Belfast : a mirror of the conflict or an actor implicated in it ?

Résumé du document

The city of Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland, and it is where the cleavages between Protestant Unionists and Catholic Republicans was the most salient, as most of the troubles happened in this city. This conflict is both about an identity issue, as historical and religious cleavages are crucial to understand it and an economic issue, as the city has been facing decay since the end of the 1960s. Belfast is a particularly great case study for urban studies, as it can show how an ethnic conflict penetrates the building of a city to change its aspect and the way it works, and how a city can influence the outcomes of the conflict. It used to have a very specific government, so it can be interesting to see how the shift of governance has already, or will, change the city.

Extraits

[...] Firstly because urban policymakers manage the distribution of economic benefits and the allocation of urban service benefices. If “relative deprivation” is the core reason of the conflict, urban policy clearly has a responsibility as it can act on the disparities, on the homogeneity of a neighborhood, try to encourage the economic development of an area. Even if the reason of the conflict is more about identity and ignorance (Taylor) planners can act as they can integrate or separate landscapes. Commercial centers can be moved between the two communities to make them interact. [...]

[...] Belfast : miroir du conflit ou acteur engagé ? The city of Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland, and it is were the cleavages between Protestant Unionists and Catholic Republicans was the most salient as most of the troubles happened in this city (specially concerning bombings to housings). This conflict is both about an identity issue, as historical and religious cleavages are crucial to understand it (under the rule of the Unionist party were implemented unfair and discriminatory policies against the Catholics), and an economic issue, as the city faces decay since the end of the 1960s. [...]

[...] If it is a necessity to try to prevent the conflict, urban policies can only have a marginal effect when the city is already strongly polarized. If it did not manage (or wished) to avoid that separation, then the policies can only create a marginal good, when, if they are wrong, can create a great harm. This is why some planners can wish to stay neutral, as the British tried, in order to avoid the conflict, even if it would not solve it. [...]

[...] It is a “multi sector” segregation as even in segregated areas remain some small neighborhoods of the other community. And the Nortgh is not defined. The two very closed from another and there is no such coherence as in the West and in the East. That is why 16 peacelines have been built, when rival communities had engaged in a territorial conflict. It provided a kind of psychological security by demarcating well defined defense boundaries. Those sectarian boundaries have created two cities “that happen to overlap” (Bollens). The Catholic one is growing, the Protestant one is declining. [...]

[...] And unemployment is clearly a cause for the violence of the conflict, as it creates deprivation. Only the middle class neighborhood of the South, even if mainly Protestant, host cross communities and an important Catholic minority. Urban economic policy must then address the two communities, and not only the catholic wards, as the Protestants feel threatened. B. The issue of territoriality and the “peacelines” Violence has created in Belfast rigid sectarian boundaries that have distorted and fragmented the urban fabric (Bollens). [...]