The human cost of terrorism has been felt in
virtually every corner of the globe. The United Nations
family has itself suffered tragic human loss as a result of
violent terrorist acts. The attack on its offices in Baghdad on
19 August 2003 claimed the lives of the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General, Sergio Vieira de
Mello, and 21 other men and women, and injured over 
others, some very seriously. Terrorism clearly has a very real
and direct impact on human rights, with devastating
consequences for the enjoyment of the right to life, liberty
and physical integrity of victims. In addition to these
individual costs, terrorism can destabilize governments,
undermine civil society, jeopardize peace and security, and
threaten social and economic development. All of these also
have a real impact on the enjoyment of human rights.
Security of the individual is a basic human right and
the protection of individuals is, accordingly, a fundamental
obligation of government. States therefore have an obligation
to ensure the human rights of their nationals and others by
taking positive measures to protect them against the threat of
terrorist acts and bringing the perpetrators of such acts to
justice.
In recent years, however, the measures adopted by
States to counter terrorism have themselves often posed
serious challenges to human rights and the rule of law. Some
States have engaged in torture and other ill-treatment to
counter terrorism, while the legal and practical safeguards
available to prevent torture, such as regular and independent
monitoring of detention centres have often been disregarded.

“Since 9/11, there have been over 2,300 arrests
connected to Islamist terrorism in Europe in contrast to about
60 in the United States.” Thus writes Marc Sageman in his
influential new book, Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks
in the Twenty-First Century (University of Pennsylvania
Press).
This one statistical comparison inspires Sageman, in
a chapter he calls The Atlantic Divide, to draw sweeping
conclusions about the superior circumstances of American
Muslims. “The rate of arrests on terrorism charges per capita
among Muslims is six times higher in Europe than in the
United States.” The reason for this discrepancy, he argues,
“lies in the differences in the extent to which these respective
Muslim communities are radicalized.” He praises “American
cultural exceptionalism”, admonishes European governments
“to avoid committing mistakes that risk the loss of good will
in the Muslim community,” and urges Europeans to learn
from Americans.
Sageman’s argument rehashes what Spencer
Ackerman wrote in a New Republic cover story of late 2005,
when he found that “Europe’s growing Muslim culture of
alienation, marginalization, and jihad isn’t taking root” in the
United States.
But Sageman’s entire case is premised on the
figures of 2,300 and 60 arrests. Aside from possible other
causal explanations for these differences, such as the
European legal system permitting more latitude to make
terrorism-related arrests, are those figures even correct? He
supports them with only a brief, vague footnote: “Updating
Eggen and Tate, 2005; Lustick 2006: 151-52 agrees with this
estimate.” Here, “Eggen and Tate, 2005” refers to a two-part
newspaper article and “Lustick 2006” sources a discredited
extremist screed.

En el año 2007 el cambio climático logró por fin
situarse en la agenda política global como uno de los grandes
problemas que afronta la humanidad. Así lo reflejaron las
conclusiones del Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio
Climático (IPCC), y su importancia también quedó
constatada en la concesión del premio Nobel de la Paz al
citado organismo y al ex vicepresidente de los Estados
Unidos de América del Norte, Al Gore.
Pero, además, cobró fuerza y visibilidad una
dimensión hasta ahora poco estudiada del fenómeno: el
cambio climático como posible fuente de tensiones y
conflictos. Una muestra de ello es que el año pasado, por
primera vez, el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU debatió
sobre el cambio climático como amenaza para la paz y la
seguridad global.
Los efectos del cambio climático amenazan la paz
y la estabilidad en amplias regiones del mundo,
especialmente en aquellas donde vienen a sumarse a una
situación de fragilidad estatal, gobiernos débiles, problemas
económicos e inestabilidad. Su combinación con los
problemas socioeconómicos y políticos puede agravar
tensiones ya existentes y dar lugar a la escalada de las
mismas e incluso a conflictos armados.
Según la organización internacional Alert, 46 países
en los que viven 2.700 millones de personas están en claro
riesgo de sufrir conflictos violentos, mientras en otros 56 las
instituciones tendrán serios problemas para gestionar los
efectos de este fenómeno, ya que éste se sumará a los retos
ya presentes.
Las regiones más afectadas serían África, el centro
y sur de Asia y zonas de América Latina, como la región
andina. Se trata de algunas de las regiones más pobres del
mundo.
Hay varias formas en las que el cambio climático
puede generar tensión e incluso conflictos. Una de ellas es la
competencia por recursos cada vez más escasos. El avance
de la desertificación y el cambio en los patrones
pluviométricos pueden provocar el agotamiento de las
cosechas y en último término aumentar la inseguridad
alimentaria. 430 millones de personas ya viven actualmente
con escasez de agua, y todas las predicciones del IPCC
indican que este número aumentará.
Un ejemplo de ello podría ser la guerra en Darfur
(Sudán), que se ha calificado como el primer conflicto del
cambio climático. Aunque las interpretaciones más
frecuentes lo explican como un enfrentamiento de raíces
étnicas entre árabes y africanos, la realidad es más compleja.
Hay que tener en cuenta el enfrentamiento por la tierra y las
fuentes de agua entre poblaciones agrícolas sedentarias y
pastores nómadas que tradicionalmente habían compartido
los recursos, pero que ahora tienen más difícil hacerlo por el
avance del desierto.

Sageman believes the proportion of people who are
imprisoned for Islamist terrorism is lower in the United States than in Europe.

Based on the text above, it can be deduced that.

A UN agency rolled out a $ 214 million program
Tuesday to help 16 needy places hit hard by high prices for food
and oil, amid a crisis already making it hard for aid groups to
provide enough food for the world’s hungry.
The World Food Program said almost 1 billion poor
people around the world are struggling to survive amid the higher
prices. The agency is trying to reach those in critical need of
assistance in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean.
“Food prices are not abating, and the world’s most
vulnerable have exhausted their coping strategies”, said Josette
Sheeran, the agency’s executive director. “Our action plan is
targeted and customized to help the most vulnerable meet their
urgent needs.”
The plan will provide assistance to groups such as
pregnant women, undernourished children and people living in
urban areas affected most by the food crisis.
The Rome-based agency also hopes to cut transportation
costs and help support farmers in countries where emergency
food can be bought locally.
But the agency already faces “obstacles” in procuring
food, particularly when trying to buy supplies locally,
spokeswoman Brenda Barton said.
“At the markets we have been buying food it has become
just too expensive”, Barton told The Associated Press by
telephone. And she added: “a lot of markets just don’t have any
food to buy.”

farmers may take part in the emergency food program.

Juzgue los ítems en relación al texto de encima.

El cambio climático puede llegar a contribuir al surgimiento
de conflictos armados.

Del texto se puede inferir que la seguridad alimentaria
depende del mantenimiento de los patrones pluviométricos.

Las poblaciones agrícolas sedentarias de Darfur no
comparten más el agua con los pastores nómadas al haber
avanzado la desertificación.

Questões de Inglês - Agente - Inteligência