 Introduction. I'm a professor of urban planning here at UC Irvine. I've been here 22 years. And my approach toward urban planning is a very broad approach toward urbanism. So I certainly focus on land use issues and territory issues. I focus on a whole gamut of urban services, urban delivery, urban governance, and so forth, as you'll see in my talk. And what I do is study urban planning and urbanism amidst very deep conflict, very deep what I call, many others, called nationalistic conflict. Nationalism is a group identity where it's usually us versus them, not always, but usually, especially in the places I study, us versus them. I am right and you are wrong. I am in and you are out. Due to my culture and my skin color and my history, I am included. You are not because of your nationalistic upbringing, your nationalistic origins. And in the cities and countries I study, that's the basic conflict. That's a very core root conflict. It cannot usually be solved in the political arena. And therein lies the problem. So I study cities as an urbanist and these cities are fractured and they're polarized. They're beyond divided. All cities are divided. Even Irvine, California is divided. Sociogenomically, we can identify also certain neighborhoods with different skin color. It's divided in that respect. All cities are divided. There's nothing wrong with divisions. Cities I study are polarized. They're deeply fractured and fragmented. Okay, so I refer to this as ethno-national divisions. Usually nationalism is also linked with ethnic or cultural origin. It's linked with often times religions, religious beliefs, and often times. It's certainly culture and history. I think I now had a turn off the lights. Now nobody go to sleep, if I turn off the lights. Nobody go to sleep. I promise you I won't. But all my talk is on slides. So that's why I turn off the words now. That's me. The book is called Sick and Stolen Divide Societies. And after, this is the fourth book I've written on polarized cities. I've been doing this for 17 years. And I got really tired of writing about polarized cities from an academic distance. I love academics. I'm an academic. But we write in a very complex way that tends to take the human element out of things. Sick and Stolen Divide Societies brings the human element in. And it's in one of the ways of bringing human element in is I bring myself in. And it is partly an autobiography of what it's like for a white American, West Los Angeles, kind of a rich, liberal upbringing, that means democratic in America, democratic party. What it's like for this guy to go into foreign countries for 17 years and talk to over 245 different individuals, government officials and planners and community organization folks and paramilitary people. What it's like for me to do this. And the reason why I do this, bringing myself into this book, is there's one way of connecting to this topic is through the human soul. It's through the human soul because these are human feelings. People living in these places deal with hatred, they deal with animosity. They actually deal with oftentimes a love of their enemy, paradoxically, a knowledge and understanding of their enemy. But a deep despair of the situations they live in. So I bring in the human soul, that's why you see a picture of me, that's the only picture you'll see of me. Okay, so that's it, it's not gonna be like it. Okay, then I grew up in West Los Angeles. And it's not gonna be that. Okay, here's the cities I've studied since 1994. So over 18 years now. The ones in bold, I'm gonna focus on today. And I can give you the rationale why I've studied these cities. I won't spend the time on it, but all of these cities have been or currently are split by deep nationalistic conflict. Many of them also have gone through political transitions. So democratization. The big D word is raised here as part of political transition. Okay, and you might think, why is Barcelona Spain in here? But keep in mind, Barcelona Spain in the years of Franco all the way through 1975, was deeply hemorrhaged between Spanish centralists and the regionalists of Capillán. So some of this takes a historic perspective in the case of Barcelona. Others of these, you can see readily, these are actively involved in conflict, such as Jerusalem. With some of these have cases of continuing violence, such as Beirut. Others have been decimated by war, with the two on the bottom, Sarajevo and Mostar in the former Yugoslavian. And some of them, Nikosia Cyprus, still dealing with very physical signs of partition. Okay. But the three of them focus on today, Beirut, Jerusalem and Sarajevo, just because of time. The interviews I've done are shown here. I take sabbaticals away from teaching. That's why they're kind of spaced every seven years. And the interviews are with political leaders. They're with planners. They're with bureaucrats. They're with retired planners. They're with community and advocacy groups or with academics too. And what I'm asking them are these questions. Basically, these are the two basic questions I ask. In contested cities or polarized cities that I've described, what role can urban policy and governance play? And that includes negative impacts too. But I'm also looking at in a country that's emerging from conflict, nationalistic conflict. Here's the city. What role does the city and can the city play in terms of urban service delivery, urban governance, and the life, land use issues? What role can it play, both negatively and positively in alleviating inter-group conflict? So I connect urbanism with international relations. Rather than an odd connection. The second set of questions deals with political transitions. Political transitions are everywhere today, of course. And I'm not talking about the necessarily the American idea of democratization or movement toward a majority in democracy. That's not what I'm talking about. But a lot of these countries that have coverage and are deeply in conflict are in some political transition from an authoritarian regime to some unknown. So the question then becomes, what's the role of urban planning, urbanism in that political transition? How can we create or recreate cities in a way that can push a society along a trajectory toward peace, okay? Okay, three cases I want to focus on today. First one is Beirut. I was just in Beirut six days ago for my second visit there. And I just want to give you a rundown of some of the issues in Beirut and Lebanon. The first slide, by the way, in the title, I should have connected this to the topic of sustainability. When I talk about sustainability today, I'm going to be talking about social sustainability and human sustainability or political sustainability. I'm not talking so much about green or environmental sustainability. Although certainly in a war in society, in physical environments, going to take a beating, I'm really talking about the sustainability of a society, a sustainability of a city as something that they can integrate people. Now, in Beirut and Lebanon, the major conflict has been, has been, and I'm going to use some general labels today to keep it at a certain level. Those of you familiar with these conflicts know that it gets complex in our region. The major conflict for years, especially during the Civil War years, 1975 through 1991, one could portray it as a conflict between Christian and Muslim. There's a lot of stuff going on in each of those camps, but Christian