By Hilmi Toros
ISTANBUL, Nov 23 2009 (IPS)

Fifteen years after the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), the glass is half full, according to Purnima Mane, deputy executive director of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). And not much better for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Violence Against Women (CEDAW) after 30 years.

Purnima Mane: "Violence against women goes up when they are pregnant. It's heinous." Credit: UNFPA

The ICPD, hailed as an epochal gathering of 179 nations in Cairo bent on bestowing rights and dignity to women, came under review at a high-level meeting in Istanbul, Nov. 11-13, that also took up the status of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These pertain to women.

A report on maternal health in the 20-nation Eastern Europe and Central Asia region showed that maternal mortality has been halved since 1990, from 51 per 100,000 live births to 24.

But the goal of 75 percent reduction by 2015 as targeted in MDG-5 is unlikely to be reached in Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, according to U.N. population experts.

In fact, MDG-5 is lagging behind more than the other MDGs.

Amid some progress and cautious optimism, there are sobering facts. UNFPA figures show that one woman still dies every minute during pregnancy or childbirth, 90 percent in Asia and Africa. The lofty goal of Universal Access to Reproductive Health by 2015 is still far off and unlikely to be achieved.

And women are still subject to violence almost everywhere 30 years after CEDAW. The Istanbul meetings also received a UNFPA report on violence against women in the region showing that one woman out of three still experiences abuse in her lifetime.

Why? What worked, what failed? And the road ahead?

Mane outlined her assessment in a Q&A interview with IPS after the Istanbul meetings. Excerpts from the interview follow:

IPS: What is your assessment of UNCPD after 15 years PURNIMA MANE: Let’s say the glass is half full. We have to fill the other half.

IPS: Why is the glass half empty, then? PM: Many issues are not adequately addressed. We have not fully dealt with the basic problem. It is still thought that ICPD is about sex and abortion without realising that we are not advocating abortion for family planning but family planning to reduce abortions. Then, financial and technical resources are not adequate (U.N. estimates investment needs for population programmes in 2010 at 64.7 billion dollars. Actual investment stood at 30.8 billion dollars in 2008). AIDS became a big factor.

IPS: Any pleasant surprises in the past 15 years? PM: Yes. Changes in partnership. We didn’t imagine that faith-based organisation and youth would become such active partners.

IPS: Unpleasant surprises? PM: Still high maternal mortality. I am dumbfounded that maternal deaths (estimated at 527,000 in 1990) are pretty much the same. I had thought the subject of women was more attractive and would get more attention. Everybody wants to help children, but not their mothers.

IPS: This is also 30 years since CEDAW. Has it been a success? PM: The Convention achieved nearly universal ratification, with 186 countries party to it. It has been highly successful in focusing government attention on existing areas of discrimination within their legal systems, and creating a process to redress such discrimination. It can be a powerful tool for change, but it must be recognised as such and embraced by governments and civil society in order for it to continue to be successful. Implementation continues to be a challenge worldwide. It requires commitment by governments to gender equality and strategic effort by civil society to hold states accountable to their obligations under CEDAW.

IPS: In this Eastern Europe and Central Asia region? PM: Many countries now have draft laws before parliament. Despite these good faith efforts, there is still a need to put in place adequate legal support systems to protect survivors of violence. And there is a need to implement laws more actively. The existing anti-domestic violence laws on the books are poorly implemented.

IPS: Why does gender-based violence (GBV) still persists in many parts of the world? PM: Because it is deeply rooted in societies all over the world. Because there is widespread impunity. These crimes are not always prosecuted. And there are varying degrees of social acceptance of GBV. Also gender discrimination, lower socio-economic status and cultural challenges may often leave women and girls with few options and resources to avoid or escape abusive situations and seek justice.

Such violence is not only a violation of human rights. It is also a threat to health.

It goes up during wars and economic crises. Violence against women goes up when they are pregnant. It’s heinous.

