Welcome, 77 artists, 40 different points of Attica welcomes you by singing Erotokritos an epic romance written at 1713 by Vitsentzos Kornaros
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Greek banks' ECB funding falls in October, ELA drops
Milik hits three as Poland beat Greece
Greece Is Very Optimistic That Tourism Will Help End Its Recession in 2014
Greek statistics office looking for more staff
Greek MPs to receive some 8000 euros a month in 2014
Rancho SD Greek Orthodox church arsonist to be sentenced
You Better Believe in as Many as Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast
New rule restricts inter-class year communication for Greek women
Walls: an illusion of security from Berlin to the West Bank
Although doomed to crumble, humans have always built walls. From the failed Maginot Line to the Great Wall of China they are an indelible part of our history
'Something there is," runs a line from Robert Frost's poem Mending Wall, "that doesn't love a wall." But for as long as mankind has been building, we have been building walls: around cities, along borders, across disputed lands; to protect, keep out, demarcate and divide.
Jericho, on what is now the West Bank, threw up its walls as early as 8000BC. China built stretches of its Great Wall by 700BC. Hadrian's Wall, "to separate the Romans from the Barbarians", came in AD129.
In recent times, France misplaced its faith in a supposedly impregnable barrier on its frontier with Germany. Three decades later, concrete and barbed wire was slicing Germany's former capital in half as well. The Maginot Line did not work and the Berlin Wall did not last. But walls and fences have not stopped going up. Indeed, since the Iron Curtain came down a quarter of a century ago, the world has been busy building separation barriers at a rate perhaps unequalled in history: at least 6,000 miles of wire, concrete, steel, sand, stone, mesh; anything to keep peoples out – or in.
It is not just walls separating divided communities in cities such as Belfast and Homs, or compounds hermetically sealed to divide rich from poor such as in São Paulo. The vast majority of barriers are going up on borders – and not just around dictatorships or pariah states.
Most strikingly, some of the world's leading democracies including the US, Israel and India have, in the past decade, built thousands of miles of barriers along borders both recognised and disputed. Since 2006, the US has erected 600 miles of fence along its Mexican border. Israel is building a 400-mile West Bank barrier, plus another 165-mile fence along its Egyptian border. India has built a 340-mile barrier along the so-called Line of Control of its disputed border with Pakistan, and is busily constructing another 2,500-mile fence on its frontier with Bangladesh. Last year, Greece threw up a four-metre-high wall along its short land border with Turkey. The river Evros runs along much of the land frontier.
What is odd is that this building is happening at a time when less-physical walls appear to be crumbling. This is the age of the global economy, multinationals, vanishing trade barriers; of "the free movement of goods, capital, services and people", unprecedented mobility and instantaneous communication.
So why build new walls – especially when, as history shows, the old ones rarely did what they set out to do? For there is almost always a way through, under, over or round a wall. As Janet Napolitano, until recently US secretary of homeland security, once astutely observed: "Show me a 50ft wall, and I'll show you a 51ft ladder."
James Anderson, emeritus professor of political geography at Queen's University Belfast, notes that walls get built for very different reasons. He says: "There are those built as a response to internal civil, often ethno-national, conflict, within states and often within cities. There are those erected because two groups are going at each other, but the state itself is not at stake – rich against poor, white against black, criminal against potential victim. And there are those that run along state borders."
Justified more often than not, these days, as anti-terrorist measures, border fences are more likely to be aimed "at keeping out, or at least differentiating, migrant labour", argues Anderson. He distinguishes, too, between walls that came from "the bottom up", and those imposed from the top down.
Belfast's walls, he notes, originated in 1969 as "simple defence mechanisms, barricades made of bedsteads and doors to stop vehicles coming in to your street".
Thirty years on, they have become "part of people's reality" and are still – perhaps uniquely in the world of walls – supported by almost all those who live beside them. Running for the most part parallel to the roads into the city centre, though, they are not "huge impediments" to day-to-day life.
