martes, 31 de julio de 2012

more on climate change and Turkey

Climate negotiator Rende: Turkey ready to do its part on climate change

Read Comment
2
Add to Google
5
Mithat Rende (PHOTO TURGUT ENGİN)
8 January 2012 / CEREN KUMOVA, ANKARA
Turkey is emerging in the UN as a country that is working for the common good of the world with regard to climate change and one that is interested in a positive agenda, Turkey’s climate change chief negotiator Mithat Rende has said in an interview with Sunday’s Zaman.
As he summed up Turkey’s efforts within the UN to help reduce the adverse effects of climate change, he highlighted the country’s role as a contributor to a new and legally binding agreement that would finally mobilize all parties signatory to it to take measures towards “saving the earth.”
Speaking after the approval in Durban, South Africa, of a roadmap for a post--2012 climate change regime, Rende expressed hope that efforts would soon result in a document that would be legally binding on all parties to it. As a result, he hopes that the foreseeable adverse effects of climate change might be kept to a minimum, before it is too late. “Turkey knows the danger of the approaching change in our climate and is taking solid measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions [GHG],” Rende said as he declared that Turkey was among the countries which took climate change “very seriously,” due to it being situated in a highly vulnerable zone.
Although predictions point to a possible meltdown in the world ecosystem if anthropogenic interference with the world’s climate is not reduced immediately, Rende is optimistic that all parties would be legally bound by the new document to keep the average increase in global temperature below 2°C, after which the results of climate change might prove too catastrophic for the continuation of human existence on the planet.
“Turkey, through its own means and domestic resources, has reduced its GHG emissions by 20 percent since 1990,” Rende said of Turkey’s progress on the road to drastic reduction in the emissions of GHG, concentrations of which in the atmosphere are believed to be the main trigger of temperature increase on earth. On the other hand, Rende noted, Turkey has also invested $2 billion in forestry over the past few years, and the positive effects of that are not included in the country’s GHG reduction statistics. Although Turkey has only opened a few chapters in its EU accession process, climate is one of those few. This is a sign that the country is quite concerned with what the world might face in a matter of only a few decades.
The Durban meeting in November was the most recent addition to a long series of meetings held annually under the title of Conferences of the Parties (COP), which convenes as part of The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), an environmental treaty that was brought to life in 1992. “Climate change has evolved to the level of a global threat, with manmade causes and with results that will affect the whole of humanity,” Rende explained the start of the process back in 1992, which drew the world’s attention after the Kyoto Protocol fell short of creating the desired effects due to gaps in participation. “The reason why the Kyoto agreements were not sufficient in tackling climate change was because the total emissions of the countries that made a commitment to the protocol were causing only 32 percent of the total damage,” Rende said, concluding that although Kyoto was well intended, “it would not do the job” without the participation of major emitters.
“A system that does not include the big emitters, mainly the US and China, naturally does not work, which brought us to the critical point where we need a common document that is legally binding on all parties to it, but that also recognizes differences in the responsibilities of countries,” Rende further elaborated on the new agreement that is scheduled to be finalized by the end of 2015 and put into effect by 2020. “The responsibilities of different countries are not the same: The duties that fall on, for instance, the US and Turkey should not be the same,” he said in the hope that the differentiated approach of the new system would succeed, since it would place varying obligations on each country according to its respective capabilities, meaning that what a big emitter has to do to uphold its obligations would not be the same as a smaller, or poorer, country.
“Climate negotiations have for too long been a battle between developed and developing countries, since the rich are the biggest emitters and also have a historical responsibility,” Rende said, clarifying that the new system would take into account details pertaining to each country, with some countries having been emitting GHGs since the 1850s, while others only for the last few decades. Developed countries will also be responsible for providing financial and technical support to developing countries in order to contribute to their “resilience,” since a low carbon economy would also mean that they will further fall behind competition in the global markets.
Climate change process will define development paradigm of 21st century
As countries implement measures to reduce their emission levels, they will also have to change the way they produce energy, as well as the way they use it, since a low-carbon economy will be the main goal of climate conscious countries, Rende explained. He also raised an issue regarding the potential of GHG reduction in drastically decreasing a country’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. “The moment you spell low carbon economy, it is also the moment you have think about developing a new energy policy, a sustainable development policy and new approaches in the way you handle forestry, agriculture and transportation,” he added, claiming that tackling climate change will also define the development paradigm of the new century.
Given the fact that a low carbon economy, although pricy for developing nations, would be beneficial for the world in every possible way, Rende suggested that all countries must be bound by the new system and that “wild” capitalism needs to be slowed down. “Producing fast and producing cheap are the main goals of the global powers, but the new system will make the polluter pay -- which means that there is a cost to the pollution that you create and that will inevitably end up raising the price of your goods,” he added.
However, Rende also voiced concern over the fact that many countries which subscribed to Kyoto were beginning to withdraw from the protocol before the start of its second term of commitment, due to begin in January 2013, in protest of the fact that major emitters are already absent from the agreement. “Canada, Russia and Japan have said they will break their commitment to Kyoto next year, which means that the 32 percent reduction Kyoto was able to maintain will now fall even lower,” he said. However, he expressed hope that countries might individually work to keep their emissions low, much like Turkey, also a non-Kyoto country. “We were hoping that emission reduction would remain stable under Kyoto until 2020, but now all hopes have been deferred to that date when the new agreement will take effect,” Rende continued, expressing frustration that “such a burning matter” would have to wait until 2020. EU countries, on the other hand, have said that they would still abide by Kyoto for the next eight years.
The chief climate negotiator also noted that the EU was the most contributive element in the process, since European countries are in danger if the expected rise in sea levels occurs in 2050. This would result in the loss of all deltas, making food the rarest commodity on earth and diminishing energy security. “Many countries will be left under water if the sea level rises by one meter, and others will simply be rendered uninhabitable in many corners of the world,” Rende said, giving a glimpse of the major disaster scenarios predicted by experts unless immediate action is taken to prevent climate change.