IPS: What next? PM: MDGs will not end in the next five years. They will be reshaped. The search for universal access to reproductive health will still be around. But we don’t want to wait for another 20 years.

*This is the second of a two-part series on gender-based violence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Excerpt:

Once the worst of enemies, involved in 12 wars in three centuries, Turkey and Russia have suddenly become the best of friends, forging strong bonds that could be a counterpoint to the European Union if it freezes Turkey out of full membership.

The countries call their ties “multi-dimensional co-operation,” somewhat short of a “strategic partnership”, but that too may be in the offing.

On an eight-hour visit to Turkish capital Ankara last week, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin signed 20 deals with his counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan. These are mostly commercial contracts in energy, collectively worth some 40 billion dollars.

The two leaders also declared that rival gas pipelines Nabucco and South Stream to bring natural gas to European markets would be “complimentary” rather than “conflicting”.

Nabucco, the 7.9 billion euro project backed by the EU and the United States, would bypass Russia in bringing gas from Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Iraq and potentially also from Iran to Europe via Turkey. It is due to be operational by 2014.

The Russian proposed South Stream, to become operational by 2016, would carry gas from Russia to Europe through Turkey’s territorial waters in the Black Sea and onward to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia to Austria. Its objective is to bypass Ukraine, currently the conduit for 80 percent of Russian gas pumped to Europe.

In the end, conflicting or complimentary, if both projects are realised, Russia and Turkey would play a major role in meeting Europe’s growing gas needs. For Europe, either an unfriendly Turkey or Russia would endanger energy security – and it would be much worse if both were ever to gang up on the EU together.

There already are signs that Turkey, aware of its critical role as a corridor for EU energy needs, is flexing its muscles, with the rapprochement with Russia seen as a warning to the EU.

“Turkey is not changing its foreign policy. It still gives priority to ties with the West. But the energy issue is giving a new dimension,” writes Sami Kohen, foreign affairs columnist for the daily Milliyet. “The energy equation will make Turkey’s policy more independent.”

That translates into more national, less EU, interest.

“If EU doesn’t want us, we won’t beg,” businessman Hasan Aydemir told IPS. “Europe has to think twice of the implications of Turkey out of its union and allied with Russia. If that happens, why not?”

Yusuf Kanli, chief columnist for the English language daily Hurriyet, says the current Turkish-Russian closeness will in turn bring Turkey closer to EU as Europe becomes more aware of Turkey’s growing importance and critical geopolitical status.

But Turkey within the EU is far off, if ever it will happen. Its aspiration to join the EU as the first Muslim nation is now in the 50th year since the first bid – perhaps the longest engagement on record with no marriage in sight. The accession process is faltering in the face of opposition from EU members such as France, Germany and Austria.

Meanwhile, Turkish-Russian ties are in constant expansion. Russia will ship oil through a pipeline to a southern Turkish port and also deliver gas to Lebanon and Israel via Turkey. A Russian company will be involved in Turkey’s plans to build a nuclear power station.

Culturally, Turkey will open Russian study institutes and cultural centres. Russians are now the second largest group after Germans visiting Turkey; they numbered about three million last year. Signs in Russian accompany those in English in resorts such as Fethiye, Antalya and Alanya. Radio stations broadcast in Russian. And there are now Russian language newspapers in Turkey.

Turkey declared 2007 The Year of Russian Culture, and Russia reciprocated in 2008.

Last year, trade between the two countries reached 38 billion dollars, an eight-fold increase in eight years, making Russia Turkey’s biggest partner. Trade is forecast to reach 100 billion dollars in four years.

The combined diplomatic weight of the two countries may also help find solutions to regional conflicts, including disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Armenia and Turkey. They might even persuade Iran to take a more moderate stand. One or the other has solid relations with most countries involved in opposition to one another.

