon, which is expanding mainly due to the perceived insecurity in a globalized world.

Fig.3 This map show drugs international travel routes aroundand within Europe through Balkan routes. (EMCDDA)

- 4 -

borders i.e. Greece ,the Former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Spain ,and Bulgaria.

As this particular borders was the main

route for migrants coming from different

conflicts areas. Also, discussing how can

borders architectural alternatives can inter-

cept the political instruments that being

raised to support even stricter control over

borders, including the erection of simple

walls proposals real and virtual. In view of this borders closures, we need to rethink the wall in a

modern perspective that can cope with the 21st-century ambitions. The changes and reconfiguration

that has occurred to the border walls since the end of the 1990s, analyzing, at a theoretical level, and

re-territorializing affected by border walls and to bring theoretical perspectives to bear on the

comeback of border walls in an increasing extent of a globalized world.

Beyond any doubt, this is the right time to bring architects to get involved in the border walls architec-

ture even if the intervention will be based on a theoretical level. As for the most part, architects and

designers have distanced themselves away from the border security problems because it is too

political. Ricardo Scofidio of Diller Scofidio + Renfro in New York stated about architects interference in

a border fence projects: “It’s a silly thing to design, a conundrum. You might as well leave it to security

and engineers.” Until now, the border wall design has been chiefly the specialty of these professionals,

and according to the UNHCR latest report in 2016 alone, there have been approximately over 2,800

migrant deaths along the Greece borders and over 157.800 thousand migrants newly arrived. Since the

Balkan countries fortification of fences closures along the borders , especially the heart of the migrant

route between Greece and Macedonia, the annual death rate continues to increase as men, women and

children attempting to cross the border are pushed to further extremes even if the only alternative

route is by crossing the Mediterranean by fishing boats. The construction of the barrier started in early

2015, constructed similarly to the Hungarian border fence, and it is 19 miles long with future plans to

extend it 200 miles further along with Greece in 2016. Probably, there are no architectural permit

solutions to the border walls and architects must accept both the dystopia and the fact that the fence

exists as they have nothing to do in its construction. But from an economical perspective, these fences

do not come in cheap costs, especially when built for long distances with multilayer stages and fortified

measures. The post era following the fall of the Berlin Wall, European countries have built over 1,250

km/750 miles of anti-immigrant barbed- wire fencing at a cost of at least 500 million Euros , a Reuters

analysis of public data shows: That distance is almost 40 percent of the length of American- Mexican

Fig.4 Part of the fence along the Macedonian - Greek borders.

- 5 -

borders. (Ledwith and Baczynska,

2016). On the contrary, Macedonia and

Greece have almost finished the

construction of a 246 km high razor-

wire fence designed to keep out

migrants and the estimate costs

expectations to reach €15 million in

comparison to other smaller fences

construction such as the one built on

the Greek –Turkish borders , yet it was

described as "pointless" by the

European Commission . The Greece –

Macedonian border so far reaching a

budget level of a rich construction

project which could have far more potential as a type of new infrastructure that can evoke positive

scenarios. Ronald Rael and Virginia San Fratello Architects produced several proposals on the US -

Mexico borders walls and they hope that these proposals reveal the triviality while at the same time

disclose its concealed potential of the ‘other’ spaces formed by the fence that provokes the potential

for designers to intervene, intercept or interject into one of the most expensive construction projects

across the US. Similarly and critical to the value and logic of this research by adopting such a border

walls project across the European Union aiming to search for a peaceful and productive future between

migrants/ passersby and nationals residing on the other side of the wall . The importance of research in

this field of border walls architecture is to suggest a border walls alternatives, a realm where the

absurdity of a wall is transformed from disruptive and negative to an affirmation of shared humanity. A

contribution that can produce new infrastructures resources and at the same time exposes another

dimension of human collaboration to make hope and opportunity out of other’s misery. ‘The time for

Arthurian legends has passed. Cruel borders and empty violence must be put to rest’ (Torrea, 2014).

1.3 Overall research aim and individual research objectives

The overall aim of this research is to advance an understanding of the impact of the current EU border

walls on society in relation to the controversial issue of migration and the free movement of people.

However, in order to understand borders and fences issues, it is felt necessary to gain an insight into

the forces driving this phenomenon and to explore border walls alternatives which could make a

difference in international relations if adopted in the right place and time. Further, this research will

Fig.5 Anti- Migrants fences along Balkan countries borders.Source: European Commission 2016

- 6 -

assess the efficiency and functions of the existing barriers across Europe, especially the newly

constructed one on EU southern borders. In turn, two main research instruments will be exploited to

support this study: an in-depth review of relevant literature and a selected proposals of border walls

alternatives and analysis of empirical data proposed whether by architects or the author for intelligent

and beneficial borders. Specifically, within the context of border walls architecture, the objectives of

this research are to:

1. Identify the forces & factors driving barriers and border walls construction to emerge.

2. Evaluate critically scholars, theoretical frameworks , designers ,and stakeholder views and

practices related to borders fortifications, including, reasons and results.

3. Explore and analyze various case studies of the relevant aspects.

4. Formulate recommendations (or simple achievable proposal) on border walls issues by creating

borders positive scenarios.

Now will pose the previous research objective in the form of specific research questions in order to be

clear and specific as possible:

1. What are the forces & factors driving barriers and border walls construction?

2. What are scholars, theoretical frameworks, stakeholders views related to border walls

fortifications?

3. What is some case studies analysis to the related aspects of border walls?

4. Respectively of these research questions, recommendations on border walls issues will be

formulated. ( not rewritten as question but simply added as an output)

1.4 Value and Worth of This Research

This research work will contribute to the development to the discipline of The architecture of Border

walls in a number of important ways: first, it provides an intelligible perspective on a subject area that

has previously received scant attention, producing a deeper intellectual understanding. Second, by

critically examining existing proposals relevant to border walls architecture to support further

researches and borders alternatives. Third, by obtaining the views of a variety of scholars and

stakeholders on existing fences and walls, a rich picture of border walls alternatives can emerge,

obtaining a useful comparison between theory and practice, from which an enhanced understanding

of borders issues can be de-rived. Finally, it meets an urgent need to address a topical subject of bor-

ders control issues in a time where immigrations arguments are rising sharply across the EU in a world

whether if it’s globalized or divided. Vallet (2014, p124) insists that “researchers should try to make their

contribution to solving the problems of people who have to deal with “hard” borders now, and

- 7 -

probably will have to deal with them for a very long time despite the border breaking trend of

globalization”. Searching for a border walls alternatives is not a utopian dream, but rather an end of the

absurdity of a selectively porous border that only produces death and suffering.