The barrier separating Israel and the West Bank is different. "This was a state project," says Anderson. "Certainly some, especially the settler movement, welcome it as protection, security against suicide bombers. Palestinians see it as a mechanism for a land grab." At times it also causes almost unimaginable inconvenience and hardship.
But walls can have unforeseen consequences, says Mick Dumper, professor in Middle East politics at Exeter University. "Israel built the separation barrier to separate two communities and prevent terrorism," he says.
"One result has been that 60,000-70,000 Palestinians who had moved out of Jerusalem have moved back, as they didn't want to be cut off from the services they need. At a time when Israel is seeking to assert the city's Jewish identity, its Palestinian population has sharply increased."
And a wall changes a city, even after it has come down. Wendy Pullan, senior lecturer in the history and philosophy of architecture at Cambridge University, calls this a "disruption of urban order. A divided city changes its whole metabolism. And divided cities do not flourish."
The physical reorganisation engendered by a wall is accompanied by an inevitable impact on the psychology of those who live beside it, adds Pullan, who heads the Conflict in Cities (CinC) project run by Cambridge University's centre for urban conflicts research: "There's a tendency to vilify those on the other side. It's very easy to say: we can't see them, we don't know them, so we don't like them."
But mainly, walls just don't do their job very well. "We don't have examples of walls solving problems," says Pullan. Suicide bombings may have fallen dramatically since Israel built its wall. "But it's hard to say whether that's cause or correlation. The regime has also got much firmer, in other ways," she adds.
Anderson, also a member of CinC, argues that national border fences are at least partly intended for show: to let governments be seen to be doing something. If the US were truly serious about tackling illegal migrant labour, he says, "it would prosecute more employers".
So in general, concludes Pullan, walls are "more symbolic than anything else. But their symbolism is enormous. Even now, Berlin remains best known for the wall. The most recognisable image of Jerusalem is now, arguably, its wall. The visual impact is so very strong. If you want to get across the idea of division, a wall is very, very powerful."
BelfastNorthern IrelandMiddle East and North AfricaGermanyEuropeFranceSecond world warJon Henleytheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More FeedsIsraeli diamond billionaire to gain stake in Greek real estate
Greek PM attends state funeral for Cyprus's former president
Greek cafés market led by Flocafé with a 27% value share
Greece keeping calm despite being shoe-in for Brazil
Greek takeaway market led by Pizza Fan with a 30% value share
Record tourist receipts next year may help end Greece's long recession
Binghamton University Greek life cleans up Downtown
Microsoft Recognises Two Greek Schools for Innovative Teaching
Who Still Drives a Ferrari in Greece
Troika Runs Into Greek Brick Wall
Why do Greece always get an easy route? Low-key friendlies and Euro 2004 are ...
Greek cafés market to experience a CAGR of -8% through 2017
Greece sees tourism revenues rising 13 percent in 2014 to hit record
Lure of easy money continues to define Greek entrepreneurship
The High Risks Of Hazing
Romania vs. Greece: Date, Time, Live Stream, TV Info and Preview
Greek police on high alert amid fears of new terror hit
Casinos risking revoked permits over debts
Kolossos Rhodes sacks coach after scoring first win
Independent Scotland would face choice of tax rises or deep cuts, says IFS
Scottish government contests Institute for Fiscal Studies report that predicts 'significant additional fiscal tightening'
An independent Scotland would face decades of higher taxes and deeper spending cuts than the rest of the UK because of its heavy reliance on dwindling North Sea oil, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has predicted.
The economics thinktank warned that Scotland would face a "significant" and "very difficult" task in trying to cut its debts and absorb the impact of lower oil revenues if voters backed independence next September.
Even using the most optimistic forecasts of oil revenues from the Scottish government and the Office of Budget Responsibility, declining oil production would leave it facing income tax rises of at least 9% or a 28% rate of VAT – higher than that of Greece – or enduring billions of pounds of spending cuts for the next 40 years.