The closeness may be helped by a similarity between Putin and Erdogan: both come from humble origins; both seem ready to bury historical enmities; both are seen as strong leaders firmly entrenched in power for years to come (they are in their 50s); both are dynamic and sporty (Putin excels in judo and Erdogan is a former soccer player); both are stern and all business.

If there is the touch of a Czar in Putin, there is a Sultan in Erdogan. The Turkish leader has become a regional folk hero for his defence of Palestinians against Israeli strikes when he stormed out of a debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Davos, Switzerland, in February when the moderator attempted to cut short his anti-Israel oratory.

The closeness contrasts sharply with the history of the two nations. The Czarist Russian and the Ottoman Turkish empires were at each other’s throats from the 17th up to the 20th centuries, when Russia eventually succeeded in wresting the Black Sea and the Balkans from Ottoman domination.

Later, after World War II, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin eyed but failed to control the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits in Turkey for passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Even as late as the 1980s, Turkey was the West’s bastion against feared Soviet expansionism from the East. If that was seen as the unwelcome Soviet Bear Hug, this now is a mutual embrace.

By Hilmi Toros
ISTANBUL, Mar 21 2009 (IPS)

Climate change and corrupt practices are considered root causes for a potential water crisis of global proportions, leading to scarcity where water is needed most and flooding where it is needed the least.

Joke Muylwijk Credit: Gender and Water Alliance

The victims are unmistakeable: women, often poor and powerless.

The irony is that women know so much about water, but are allowed to say so little about its use and management, says Joke Muylwijk, executive director of the Gender and Water Alliance (GWA), an international NGO crusading for gender equality in water issues with over 1,000 members in some 100 countries.

The gender issue was at the forefront at the World Water Forum (WWF), a gathering of some 30,000 participants in Istanbul Mar. 16-22 that is being described as the biggest event on water so far.

Typically, women from the South were few at the Forum dominated by “men in black suits”, as Muylwijk calls it, leaving it to her and a host of other NGOs from the North to speak up for gender equality. In between the lobbying, the Dutch-born Muylwijk spoke to IPS Correspondent Hilmi Toros.

Excerpts from the interview:

IPS: What stops women from being centre-stage in the water sector? Joke Muylwijk: Many, but the main one is men make the decisions and woman do the work. We need more women at decision levels and men at working level.

IPS: Can it be achieved? JM: Not right away, but it could get worse if we don’t keep trying. We need to go step-by-step, beginning with awareness, training and then empowerment. Success cannot be taken for granted. If access to water gets better in one place, we have to make sure it remains so. Otherwise, things slide back.

IPS: Any bright spots and good practices? JM: Some. Bangladesh is a good example. Women form groups and approach decision-makers together to make demands. In places like Brazil, Bolivia, Kenya and Mexico, gender groups have managed to bring forth the need to look at women’s special needs.

IPS: Such as? JM: Women have special needs in sanitation. It no longer is a taboo – nor should it be – that we openly discuss that women need special toilets because, unlike men, they can’t just go to the field. Even if they do, they become vulnerable to sexual assaults. Some women drink less water so as not to go to the toilet unless a clean and safe one is available. Also reproductive organs are vulnerable to dirty water. Some girls actually drop out of school because of lack of adequate toilets.

After childbirth, you need clean water but lack of it still kills so many in the 21st century. It comes from misunderstanding women’s special health needs.

The encouraging thing is that we are publicly discussing women’s special needs. It’s a big and positive change. Even our prince (Crown Prince W?llem-Alexander of The Netherlands, who was at the Istanbul-Forum) publicly talks about the need for special toilets for women.

IPS: What is another major problem apart from sanitation? JM: It’s in supply. Tap water in cities is of dubious quality. When women queue for water at collection points, they are often pushed away by males who get an extra share and sell it, at times to women at higher prices.

In rural areas, women are in charge of supply. That’s in addition to being a housewife, mother and farmer. Demand for sexual favours and rape are not uncommon on the way to fetching water or at water points. Women feel they can’t return home without water. Once raped, a girl cannot marry. She is forced into prostitution. Police protection is rare. Women should go together and don’t leave girls alone.

IPS: Are you optimistic about the future? JM: Let’s be realistic rather than optimistic. Compared to five years ago, women’s special needs are being discussed publicly. The trend is there for better comprehension, but it won’t come about without constant vigilance. There are power relations. There is widespread corruption. It is entrenched. Corrupt people do not yet realise that by pocketing money and harassing women, they are ruining lives and contributing to the death of children. More children die from water related issues than any other ones.

Excerpt:

By Hilmi Toros
ISTANBUL, Mar 17 2009 (IPS)

Whether through drought, floods, melting of ice or a rise in sea level, water will be the first to feel the effects of climate change, says Dr. Mark Smith, who heads the water programme at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest environmental network.

Dr. Mark Smith Credit:

The effect of climate change on water will be the main subject at the ministerial segment of the Fifth World Water Forum, a gathering of some 20,000 participants in Istanbul Mar. 16-22 on the future of water.

Smith, who specialises in hydrology, agriculture and forestry, advises “more robust water systems” to cope with extreme droughts and floods. Warming is likely to continue even if “our emissions of greenhouse gases stopped tomorrow,” he says. Preparedness is needed for “the new and dynamic climate, instead of the climate we’re used to.”

Author of ‘Just One Planet: Poverty, Justice and Climate Change’, Smith worked earlier for the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. He has also been advisor to the British development NGO Practical Action.

Excerpts from the interview:

IPS: What is some of the main impact of climate change on water? Mark Smith: The major impacts from climate change we hear people talking about are droughts, floods, storms, melting ice and sea-level rise. All of these have one thing in common, and that’s water. So when we think about what the effects of climate change will be and how we will cope with them, we have to think about water. Water needs to be front and centre in how we adapt to climate change.

IPS: Which regions and countries will be affected most, and how? MS: If we think about drought, we need to look at places where climate models are projecting lower rainfall. Regions of most concern are the Mediterranean, Southern Africa, Central America and Central Asia. Also large parts of Australia, where of course there has been a very serious and long- running drought.

For flooding, it is low-lying river deltas that are of most concern. These are places where a large fraction of the world’s population lives – places like Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and mega-cities like Shanghai and New York. With melting glaciers, it is the Andes, and especially the Himalayas, which feed the great rivers that feed billions of people in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. In terms of sea-level rise, it is again low-lying river deltas, but also small islands that are most vulnerable.

IPS: Can climate change be prevented? MS: There is consensus in the scientific community that some climate change is now unavoidable. So even if our emissions of greenhouse gases stopped tomorrow, the concentrations already accumulated and the heat stored by the oceans as the atmosphere warms mean that warming would continue. What we can do is reduce how much warming ultimately occurs – and that is by seriously cutting man-made emissions of CO2 (carbon dioxide), methane and other greenhouse gases until their concentrations in the atmosphere can be stabilised.

IPS: What preparedness is recommended? MS: To prepare for climate change, we need to adapt. That means we need to build, operate infrastructure and organise the way we live in ways that are appropriate for the new and dynamic climate, instead of the climate we’re used to. Because of the expected impacts of climate change on water, adaptation of the way water is managed and the infrastructure used to store and drain water and deliver water services is a high priority.

We’ll need water management and water systems that can cope with more extremes of flood and drought for example. That means ensuring that infrastructure like dams and water treatment plants can cope. It also means ensuring that river basins and the ecosystem in them are in good shape and not degraded, because nature – or the natural infrastructure or river basins – helps to buffer people against climate impacts. Nature will help us to be resilient to climate change.

IPS: What is the leeway to take action against the impact of climate change? MS: We should start to adapt to climate change now – but fortunately, and especially for water, a big part of adapting to climate change is making river basins and water systems more robust. This is important and beneficial right now, even without climate change. So we can make a start with adapting to climate change by investing in good water management that is the right thing to do anyways.