- 8 -

Chapter 2

Towards A theory of

Border Walls

Chapter 2 Towards A theory of Border Walls

2. Fences and Borders in a Globalized World: Territorialization and its

Antithetic Retaliation.

What reasons explain why and when countries rise border walls? Meanwhile, border fortification

emerged due to various factors ranging from illegal immigration to the danger of enemies invasion,

border barriers construction is a quick popular option about economic security (i.e. restrain economic

migrants), as opposed to military-security (i.e. restrain enemy invasion or terrorist attacks). In order to

present this argument, we start by defining the core concepts of boundaries and border stability. In a

time of this borders closures, we need to reconsider the wall in a perspective of the new meaning of

insecurity and the reconfiguration that has occurred since the end of the 1990s, and to analyze, on a

theoretical level, the reterritorialization effected by a policy of fear. To bring theoretical perspectives to

bear on the revival of a praised border walls in an increasingly globalized world. The latest parts of this

chapter question the efficiency of border walls construction by reviewing historical examples.

Since the Cold War has finished, over 27 thousands kilometers of borders have been constructed

throughout the world. Out of the 33 new members to the United Nations, 25 are new members, 18

emerging from the downfall of the ex-Soviet empire. These new members may fall as a victim to auton-

omist claims and secessions, as was the case of Abkhazia in Georgia. But also similar scenarios in the EU

countries started to develop lately as was the case of Catalonia in Spain and the very latest example

was this year 2016 Scotland in the United Kingdom due to the Brexit referendum. In each of these his-

toric and current experiences, a border was demanded by the independent groups to materialize their

aspiration of an independent State, a popular solution available to minorities dreaming for independ-

ence from the “dominating powers” where their status no longer efficient to guarantee their security.

As the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes define that as “A rampart against insecurity”, the State

formed from the drawing of borders and boundaries that it must be defended. Hobbes and some

theories of the Social Contract, a number of authors have pointed out to the important role played by

insecurity and fear in the up growth of feelings of belonging (Duez 2008a: 97–119). When circumstances

require and the population’s feeling of insecurity increases too fast, the border can turn into a huge

wall like the one we thought we had pulled down in Berlin. We thought globalization will be enough to

limit and fade these boundaries and fences, but more border walls are raised in various countries, like

those between the United States and Mexico, Israel's separation barrier or 'apartheid wall' (as it is

known by the Palestinians) and the Occupied Territories. Yet more are being built between India and- 9 -

and Pakistan in Kashmir and, far east, between

Bangladesh and India. In Africa, there is a fence

between Zimbabwe and Botswana, and another

one between the Sultanate of Brunei and

Limbang. In the Western Sahara, a 1700 mile

sand berm reinforced with minefields and

barbed wire, made to protect Morocco from

Polisario rebels attacks (fig.6). Another place in

Asia, China has erected a fence along its border

with North Korea, which, in concert with South

Korea, has built the most solid barrier possible

along the DMZ (Korean Demilitarized Zone ) in

(fig.7). In the Arabian Gulf, border walls are

rising up in the desert, between the UAE and

Oman, between Kuwait and Iraq. In addition to

Saudi Arabia, its borders are completely sealed

following the creation of the first line of defense

with Iraq and recently with Yemen, and UAE to

be 41,000 according to Ballif and Rosière (2009:

193–206). The 46 walls already constructed in

2011 covered 29,000 kilometers (Vallet and David

2011). Europe is no exception, as walls did not disappear with the Cold War. The old lines of demarca-

tion, similar to those separating two Germanys, persist, such as the demilitarized zone in Cyprus, also

known as the Green Line. As soon as the final traces of the Iron Curtain disappeared, the Spanish

government decided to surround Ceuta and Melilla, its enclaves in Moroccan territory, by a double

fence. In December 2010, Greece also declared that it was building a wall along Evros river, which is

between Turkey and Greek with over a distance of 12 kilometers. Until then, 110,000 illegal migrants

used to pour through this gap each year. However, the reproduction and militarization of borders seem

to collide with liberal globalization , “on the Common Market model, recommends the four freedoms of

movement for workers, capital, services and goods, it being understood that the free movement of

workers leads to free movement of ideas” (Vallet 109, 2014). The already strict criticism of developed

nations that are unwilling to welcome “the world’s poor” is even worse when leveled against Europe,

which would replace a wall of shame by an equally despicable iron curtain. Intentionally ignoring that

the same causes (political, economic or social) will cause the same reactions on all the other continents,

Fig.6 Western Sahara’s sand berm to protect Moroccofrom Polisario rebels attacks.

Fig.7 DMZ fence joint borders of North and South Korea

- 10 -

these critics offer a new utopian ideal of

an “end of all territory” has not complete-

ly vanished, but borders have somewhat

returned to favour in the wake of the 9/11

events and the 2008 financial crisis

(Senarclens 2009; Debray 2011). This is not

so much due to the fact that the old

territorial order is good as to the fact that

governments are unable to reach the same

level of security by other methods too.

According to (Vallet ,110, 2014). In 1972, the

arguments of border took the form of two major works, one on World (human) Society by John Burton,

and the other one is Transnational Relations and World Politics , by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane.

“Both arguments became more tautological, since the State must be challenged by something above

(because the international community has come into existence) and by something below itself

(because man’s natural rights are now recognized), but on the other hand, failure of the State is

acknowledged at the same time as the increasing power of supranational governance.” (Vallet, 110,

2014) . Secure borders obviously and efficiently demonstrate a shift of the responsibilities of the states

authorities by sharing the relevant boundary. This is usually done when the border's governmental

rules are widely admitted by and compatible with the majority of the population. Thus, secure borders

are demarcations that the populations from both sides of the border acknowledge and respect.

A border is unstable if its security is consistently violated by a minority of the population, that way

producing negative side effects for both nations. Thus, echoing Rudolph (2003), an unsecured border

represents a leaking or porous border where a certain proportion of flows across it are not wanted by

at least one state on the borderlines, whether to be migrants, drugs, or traffickers. Border fences are

usually erected because at least one of the states recognizes its border as unsecured. Different

economies of two nations encourage the populations on both sides of the border to move in or out.