versus Muslim being a primary fault line. And in particular, a question of what to do in the mid-70s with Palestinians, the major number of magnitude of Palestinian refugees that had come into Lebanon by that time after 1948 and all the way building up into the mid-1970s. And one of the questions became, what to do with Palestinians? There then was a split between a Lebanese nationalist movement that says, versus a Pan-Arab movement, a Pan-Arab that connected the Palestinian question to the larger Arab world. Pan-Arabists in this sense were much more supportive of Palestinians than the Lebanese nationalists who said, lead me to protect the sovereignty of Lebanon, let's care less about the Palestinians and connecting them to the larger issues of the Arab world. This largely then split between the nationalists we could call more the Christian camp, the Pan-Arab, or the Muslim camp. But then more recently, the conflict, since about 2004, 2005, the conflict really in Beirut is not so much Christian versus Muslim anymore, but Sunni versus Shiite Muslim. And this is the real potentially inflammatory split that's occurring in Beirut and Lebanon currently. And I'll talk about that as we go on. So here we have an example of a conflict, if you will, that's transfigured itself. It's much different today than it was during the dark civil war years of the Lebanese civil war. Now, in the civil war, a little bit of that, since it was such a hemorrhaging episode and it lasted so long, here's the dividing line that occurred. This is Beirut, and here's the dividing line that partitioned the result during the conflict. And it divided Beirut into a Western sector, Muslim, and an Eastern sector, Christian. So during this time, we could portray the primary fault line as Christian versus Muslim. And I think I have a second one. This is just a little bit more close up of the same thing. We're now focusing in on the urban fabric and you see the dividing line. And this was definitely a wall, but one could not pass from one side to the other without special permission. And the military, the militias on each side would be guarding this wall, this partition. The legacies of civil war here, this was, I was here in 2010. Here is Holiday Inn, it still exists today. When the civil war started, it started right in, well, it started on the outskirts of Beirut that quickly went right into downtown and the Battle of the Hotels was the initial point in 1975, where the militias, I'll just call them Muslim militias and Christian militias went after each other from high rise hotels. And one of those hotels was the Holiday Inn. This Holiday Inn has been left this way as I think intentionally as a monument to the civil war. It's this way today, kind of looks Holiday Innish-like if you think of a high rise, put some green paint on it, but this thing was decimated and is a legacy today, what is it, 37 years later. So this is urban conflict, urban conflict. We hear a lot in the US military about the transition now in military toward urban-based conflict. Well, here's urban conflict in 1970, most probably. So let's bring it up to date, 2011, when I was there, I guess last year, 2011, late 2010. Let's bring it up to date. What happens after the Civil War ends? In 1991, the Civil War ends. Here is the city of Beirut, 20 years later. If you can see this, this is the main street and this is, I call it, a pigeon root. I don't know what the military folks call it, but here is a soldier up here. This is Beirut today, and here's Beirut today. This is, I don't know if you can see it, here's a tank. This is wonderful Beirut traffic. Traffic in Beirut is an experience, it's chaos, it's over chaos. And here is a major tank, this is a huge tank, here's a soldier, the turret is faced, usually faced outward, I mean these people are not just resting, reading newspapers. These people are looking at traffic and looking at potential hotspots. Here's a soldier on the other side of the tank. And this is just regular life in Beirut. And here's another example of a major intersection where Lebanese Army is guarding a major thoroughfare point. Now in this last graphic on the top, you saw that there's a print there, and that's an important, that's some important print to note. And this, why the Lebanese Army here is guarding and protecting this partition, this corridor, is not the conflict between the Christians and the Muslims. It's the conflict, potential inflammatory conflict now being sued in Shiite Muslims. So in the past, that dividing line in Beirut divided basically Christians from Muslims. But if you go now into Beirut and you walk that old dividing line, it's less difficult. There's not as much militias, not much military there. But if you go another east-west dividing line, east-west corridor, where you have on the north Shiite neighborhoods and on the south Sunni neighborhoods, here is where you see the military. Because these are the interfaces, the physical interfaces that are a great concern now. And I won't develop the history of the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites. I'll mention it a little bit more as we go on. It's fascinating what's happened. One of the key split points occurred in 2005 when the Prime Minister, former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Prime Minister, sitting Prime Minister of Lebanon was assassinated by a massive bomb in Beirut. And up until this time, a strong theory, the Prime Minister, by the way, is Sunni, has to be a Sunni Muslim. It's a power sharing agreement in Beirut. So it's a Sunni Muslim. Strong suspicion up until this day was the assassins were Shiite Muslims. And in particular, potentially linked with the major political organization, military organization linked with the Shiite Muslims, that being Hezbollah, okay. A lot going on in Beirut folks. Of this is, so there's the Sunni Shiite interfaces within the city. What else is going on in South Beirut, the southern suburbs of Beirut? This is a major war. This is major destruction that happened in 2006. 2006, major war. Southern suburbs are the territorial base for the Shiite Muslim community. And this particular area was the territorial base of Hezbollah. Hezbollah's headquarters were here in the southern suburb. In 2006, a war broke out between Hezbollah and Israel. And in 2006, Israel decimated large amounts of infrastructure in Lebanon and went directly after this residential, largely residential suburb that was housing Hezbollah. And destroyed, as you can see, destroyed, I think the count was something like over 30 different, really high-rise residential blocks. These are high-rise, six to 10-story residential blocks. About over 30 of those buildings were destroyed. So I was just there a week ago, because they had just finished, they being a urban redevelopment agency linked with Hezbollah, had just finished over a five-year period totally rebuilding that southern suburb. And this was very fascinating. Here's their diet. Here's what it looked like on planned. This was a very interesting process. First of all, it took only five years. Second of all, massive funding by Iran, which is Hezbollah's major support. Third, the architects and everyone involved in the rebuilding project were not just Shiite Muslim. And this is an interesting dynamic in that the reconstruction of that southern suburb was seen as a national project. It was seen as a project to rebuild Lebanon. It was seen as something where Israel was