Who are Kurds and What they are Fighting For?

YPJ Fighters: Kurdish Female-Only Brigade

By: Azhar Azam

Following a conversation between Donald Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the United States announced the withdrawal of entire about 2,000 troops from Syria – revoking its support for Kurds in Syria and handing over their future to Turkey.

Turkish armed forces are preparing to march into Syria to drive Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militias out of Rojawa (Western Kurdistan) in northern Syria. As of now, SDF controls one-third of Syria, known as Kurdish region in Syria.

After US abrupt betrayal, the Kurdistan administration in northern Syria is looking at Russia to press Bashar al-Assad to protect their territory from fast-approaching Turkish offensive. Last week, a Kurdish delegation also visited Moscow to seek Russian support.

WHO ARE KURDS?

Kurds are the largest stateless nation in the world and fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East. Kurdish ethnic domains rim on the territories of other three major ethnic groups in the region – the Arabs to the south; the Persian to the east; and the Turks to the west.

In the absence of an independent state, Kurdistan is defined as the areas in which Kurds constitute an ethnic majority. There are about 35-40 million Kurds, who originate from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Armenia, and Turkey as well as located all around the world.

Akin to Arabs – Kurds are an ethnic group, not a distinct religious sect in Islam. The majority of the Kurds are Sunni Muslim, with a small minority of Shia Muslim and some non-Muslim such as Christians, Jewish, and Yezidi communities.

All three ethnic and religious groups – Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, and Shia Arabs – share core religious beliefs in Allah and Prophet Mohammad ﷺ. More than 90% in each group said that they fast in the holy month of Ramadan.

KURDS IN SYRIA

SDF is an alliance of largely Kurdish and other Arab, Turkmen, Assyrian, and Armenian militias fighting against Islamic State, Al-Nusra Front, and other Jihadi groups in the Syrian Civil War. Its objective is to establish and protect the federal region, Rojawa.

Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat (PYD) or Democratic Union Party is the crux of the SDF. It is a branch of Turkey’s Kurdistan worker’s Party (PKK) and operates two armed wings in Syria – People’s Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ).

YPG surfaced on the world arena in 2012 after it forced Syrian Arab Army out of the Kurdish populated regions. After the siege of Kobanî by ISIS in September 2014, it demonstrated sensational and determined resistance against the DAESH.

With the help of US-led coalition airstrikes and Free Syrian Army (FSA), the YPG eventually defeated the Islamic State and recaptured Kobanî in January 2015. The battle of Kobanî is considered a turning point in the war against Islamic State.

PYD’s YPJ is a female-only brigade, which accounts for about 40% of total Kurdish fighters. Grown through the Kurdish military campaign, the YPG played a crucial role to take back the control of Kobanî from Islamic State. It has around 10,000 volunteer female fighters.

KURDS IN TURKEY

The founding of PYD dates back to the banning of Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) or Kurdistan Worker’s Party in Turkey, after which many PKK-sympathetic Kurds emigrated to Rojawa and formed a Kurdish organization (PYD) in Syria.

Imprisoned in Turkey, Abdullah Öcalan is the founding member of PKK, which was instituted in 1978. Revered as ideological leader of Kurds across the region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria) – Öcalan called for independent state in Turkey.

Widely referred as Apo – Uncle – he has been launching attacks in Turkey from Syria in late 1980s and 1990s. He was forced to flee Syria after Turkey responded with intensive counter-insurgency backlashes and was arrested from Kenya – and was latter extradited to Turkey for prosecution.

KCK (Koma Civakên Kurdistan) or Kurdistan Communities Union is the political arm of PKK in Turkey and has offshoots and affiliates in Syria (PYD/YPG/YPJ); Iran (PJAK or Kurdistan Free Life Party); and Iraq (Tawgari Azadi).

About half of the Kurds in the Middle East live in Turkey – where they are 20% of the total Turkish Population. As the constitution of Modern Turkey rebuffs the existences of any ethnic sub-groups in the country, the Kurds perceive thorough suppression.

Therefore, Ankara has consistently shut down any Kurdish effort to politically organize in the country – designating any act of Kurdish nationalism a punishable offense to imprisonment. It outlawed Kurdish in Turkey language until 1991.

Turkey declares PKK a terrorist organization – accusing its ideology based on revolutionary Marxist-Leninism and separatist ethno-nationalist. It also charges PKK for the killings of more than 40,000 people since its military insurgency began in 1984.

On the other hand, Kurds believe that they have been politically marginalized and persecuted particularly by Turkey and Iraq. Kurds in Syria are seeking a greater autonomy or completely independent Kurdish state.