Therefore, economic is a key to evaluating border fence erection. In other words, when economic

variance affects border instability, causing systematic border violations by minorities of the cross

border population, authorities will take measures to regain its border stability. Border barriers

adoption is a serious step, it might be more attractive to serve the politicians agenda than any potential

alternatives. For instance, ‘while it served as a symbol of the interstate friction between the United

States and the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall was built mainly to prevent individuals in poorer East

Germany from border crossing into West Germany in search of better life and economic opportunities’

(Gaddis, 2005, 115).- 11 -

Fig. 8 Citizens of West Berlin hand a pot of coffee to GDR borderforces on the Berlin Wall on Nov. 11, 1989.

- 12 -

2.1 Is it Fear of the Other or Policy of Fear?

Underlining the factor of fear, or at least of uncertainty, in the formation of the European social body,

without a doubt leads us to multiple questions on the political use to which it can be put. Particularly, is

European policy against illegal migration an example of a policy riding the wave of fear which has been

intentionally initiated by the European political elites? Is the branding of the distressing figure of the

irregular migrants or refugees a result of an induced effort to create emotions of fear in the society, in

order to encourage the creation of a community to which people feel they belong? Some suggestions

that there are strategic intentions by politicians to take advantage of the insecurity are persistent

(Vallet 60-61, 2014). Also, many writers have noticed the government techniques in policies regarding

insecurity. For example, Murray Edelman explains that:

“when the enemy can be seen to be objectively harmful, there is a powerful tendency to eliminate it in

order to suppress the threat; but an opposite tendency comes into play when the enemy is an

aggregate of groups behind a regime or a cause; in this case, those who are constructing the figure of

the enemy have every reason to perpetuate and exaggerate the danger it represents.”

(Edelman 1991: 130)

A quick overview of contemporary history

guides us to believe that such theories cannot

simply be put aside. However, it seems that

such analyses do not comply the European

policy against illegal migration. Often guided

by hostility in principle to political parties.

When such an approaches have been applied

to keep together the European unity,

generally overestimate have sketched out a

foggy plan for a united policy on illegal

immigration and the control of external borders, but the execution of these policies is never carried out

in a fixed way. Progress has been made in a chaotic, or even uncivilized manner. Procedures taken have

often been carried out under pressure from day to day events, not following a precise plan. Security

check procedures of travel documents and development of information exchange systems are

historical periods of cooperation under the Schengen Agreement. ‘Recent strengthening of these

elements can be explained largely by the political dynamic created by the 11 September attacks and by

pressure exerted by the United States on European States’ (Lodge 2004: 267–72). Supporting coopera-

tion in the field of trafficking and utilization of human beings can be seen as occurring in an

Fig.9 Migrants trying to break through the fence on Greeceborder.

- 13 -

environment addressed by many cases highlighting such problems. For instance, the current European

crises of migrants and refugees stuck on the Greece-Macedonian fleeing the devastating proxy war

between superpowers nations in Syria. Finally, ‘the setting up of the Frontex (The European Union

agency for external border security) can be seen as being related to anxieties linked to the enlargement

process of the Union to Eastern Europe and the development of a humanitarian crisis on Europe’s

southern borders.’ (Vallet 61, 2014).

2.2 The Sacred Border:

‘‘Dear God, Who draws the lines around the countries? Nan.’’

(Hample and Mar-shall, Children’s Letters to God, 1991).

Despite all the sophisticated arguments in favor of a world without borders, controversial or as some-

times called “wool dressed” independentists proceed, to claim – even at their own risk – the right to

control a border because, in fact, it gives them precious and irreplaceable protection. First of all, a

border provides security, and as a result freedom. Israel is still looking for a “safe” border; Palestinians

also crave to regain their occupied lands borders in order to be guaranteed the right to move more

freely. The first of Human Rights according to the agreement on civil and political rights of 1966 state

that a border does not hold danger at bay and it is as vulnerable to threats as it is to the other flows of

globalization. Moreover, excessively protective border walls can cause some nations to tighten the free

movement of their own people. Also to lose their initiative because of the huge budget and effort are

spent on defense. It’s known that sales of armored doors and even individuals arms increase when

people feel insecure, and nations, as well as individuals, are prepared to employ their potentials to

ensure their security, which is the first of their rights according to the original social agreements. Vallet

explains, ‘This is why it is a paradoxical to observe that the dominant trend in international relations

theory is now based on inter-subjectivity – that is to say, crossed perceptions – yet at the same time it

denies people the right to define the degree of protection they consider necessary for their protection,

because it would be irrational’ (Vallet 112-113, 2014). Scholars have always observed that neighbors

sound to be prone to compete or even to fight each other, (Bremer, 1992; Senese, 2005) and a large

amount of evidence suggests that territorial disputes between neighbors borders assigned for this fact,

(Bremer, 1992; Senese, 2005) such as the Korean war and its aftermath to the present days between

North and South Korea, Kashmir territorial conflict between India and Pakistan, and Japan with

China…etc. Territorial disputes are found to be good parameters to predict any potential eruption of

violence, the period and intensity of a conflict, and escalation to war . Furthermore, recent work by

Gibler points out that the common replicated `democratic peace' finding is actually better thought of as

a territorial peace (Gibler, 2007). Since the presence or absence of territorial disputes is central to

whether neighbors' relations are collisional or peaceful, and as a matter of fact, ‘neighbors with an

active territorial dispute naturally experience higher levels of external threat’ (Vasquez, 1993).

Reacting to this threat can be in different forms and shapes. For instance, states can maintain high

levels of or increase their military spending by fortifying their border wall or work to form alliances

against their rival. While this research is not the place to review all possibilities, we observe that the

construction of a physical border wall is a possible response that has not received much attention in the

last twenty years. Border walls are sometimes defensive structures aimed to delay potential military

offenses from a hostile neighbor to proceed forward. (Carter, 2010). As mentioned earlier, the Maginot

Line between France and Germany is probably the most popular modern example of a border wall

erected for this purpose. In another example, Israel built a series of border walls and fences to curb

Syria's ability to regain the Golan Heights following the war of 1967.

2.3 A Thriving Future for Borders:

The tens of thousands of miles of border walls and fences constructed since the end of the Cold War

confirm the wisdom that says that you only destroy what you replace, and promise for a great future

for this criticized demarcation. Many of the criticisms of borders do make sense and worth to give it a

think. The common universal model of the State and the border, conducted from the historical image

and experience of the Old World, have often produced monstrous and even more rigorous versions of

border walls in which the State was the primary threat to the security of populations imprisoned within

fortified sealed borders. On the contrary, the border, and its refrain have often served to justify passive-

ness in the face of demanding rebuked by anyone with common sense, but at the same time, impossi-

ble to convict due to the State reasons. The idea of invincible lines disappeared with Rome, and the

Maginot line has drawn attention to the efficiency of fences and barbed wire. That was incapable of

preventing armies, and borders are also useless against individuals such as migrants and refugees ready

to risk their lives to change existences. Indeed, the many obstacles have led mafias to join the flow, and

they are prospering on the backs of the thousands of migrants and even refugees . However, none of

the obvious downsides of these borders that we look to put an end to is so serious as those that would

arise from no borders at all. And as Vallet (112,2014) stated: “Without paraphrasing Régis Debray, we

can draft a eulogy to the border that will toll the death knell of any postmodernist illusions”.