violating Lebanese sovereignty. So the architects and the planners involved in the redevelopment agency, such as Raouf Faiad here, comes from all different sects, all different ethnic groups in Lebanon. Mr. Faiad happens to be Christian. And he's certainly not a Hezbollah supporter. But he joined in on this reconstruction project because of what I said, was seen as a Lebanese national rebuilding project. So this is what it looks like today. I showed you the diagram before. Obviously, the reality is much different from the nice, clean architectural prints. But here's the reality as it was seven days ago. And this, if you look back, this is what it looked like five years ago. Here it is today. And no matter what, and here's from another view. No matter what one thinks of Hezbollah and its politics and the issue of Hezbollah's main goal is to resist or to attack Israel, depending on your politics. No matter what one thinks of Hezbollah, one comes away from this, noting the fact that they were able to rebuild this in less than five years. They rebuilt it basically the same way as it was before. They were very much in close contact with the residents here. No residents were displaced. They all were brought back into the community. Now, you know, for reconstruction projects, this very rarely happens. Usually private speculators get involved. There's displacement. There's a redoing of the fabric so it's much more high income changing the way it used to be. They hear use value rather than exchange value was emphasized, use value, the value to people in terms of living there. It wasn't seen as a speculative venture. How could they do this? They did this because massive funding from Iran, right? They have massive funding to do this. So they didn't have to worry about getting their money back and speculation and turning the private problem. This is President Akhlavenajad of Iran. I was there when I was there about a year ago. You know, it's very interesting for an American to be driving around and seeing all these signs, you know, welcoming and he was about to come to the southern suburbs of Beirut. It's very interesting to see this. Iran very much, and you know, you can see how I'm talking about Beirut. I'm talking about southern suburbs. I'm talking about Iran. I'm talking about Israel. I'm talking about Muslim divisions within the Muslim world. You know, obviously Lebanon is this open country connected to all the international politics that's swirling around it. That's one of Lebanon's purses, I think. It has had a trouble establishing its own sovereignty through the years. Outside influences have always been of importance. The other case in Beirut of Reconstruction is totally different. The other case of Reconstruction, this is not the southern suburb. This is downtown. Downtown Beirut was decimated during that civil war, not the 2006. The civil war decimated downtown. It killed it. There's a term, by the way, called herbicide. Herbicide, meaning the killing of a city, that a military effort is to kill a city. We saw this in Bosnia, in Yugoslavia initially, the killing of Sarajevo, intentional decimating of a city. And we see herbicide practicing both in the suburbs, but also here in downtown. After the civil war in the 1990s, there's the big question of how do we reconstruct the downtown of Beirut? Here's a totally different model from the one I just showed you. This is the model of private speculation. All of downtown redevelopment was given over to basically a private development corporation. And that corporation was totally in charge of Reconstruction of downtown. So today in downtown, it is not that much to show you the architecture. Downtown today is immaculate. It's clean. It's architecturally incredible. They did an incredible job rebuilding it. And they rebuilt it in a much different way than it was before. It's not this now, you know, Arab cities, Lebanese cities are chaotic. I mean, they're just a whirlwind of activity. Now the downtown is kind of cleansed. It's sterilized. It's clean. The main purpose of downtown is really to create profits. So you get lots of foreign businesses moving in, clothes designers and people selling clothes to international tourists. And that's kind of, you know, the downtown is marking itself now more towards international tourists. It's turned its back on the citizens of Beirut. So totally different reconstruction. Now back to Sunni Chiay. This is the former prime minister who was assassinated. I mentioned him before. Hariri in 2005. He is his burial site is right in downtown. And Hariri was the one who was behind the effort to reconstruct downtown. Here he is a major mosque. And I'm told this is a Sunni mosque, not a Shiite mosque. And this mosque has been rebuilt in downtown since the 1990s and establishes a Sunni Muslim presence in downtown. So whereas the southern suburb definitely has Shiite Muslim territorial presence, here in downtown, about 20 miles north, it's more now a Sunni Muslim territorial base. That territorial base, as soon as it's been consolidated, as soon as it's civilized. So, you know, we can talk about just urban reconstruction. But notice how it's tied up with these issues of political control, issues of territoriality, and establishing kind of bulkheads of identity in different parts of the city. This is what I started with. You might have seen the first slide I had was this statue. Here is the Sunni mosque. Here is the burial site for former prime minister, Sunni Muslim prime minister, Hariri. This is heroic to many Sunni Muslims. This is an old statue that we saw in the first slide. Maybe it was bullet holes, lots of bullet holes from the war. And this statue, ironically, of course, paradoxically, celebrates before the war brotherhood and unity. It's always interesting how statues that commemorate unity and brotherhood get totally taken out during the war. We can't really have any hope or hope of brotherhood during any war or killing each other. So you get kind of a layout there of some of the things I mentioned. The old and the new in Beirut, you have the old scars of the Civil War. And notice I've talked about war as recently as 2006. When you walk the streets of Beirut, you feel tension. You feel potential uprisings. You feel that the streets are alive. You can feel that on one side of the street is one group, on any other side is the other group. You can tell by their flags, by their music, by their clothes, by the radio stations they listen to. And it's all very, very interesting how different groups with different political identities and nationalistic identities live in very much proximity to each other in a major city. The old and the new, the scars of the Civil War. But the new, of course, here's the downtown kind of ethos coming in. These are the types of stories you see in downtown Beirut. They're catering to international tourists. There are 11 of these women that look like that, I believe, I do not see many of them. Right, now I'm going to shift over here to keep this side of the lake now. OK? Wow, it's different over here. The next city is Sarajevo. This is former Yugoslavia. And the war here was between 1992 and 1995. I focused on two different cities in Yugoslavia. Let's see whether I have a map I do. One city is Sarajevo, the major city, particularly capital of what now is the country of Bosnia versus Slovenia. Five new countries were formed out of old Yugoslavia, one of them being Bosnia versus Slovenia. The other city I focused on is Mozdar. I'll say less about Mozdar than I focus on Sarajevo because I don't know why. Sarajevo is a magnificent city. That Sarajevo hosted the Winter Olympics in 1984. And we felt great as we looked at the skiers down the slopes. And it was this wonderful multicultural city. It showed that people could live together. And the folks that were living together were Bosnian Muslims, Serbians, and Croats. And Sarajevo, MVC, celebrating the Olympics in 1984, much like they'll celebrate London as we look at the Olympics tonight, celebrating cities as this great gathering place for different people. 