Terrorist groups

PKK/KONGRA-GEL

Established in 1978, PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) started its armed
struggle in 1984 after a preparatory period of numerous murders and
attacks, with the objective of the establishment, through armed
struggle, of an independent Kurdistan within Turkey’s borders.
Since 1984, PKK’s terrorist activities resulted in the death of more
than 30.000 Turkish citizens, among whom were innocent civilians,
teachers and other public servants, many deliberately murdered, and
large amount of economic loss.
In its history, the terrorist organization also employed
suicide-bombing methods, waged mainly by women terrorists in Turkey;
and kidnapped foreign tourists in southeastern Anatolia in the early
1990s. In order to damage Turkey’s economy, the organization also set
forests in Turkey’s tourist resorts on fire.
Following the arrest of its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, in 1999, the
organization started claiming that it switched its strategy to
peaceful methods and would pursue political struggle from then on.
In accordance with this policy of appearing as a born-again legitimate
organization and to convince the international community accordingly,
the organization changed its name to KADEK (Kurdistan Freedom and
Democracy Congress) in April 2002, alleging that PKK has fulfilled its
historical mission and would now like to be accepted as a political
organization.
In October 2003, the organization underwent another name change to
KONGRA-GEL (Kurdistan Peoples Congress). The decision was made public
by a press statement in Iraq on 15 November 2003.
However, albeit the name changes, the leading members of the
organization remain the same. Today, PKK/KONGRA-GEL is still headed by
Abdullah Öcalan, with Zübeyir Aydar, a former member of the “Kurdish
National Congress”, an affiliate of PKK, its president. Furthermore,
founders and leading figures of the PKK, such as Murat Karayılan,
Cemil Bayık etc. continue to assume leading roles in the organization.
Many of the leading figures of PKK/KONGRA-GEL are internationally
recognized criminals searched through Red Bulletins.
Moreover, after neither of these two name changes nor the so-called
strategy change of 1999, the organization did not undergo changes on
substantial issues such as decommissioning of arms, continuing to
carry out attacks mainly in southeastern Anatolia, though not in the
scope of pre-1999 period.
PKK/KONGRA-GEL also keeps its militants and recruits new ones. PKK
militants did not surrender to justice, even to benefit from the
provisions of the “Law on Reintegration into Society”, that came into
force on 6 August 2003 (for a period of 6 months) and that provided
amnesty to those members of a terrorist organization who were not
involved in any crimes.
The organization’s recent declaration, of 29 May 2004, alleging an end
to a so-called unilateral cease-fire that the organization claims to
be implementing since September 1999, stating that it would, by 1 June
2004, respond to any offence with a rationale of self-defense, is yet
another open revelation of the organization’s terrorist nature.
Presently, it is estimated that there are a total of 5,000
PKK/KONGRA-GEL terrorists, the majority of whom are in northern Iraq
whereby the organization’s headquarters are situated.
Given the picture, the organization’s arguments for a policy change
can be defined as merely a make-up. It is, furthermore, not possible
and righteous for a terrorist organization that still keeps its
militants and arms and that does not hesitate to publicly threaten
with the use of force, to be freed of its past guilt with the mere
change of a name.