KURDS IN IRAQ

After the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi Kurds succeeded to achieve establish an autonomous state – Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) – in 1992, with autonomy in three provinces. In 2005, KRG gained increased privileges including maintaining their own army on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

The Kurdish region in Iraq now houses 5.2 million population and four governorates – Erbil, Slemani, Duhok, and Halabja – comprising 40,000 square kilometers. KRG is larger than the Netherlands and four-times of the Lebanese area.

However, the Kurds of Iraq they are yet to declare independence – shouldering that such an action would enrage Turkey that would not accept an independent Kurdish state in the neighborhood and might scratch the strong Kurdish nationalist movement in Turkey as well.

Additionally, Iraqi-Kurdistan is also landlocked and has to rely on Iranian, Syrian, and Turkish for land and air communication – one of the most important factors preventing them to declare independence, especially if the Arab Iraq adopts a more hostile line toward the new state.

Marc Lamont Hill is not the Only American Who Pans Israel for Repressing Palestinians

By: Azhar Azam

In his gripping speech at the on November 28, Marc Lamont Hill – CNN Commentator and Professor at Temple University – roasted Israel for restricting freedom and impairing equality for Israeli Palestinians as well as those in West Bank and Gaza.

While commemorating the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinian people, he said that there are more than sixty Israeli laws that deny Palestinians access to full citizenship rights simply because they are not Jewish.

‘Palestinians continue to be physically and psychologically tortured by Israeli criminal judicial system, a term I can only use with irony.’ Hill also slated Israel for routinely keeping Palestinians in solitary confinements and indefinite detentions.

Talking about Nakba – the great catastrophe in May 1948 that resulted in the expulsion, murder, and permanent dislocation of over a million Palestinians – Hill criticized international community for depriving Palestinians the most of fundamental human rights.

He also panned American presidents including Trump for not taking principled and actionable position in defense of Palestinian rights and voiced ‘as an American, I am embarrassed that my tax dollars contribute to this reality’.

‘Solidarity from the international community demands that we embrace boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) as a critical means by which to hold Israel accountable for its treatment of Palestinian people.’

Hill concluded that the international community has the opportunity to take political, grassroots, local, and international action that is what justice requires – ‘and that is a free Palestine from river to the sea’.

The statement ‘a free Palestine from river to the sea’ – often associated with Hamas and refers to extending Palestine borders from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – was deliberated as anti-Semitic or against the Jews.

As a result, he was fired by the US cable news network (CNN) within next 24 hours.

Hill responded on twitter ‘I support Palestinian freedom. I support Palestinian self-determination. I am deeply critical of Israeli policy and practice. I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people or any of the other things attributed to my speech’.

The sacking of Hill as a CNN contributor after his oration in the United Nations triggered a widespread debate in the United States about the limitation of freedom of speech, when it comes to Israel or anti-Semitism.

Hill is not the only American who has shown his laments toward Israeli tyranny on Palestinians and criticized US presidents’ profound silence on Israeli atrocities on Palestinians. They are increasing number of Americans who maintain the same opinion.

In a recent University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll, American Views of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, fielded by Nielson Scarborough – 38% of the all adult surveyed Americans (including 55% of Democrats and 19% Republicans) believed that Israeli government has ‘too much influence’ on American politics and policies.

Only 9% of the online survey participants thought that Israelis have ‘too little influence’, while 48% (including 69% Republicans and 31% Democrats) of the Americans termed it ‘about the right level of influence’.

The younger Americans (aged 18-34 years) – 44% – were more convinced that Israeli government has ‘too much influence’ on American politics and policies, as compared to 35+ years aged people, who considered it to be 36%.

When asked about Trump administration role in mediating Israeli-Palestine conflict, 62% of all Americans (including 67% youths) suggested that it should ‘lean toward neither side’; an increase of 3% from 2017 poll that found 59% Americans had the same view.

Americans were almost tied when quizzed about ‘a two-state solution’ or ‘one-state solution’. 36% supported a two-state solution: Israel and Palestine side by side and Palestine would be established on the territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

35% of the all Americans opined for one-state solution: a single democratic state – covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories – with full and equal citizenship rights for both Jews and Arabs.

On the constructions of illegal Israeli settlements after 1967, the poll showed that 40% Americans believed to either impose some economic sanctions through the UN or unilaterally or take more serious action against Israel.

An overwhelming majority of Democrats (56%) supported such intensive measures against the government of Israel; 26% Republicans endorsed the Democrats also for sanctions on Israel, despite having little awareness on Hill’s backed BDS movement.

Reacting in a podcast last week over his dismissal from CNN on November 29 – Hill said ‘I think it was a hasty decision (by CNN). I disagree with the decision. And the history will vindicate that the claims I made’.