1984. Eight years later, Sarajevo was in a massive war. And Yugoslavia and Bosnia, as that country fragmented and fell apart. You can see this very complicated. There's two maps I'm going to show you. Several maps I'm going to show you. It's hard to go past them quickly, but unfortunately, I can't give them the attention they deserve. This is Bosnia, all of Bosnia. It might be helpful to look here. When Bosnia was created out of the war, so 1995, the war ended. The war in Bosnia was primarily on the one side between Serbs and on the other side fighting together, most of the time, Bosnian Muslims and Croats. Most of the time, it's not always. When the war ended, two different zones were created. In the white here, you can see it less here. Here's the line. You can see it more clearly here. In the white is the Muslim Croats Federation. Muslims and Croats who fought together on the same side were given control over 51% of the Bosnian territory and they could control it to their own governing arrangements. The other RS in the black here, or if you can see it in the larger one, kind of ringing around, is Republic of Serbska. 49% of the land of Bosnia given to the Serbs to govern in a semi-autonomous way. So here's what was created after the war. What this is all about is where, at the end of the war, where the different ethnic groups were residing. And sure enough, where Republic of Serbska was created, here you have major areas of service. Muslims were primarily here in terms of location, Croats along here. The war created huge ethnic cleansing and gave us the term of ethnic cleansing, this sorting and hyper-segregation, major displacement of people while tens of thousands of people were killed. And people, during times of great threat, had a great term of sort themselves out. They segregated themselves out of protection. So at the end of the war, these are where people were living primarily. And you can see that the new political boundaries that were drawn in 1995, basically mirrors, parallels, or mirrors where people were residing. So one criticism of this agreement is it awards the Serbs who were in most people's eyes the aggressors of that war. It gives them 49% of Bosnia. The other criticism of this is called the Dayton Agreement because it was signed in Dayton, Ohio in the United States, Richard Holbrook. Another criticism of this is it's setting up a political arrangement that's not sustaining. Because here you have the two sides finding each other for four years. And then you give them this arrangement. And you say, you can govern within your own territories as you like. But we do want the Bosnian state to hold together also. So we expect Republic of Serbska and the Muslim Front Federation to cooperate and to co-govern this whole area of Bosnia. And that has most assuredly not happened. If you fight a war for four years and a war ends, you're not going to automatically and quickly cooperate. You're going to do what you did through war. You're going to find other means to not cooperate and to cement divisions between one side and the other. And that's what's been going on since 1995, so for 17 years. Sarajevo is so important because here's Sarajevo right there. Sarajevo is right on the interface between those two sub-states that were created. Right at the interface. And it's very important how Sarajevo was treated. Are we going to put Sarajevo entirely within the Muslim Front Federation? Are we going to put it entirely in Republic of Serbska? Or are we going to try to deal with Sarajevo in a special way? Create a special zone where neither side could govern as they wish. It could be a jointly governed city. It could create the glue to potentially hold those two sides together. That was the great possibility of Sarajevo. It's the great possibility of Baghdad-Iraq today. The same issue is involved. Are we going to let Baghdad split between the war at the conflicting sides today? Or are we going to hold Baghdad together as a single unity government and force people to cooperate and manage it? Sarajevo, I'll get back to that question about what happened. Where was Sarajevo placed? This gives it away, the last part of that sub-file, of the misplacing of the city. And I'll get back to that in just a minute. So a little bit about the war. Here's the three sides, Serbs or Bosnian Serbs. Bosnian Muslims, now we refer to these folks primarily as Bosniaks and Bosnian Proans. Serbs versus Muslims and Proans. Serbs are in prologs of both Christians. Serbs are Orthodox, prologs are Catholic, or Catholic. So this is an interesting split. Conflict between these three sides goes back decades. It didn't just arise in 1991, those of you from there. OK, Sarajevo, so here's the term, herbicide, the intentional killing of a city. Why would someone intentionally kill a city? Well, all that stuff about the multicultural in Sarajevo that I was holding up so inspirationally before the 1984 Olympics, that's why Serbs went after it. As the Serbs, the aggressors in the Pupuslav War believed more in a pure, they wanted to create a pure and greater Serbia. And if that is your political and military mission, a multicultural city stands in their way. So that's why a multicultural city is Sarajevo. And it was indeed multicultural before the war. It was such a late party. For four years, it was surrounded by tanks and artillery and arms by the Serbian, Bosnian Serbian militias and forces. And they just decimated, or at least that were a lot today, how they decimated it, destroyed the city for four years. It was the siege of Sarajevo, the biggest siege of a city since minimal times. And for four years, the international community for most parts sat on sidelines and watched Sarajevo terrorized. So massive bombing. If you're going to kill a city, you're going to go after major buildings. Here's the newspaper building. You can't have a newspaper reporting what's going on. You need to take out those conduits to be outside. This used to be a glass plated, very modern building. You also take out symbols or buildings of authority. Here's the parliament building in Sarajevo. These are shells. These are where bombs go through. These are where artillery shells go through. And a massive burning and so forth. Kind of reflects back to the Holiday Inn in Beirut. High-rise buildings become very good targets during war times. And lots and lots of killing. Lots of killing of innocent life. Snikers would sit up on the mountain tops and just take out people for fun. And there's some amazing movies and documentaries about this, just you want to lose faith in the human soul of some of these visually. So now let's do a little uplifting here. Some good news. There's heroes. I talk about the human soul in the book, city and soul. And there are human souls out there that really care. And they transcend the easy ethnic hatred. This is one of them. This is Yogan Diga. And he gave us a tour after the war ended of various sites in the city. And every time he would stop, there would be some local person. He's giving a tour here to us. That was part of the foreign contingent. But there would always be a local person that would talk to him and touch him and bow down to him. This guy is powerful in a spiritual sort of way to many people in that city. And the reason why he was was he was the commander of the forces that were defending Sarajevo during those four years. He was defending Sarajevo against the Serbian attackers. And what makes him a hero besides that is the fact that, ethnically, he is a Bosnian Serb. He's a Bosnian Serb who rejected what his brothers, his brother in the report, the political and military campaign of his brothers, and said, no, I believe in the city more. I believe in the multicultural existence of the city more. I believe in the spirit of human soul more than I do easy and horrible military campaigns. That's why he's such a hero. Yeah, he defended, he was the commander of the four years. That's hero enough for people in Sarajevo. But the fact that ethnically he's a Bosnian Serb lifts him up into transcendent status. But he rejected those easy formulas, those easy ethnic identifiers that propelled war so often. He talked about this area. This used to be a playground. He used to take his grandchildren to. And now, of course, it's a cemetery. The reason why playgrounds were turned into cemeteries was because it was very hard to bury your dad during this siege. Because cemeteries tend to be out in open places. And when you bury your dad in an open place or you have snipers around, you're going to tend to be killed. So you couldn't even during wartime bury your own dad. So they had to find new places to bury their dads that were more secluded, not in such easy visual site of the snipers. So where once were playgrounds are now cemeteries. I can't imagine a more depressing thought than that. One last thing. I have to give you a story about the end of Sarajevo. Sarajevo was placed not as a special status place. Remember I said, if we could create some area where Sarajevo could be a jointly governed city, it could give us hope for writing some glue, some anchor for peace building. Sarajevo was given entirely over into the Croat Muslim Federation. And what that meant was that the Serbs that did stay in Sarajevo during the war, after these new boundaries were created, most of the Serbs left relocated into Republic of Serbia because they were afraid of what was going to happen. And that means today that Sarajevo was about an 80% Muslim is lost to those parts of multicultural basis. And you think, all right, well, that's justice. The Serbs were the aggressors. They should pay for it. We should give Sarajevo to the people that took it on the chin for four years. That's a very good argument. But I would say if we need to pay attention to the longer term peace building, we have to overcome those gut reactions and say, no. We have to do something to Sarajevo, create a special zone for it so that Serbs can stay in Sarajevo. And that Sarajevo could be a city for all three groups as generations go by. And at that point, you can see Sarajevo as some sort of sea of multicultural existence. That could grow over time. But since it's now firmly in one side and not the other, I think we've lost that possibility. And again, the arguments to place in Sarajevo, politically where it is, are strong. And I'm not saying those are illegitimate arguments. I'm just saying there's another side to the story that we're really interested in peace building and have to pay attention to the other side to the debate. Lastly, Jerusalem conflict, obviously, national conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Israel and Palestine. And here's Jerusalem right in the middle, right at the interface between Israel and Palestine. Note that's just where Sarajevo is too, at the interface, the physical interface between two different political zones. Here we have the same sort of thing with Jerusalem. I'll show you that in just a minute. Both the nationalistic conflict is Randy versus Arab or Palestinian. I'll use the terms interchangeably, Arab and Palestinian. And also there's a certainly a religious component to Jewish and Muslim. But I would say that primarily it's a nationalistic territorial conflict, Israeli versus Arab or Palestinian. Here's a map that takes forever to explain, so I'm not gonna take forever to explain it, so bear with me. This is Jerusalem. This is Jerusalem. In 1948, with the creation of the state of Israel, Jerusalem was divided into two. And that line divided it. So we had a rest Jerusalem that was within the new state of Israel. And we had East Jerusalem that was outside the new state of Israel, controlled, managed for the next few decades by the country of Jordan to the East. But it was divided, 1948. So between 1948, 1967, Jerusalem divided, physically partitioned. 1967 is the result of a war, 1948 was a war, 1967 was a war. All of Israel was military controlled after 1967 by Israel. And it's been that way, all of Jerusalem, it's been that way since 1967. So for 45 years, Israel has militarily controlled, it has militarily controlled Jerusalem. And also, all of the territory to the East, which we in the Western world called the West Bank, if you wanna get political about it, you can call it Calisthenics. We can talk endlessly about that. I'll just call it the West Bank for now, West Bank of the Jordan River, 1967. Now, what's going on here then within the Jerusalem area. So the first thing Israel does in 1967 is expand the municipal borders of Jerusalem. Unilateral annexation. They create a larger Jerusalem that we see the borders on this map. A larger Jerusalem, why do they do that? Because they have a very explicit strategy of creating new Israeli neighborhoods or Israeli settlements in strategic places in what used to be the East. So all of these black areas here see our major Israeli neighborhoods or settlements, depending on your politics, what you call it, your neighborhoods or settlements. And this is an intentional program but these rules, they're very clear about this, establishing what they say facts on the ground. And today, in what used to be the East, notice geographically it's kinda complex, they call this the East, because it used to be on the other side of the dividing line. Today, there are now more Jews that live east than there is east of the old dividing line. So Israel's development projects over the last 33 years, 33, 45 years, have been extensive and have located major Israeli Jews, major sectors, clusters of Israeli Jews in contested area. According to international law, this is all illegal. You, when you militarily control territory, international agreements say you should do nothing to change the demographic proportions of the territory that you're militarily occupying. So one interpretation of international law is all of this stuff is illegal. Israel argues for various reasons, it's not illegal and so on. The other areas here are many pre-existing Arab or Palestinian neighborhoods. And the basic pattern we see here, and I think I have this in the next few slides, is that the neighborhoods or settlements that were Jews live are very modern, they're state supported, very high living conditions. Whereas the Arab Palestinian neighborhoods are hodgepodge, they're chaotic, they're not supported by any state authority. Usually families try to build the house on their own or extend their house. And it's just two different environments. Israel also in the last 45 years has very directly restricted Palestinian Arab development in the old East. And they do this through various ways, such as restricted zoning and other ways of restricting the ability of Palestinians to build in Jerusalem. And the reason why they're doing this is because Israel wants to maintain roughly a 65 to 35% demographic majority in the city of Jerusalem. They see that as a safe majority, something that will mean that they, that no one can argue against them, that they are the rightful governors of Jerusalem. Israeli Jews control the city council. Palestinians, for the most part, boycott all local elections because they don't see Israeli control management over Jerusalem as the general. So they boycott elections, which means there's almost no Palestinian or Arab representation in local life. That's true nationally too. The only thing I wanna show you here, this is what we were looking at before. This is the city of Jerusalem. And these are the Israeli Jewish settlements and neighborhoods I was referring to on the other map. The only thing I wanna show you on this is this is part of a larger project. And if you look then east of Jerusalem, you see the same thing going on. Major Jewish, I call them settlements at this point, settlements could have been created over the last 45 years in the West Bank. So the same creation of facts on the ground in East Jerusalem, the same thing is going, has been going on in the West Bank for the last 45 years. So here's an example. This is actually a settlement east of Jerusalem. It's an example of an Israeli settlement. You can probably see it's very modern housing. It's very clustered. It's very protected. It's serviced well by very good roads. Security is very high. And there's a clustering to it to keep it protected, to keep it easily defended. Across that road that we just saw here, we see the, for the most part, pre-existing Arab or Palestinian neighborhood. And this is what I mean by kind of a chaotic pattern. There's no, you can tell, there's no centralized public authorities such as a Palestinian authority involved in development here. These are all individual family efforts. A lot of growth, as I mentioned, is restricted. And sometimes when Arabs, Palestinians, try to develop outside the regulatory framework that Israel has, they are susceptible to house demolitions by Israel's. Another example, this is the Jewish neighborhood, the Israeli Jewish neighborhood, within Jerusalem. This always looks to me like a painting of some type. It has this quality to it. And there you can see even more. The clustered, you can probably see that it's modern, but modern housing. Not that easy to build. It's built on a hillside, very rocky, very hard to build. So it takes a while to do this. And it's an enormous amount of housing. So although on a map, you know, you say, okay, there's six or seven neighborhoods Israel has created in East Jerusalem, six or seven. Each of those neighborhoods contains thousands of housing units. Then if that's not enough, since 2003, Israel faced with major security threats and very consistent suicide bombings within Jerusalem. Started to do something much, that's a much greater scale than ever before. Now, that is in 2003, Israel has since then had been building a separation barrier or a separation wall. Now this wall, let's see if I go back here. I think that happens right. Here is the municipal border of Jerusalem. Here is the city of Jerusalem, part of the Israel here is Abu Diz, which is a major, you can see a major Arab Palestinian neighborhood. And notice that Abu Diz was intentionally drawn outside. It was not included in the municipal borders. In America we call this gerrymandering. We draw borders to include or exclude what we want. So what happens here in the separation wall, what I'm gonna show you to separate the picture I'm about to show you is that portion that divides now by a wall, Jerusalem and Abu Diz. And that's what it looks like. Very dense group of fabric, it's not easy to do this. There is dense fabric on both sides. It's a very dense part of Jerusalem. And now with this separation wall, it is physically making it impossible for there to be any interaction between those two neighborhoods and it's most assured that it's physically partitioning and taking Abu Diz totally out of the Jerusalem urban region in terms of function politically and so forth. And Abu Diz is a major population for Arab Palestinian people. So here's some statistics that I came up with somewhat recent. The separation barrier in the wall, it's construction began in 2003. When all completed, it's not just around Jerusalem, it's gonna be dividing Israel from the West Bank. 440 miles of plan as of last year, 62% of the wall has been completed. And what is interesting and provocative is the fact that this wall is not being built for the most part on the old green line. The green line separated Israel from the West Bank and it was drawn by a military person in green pants. So it's called the green line. And that is in one insert by some that's kind of a recognized border between the state, the country of Israel and the West Bank, the green line. But Israel is building the separation wall and the separation barrier. Only 25%, less than 25% of the wall is on the green line. More than 75% of it is east of the green line. It's basically de facto annexing portions of the West Bank into Israel in the construction of the separation wall. It's absorbing or annexing about 10% of the West Bank. You could say, okay, that's not a huge amount of territory, 10%, one out of 10 acres of West Bank being absorbed. But here's the interesting thing. Through that 10% land annexation, Israel has been able to absorb, bring into their system 80% of the Jewish settlers that have been established out in the West Bank. So what I mean by that is this is Jerusalem. So all the stuff out here in the West Bank, the settlers, through the building of where the separation wall is going, separation wall is being drawn to encompass and include major clusters of Jewish settlers, primarily around Jerusalem, but also elsewhere. And the wall, when it's done, is going to be over twice the length of the green line. And what that means is the distortions and the convolutions of the wall that's being built, all this annexing that's going on, in the end it's creating a wall that's going to be twice the size of, that it would be twice the length that it would be able to just put simply on the green line. And this, it's very provocative to build a wall anyway to separate one group from the other. But what is very provocative to the Palestinians and others here, if we may, is the fact that the wall is being built east, primarily east of that old green line. In fact, the de facto annexing portions of the West Bank. Okay, so that's, those are the three things I wanna talk about. Now, some connective themes. This is really, this is a bus stop in Jerusalem. And this is one of the themes I'd like to stress. It says, better to have the paintings of peace than the agonies of war. It says many things. War is absolute hell. War is total, total agony and hellish. And war is easy. Peace is hard. Peace takes time. Peace hurts. Peace is painful. Peace means we have to change. Peace means