As a result, Scotland would have to very quickly start cutting spending or raising taxes to put the economy on a sustainable footing and confront the challenge of paying off its share of the UK's debt, something the Scottish government had so far failed to discuss.
If not, Scotland would eventually face a fiscal gap – the difference between what it raises and what it needs for public services and cutting the debt – of 1.9% of gross national income, compared with 0.8% for the UK.
The IFS admitted its predictions had a series of caveats but said those cuts or tax rises were on top of the cuts planned by the UK government. If Scotland continued public spending at its current rate, its national debt would become more than 100% of national income by 2032. IFS economists added that under their more downbeat central model, that gap would jump to 4.1% of Scotland's national income – equivalent to an 18p rise in the basic rate of income tax or a VAT rate of 36%, nearly double today's rate.
The institute's long-term forecasts in Fiscal Sustainability of an Independent Scotland, the most detailed analysis yet of Scotland's future economic prospects, led to a fresh verbal battle over independence.
The forecast was published just over a week before Alex Salmond publishes his government's key document on independence, a white paper which is set to spell out the case for independence and the SNP's plans for sweeping reforms of the economy and public policy.
Alistair Darling, chairman of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, said the IFS had left "the SNP's economic case for independence in tatters".
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury in the coalition, said the paper posed a series of major challenges which needed to be confronted in the Scottish government's white paper. It proved that Salmond's promises on independence were "too good to be true".
John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, said the IFS paper underlined the case for independence by pointing out that different economic policies after a yes vote could see the situation significantly change. His government's analysis had shown that with independence at an earlier stage, Scotland could have matched the growth rates of other small countries which would have made Scotland's population £900 a head better off.
Without independence, he said Scotland would remain tied to the UK's weak, unequal and unstable economy and remain simply a "branch economy" for south-east England. "We are doing OK but we could do so much better," Swinney said. "Under the status quo we have witnessed the decline of major manufacturing industries, a continual trade deficit with the rest of the world and ever rising levels of debt that are holding the economy back.
"With independence we will have the full range of economic tools we need to target all of our efforts and resources [at] creating a more prosperous Scotland."
IFS staff insisted their modelling was robust but said all their figures were subject to a number of caveats, chiefly on whether Scotland wanted to follow the UK government's target of cutting national debt to 40% of GDP over the next 50 years.
Those variables also included how much debt it inherited from the UK, the interest rates Scotland had to pay international lenders, its oil revenues in future, Scotland's more rapidly ageing population and on future immigration rates.
It pointed out that Scotland's balance of payments are currently very healthy, thanks for the time being to high oil revenues. Independence would also allow Scotland to introduce a more efficient tax system, attract far more immigration to boost productivity and adopt policies closer to Scotland's economic needs.
Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said he was surprised about how very low Scotland's immigration rates were compared with some parts of the UK. Increasing that would boost the economy.
But Scotland also faced tougher challenges paying off its share of the UK's debt, since international markets were likely to impose higher interest rates on a new state with a heavy reliance on a volatile commodity like oil, adding billions of pounds to the total bill.
In that case, Johnson said, Scotland would be better off swapping some of its oil with the UK in exchange for a lower share of the UK's debt – a politically awkward challenge for Salmond.
Scottish independenceScottish politicsScotlandThinktanksEconomic policyEconomicsScottish National party (SNP)Severin Carrelltheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More FeedsRomania aiming for error-free performance against rampant Greece
Don’t count on new St. Nicholas Church to ready by 2016
Merger creates new Christ the Savior Greek Orthodox Church in Bluff City
Saint Peter's bones: Vatican exhumes old argument with plan to show 'relics'
For the first time in nearly 2,000 years, fragments of bone held to be those of the apostle will go on public displayJonathan Jones: Christian relics on display
On 26 June 1968, as much of Europe was busy rebelling against authority and fighting for free love, Pope Paul VI made a dramatic announcement that put the Roman Catholic church back in the headlines for reasons other than its stance on women, abortion or contraception.