- 14 -

Chapter 3

EU Border Control

Chapter 3 Controlling the Borders of the EU.

3. Managing EU Borders:

In recent years various approaches have been created in order to describe the outer borders of the

European Union. To some level, these approaches are trying to equate European borders with the

Berlin Wall and with ‘El Dorado’. “In the case of the Mediterranean, the focus is mainly on the

North-South divide: the ‘gold curtain’, the ‘new wall of shame’ , the ‘European wall’ ” (Driessen 1996,

p.180) and most recent ‘Fortress Europe’ are outstanding examples of this trend. The influx of migrants

and refugees from Africa along with the Middle East to Europe has con-tributed to reinforce the role

and the importance of these figures. However, they are pointless unless the borders policies behind

them are analyzed in a clear and steady method. Therefore, migration policy, Schengen zone, and Euro-

pean area policy need to be re-considered. A major aim of this research is to highlight that border con-

trol and border policies are usually formed by two significant factors. The first factor is control using

technological securitization, and the other factor is the policy of border control with neighboring

states. It will be crucial to determining if one of these two factors systematically surrounds the other.

The final part of this chapter discusses the examples of the borders of Balkan countries, such as Greece,

Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary borders, which have usually been seen as the Southern front-

line of Europe fortress.

While admitting that the double wired

barbed fences between two countries con-

tribute to the idea of ‘fortified border’. Also,

these borders serve to support that even in

highly secured borders, there is a chance for

interaction with the other side of the border

wall. The selective porous border applied to

the citizens of the EU members states illus-

trates that even borders mainly designed to

curb human beings to cross can allow of a

measure of inclusion by turning it into a beneficial and useful borders, borders that can bring people

and hope together. The expansion in economic and human influx that define globalization is pushing

countries to reconsider their normal border control policies according to its involvement in free trade,

the porous of its borders regarding goods and people is important. On the other hand, security and

safety issues related to terrorism, illegal migration or drugs smuggling induce countries to seal and

- 15 -

Fig.10 Double fencing at the Greek - Macedonian border.

even fortify their borders walls by increasing security using high-tech tools. The position of the Europe-

an Union (EU) illustrates this issue. The desire to control the “illegal” flow of people or goods sounds

to contradict with the desire to discard border control and fencing protocols to improve trade inside

and outside the Union. Since the creation of the Schengen area, EU member states decided to remove

borders between them to smooth the free movement of people and goods.

Also, to assign the EU as one whole body with the responsibility to seal the Union’s external borders.

The increased demands on border control and management at the community level became actual fact

with the creation of a special institution, the European Union agency Frontex. Its main task is to

increase and to add value to, border control activities of the Member States. The following chapter

suggests analyzing whether the logic and the strategy of the EU’s internal / external border fences

policy are efficient by investigation the research questions in two dimensions. First, we suggest using

the literature on EU international borders to analyze and question the construction of border as the

result of a collective policy. The matter here is whether the increasing demands on investing in a high-

tech fortified border walls and fences are enough to visualize a solution to deal with the mission these

walls were built for. This analysis will lead us to the second section to investigate why the blind use of

technology alone (without inviting solution makers such as architects) is being invested in a way to play

a significant role in the EU’s strategy to prevent illegal migration and illicit trafficking. This research

focuses on the role of the border walls in forming the very technical and architectural dimension of the

EU’s security and border walls strategy and, moreover, the potential of architecture on the border wall

as both a tool and as a space of political control to achieve favorable scenarios of borders.

3.1 Transforming Borderlines to Border Spaces (Digital Borders)

Technologies applied on border lines to detect illegal activities are various and hired by multiple border

security systems organizations. These technologies could be classified in different groups . According to

Vallet classification (225, 2014)  there are four groups which have been sorted according to their func-

tion in the border security devices:

•spatial surveillance;

• detection, identification, and authentication of flows of goods and people (concerning primarily

biometric recognition systems);

• information management (database or information management software that is, for example, used

to manage biometric information on migrants);

• integrated systems (systems of systems, combining different functionalities).

- 16 -

All these types of different technologies dedicated to border security and border management are not

neutral, whether as geographical elements or as political tools of control. Let us take an overview of

the impact of these surveillance methods  from detection, identification to authentication

technologies.

The surveillance technologies used for border control are continued to be more automated monitoring,

 i.e. monitoring the border to its complete length and depth. From this point, the European Commission

(EC)  funded the international research project TALOS or Transportable Autonomous patrol for Land

border Surveillance. ‘The project is looking for designing, implementing and field-testing prototype

models of adaptable and transportable border surveillance tools.’ (EC TALOS  website). This project

would open the way to the creation of a virtual border wall. The concept is that border authorities

could remotely track and stop illegal or suspicious activities at the border, anywhere on and at any time,

especially, in deserted areas or regions with access difficulties. Thus, such automated way could

support symbolically the border’s existence. With this kind of machines control, there should be no

blurry zone or discontinuities in the political and geographical marking. In the same context, a question

of whether these surveillance systems are efficient and useful could also be raised. The field of the

military has proved that every new technological tool calls for new bypass routes, just like physical

barriers,  and that solid use of the technologies conflict with the original objective.

One popular example is the US–Mexican border and  development of high-tech surveillance systems

there, has exacerbated the problem instead of fixing it , the role of migrant smugglers on illegal

immigration. As it is more troubling to cross the border now, illegal migrants to the US have become

- 17 -

Fig.11 Some surveillance systems used at the US- Mexico borders (Drones, Vessels, borders lighting )

- 18 -

more dependent on smugglers, who are the experts in bypassing the security systems (Pellerin, 2004:

81). Smugglers became more aware the before about new techniques and strategies to avoid

authorities surveillance systems at the borders. Moreover, they are coping with the border advancing

technological procedures. They’re using drones, digging tunnels, sailing with homemade submarines ,

and semi-submersible to smuggle millions worth of drugs , cocaine, and even humans.

On the other hand, it has been argued that if surveillance systems can be used to reduce humanitarian

catastrophes. For instance,  locating and intercepting  boats used by migrants to cross the Mediterrane-

an before they drown . Add to that, these systems induce migrants and refugees to take risks in more

dangerous abandoned routes through forests, rivers,  and mountains. The thick multi-lyres border is

another geographical result of the surveillance solution adopted by arms-producing companies. The

different types of surveillance strategies and tools they developed for air, land or sea monitoring in

defence settings tend to evolve, spread and grade spatially the border as the area of control. With

these systems as Vallet (225, 2014) stated:  “border control and monitoring, especially with the use of

drones or satellites, are no longer limited to buffer zones”. For example, following the increased

pressure on the land borders, Spain raised the number of personnel securing its borders  and fortified

the fences surrounding the enclaves by increasing their height to six metres and introducing razor

barbed wires, as an additional measure.  ‘Almost 40 million euros was spent on maintaining and

reinforcing the fences in 2005 alone’ (Amnesty International Report, 15, 2015). The southern EU

maritime border is  an interesting case. Spain established a dedicated surveillance system named S.I.V.E

(An Integrated External Surveillance System) to detect boats of migrants heading from African shores.

Fig.12 Smugglers using various methods (submarine, drones and tunnels) to deal with border walls and securitysurveillance.

This example shows the increasing obsession of surveilling spaces beyond the actual borderlines and as

a result  re-territorialization of border control. Such a system allows states to go further the traditional

legal frameworks of border control. With this border surveillance is carried out at various levels and in

multiple depths, ‘surveillance will start in a very early stage in the country of departure of the migrants

or traffickers and moves to the actual border of the monitoring country to end inside its national

territory.’ (Vallet 225, 2014).

3.2 EU Southern Borders: Walls of Money

The walls many believed had

vanished forever from the post-Cold

War era are back with an even more

controversial efficiency . Nowadays,

walls are the standard state re-

sponse to perceiving insecurity and

territorial breach. “Today, they stud

borderlines the world over, trans-

forming porous, inclusive soft

borders into sealed, exclusionary

hard borders” (DeBardeleben, 2005:

11 & 23). ‘Walls are symbols of the existence of a new entity, identity, reaffirmation of markers of State

sovereignty, but also instruments of dissociation and self-isolation’ (Davis, 2007), the tangible

expression of the other’s existence. Walls ensure the public, which sees them as a way to control the

flow of goods services ,and most importantly the century issue, the flow of people. Each year thou-

sands of refugees and migrants try to reach Europe to escape extreme poverty; others are seeking

shelter from violence and grinding wars. According to statistics by Amnesty International, 23,000

people are estimated died trying to make the journey toward European southern borders since 2000.

And even those who made it to the borders of the European Union find that safety still far from their

reach. The EU and its member states have raised an increasingly impervious fortress to prevent

irregular immigrants to pass through ,despite their motives and regardless of the risky measures that

many are ready to take to reach the EU borderlines or shores. In order to “protect” its borderlines, the

EU has funded a high tech. surveillance devices and systems, given financial aid to member states at its

southern external borders, such as Bulgaria, Spain, Macedonia, and Greece, to seal their borders and

assigned the job to a special agency to create a European team of border guards to watch EU frontiers.

Meanwhile, individual member states

- 19 -

Fig.13 US presidency candidate Donald Trump wants Mexico to pay for awall on its border with the US.

are taking various measures to stop irregular migrants . Migrants and refugees are be-ing pushed back

unlawfully from Greece, Macedonia , and Spain without having access to the asylum option and usually

in ways that put them at death risk. They are maltreated and oppressed by coastguards and border

guards. Moreover, some EU countries are using the threat of lengthy detention or even applying

obstructive stalling asylum procedures as a deterrent for those planning on heading to Europe. The

fact, however, is that “almost half of those illegally entering Europe are escaping wars and persecution

in countries like Eritrea, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan, and the EU is no more tolerant with them than

it is with economic migrants. All of them are exposed to unacceptable risks to their lives and rights, due

to the EU’s relentless policy to reduce the numbers of irregular arrivals.” (Amnesty International

Report, 6, 2014). EU borders have many parallels between the U.S -Mexico border, particularly, the EU

southern borders (Spain ,Bulgaria ,Greece, and Macedonia). Both represent sharp contrasts in income

and standards of living, and both receive huge migration flow from developing countries. However, the

responsibility for the construction of Fortress Europe and the abuses at the EU’s borders should not be

assumed to lie individually , or even foremost, with the countries located at the EU’s southern and east-

ern parts. These are , often, states of transit as much as Libya, Turkey, and Morocco. In fact, the

destination that majority of migrants are trying to reach are the countries of the North (Germany,

France, Sweden, and the UK), and these countries, as much as those in the South, are pushing the EU to

fortify its southern borders, and moulding EU institutions to this aim. Designing and paying for Fortress

Europe are becoming a collective process more than before.

Amnesty International movement was

able to outline multiple border

measures in their report “Fortress

Europe” due to the intensive financial

aid by the EU members states to

support these measures. EU members

states providing support for such

policies and procedures may have a

commitment to ensure that the

measures they impose do not conflict

with human rights violations. In the

same context, the EU’s priorities regarding migration policy have emphasized on sealing its borders

rather to concern about its human rights commitment. This can be clearly seen in expenses on building

“Fortress Europe”- 20 -

Fig.14 Solidarity & Management of Migration Flows Programme.

- 21 -

in comparison with the financial support given for asylum procedures and the facilities of refugees. The

European Commission (EC) stated that “€4 billion was assigned for the period 2007-2013 to the four

funding instruments under the Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows Programme (SOLID) to

support member states’ activities on asylum, integration, return of third country nationals and border

control” (Amnesty International Report, 9, 2014). However, half of this around €1,820 million was as-

signed for activities, security and technological infrastructure focusing on control of the external bor-

ders of the Schengen zone. Only 17% or €700 million was assigned to back up asylum procedures,

support services, and the resettlement.

