The construction of the wall launched a new kind of international system, and its fall launched another one. Its construction was about ideological antagonism, alienation and dichotomies imposed by weapons threatening the very existence of nations. Its destruction was about the reunification of peoples, cooperation, human rights and stability.The fall of the wall didn’t save East Germans or many other people in eastern and central Europe from remaining “Eastern Europeans,” but it helped them leave the vicious circle they were in and contributed to their efforts to become “Westerners.” Invisible walls still exist, but at least there is hope of seeing their destruction, too. Besides, the wall’s fall has proven that states and regimes are not able to resist their people’s will forever.
When you look at this event from a European perspective, the fall of the Berlin Wall has increased hopes about the future. It also allows us to discuss invisible walls that have appeared since then in Europe. It would be better for countries who don’t want to see Turkey within the European Union but who joyfully celebrate the anniversary of the wall’s fall to keep in mind that a wall still exists within Europe’s borders. When we see the term “the fortress of Europe” in certain European documents, it’s justified to suspect the presence of new visible and invisible walls in the European geography. But again, the Berlin Wall reminds us that there is no wall capable of resisting global transformations, social changes and the people’s will.
The fall of the wall is celebrated as the reunification of two separate worlds. It may be true in a European context, but it would be a mistake to generalize it to the whole of humanity because in many parts of the world, remnants of the “old” system are perceptible and they don’t give the impression that they are about to disappear. Despite the people’s will, obstacles remain. A “two-state solution” is yet to be reached in Cyprus where the Green Line is still there. The Koreans are still divided by a border full of land mines. Palestinians can’t come together because there is a wall there, too. Is it necessary to repeat that there are also many people who benefit from these walls?
In some particular cases, the efforts to bring these walls down are criticized. As an example, Turkey is trying break down the physical and emotional barriers with Armenia, but people who have made these barriers a part of their identity are raising their voices; there is a heated debate about Ankara’s hypothetical U-turn toward the Middle East when Turkey decided to change its visa regime toward Syria and to clear the border of land mines; when Ankara criticizes the Gaza Strip’s isolation, some people conclude that Turkey has become an anti-Israeli country; and when Turkey doesn’t join the chorus against Iran, it is accused of favoring the Muslim world over its traditional allies.
As long as people use double standards when determining their policies, the walls will persist. Thanks to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany had the opportunity to pursue its Eastern policy through pacifist means, and that’s worth celebrating. Why be stressed then, when another state tries to destroy its own walls? Maybe some players’ stress is justified because when walls come down, a new system starts, and each new system means change and different approaches. It’s not easy for everyone to admit that.