we have to live in a city with the other. It is very painful. And peace takes time. War is easy. Peace takes time. Peace building is not some magical formula that's put on to another country by America or some other great power that thinks we know better. It's not some formula. It's not something imposed from the outside. Peace building takes a long time. It's not like climbing a peak where you have clearly defined trails and you just go up to the top and it's the top you go and you've got peace. It's not like that. It's like climbing and hiking a long mountain range. You have no idea how long that range is. You've barely seen the trails. And when you get to the top of one mountain, you'll look around and you go, my God, there's three or four more mountains. I've got to climb. And you can regress. You can go backwards. And you can go for those easy formulas and you can regress. You can go backwards and go, this is not working. So peace is painful. No wonder we don't go after peace. Hard. The true leaders in these places are those that go after peace and know that it takes a long time. A very long time to do it. And you're always gonna have extremists going after you. You're always gonna, extremists on both sides are always gonna attack you if you're going for peace. And if you buy into the extremists and say, we're not going to let them determine how we act in society, but on the same hand, on the same, at the same time, you say we're not gonna talk to them and we're not gonna move forward with peace as long as we have extremists. You're letting the extremists defying the vocabulary as a debate for you. You have to move forward in peace building even despite the extremists going after you. The extremists always will. Did I talk about Johannesburg, South Africa? Here's some of the human soul that I've seen. And these people, these are very depressed, economically, black townships. I got more smiles going through the black townships there than I do in a month of Sundays in Irvine, California. I'll separate here for you. Here are people getting together. These are the women in the white. This is Belfast, Northern Ireland. The women in the white represents a Sinn Féin paramilitary group, the major Catholic paramilitary group. The person here, now deceased, represents a major Protestant paramilitary group. The groups, these two represented in killing each other for decades. And yet they were in this conference together. The conference is actually in Sarajevo, ironically. Here they are talking together about that they have to move toward peace. Why? Because they're sick and tired of dying. And they feel like lost generations. They've lost their generation. And they say they cannot give this conflict situation as a legacy to their children and their grandchildren. They cannot. They've got to stop. Do they want to talk to each other? No, they don't. But they know they have to. And it's that sort of resignation in a way. They get people together. It's that they realize they cannot continue to do this. If they don't get together, they will continue to do this. And that's what brings people together. Not some rosy, flowery, you know, image of peace. Same thing here, the two gentlemen on the left. One is Palestinian, one is Israeli Jewish. They have been meeting off site for 15 years now, talking about what a co-existent Jerusalem would be like. A Jerusalem that actually gives spirit treatment to its Palestinian representative. Palestinian residents that talks about a genuine sharing of the city rather than dividing the city and trying to dominate the city. At least two people are total heroes also. Because this has been incredibly difficult to do amidst the conflict, the violence that has occurred in the animosity. The guy on the right is the typical Norwegian peace guy. All right, one lesson I've learned and this is something I believe in quite a bit is that cities do matter in this conflict. These are nationalists, the conflicts. These are conflicts dealing with countries, international, so one thinking, one thought when I fought a city, don't matter. If you figure out national peace building, then cities will get together. Cities can't move as closer to peace on their own. I would argue with that. A gentleman I talked to in Barcelona said the promise of cities that just they constantly privilege the places for democratic innovation. Cities bring people closer together. That can lead to intense conflict and violence. But the fact that cities bring people together also can force them into compromises because they have to live together. So members of a group, members of two groups that nationally might not be getting along, neighborhood to neighborhood they might be. Because they have to deal with same issues of schools, neighborhood quality, this condition of the sewage system, what have you. So cities have the same matter of its societal conflict, urban management, certainly the way we conduct our policy, we can either close up the city physically or we can open it up. We can fragment it physically or we can integrate it. We can build cities that reinforce and harden identity or seek ways to transcend those identities. And we can do this partly through the physical form of the city. The physical form of a city is not gonna create peace but a physical form of the city can at least provide the opportunities for people to get together if and when they're ready to get together. City building principles for furthering peace or human security. These are ones that I've come up through the years. I would say that one of the things we have to do in physical form, instead of building and walls and partitions and looking for ways to have flexibility and porosity, that's something for us as a whole, as connections. Building urban form that at least allows the possibility for connections to occur if and when people are ready. So look for, there's certain land uses that certainly walls and provisions like that are obvious, dividers. But there's also other types of land uses that are de facto dividers. And we have to watch out what those land uses are. We have to create land uses that actually have some sort of mutual, encourage mutual activities across the different places. Engage in equity based policy, that is policy aimed at those that have traditionally been disadvantaged. We have to protect and promote the collective public sphere. The use of public parks, the use of public spaces is very important in a city. When Franco, during the Spanish years, wanted to subordinate Barcelona, what he did was take away all the parks. He took away all the meeting areas. He didn't want people to interact with him. He was the boss, he was the authority. People had no right to mix. And what happened after Franco left in 1975 is the opening up of that city, the blossoming of his public spaces, the collective public sphere. Be sensitive to urban ethnic homelands and frontiers. In cities, there are certain ethnic neighborhoods that if we as planners went in and tried to create some mutually beneficial land use, we would be counterproductive. These are hardened ethnic neighborhoods. Build up their identity. If you're gonna build a mosque, put it in a Muslim neighborhood. Don't put it at the interface between a Muslim and Christian neighborhood. Right? Consolidate the ethnic identity of these so-called homeland neighborhoods. But also pay attention to the frontiers. The frontiers of those interface areas. There's hard interface areas. Those are probably no-go places for urbanists. Watch out, they're guarded by militias. But there's also soft interface areas. A lot of times, we're fighting up against middle-class neighborhoods and so forth. Those you can manipulate in some way as urbanists. And we can put activities there. They do encourage mutual activities across the ethnic divide. So be very sensitive to the micro-territoriality of cities when we intervene. And build on the grassroots. Use the local knowledge of neighbors. Even talk to militias. And paramilitaries. They know very well beyond the brown realities. If you're gonna intervene in a highly ethnicized sectarian landscape, know those sectarian realities. Don't go in like a blind and mutual planner. Be aware of them and use that knowledge. Some other, I think I have three or four or five more slides. Kind of random slides. This is a gentleman that spent all four years in Sarajevo during the siege to see, he created a group called Clowns Without Borders. This is a clown that produces humor and magic for young children. There's something very uplifting in these places to pay attention to children. I refer to that before in terms of why people sometimes get together and talk about peace with other children. Children, when you look at children's smiles in these places, you know why you're involved in the peace building. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that we would build a future for these kids that is so laid down by ethnic hatred and all the ethnic history of the past. That does give us hope, it gives us inspiration. Then there is a lot of, on the other side, you have to deal with people and groups that are quite dispirited, very threatened by change. It says, when you have lost all, what else can you lose, so fight. And this, ironically, paradoxically comes from the majority protestant population in Belgrade. And why are they so defeatist? They see the change is happening. The Catholic population is increasing. The protestant population is decreasing. A lot of outmigration. And one has to, in peace building, pay very close attention to groups that have such a dispirited, defeatist attitude. You have to pay attention to these groups also. You have to pay attention to both groups. One group might be ascending, feeling more confident, more politically empowered, but you have to pay attention to the other group too, that maybe used to be politically empowered and now sees that their power is diminishing. Good parallel here is the Anglo-white population in the state of California. Right, it's the same dynamic. We don't have civil wars here in California over this issue, but we have a lot of political protest about it. But in these places, where you throw in nationalism, territoriality, and so forth, it gets very inflammatory. So you can't just let one group, isn't it great that Catholics are ascending their funds, being their rights? You have to also pay attention to the other group, always, back to Sarajevo. The Serbs were the aggressors, right? But in positioning where Sarajevo was, we have to pay attention to how Serbs fell. Serbs needed to feel ownership of Sarajevo for that city to be a key and peace building. This is Sarajevo, ever on the presence of military soldiers. I think that's because of the kids that were out there. Kids growing up in cities, and in these cities where the military is just a normal fact of life. Rifles and guns, just a normal fact of life. And it's really how are we gonna get those kids to experience some sense of normalcy? And what stories are we gonna tell them? What are they gonna learn in school? Two last slides. Both of these are linked to sustainability, and that's why I close with this, because of the theme of your conference. Social sustainability of cities. Two gentlemen listed on the bottom, they wrote about 2000, and these are some of the ingredients of what they saw when we talked about social sustainability of cities. Certainly inclusive governance. Both sides are all three sides being part of the government structure. There are various social and cultural policies that we should pay attention to. These would include such things as education and other policies that address the human side. Social infrastructure and public services. I won't go into this because in time I could give examples of many of these. Urban land and housing are very key. The issue of territoriality have each side having the sense that they have an appropriate magnitude, an appropriate amount of their own territory, their own neighborhoods to feel safe and viable and secure. Housing is linked to that. Five, issues of accessibility are key in terms of connecting different parts of city. Urban transport and accessibility. There is a great example of this in Medellin, in the country of Columbia, and Bogota, all the use of the public transport system to connect formally to connect lower income neighborhoods that used to be very much disconnected from the urban grid. And now these more lower income neighborhoods have very good access to a public transportation system. Six, employment and economic development are key. And as I mentioned, there's seven building of inclusive public spaces. And then lastly, this comes from UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 1995. And they propose this as what a city of solidarity and citizenship would be like. Something that I've proposed to you would be a city that would be more sustainable. One that has solidarity and is more expressive of multicultural citizenship, I would say is much more sustainable in the long term than many of these examples I showed you, which would be divisions. And these are the principles they suggest, to act against intolerance and prevent the development of social apartheid. Social apartheid is a good term. Partheid, we can look at it as a physical apartheid, but any sort of policies that emphasize and increase divisions socially, should be viewed critically and make sure we don't go in that direction. Second, to affirm solidarity as fundamental value, encourage cultural and social pluralism, and just promote integration. A little tricky, pluralism means that we should allow each group to express their own group identities. Integration though implies that we should also have some connection between those different groups, both of them. Promote a culture of peace in the city. This is an interesting phenomenon in the Basque country in Spain where city officials are actively promoting peace and what they call an intercultural dialogue. I think some cities in England have tried this too. Fourth, link social development to peace building. So often peace building is all of a bricks and mortar physical rebuilding, but you also have to think of that social fabric. You have to think of development of coexistence between different groups, the social side to peace building, particularly in cities in recovery. And then fifth, promoting democratic discussion and participation as a way to create a multicultural city. Democratic, this is not promoting a majoritarian democracy of the United States. This is just saying in creating, in making decisions about the city, that we should always try to promote democratic discussion and participation. It's a way to bring different sides together, talking about concrete specific rebuilding projects. And that can be kind of the first step toward a larger democratic dialogue in the city and also in the country.