Concept and ideology of terrorism:

A non-exhaustive list of elements to be found in the concept of
terrorism is as follows:
- The indiscriminate and random killing of persons, especially
civilians and non-combatants,
- Assassinations,
- The emphasis on the surprise nature of attacks,
- The quest for shocking the community through media coverage,
- The existence of a self-proclaimed political agenda or “cause” to
justify those attacks.
Terrorism can be considered as an extreme form of expression, which is
most contrary to the values of democracy, civilization and humanity.
Terrorist acts, methods and practices seem to be adopted by movements
which are of an exclusionist nature, which refuses a priori the
responsibility of living together with “the other”, who is thought to
be different. Racism, religious fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism
are such exclusionist movements which adopt terrorist methods. The
followers of these movements practically accuse the target groups of
being the source of all evil. In the case of religious fundamentalism,
the members of “the others” are qualified as infidels and are
perceived as the main obstacle to the restoration of the felicitous
order of the initial phase of the religion. The ethno-nationalists are
obsessed by the real or imagined historical victimization incurred to
them by the majority and fight to separate their group from the rest
of the society.
Terrorist groups project all sorts of pejorative attributes onto their
target groups in a way to dehumanize them. Thus, violence can be
directed without much remorse against the dehumanized members of the
target group. Terrorism is the preferred form of violence which
acquires in this context a conscious and systematic nature, serving a
specific “political” goal. They perversely feel justified to employ
any means to that end.
Terrorism, moreover, is a major violation of one of the most
fundamental human rights, the right to life. By creating a climate of
fear terrorism also violates every individual’s right to live free
from fear, as stated in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. By recruiting and using minors as combatants, terrorists
also violate the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child. As terrorism grossly and systematically violates human rights,
it is only natural to consider it as a crime against humanity.
Turkey, as a country which has been exposed to different types of
terrorist threats for more than 30 years, is an example where the
ideology and methods of terrorist movements can be observed
extensively. The destructive activities of the terrorist organizations
caused death of thousands of Turkish citizens and huge economic
losses. Among these terrorist groups PKK / KADEK/ KONGRA-GEL
(Kurdistan Workers Party) can be singled out as one of the most
dangerous terrorist organizations in the world. PKK / KADEK /
KONGRA-GEL has been indiscriminately conducting a bloody campaign of
terror against the people of Turkey since early 80s. PKK / KADEK /
KONGRA-GEL’s terrorist activities resulted in the death of more than
30.000 Turkish citizens, among whom there are thousands of women and
children, including those of Kurdish origin on whose behalf the PKK
purports to act and claims to defend their rights. Besides, the
terrorist activities of the PKK / KADEK / KONGRA-GEL not only
seriously undermined Turkey’s efforts for the social and economic
development, but also contributed to the deepening of the economic gap
between south-eastern regions of Turkey and the rest of the country.


Building up of international solidarity

Presently, the organization is proscribed in France, Germany (both
since 1993) and the UK (since March 2001) and is included in the
foreign terrorist organizations list in Australia, Bulgaria, Canada,
Japan, Kazakhstan and the USA (the organization’s terrorist nature is
being emphasized by the annual report of the US Department of State,
“Patterns of Global Terrorism”, for over a decade).
As of 2 April 2004, PKK is also included in the EU Terrorist
Organizations and Entities List with its aliases, KADEK and
KONGRA-GEL.
PKK, furthermore, is listed among groups involving child soldiers in
the report, dated June 2001, of the NGO ‘Coalition to Stop the Use of
Child Soldiers’ (PKK is known to abduct children and brainwash and
train them in its camps).
 There was a time in history when being a terrorist was confused with
being a freedom fighter, however, this attitude can no longer prevail.
Specifically following the events of 11 September, international
solidarity against terrorism and terrorist organizations has grown,
with international documents, such as the UNSCR 1373, outlining the
parameters of unequivocal fight against terrorism. In accordance with
these developments, Turkey expects that all countries, in accordance
with their international obligations, take resolute stance towards the
terrorist organization PKK/KONGRA-GEL.