Since mid 2012, particularly, when the situation in

Syria escalated, the borderline between Greece

with Turkey was one of the main routes taken by

migrants and refugees heading to the northern

EU members states. However, in mid August

2012, the Greek authorities started operation

“Shield” to seal its borderline with Turkey. More

than 1,850 additional guards and police personnel

were deployed and over a 10km long fence was

erected along the northern section of Greece

eastern borders with Turkey. According to

Frontex, the EU Border Agency for external

border security, this have had such an impact

that less than 15 migrants a week were detected

crossing this border at the end of October 2012,

in a dramatic decrease from couple of thousands

in the first week of August 2012. With such a strict security measures at the border, and the increasing

flows of migrants and refugees, they started taking more risky sea route to the Greek islands using

fragile rusty fishing boats. However, after the route to Greece was almost completely blocked, many

migrants and refugees trying to reach the EU were diverted to the border between Bulgaria and Turkey

and those who made it throw Greek borders have to face another huge barbed wire fence along

Macedonian –Greece borders. Obviously, EU states members waste no time in taking measures to

enhance the patrolling and fortifying their borders, for instance by ‘deploying 1,570 additional police

officers and 140 off-road patrol vehicles, and starting the construction of a 30km fence’ (Amnesty

International Report, 9 , 2014). They also increased their cooperation with the Turkish authorities

Fig.15 Allocation of refugee & external boreders funds insome EU member states (2007-2013). AM international.

- 22 -

through an integrated system for monitoring the border. Amnesty International statistics show that

‘following the execution of these monitoring measures, the number of people illegally crossing

Bulgarian border from Turkey decreased dramatically. Almost 8,000 migrants entered Bulgaria illegally

over the Turkish border between September and November 2013’ (Amnesty International Report, 9,

2014). In 2014 Bulgaria received €5.65 million of emergency funding from the EU to enhance its

asylum procedures and receptions services. On the other hand, many of the measures taken by Bulgaria

and Greece to close off the EU’s southeastern border with Turkey and to construct anti- migrants

fences and walls were possible, thanks to the substantial funding Greece and Bulgaria received from

the EU.

In a similar scenario, over a 3 Meter

high, razor - topped fence has been

built along Macedonia's border with

Greece, as a first "line of defence"

against the migrant's influx arriving

to Europe through the Balkans every

day. Though, this barrier was not

enough until Macedonia has its own

plan to build a new barbed-wire

fence parallel to the previous one

with a 200 mile long protected by

armed guards with tasers in order to make it a hardship for migrants to enter the Balkan countries.

Walls are built when a state believes it can address a security issue only by itself. the border wall is “a

unilateral, asymmetrical response to an equally asymmetrical perception of danger” (Ritaine, 2009, 157)

“ an illustration of social relationships in which relations of domination delineate the social treatment of

space” (Vallet, 144, 2014). Thus, a wall reflects a State’s need to fully insulate its territory. EU leaders

agreed to block off the main route from Greece through the Balkans where more than 985,000 have

travelled since 2015. In addition to that, Macedonia has requested that neighboring countries help it

seal the thoroughfare by extending the existing 19-mile razor-wire barrier on its southern border with

Greece and providing additional guards and riot personnel. According to a report published by the daily

mail “Since November only refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have been allowed to cross the

border on their journey to western Europe, but immigrants from other nationalities have still tried to

get across the border” (The daily mail, 2016). The idea is to send a message to migrants that there are

multiple barriers so they might give up crossing illegally. More than 67,000 refugees have been

Fig.16 Greece border wall to ward of migrants.

registered coming through Macedonian border since the beginning of the year 2016. The European

Commission last month increased security at the Greek-Macedonian borders, and deployed over than

600 police reinforcements from other countries to help control the migrants flow. Recently Macedonia

has shut down its border to refugees from time to time and it is now granting access to only those

heading to Germany and Austria. Thus, EU states sounds to be uncertain but yet still willing to waste

potentials on fortifying their borders instead of reaching a steady policy or solutions.

3.3 Architecture of Border wall:

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, by

some measures, sponsored the

largest and most expensive building

structure in the United States in the

21st century. It finances approxi-

mately 800 miles of fortification di-

viding the US from Mexico at a cost

of up to $16 million dollars per mile.

Known as the Mexico–United

States Barrier, the Great Wall of

Mexico, border fence and border

wall, “the construction of this wall has transformed the large cities, small towns, and the multitude of

cultural and ecological of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff who was given unprecedented

powers by President George Bush to concede any laws that could obstruct the wall’s construction’’

(Vallet 254, 2014). Neglecting the rich and diverse fabric found along the border not only raises critical

questions of ecology, politics, economics, archaeology, and urbanism, it also radically re-shape and

transforms the territories along borderlines. In many locations, the wall is elevated of steel, wire mesh,

concrete, and even a Vietnam-era Air Force landing strips to be used for new purposes ( Figure ). In

another part of the wall, it takes advantage of the high-tech surveillance systems provided with heat

sensors, subterranean probes, and aerostat blimps. In parallel, Europe heading toward similar borders

policies by funding and constructing border walls at its southern borders, e.g. Greece ,Macedonia, and

Bulgaria, or as the Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras suggested ‘Europe today is crushed amidst

austerity and closed borders. It keeps its border open to austerity but closed for people fleeing war,’ he

continues ‘Countries, with Austria in the front, want to impose the logic of fortress Europe’ (Brussels,

2016) . In all cases, the concept of “national security” reckon and defends the construction and design

- 23 -

Fig.17 US - Mexico border wall stretching for 800 miles.

of the wall, and the success of the wall has been measured by the number of individuals irregular

crossings. Border Wall as Architecture proposes that the wall, with such a funds support, should be

re-considered as not as a securitized separation barrier, but also as a productive useful infrastructure to

be used as the core concept of a borderland economy. Indeed, coupling the wall with viable

infrastructure – and this proposal focuses on ecological, environmental, and urban social border walls

solutions. It is a pathway to security and safety in border communities and the nations beyond them.

Border Wall as Architecture is a proposition for a wide array of adjustments and new schemes for the

border walls across the globe that being built on an existing situation and seek for amiable ends for the

current problems created by the physical dividers. It’s a new concept of walls alternatives that not

necessarily divide but actually bring people together.

Architects and designers chose chosen to neutralize themselves from the border security issue. Ricardo

Scofidio of Diller Scofidio + Renfro architects in New York stated about architect being involved in

border walls and barriers projects :

“It’s a silly thing to design such a riddle. You might as well leave it to security and engineers”. Also,

architect Rem Koolhass had his own thoughts about the related topic of the Berlin Wall and said of his

studies of the wall:

“ I had hardly imagined how West Berlin was actually imprisoned by the Wall. I had never really thought

about that condition and the paradox that even though it was surrounded by a wall, West Berlin was

called ‘free’ and that the much larger area beyond the Wall was not considered free … [and that] … the

Wall was not really a single object but a system that consisted partly of things that were destroyed on

the site of the Wall, sections of buildings that were still standing and absorbed or incorporated into the

Wall, and additional walls some really massive and modern, others more ephemeral all together

contributing to an enormous zone. That was one of the most exciting things: it was one wall that

always assumed a different condition.” (Vallet, 255, 2014).

In many places, border wall is constructed

on a neutralized border space (strip) for

hundreds of kilometres. The point is the

land surrounding the border walls security

infrastructure has lost its productive value.

Removed from the market economy, and

as a matter of fact ended up with no value

at all to be called “Border-land”.

- 24 -Fig.18 Macedonia southern border with Greece.

“There are approximately 40,000 acres of US land that already do – or are planned to – lie on the Mexi-

can side of the border wall – an area equal to twice the size of Manhattan. This land has been isolated

from US public access and economically neutralized. ” (Vallet, 255, 2014). The same scenario can be

applied on Greece borders with Turkey, Macedonia- Greece borders with a 321 km border fence

completed early in 2016, and Bulgaria-Turkey with a 132km fence. The construction and maintenance

costs for these walls are estimated to exceed billions over the next years—and there are several

hundred more miles of the wall yet to build as discussed in this dissertation earlier. We will review

briefly 3 border walls alternatives, one is suggested by me and the other two are suggested by

Ronald Rael and Virginia San Fratello as he emphasizes that the current border walls are built to push

people back and away. Proposals should re-shape the design to serve as a connector that attracts both

sides of the borders in a common dialogue.

3.3.1 Green Wall (Environmental)

According to a study made by Peking

University concluded that ‘the Great

Wall of China has modified the genetic

structure of the same species of plants

on both sides of the wall by preventing

its natural gene flow, that encourages

the evolution of an altered species’

(Su et al. 212 ,2003). Therefore, the

erection of border walls as observed

earlier usually expanding for hundreds

of miles can have an essential environ-

ment impact. On the U.S. -Mexico

border, the 15-foot high wire-mesh fence obstructing the natural flow of flood water by acting like a

blocking dam, which in turn disrupts plant life at a UNESCO biosphere reserve in south-western Arizona,

known as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (John , 2015). Similarly, on the EU border, fences are

being built in a continuous rapid and chaotic way to cope with the great number of illegal migrants

trying to cross the borders. This is being done without considering the environmental impact on the

wildlife and the borderlands essential fallow. The “Green Wall’’ will act as a tree-belt will eventually

stretch along the border in protest of the fences between EU southern borders in Macedonia, Greece

,and Bulgaria. Green Wall proposing a double fence condition with a various/specific plants preserve,

therefore addressing security concerns and protecting the environmental and prevent funnelling the

wildlife. A forest surrounded by a double fence could stitch the two sides back together again.

Fig.19 Green Wall border relation with a town.

- 25 -

3.3.2 Solar Wall (Ecological)

The most untapped potential for solar energy

among many countries, especially those

constructing border walls in areas located near

the equator like the Middle East where the solar

energy can be used to the maximum. By Rael San

Fratello own words:

“Solar farms, in turn, are highly secure installa-

tions. What if we were to reallocate some of the

funds used simply to construct and maintain the border wall for the construction of energy infrastruc-

ture along the border? We would actually create scenarios in many instances that are more secure than

the existing wall, and that simultaneously provide solar energy to the energy-hungry cities of the south-

west. Consider the 100-mile stretch of border between Nogales, Arizona and Douglas Arizona. There, 87

miles of border wall have been constructed at a cost of $333.5 million. Compare that figure to the cost

of the largest solar farm in the world, the Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park in Olmedilla, Spain, which cost

$530 million. For $333.5 million, 54 miles of profit generating solar farm could have been constructed,

40 feet wide providing 60 Mega Watts of electricity. That is enough for 40,000 households.” (Rael and

San Fratello, 2009)

3.3.3 Burrito Wall (Social)

 Rael San Fratello architects suggested various social

border walls alternatives. One of these alternatives is

the Burrito Wall which is described as a “Casual ex-

change is common across the border wall ranging

from small talk, long visits with friends and family, and

commercial exchanges of items ranging from food

and bracelets to illegal merchandise. The Burrito Wall

accommodates for a food cart to be inserted into the

wall. The proximity to the wall and the security over-

hang create shade. Seating is built into the wall and

food, conversation or a bi-national game of footsies can

occur across the border.” (Rael and San Fratello, 2009)

- 26 -

Fig.20 Solar Wall proposal by Rael San Fratello

Fig. 21 Burrito Wall proposal by Rael San Fratello

Chapter 4

Conclusion

&

Recommendation

Chapter 4 Conclusion

4.1 Summary:

Border areas have obtained a significant importance in a global capitalized world where money and

economy impose the rules and accept to circulate goods, services, and capital but not able to cope with

free human mobility . The construction of new digital automated border walls provided with advanced

technological devices, even in the naval environment , has contributed to curbing the flow of illegal

migration. However, aside from acknowledging the effectiveness of border wall initiative from a

territorial or political perspective, border wall should be analyzed from the point of view of the

socio-economic variance, productive initiative and interconnected networks of societies and

information which authorize human mobility. Fortifying borders are not possible if no actual steps are

taken simultaneously to reduce the gap in national income between countries. Factors like economy

and borders fortifications will create counter effects that make any border porous, as they are the

material that incites the collective imagination of desperate migrants to come up with alternatives

routes, and usually risky ones, that could cause more human tragedies.

Border walls tend to be a product of violence split between the European countries. Therefore, fear is

at the heart of the European project, and sound to be there from the beginning. That doesn’t necessari-

ly mean that fear has constructed Europe, or stating that fear is the foundation of European identity.

Definitely not. Though, fear contributed to the EU borders policy and will continue to contribute to it.

Committed since the beginning of the 1990s to a common states members security policy, the Union

has developed its own over the last year. It obviously appears that managing the external and southern

borders of the EU is considered by EU foundations and the member states as a collective process that

calls for common and coordinated solutions. An agency such as Frontex was created to unite the Union

border control policy. This agency took the advantage of automated technology and remote security to

surround and have an impact on national border control policies. This technical approach is on the

other side supported and reinforced by the significant role played by arms-producing companies under

the framework of the EU research program on security. However, border fences are far from being the

desired cure to stop illegal migration and terrorism; they are even less effective solution against human

and drug trafficking and other kinds of smuggling. For their proper functioning, very expensive

equipment is required in order to have “highly effective” border management. It is no wonder that this

method of border protection is a very easy target for various criticism. However, ‘the decision to

construct a fence is usually a choice, not between good or bad, but only between bad options, a choice- 27 -

made under severe pressure from external circumstances along with domestic elites and public

opinion’ (Vallet , 126, 2014 ). The efficiency of fencing as a method of border protection can be

evaluated differently, depending on the viewpoint of each researcher. Meanwhile, disputes concerning

the legality of border walls, whether to be about the controversy of their material or design, and about

the humanitarian aspect of such a rigorous method of territorial protection are of no help in solving the

problems currently faced by people who either cannot cross a border normally, or who feel in danger

because of cross-border threat issues.

Therefore, research on border walls could be transformed on searching for architectural intermediate

solutions. Knowing that simply the demolition of border walls does not look like the best option, “this

may lead to the escalation of current conflicts and the emergence of new physical and virtual borders,

which can cause even more undesirable consequences” (Vallet , 127, 2014). The following concept

should be important as a rule of any desirable change: public opinions cannot deal with sudden or dra-

matic changes of something used to be seen as a norm or a standard since a long period of time such as

border walls. Thus, the solution can probably be found in a gradual change of border policy by initially

arranging dialogue through architectural border walls alternatives between neighbor states, which

tries to shut down itself and the communities who’re wishing to border cross .

Even if the results of such dialogue initially look satirical, little efforts should never ever be degraded,

This concept is mentioned by prophet Mohammad “Do not think little of any good action, even if it is

just greeting another human with a cheerful countenance.”. So it can at least contribute to the gradual

softening of migration policy for an enclosed country or policy and lay the foundation for further, more

considerable open minded steps towards “softening” of a border wall.

- 28 -

References:

Legends:

Books [1], standards [2], reports [3], journal articles [4],

conference papers [5], and web pages [6]

[1]- van Houtum, Henk and Ton van Naerssen. "Bordering, Ordering And Othering". Tijd voor Econ &

Soc Geog 93.2 (2002): 125-136. Web.

[1]‐ Vallet, Elisabeth. Borders, Fences And Walls. University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada.: Ashgate

Publishing LTD, pp(14-15, 15-16,109,124,110,112,60-61,61,225,254,255, 126, 127) 2014. Print.

[1]- Jones, Reece. Border Walls. London: Zed Books, p 24, 2012. Print.

[1]- Ritaine, É. 2009. La barrière et le checkpoint: mise en politique de l’asymétrie. Cultures & Conflits,

73(Frontières, marquages et disputes): 13–33.

[6]- Ledwith, Sara and Gabreila Baczynska. "How Europe Built Fences To Keep People Out".Reuters.

N.p., 2016. Web. 23 June 2016.

[3]- EMCDDA , "Cocaine Trafficking To Europe | Www.Emcdda.Europa.Eu". Emcdda.europa.eu. N.p.,

2016. Web. 24 June 2016.

[6]- Torrea, Judith. "Borderwall As Architecture (Ronald Rael And Virginia San Fratello)". Design and

Violence. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 June 2016.

[1]- Ballif, F. and Rosière, S. 2009. Le défi des teichopolitiques . Analyser la fermeture contemporaine

des territoires. L’Espace Géographique , 38(3): 193–206.

[1]- Duez, D. 2008a. L’Europe et les clandestins: la peur de l’Autre comme facteur d’intégration?

Politique européenne , 26, 97–119.

[1]- de Senarclens, P. (ed.). 2009. Les Frontières dans tous la Mondialisation , Bruxelles, Bruylant.

[2]- Debray, R. 2011. Éloge de la Frontière , Paris, Gallimard.

[1]- Rudolph, Christopher. 2003. \ "Security and the Political Economy of International Migration."

American Political Science Review pp. 603-620.

-29 -

References:

Legends:

Books [1], standards [2], reports [3], journal articles [4],

conference papers [5], and web pages [6]

[1]- Gaddis, John Lewis. 2005. The Cold War: A New History. Penguin.

[1]- Edelman, M. 1991. Pièces et règles du jeu politique , Paris, Seuil.

[1]- Lodge, J. 2004. EU Homeland Security: Citizens or Suspects? European Integration , 26 (3),

September. (refer to Vallet 60-61, 2014)

[4]- Bremer, Stuart. 1992. \Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War,

1816 - 1965." Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(5):309-341.

[4]- Senese, Paul D. 2005. \Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint

Explanation." American Journal of Political Science 49(4) : 769-779.

[1]- Gibler, Douglas M. 2007. \Bordering on Peace: Democracy, Territorial Issues, and Conflict."

International Studies Quarterly 51(3):509-532.

[4] - Vasquez, John A. 1993. The War Puzzle. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[4]-Carter, David B. 2010. \The Strategy of Territorial Conflict." American Journal of Political Science

54(4):969-987.

[1]- Driessen, H. (1996) ‘At the edge of Europe: Crossing and marking the Mediterranean divide’ in L.

O’Dowd and T.M.Wilson (eds.) Borders, Nations and States, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing

Company.

[6]-"TALOS – European Union Border Protection System". Talos-border.eu. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Aug.

2016.

[3]- Pellerin, H. 2004. Une nouvelle économie politique de la frontière, A contrario2.

[3]- Amnesty International LTD,. FEAR AND FENCES. London: Amnesty International, 2015. Web. 20

Aug. 2016.

[6]- Hample and Marshall, Children’s Letters to God, 1991.

[3]- Amnesty International Ltd,. THE HUMAN COST OF FORTRESS EUROPE. London: Amnesty

International Ltd, 2014 p6,p9 . Web. 21 Aug. 2016.

-30 -

References:

Legends:

Books [1], standards [2], reports [3], journal articles [4],

conference papers [5], and web pages [6]

[1]- Debardeleben, J. 2005. Soft Or Hard Borders?: Managing The Divide In An Enlarged Europe ,

Aldershot, Ashgate.

[2]- Davis, M. 2007. In Praise of Barbarians: Essays against Empire , Chicago, Haymarket Books.

[1]- Ritaine, E. 2009. La barrière et le checkpoint: mise en politique de l’asymétrie, Cultures and

Conflits , 73, Frontières, marquages et disputes, 13–33.

[6] - BRUSSELS, JOHN STEVENS. "Macedonia Reveals Plans To Build 200 Mile Long Fence On Greek

Border". Mail Online. N.p., 2016. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.

[6] -Su, H et al. "The Great Wall Of China: A Physical Barrier To Gene Flow?". Heredity 90.3 (2003): 212.

Web. 25 Aug. 2016.

[6] - Rael, Ronald and Virginia San Fratello. "Border Wall As Infrastructure – RAEL SAN FRATELLO".

Rael-sanfratello.com. N.p., 2009. Web. 26 Aug. 2016.

[6]- Daily Mail ,"Macedonia Builds Second Razor-Wire Fence On Its Border With Greece". Mail Online.

N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Aug. 2016.

-31 -