IPS: Can climate change heighten potential conflicts over water? MS: For sure, in places where water scarcity is a source of tension, less rainfall and more drying of rivers because of climate change will only add to that tension. Conflict is then possible, especially when there are other political problems present, whether in communities or between nations.

Cooperation is an important principle in water management as a way of increasing and sharing benefits from water, and increasing cooperation in river basins will help with climate change adaptation, by building capacities to cope.

Excerpt:

For decades, isolated Israel could count on Turkey as its only Muslim friend, if not ally, in the tumultuous Middle East. After Israel’s assault on Gaza, that friendship is in doubt.

And Turkey, a bridge between East and West, was seen as a credible broker in mediating a settlement in the region. That, too, is now in doubt.

The ties between Turkey and Israel that had been simmering for a few weeks suddenly hit boiling point at the usually sedate World Economic Forum in Davos in Switzerland. Israeli President Shimon Peres and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan got into a public showdown over Gaza; Erdogan stormed out of a panel discussion with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Peres defended Israeli strikes as a response to rocket attacks by Hamas. Erdogan denounced Israeli raids and the death and destruction among civilians, many women and children among them, and on UN compounds.

The fine print of the confrontation was that Erdogan, despite the reports in most media, did not storm out of the meeting because of Peres. He had said his bit to Peres in no uncertain terms (“Israel knows how to kill well”) and was elaborating when moderator David Ignatius of The Washington Post said the panel discussion was running over the allocated time, and persistently attempted to cut off Erdogan.

Erdogan collected his notes and stormed out, telling Ignatius: “You gave him 23 minutes and only 13 to me.”

In a reported telephone call to Erdogan after the incident, Peres praised longstanding Turkish-Israel ties, and expressed the hope they would continue unhindered. But for the time being, and for some time to come, gone are any major joint Israeli-Turkish projects in many fields, certainly the military one.

“There is a storm, but it will blow over,” Istanbul-based French author Jerome Bastion told IPS. “Turkey and Israel are too important to each other, and Turkey is too important for the Middle East.”

Some consider that view too optimistic. “There is damage and it will take time to repair,” Ilter Turan, political science professor and a former vice-president of the International Political Scientists Association told IPS.

Turkey is now seen as taking sides in the Israel-Palestine quagmire to a degree that its potential as an ‘honest broker’ is questioned. Until a few weeks before Israel’s Gaza onslaught, Turkey was playing the go-between in negotiations between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights that Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 war.

“Turkey’s credibility as an objective mediator has been undermined,” says Turan. “Its close relationship with Hamas makes it difficult to have relations with others.”

Following his walkout, Erdogan has become a folk hero of the Arabs, particularly in Gaza, unlike other “conservative and cautions” leaders in the region, writes chief editorialist of the daily Sabah Mehmet Barlas.

The opposite, inevitably is the response among Jews. “Prime Minister Erdogan’s tantrum at Davos throws gasoline on the fire of surging anti- Semitism,” David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee was quoted as saying in Turkey’s English language Daily News. “There has been a worrying surge of anti-Semitism in Turkey in recent weeks.”

Through the assault, the Turkish public sided squarely with Palestinians in Gaza, denouncing Israel at mass demonstrations and collecting funds. There is little in the protests that is anti-Semitic, but media picked on a placard at a restaurant saying ‘No entry to Jews’.

Normally, as a sign of sympathy with Jews, Turks point out that their forbearers, the Ottomans, accepted Jews to the empire after they were expelled from Spain in the 15th century. Turkey, which now has a thriving Jewish community of some 20,000, recognised Israel long before Egypt did. Turkey and Israel once considered building a pipeline or a tanker route to ship fresh water from Turkey to Israel, but the project was found too costly.

The Davos spat has suddenly called into question such assumed ties. Through his outburst, Erdogan has certainly raised his stature at home. He was welcomed home with signs of ‘World Leader’ and ‘Conqueror of Davos’.

The flap may have a little to do with personality, and not just politics. Erdogan is known to be a firebrand – with impulsive mood swings from charming to damning. As he said after Davos, he does not belong to the ‘Mon Cher (‘My Dear’) crowd of affable and cautious diplomats trained in the best tradition of the French diplomatic lexicon. He comes “from the seeds of politics,” telling it as it is.

In a sharp break from the past, Palestinian flags were hoisted at the boisterous post-midnight welcome for Erdogan at Istanbul airport, and Turkish flags fluttered in Gaza at a gratitude demonstration. It will be a long time before Turkish and Israeli flags adorn one another’s countries.

The “Mon Cher” diplomatic world has its work cut out.

In widespread sweeps, dozens of prominent personalities have been detained in Turkey – among them retired generals, active officers, academics and journalists – on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the Islamic-rooted government.

The opposition is crying foul, and sees it as a move to stifle dissent and engage in vendetta because of their earlier attempts to ban religious parties.

Turkey, the first Muslim country aspiring for European Union membership, appears still saddled with coups and coup plots, that the EU has long been free of.

The country has had four of its elected governments booted out by the military since the introduction of multi-party democracy in 1950. The armour intervened against perceived Islamic militancy to protect a secular order it considers its mission to preserve.

And there may still be plots to overturn the administration of the country’s Islamic-inspired government under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, according to the new allegations.

Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said the detentions were aimed at ridding the country of clandestine gangs and to make it more democratic. “Turkey is cleansing its intestines,” he said.

What is at stake in ‘the trial of the century’ of the detained persons could decide the future of a major member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) caught in a dogfight between entrenched secular forces, and political Islam with wide popular support.

“The case certainly has political overtones,” Jerome Bastion, Istanbul-based French author and analyst of Turkish politics told IPS. “There also are legal grounds for accusations, but the way the accused were detained creates doubts.” Some were hauled in during post-midnight raids at their homes.

Now backing the prosecution, the ruling party was at the receiving end last year when a different set of prosecutors asked for it to be banned for being a hotbed of Islamist agitation. In a cliff-hanger trial, the 11-member Constitutional Court condemned the party as charged but shied away by a single vote from closing it down.

The ruling party called that trial an attempt by secular prosecutors to stage a “judicial coup” against a party that had come to power with a massive 47 percent of the vote. Now, it is the reverse. The party in power leads the prosecution, and the secular opponents are calling this a witch-hunt.

Those arrested now “have one thing in common: their enmity to AKP,” says Ahmet Yalvac, a restaurant owner in Istanbul. “I am not sure if innocent ones are not being taken in just because of their views.”

The 100 or so who stand accused are so diverse that doubts are being raised whether they knew each other, and how they could have worked to topple the government. The mastermind has yet to be found, if there ever was one.

The indictment says the plotters did not plan direct moves to take control of the government, but conspired to create internal chaos through targeted assassinations and bombings that would entice the military to take over once again.

The top military brass, which still sees itself as protector against both external and internal threats to the established secular order, has not taken sides openly so far. But it is irked. Some senior officers and a slew of retired generals are among those detained. The military has expressed its sympathy with arrested generals through courtesy visits to them in jails.

Senior commanders met urgently last week, and Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilter Basbug held an unscheduled meeting with Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, both founders of the AKP.

The military, subject only to nominal civilian authority, had openly opposed Gul’s ascendancy to presidency. It occasionally expresses views differing from the government.

Some of the retired military leaders charged are the ones who were active in driving an Islamist-led coalition from power in a “coup-by-communiqué” in 1997 – when the army threatened to step in unless the government stepped down. The government collapsed.

This time the traditional secular parties are weak, and secular opposition to the ruling party is being led by the media, academics and not least the military, which never stops watching and, when it judges necessary, marches in.

The country trying to integrate itself into the EU has produced no more coups yet, but it is not short of reports of coup plots.