Quite a few other people came out to defend Hill and blasted the cable network for providing much airtime to the racists, the white supremacists, and the climate change deniers but firing Hill in no time.

Former CNN host Soledad O’Brien was also one of those. She tweeted “this exactly – they give a platform – and their credibility – to racists/white supremacists, all in the name of ‘hearing them out’ (which is rating plot btw)”.

Temple University, that employs Hill as Professor of Media Studies and Urban Education, also came under pressure to fire him, but Pennsylvania-based institution avoided any such act – recognizing his First Amendment rights.

On December 11, Temple University released a bamboozled statement that condemned Hill’s remarks in the UN – ‘disappointment, displeasure, and disagreement’ – while at the same time, supporting his Constitutional right to speak as a private individual.

Albeit all psychosomatic stabbings and detrimental career-ending tactics, Professor Marc Lamont Hill still stands by his stance on supporting Palestine and knocking Israel.

‘I am OK, profoundly OK’, the academic says.

Arms Industry: Bombing East to Securing Peace

By: Azhar Azam

Folks around the world should not be stumped by SIPRI’s fieriest data which bares that the sales of top-100 arms producing and military services providing conglomerates (excluding China) soared by 2.5% to $398.2 billion in 2017.

The massive spending on arms is essentially the value that is a part of the larger national arms procurement plans of several countries to support their native arms industry, in the name of modernizing their armed forces.

Ironically, either the state-controlled and arms manufacturers-influenced media represents it as arms exports or international arms sales to mask the massive arms spending, which is fueled by overseas military operations such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

According to the independent think tank on global arms transfers, the arms sales worldwide totaled $376.2 billion and $372.4 billion in 2016 and 2015 respectively. The arms sales peaked to $420.4 billion in 2010.

Courting back to US Congressional Research Service (CSR) December 2016’s report (p. 66) on arms transfers, the global arms deliveries equaled $46.2 billion in 2015 – just a fraction of $372.4 billion (2015) of arms sale worldwide.

The United States ($16.9bn); Russia ($7.2bn), France ($7.0bn), and China ($2.9bn) were the largest arms suppliers to the world in 2015, the CRS report noted. SIPRI’s third-largest arms producer, the United Kingdom, could export just $1.3bn of arms.

Based on SIPRI global arms sales and CSR global arms deliveries in 2015, there is a substantial difference of $326.2bn – echoing the fact that these arms were procured from domestic arms suppliers to spur international and regional conflicts.

Furthermore, SIPRI global arms production statistics mirrors that countries such as – the United States, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and India – have increased their spending on domestic arms procurement to support native arms industry.

Subsequently, the domestic arms companies of these countries have to be the inevitable winners in this deadly arms race – a regimen set by the United States and was followed by the rest in succeeding years.

SIPRI said that the arms sales of 42-US companies totaled $226.6 billion or 57% of the aggregate top-100 arms sales, implying that the US continues to spend more on arms procurement from its domestic arms manufacturers to seek global supremacy.

While the United States’ annual arms exports, at $16.9 billion, is only a fraction of its annual arms production – about 355.5 billion was empathetically spent on procuring arms and military services from US-based companies in 2015.

Lockheed Martin ($44.9bn); Boeing ($26.9bn), and Raytheon ($23.9bn) were the largest cash recipients of the US arms purchases in 2017. As much as, five US companies made to top-10 and eight to top-15 to SIPRI’s largest arms producers.

This year, Russian arms suppliers dethroned the counterparts from the United Kingdom to claim the second slot in the listing – producing $37.7 billion in arms sales behind the United States, accounting for 9.5% of global arms sales.

But again, CSR says that Russian worldwide arms deliveries amounted to $7.2 billion in 2015 against SIPRI’s Russian arms production of $33.5 billion for the same year – the remainder $26.3 billion was procured to counter the US global dominance.

A total of 10 Russian companies made to the SIPRI top-100. Just as the US, Russian arms suppliers also greatly fruited from the Kremlin’s increased outlay on arms ordering to modernize its armed forces, SIPRI senior researcher confirmed.

Almaz-Antey ($8.6bn), United Aircraft Corporation ($6.4bn), and United Shipbuilding Corporation ($5.0bn) have been ranked 10th, 14th, and 15th respectively in global arms production listing for 2017 by SIPRI.

Four Indian arms manufacturing companies are also included in top-100, with total arms sales of $7.5 billion – Indian Ordinance Factories ($2.7bn), Hindustan Aeronautics (2.6bn), Bharat Electronics ($1.4bn); and Bharat Dynamics ($880mn).

Although Indian media has been rejoicing India’s inclusion in top-100 but the fact remains that it historically has a very poor record in arms exports. To date, India has exported only small military articles such as light weapons, army uniforms, trucks etc.

Indian arms exports have still been hovering around only $400 million while it needs to import most of the components for its arms exports. The BrahMos Indian missile is made up of 65% imported components.

Last year, Indian army rejected an Indian-made riffle for a second consecutive year, after it failed the quality tests. Other Indian-made defense equipment like Arjun tanks, light combat aircrafts, and even bullet-proof jackets are inferior enough to castoff.

Nevertheless, India was the largest importer of major arms in 2013-17, accounting for 12% of global arms imports. Its arms imports had increased by 24% between 2008-12 and 2013-17, according to SIPRI.

Consequently, whether it is arms production or arms trade – it could be manifested that every year, about $400 billion of arms are bombed to kill millions by breeding conflicts and wars for global military and economic hegemony.

And South Asia, Middle East, and parts of Africa are the heart of this dirty game of the transnational powers, with the help of some regional allies – ensuring a peaceful West and an invariably destabilized East.

Stunting, Wasting Hits more than 200 million Children

By: Azhar Azam

Stunting or chronic undernutrition is impaired growth in children under five years of age due to limited access to food, health, and care.

Wasting or acute malnutrition is attributed to the children who are thin for their height because of acute food shortages and disease.

According to the Global Nutrition Report 2018 – 150.8 million children across the world are stunted; 50.5 million are wasted; and 38.3 million are overweight. In addition, about 20 million babies are born of low birth weight every year.

No less than 15.95 million children are affected by twin-burden, stunting and wasting – elevating the risk of child mortality. At the same time, 8.23 million children are encountered by another dual-effect of stunting and overweight.

Even though, stunting has declined in Asia from 38.1% in 2000 to 23.2% in 2017; still South Asia has the largest number of stunted children – 38.9%. WHO says that as of October 2018, 55% of stunted children globally are living in Asia and 39% are living in Africa.

Moreover, out of total of 50.5 million wasted children, more than half or 26.9 million children live in South Asia. According to WHO, a child that is wasted is 11 time more likely to die than a healthy child whereas wasting is currently killing 2 million children annually.

The study found that India as the country with the largest number of stunted children around the world – 46.6 million children – accounting for one third or close to 31% of global stunted children below the age of 5 years.

Nigeria (13.9 million) and Pakistan (10.7 million) are the next two countries, which are housing the largest stunted children. India (25.5 million), Nigeria (3.4 million), and Indonesia (3.3 million) are also the home of wasted children.

More than one-fifth of all overweight children are located in Ukraine, Albania, Libya, and Montenegro. Countries such as China, Indonesia, India, Egypt, the United States, Brazil, and Pakistan also host more than a million overweight children.

The paper further noted that anemia – deficiency in the number and quality of red blood cells or lower hemoglobin – prevails in one third of all the teenage girls and women under the reproductive age. Millions of women are still underweight.

While, the anemia problem in girls and women aged 15 to 49 years seems intractable at 32.8%, no country is on a track to achieve the anemia target, it said. Instead, 41% of the countries with high rate of anemia have no anemia target.

Only 5 countries are on track for 4 targets, 10 for 3 targets, and 44 for 1 target – out of 9 targets such as child overweight, child stunting, child wasting, exclusive breastfeeding, diabetes among women, diabetes among men, anemia in women of reproductive age, obesity among women, and obesity among men.

Outrageously, 100 out of 194 countries assessed including – the United States, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and UAE – are on track for 0 targets.

As much as 41 countries face significant multiple forms of malnutrition termed as ‘Triple Burden’ – childhood stunting, anemia (in adult women), and overweight (in adult women). Pakistan and India coexists in 26 countries with stunting and anemia while 54 countries are burdened by anemia and overweight.

In non-communicable diseases (NCDs), an alarming 422 million people are suffering from diabetes and 1.1 billion people have blood pressure. Shockingly, NCDs were responsible for 41 million deaths (71%) of total 57 million deaths in world in 2016.

Global Nutrition Targets 2025 of World Health Organization (WHO) aims at reduction of 40% stunting in children, 50% reduction in anemia, 30% reduction in low birth weight, freezing childhood overweight, at least 50% increase in the rate extensive breastfeeding, and maintain or 5% reduction in childhood wasting.

UN estimates that only $30 billion can eradicate hunger from the world and another $175 billion could end the extreme poverty from the entire planet in 20-years; the 2,043 richest holding $7.6 trillion in net wealth should come up to save our next generations.