Historical Injustices Part 2: Kurdistan

The Kurdish Question

The Kurdish Question, on the other hand, is one that is quite complex because people of this ethnic group span four countries namely Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The Kurds have had a long and illustrious history in the Middle East, with an individual like Salah-ad-Din (Saladin in European history), the sultan of Syria and Egypt who fought against Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades, being of Kurdish origin. Despite this history, however, the Kurds have been victims of some of the worst injustices in recent history.

Because of both European and Middle Eastern imperialism, they have ended up in a precarious position where they do not have a nation-state to call their homeland. Instead, the land that they have occupied historically has become a part of four states. In Turkey, the Kurds have faced considerable repression because of their agitation for independence, with their liberation movement, the PKK, being labeled a terrorist organization.

The failure by the international community to do anything constructive towards ensuring that the Kurdish voice is heard is a sign that it has accepted the status quo and it not willing to bring about a change to the conditions that the Kurds are experiencing. The only country in the Middle East that has seen a considerable improvement in the lives of its Kurdish population is post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. In this country, the Kurds live in an autonomous region, with its own government, and under the nominal authority of the Iraqi government, since the latter does not have the ability to enforce its authority over the region by force.

 In Turkey and Syria, however, the government of Turkey is determined to ensure that a similar situation to Iraq does not occur. Its actions in recent years, especially during the Syrian civil war have been to support those rebel groups in Syria that are against the Kurds. It has also become directly engaged militarily in Syria to ensure that the Kurds do not form their own state that will connect to Iraqi Kurdistan; resulting in greater agitation for independence from the Turkish Kurds.

Unlike the Palestinians, the Kurds have shown considerable determination to establish their own state, and have fought for this right for decades. Their actions during the Syrian civil war has earned them international respect because they have been shown as one of the most effective forces on the ground, in addition to the Syrian government and its allies, capable of effectively fighting, and defeating ISIS. The effectiveness of the Kurdish forces in Syria has ensured that if Turkey attempts to thwart the formation of a Kurdish state in Syria, tentatively named Rojava, it will come at a high cost.

Historical Injustices Part 1: Palestine

In the contemporary world, numerous historical injustices have yet to be comprehensively addressed. These span the entire globe, with a significant number of them happening in non-Western countries. This case, however, will address two of these injustices, namely the Palestinian and the Kurdish Questions, in an attempt to analyze whether seeking justice for them is still feasible. We begin with the Palestinian Question because it is one of the most well-known in the world, with numerous attempts having been made to bring about an amicable solution between the parties involved.

The Palestinian Question

The Palestinian issue has been ongoing since 1948, when Israel was declared a state and a homeland for all the Jews in the world. This state was formed in land long settled by Palestinians and the creation of this state by immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world, was not taken well by the natives of the land. The result has been that since then, Israelis and Palestinians (with their allies) have fought numerous wars and seen considerable tensions that have led to a situation where the Palestinians have lost a majority of their homeland.

A large number of Palestinians have ended up in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and others have become part of the Palestinian diaspora, especially in Western countries. Through its systematic expansion of its settlements in the occupied lands of Palestine, Israel has been able to disposes the Palestinians without much international criticism. Furthermore, some settlements in the occupied territories have existed for several generations, resulting in a situation where a status quo has been created. It is unlikely that the Jewish settlers will accept to leave homes that they have occupied for many years in order to make way for the formation of a Palestinian state. Any attempt to remove them has the potential of causing considerable conflict with whatever party that is involved. In addition, such a move would not be feasible because of the military superiority of Israel over the various Palestinian factions, which has forced the continued subjugation of Palestinians in their own land to date.

The two-state solution that has been promoted for decades is no longer feasible. This is because of the considerable number of settlements that have been created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian lands. Therefore, in order for lasting peace to be achieved, serious consideration for a one-state solution has to be put on the table. This is because Israel has already established its dominance over the entire land, and while they may have their own government, Palestinians are still essentially subject to Israel.

Instead of continuing to seek a two state solution that will never materialize, it would be better for both parties to make use of the current status quo to further the objective of establishing a single state for both Israelis and Palestinians. All that needs to be done is for Palestinians to be given the same rights and privileges as their Israeli counterparts in exchange for their giving up on their national identity and becoming a part of a multicultural society. Such a move could effectively lead to the end of one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

The Extension of Russian Sanctions is Ill-advised

The Trump administration, through its UN ambassador, recently stated that the eruption of violence in eastern Ukraine was Russia’s fault and that as a result, sanctions are going to remain in place. This action is likely to be considered hostile by Russia especially considering that the crisis in Ukraine can be blamed on both sides of the conflict. Since the election of President Trump, a considerable amount of optimist has developed in Russia that its government is going to work well with the United States to ensure that some of the most critical issues that are of common interest are addressed. The beginning of such a relationship was to be promoted by a lifting of sanctions, leading to the normalization of relations. However, this hope has receded slightly because of the American decision to extend sanctions.

The sanctions regime against Russia fails to put into consideration that it was the Obama administration, rather than Russia, which started the Ukraine crisis. It was American agents, under the direction of undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland, that instigated and facilitated the so-called Maidan Revolution that led to the overthrow of a legitimately and democratically elected president. Ukraine was not an
d has never been a part of what can be considered the traditional American sphere of influence. Instead, it has consistently been a part of the Russian world. Ukraine, specifically the city of Kyiv, is considered the cradle of the Russian civilization and both Russia and Ukraine consider themselves to be descended from Kievan Rus. The close linguistic and familial ties that many Russians and Ukrainians share cannot be underestimated, and this is the reason why the crisis in Ukraine is so tragic.

Ukraine has a long history of being under Russian dominance and there was a time when most of its eastern parts were known Novorossiya, or New Russia. Its close ties to Russia cannot be denied and it is in Russia’s interests to ensure that it has friendly relations with Ukraine. This was the case until the crisis, encouraged by the Obama administration, took place. The Russian reaction to the revolution in Ukraine was highly restrained because even though its ally and democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown and a nationalist government put in his place, Russia did not undertake a full-scale invasion. Russia, instead, undertook two measured actions; the return of Crimea without bloodshed, and the provision of support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine. If, for example, a similar circumstance as the Maidan Revolution had taken place in Mexico with the active support of Russia, the United States would have acted to ensure that Russian influence was pushed back because it would have been considered a threat to its nationalsecurity. The fact that there is indeed a rebellion in eastern Ukraine shows that the Maidan Revolution did not have the support of the entire Ukrainian population. Instead, the revolution brought about a situation where the country ended up being dominated by a government filled by nationalist elements that leaned towards fascism. In addition, if it were truly a genuine government, it would have sought to implement the Minsk Agreements by giving the eastern Ukrainian oblasts the autonomy that it had promised; allowing for their participation in the national elections. Currently, the government in Kyiv is dominated by western Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to any attempts to end the civil war. The result is that it is in their interest to ensure that a conflict with Russian-backed rebels continues in order for them to have some claim to legitimacy. Therefore, it is wrong for the Trump administration to continue sanctions against Russia, which essentially remains an outside actor, because despite Russian support for the rebels, it is up to the Ukrainians themselves to get to the negotiations table and sort out their own problems.