Bones discovered in a Roman cemetery in the Vatican, he declared, had been identified "in a way we believe to be convincing" as those of Saint Peter, the Christian martyr who is traditionally held to have been the first pope and died 1,950 years ago.
But despite the 1968 announcement, the bones remained hidden. That will change on Sunday, when fragments are to be displayed in public as part of celebrations to mark the end of the Year of Faith, an initiative launched by Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned this year.
The fragments, contained in an urn usually kept in a private papal chapel, will be presented for public veneration in St Peter's Square at a mass celebrated by Pope Francis.
The decision to exhibit is controversial. No pontiff has ever said the bones are without doubt those of Saint Peter, and some within archaeological circles are fairly sure they are not.
The battle over the bones, which pits a rigorous Jesuit archaeologist against a pioneering female epigraphist, is one of the strangest stories to have come out of the Vatican during the 20th century and may also be one of the least dignified.
But, speaking on Monday, Monsignor Rino Fisichella said he had no qualms about thrusting the relics back into the spotlight. "We did not want to, and have no intention, of opening up any argument," said Fisichella who, in a carefully worded article for the semi-official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano last week, described the relics as those "recognised by tradition" as Saint Peter's.
"We believe … faith, the people of God, has always believed these to be the relics of the apostle Peter, and we continue to venerate them in this way and give them the honour they deserve," he said.
Fisichella, president of the pontifical council for the promotion of the new evangelisation, also said "the symbolic value" of the bones – their "underlying theological value" – was hugely important. Regardless of what scientific testing might reveal, he said, Christians would venerate the remains and pray at the tomb of Saint Peter.
The story of how the bones came to be proclaimed Peter's dates back to 1939, when Pope Pius XII ordered an excavation of an area below St Peter's basilica thought to contain his tomb. The digging, overseen by a German monsignor, Ludwig Kaas, lasted 11 years and led, in 1950, to a stunning papal radio broadcast announcing "the tomb of the prince of the apostles" had been found.
But the pope was forced to admit his team had been unable to prove with certainty the bones were Peter's.
Years later, Margherita Guarducci, an archaeologist and the first woman to lead Vatican excavations, began to question the original findings. She noted graffiti near the tomb reading Petr eni, which she believed was an abbreviation of Petros enesti, the Greek for "Peter is here".
She was told Kaas had been collecting bones out of concern that they were not being properly looked after, and putting them in boxes in a Vatican storeroom. Having located some bones she thought were the most interesting, she convinced Pope Paul VI to commission tests on them. These revealed, among other things, that they belonged to a robust man who died approximately in his 60s. To the outrage of Antonio Ferrua, the Jesuit father who had been the chief archaeologist on the initial excavation, Guarducci told the pope he should say the bones were believed to be Saint Peter's. And, to the disquiet of Ferrua and some other Vatican experts, he did just that. Kaas, Ferrua and Guarducci have all since died.
In his book The Vatican Diaries, longtime observer John Thavis calls the affair "an embarrassment" for the church. "The supposed bones of Saint Peter had been surreptitiously dug up by a meddling monsignor when the archaeologists weren't looking; then they were thrown into a box and forgotten for more than a decade; then they were rediscovered by accident and became the focus of a feud between church experts," he writes.
"The whole affair did not inspire confidence in the Vatican's ability to exhume its own history, and it is little wonder that none of it is mentioned in the Vatican guidebooks." The Vatican, however, hopes the bones' moment has finally come. During its Year of Faith, which began in October 2012, 8.5 million pilgrims had prayed at St Peter's tomb, Fisichella said, and it seemed only fitting that the year should be rounded off with "a unique moment".
"For the first time, the relics of the apostle will be displayed for the veneration of believers," he said. "Peter was called by the Lord to confirm his brothers in faith. Around the successor of Peter, but almost in the physical presence of the first of the apostles – to whom, with Paul, we owe the foundation of this church – we will be called to profess our faith once more with conviction and strength."
VaticanItalyReligionCatholicismLizzy Daviestheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds