This week's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris certainly does not inform us about the climate problems facing the world. Instead, world leaders will address a number of major topical issues from the economic crisis to global terror. Actually, all the topics being discussed have a common ground - industrialized countries still impose their own interests on other countries in a number of topics including economic policies, as well as the sharing and use of energy resources, and put forward proposals for problems in accordance with those interests.

I do not think the climate summit will thoroughly address how the global temperature will reach the same level as before the Industrial Revolution. This is because the return of the global climate to its pre-Industrial Revolution levels is only possible with a change of paradigm that was imposed on humanity by the Industrial Revolution. Actually, what gave rise to all hot and frozen conflict areas in the Middle East and the rest of the world is energy resources and market contention, which emerged with the Industrial Revolution. The cause of terrorism in the Middle East is that energy resources in the region have been ruthlessly plundered and collaborative administrations have come to power as dictatorships and oligarchical regimes in the entirety of the region for nearly 300 years. Industrialized countries do not address this aspect of the matter and their most radical suggestion is to purify the world of carbon emissions. Interestingly enough, they suggest that this should start from the countries that have no access to energy. For instance, they want the use of fossil fuels to be dramatically restricted in countries like India, where 300 million people cannot access electricity. Moreover, the transfer of funds from industrialized countries to developing countries falters, as developing countries face high public deficits.

So, it is not possible to resolve the world's major problems such as climate change and poverty with industrialized countries' approaches that highlight their own interests. This is because all of these questions and the terror that accompanies them challenge the consequences of the process that started with the Industrial Revolution. First of all, industrialized countries should give up controlling the energy resources of the poor, which they have seized so far, and their policies that set poor countries against each other. The true owners of energy resources are the ones who can most efficiently and justifiably use them. This will be the first step toward a world where everyone feels at ease and terror stops. For the world to switch to cleaner, more reliable, renewable and technology-intensive energy resources, the first step is to share carbon energy resources in a fair way. The main reason for present civil wars and terror is the unfair sharing of carbon energy resources and market contention over these resources.

Apart from this, it is not possible for developed countries to end the climate summit with a conclusive resolution due to their own domestic policies and their conflicts with each other. For instance, Republicans in the U.S. Senate will not approve any decision that runs against the interests of oil monopolies and military-industrial structures that dominated the 20th century. In this respect, neither during the Paris climate summit nor other similar summits will the U.S. approve any decisions that impose such obligations on itself.

Just like all other summits being held nowadays, this climate summit will witness developed countries striving to resolve topical issues, such as terror, in line with their own interests. This being the case, we will not see solutions, but deadlocks.

Let's discuss the Syrian crisis and the recent crisis between Turkey and Russia in this context. The Syrian civil war and the involvement of many states from Russia to Iran in this war indicate a new scramble for markets and energy resources. This contention also aims to curb Turkey's current and potential regional power.

Likewise, Germany's oppositional attitude toward Turkey nowadays is driven with the same motive. Since West Germany reunified with East Germany in 1990, it has regarded Eastern Europe and the Balkan region as its own backyard and natural colony. The disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s was a result of a German-made Balkanization process and, indeed, it was a post-Nazi occupation. Germany wants to reign over Eastern Europe and the Balkans by controlling the energy that flows from Russia and by seizing markets and the financial structure of these regions. During the period that followed Russia's annexation of Crimea, Germany pretended to retreat from the region. However, it is abandoning this retraction nowadays. Germany wants to reign over African and Mediterranean markets and energy transits through Egypt. Obviously, it wants to create an alternative to Turkey's Southern Gas Corridor (SGC). Russia and Germany act in unison in an implicit way on this issue.

So, Russia took advantage of Turkey downing its fighter jet, which insistently violated Turkish airspace, and deployed S-400 missile defense systems in Latakia. However, this does not disturb the EU and Turkey realizes that the EU, particularly Germany, is playing a double game here. It is possible to say that just like in the Cold War period, Russia and the West attach a priority to sharing energy resources and market places without disturbing each other and by opening spheres for each other.

Let us note that the world is no longer a 20th century world. Developing countries, particularly those in the Pacific region, have significant economic and political weight now and it is no longer possible to return to a bipolar world again. For instance, Russia cannot continue its Eurasian union only with Belarus and Kazakhstan and it has to convince other countries such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. To this end, Russia first needs to change its perspective and policies on Turkey, and further, it needs to consider Turkey as an important dynamic of the Eurasian union.

This goes for Turkey-EU relations as well. For instance, the Germany-led EU had a single concern during last week's Turkey-EU summit: This was the question of how it will keep refugees from the EU's doors and how to make them stay in Turkey. I wonder whether the EU has yet understood that it cannot lay this burden on Turkey by just granting 3 billion euros for refugees.

The EU can resolve this question only by adopting a sincere attitude toward Turkey's EU membership. One cannot help but ask why the EU does not open Chapter 15 and Chapter 31, the former is on energy issues while the latter is about external security, although Turkey primarily insists on them, and instead opens Chapter 17, which concerns economic and monetary policies.