PKK/KONGRA-GEL has many expenditures, ranging from financing of its
terrorist strength to running media outlets (dailies, periodicals, TV
and radio channels) and to carrying out anti-Turkey propaganda
activities in many parts of the world.
Europe is particularly important for the organization as it is in
Europe where the organization generates most of its revenue to finance
these cumbersome activities.
most european countries will be un favour to neutralized kurds in europe

counterterrorism

Fact Sheet on the Global Counterterrorism Forum

Published June 7, 2012
The State Department published this Fact Sheet, issued by the Co-Chairs (Turkey and the United States) of the Global Counterterrorism Forum for the June 7, 2012, GCTF Ministerial-Level Plenary in Istanbul.
What: Launched by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 22 September 2011, the GCTF is an informal multilateral counterterrorism (CT) platform with 30 founding members (29 countries plus the EU) that regularly convenes key CT policymakers and practitioners from around the world, as well as experts from the United Nations and other multilateral bodies. It has strengthened the international architecture for addressing 21st century terrorism and promotes a strategic, long-term approach to dealing with the threat. The Forum identifies urgent needs, devises solutions, and mobilizes resources for addressing key civilian counterterrorism challenges. With its primary focus on countering violent extremism and strengthening criminal justice and other rule of law institutions necessary to prevent and counter terrorism, the GCTF aims to diminish terrorist recruitment and increase the number of countries capable of dealing with terrorist and related security threats within their borders and regions.
Who: The 30 founding members of the GCTF are: Algeria, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Structure: The GCTF consists of a strategic-level Coordinating Committee, co-chaired initially by the United States and Turkey; five thematic and regional expert-driven working groups; and a small administrative unit. Initial working groups focus on: 1) the criminal justice sector and rule of law, co-chaired by Egypt and the U.S.; 2) countering violent extremism, co-chaired by the UAE and the UK; 3) capacity-building in the Sahel, co-chaired by Algeria and Canada; 4) capacity-building in The Horn Region, co-chaired by the EU and Turkey; and 5) capacity-building in Southeast Asia, co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia.
Relationship to the United Nations: The United Nations is a close partner of and participant in the GCTF and its activities. The GCTF serves as a mechanism for furthering the implementation of the universally-agreed UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and, more broadly, complements and reinforces existing multilateral CT efforts, starting with those of the UN.
September 2011 Launch: Two concrete deliverables were announced at the launch in New York demonstrating the Forum's action-oriented approach from its inception: 1) The Cairo Declaration on Counterterrorism and the Rule of Law and some $90 million to support CT-related strengthening of criminal justice systems, with a particular focus on countries in transition; and 2) the UAE indicating its intention to open the first-ever international center for training, dialogue, research and collaboration on countering violent extremism in Abu Dhabi in the fall of 2012.
Initial GCTF Activities: Since September, each of the GCTF working groups has convened inaugural meetings, with a number of the groups having prepared work plans for the Coordinating Committee to review and adopt at its second meeting on 7-8 June in Istanbul.
The CVE Working Group's 12-month work plan will focus on three broad areas: 1) CVE through communications, including the use of communications to promote community resilience and to shape a counter-narrative; 2) measuring the impact of CVE programming; and 3) the role of institutions including schools, prisons, and victims groups in countering violent extremism. On 9-10 July, Spain will initiate the group's work on victims of terrorism when it hosts a GCTF High-Level Conference in Madrid on the subject.
The regional capacity-building groups, which include key non-GCTF regional states and other stakeholders, have identified concrete follow-on initiatives aimed at bringing together the relevant CT practitioners from within and outside the region to share expertise, challenges, and good practices and identify ways to address priority CT needs. For example, on 16-17 May, Niger hosted a meeting of border security experts in Niamey under the auspices of the Sahel Working Group, which strengthened the network of border security experts focused on the Sahel and produced a number of recommendations for enhancing border security capacities in the region. Similar expert-focused, GCTF initiatives are expected to take place in the Sahel and other regions in the months ahead. The Horn of Africa Working Group will hold its second meeting in November 2012 bringing together practitioners from and outside the region involved in law enforcement and countering the financing of terrorism, including those working in Financial Intelligence Units.
In addition to developing the criminal justice sector CT good practices at its 7-8 February meeting in Rabat, the Criminal Justice Sector and Rule of Law Working Group, including at a 23-24 May meeting in The Hague, has begun to identify existing and develop new CT capacity-building programs focused on the training of prosecutors, judges, police, and prison officials to support the implementation of these good practices.
Finally, as a contribution to building international cooperation and capacities to address the increasingly global terrorist tactic of kidnapping for ransom (KFR), Algeria hosted an ad hoc meeting of GCTF experts on 18-19 April to begin to develop a set of good practices on the practical steps all countries can take prevent and deny the benefits of KFR to terrorisst. The GCTF will further elaborate and then seek to adopt these good practices in the second half of 2012.