Bhutan's Forgotten Refugees

If the mention of the small South Asia nation Bhutan brings any reaction to the reader, most likely it is a positive one. This is deservedly so, the country has been at the forefront of Gross National Happiness, an alternative to standard measures of GDP to indicate how well a country is performing. This has brought much scholarly intrigue and importantly examines the limitations of strictly using GDP. Bhutan is also seen as a paragon of transition from absolute monarchy to flourishing democracy. These are all things which deserve to be commended.

Unfortunately, Bhutan also has a more sinister history. This regards the much less publicized plight of its refugees. These refugees largely consist of people from the south of the country known as Lhotshampas. These are people of Nepali decent. They started crossing into the porous border in the late 1800s with large immigration throughout the 1900s, largely coming to Bhutan to work in low skill jobs. To stem the tide of immigration the government passed a law in 1958 claiming that only those who could prove their presence in Bhutan at least 10 years prior could become citizens, while also closing the border to all new Nepali migrants. This was massively ineffective and numbers of Lhotshampas swelled with a government that maintained little interest in actively policing the inflow of migrants. Things started to change in the late 1980s however. The beginning of the “one-nation one-people” policy marked this shift. This started when the first census in Bhutan, carried out in 1988, showed how large the Lhotshampas numbers were. They accounted officially for 28% of the population, unofficially numbers were likely as high as 30-40%. The reaction to this information was swift. Most Lhotshampas were labeled illegal immigrants according to the aforementioned 1958 law being applied to the information from this census. The government instituted efforts at targeting Lhotshampa culture in line with the “one-nation one-people” idea. Mandatory wearing of the Driglam Namzha, the national dress code that is used by the Bhutanese majority in the north, but was alien to these southerners, was instituted. In addition, schools were no longer allowed to teach in Nepali and replaced it with Dzongkha language which most Lhotshampas could not understand. Mass deportations then ensued. All this was met by violent ethnic unrest, and the calling for democracy and respect for minority rights on the part of the Lhotshampas. Brutal ethnic violence on both sides continued until 1993, with the Bhutanese army often forcing Lhotshampas to sign “Voluntary Migration Forms” stating their willingness to leave or coerced videotapes to the same effect to avoid international backlash.

These refugees largely settled in refugee camps in Nepal. These camps ended up taking over 100,000 refugees in, equivalent to 1/6 of Bhutan’s population. On a per capita basis this is one of the largest refugee populations ever. Nepal, despite stoking the violence and calling the violent Lhotshampa groups freedom fighters, refused to allow refugees to settle in Nepal, and was hesitant in even establishing the camps. Bhutan refused to take them back viewing them as non-citizens. Years of bilateral discussions between these two countries got nowhere. In 2001 this was meant to be rectified when Bhutan said it would take some refugees, but to this day not a single refugee has been repatriated to Bhutan. Bhutan’s unwillingness to take back their refugees, despite the rhetoric is clear. The process has been so slow that even the UN, notorious for inefficiency and a glacial pace, decided that another option would be needed. In 2008 the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) elected to start third country resettlement, largely to nations such as the US, Canada and Australia.

At the beginning of this year only around 34,000 refugees remained in Nepalese camps, the rest having been resettled. Though even there concerns remain. A recent report by the USA Center for Disease Control and Prevention noticed an alarmingly high suicide rate among Bhutanese refugees. Reasons for this include language barriers, worries about family at home and alarmingly high levels of PTSD, depression and anxiety. One thing is clear, whether it is the initial deportation, Nepal’s unwillingness to allow these refugees to reside in Nepal, or the West’s need to provide considerably more support, blame is widespread for the plight of these oft forgotten people. Lhotshampas have not benefited from the very democracy in Bhutan they first called for decades ago, nor, unfortunately, do they appear to have been calculated in anyone’s definition of Gross National Happiness. 

Surrendering Morals for Natural Gas in the EU

With tensions between Russia and the West at stratospheric levels not seen for decades, many questions arise. One of the most pertinent from the perspective of EU countries is how to replace Russian energy supplies, primarily natural gas and oil. The main weapon that Russia wields against the EU is in the form of gas exports. The Baltic Countries (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) and Finland currently rely on Russia as the sole supplier of their natural gas. While not all EU countries are forced to receive 100% of their natural gas from Russia, for many nations Russia dominates as an energy supplier. Countries within the EU as disparate as Greece, Poland, Austria and Slovenia count on Russia to supply over half of their natural gas needs. Even economic powerhouse Germany is in the unfortunate quagmire of needing Russia to supply gas, while simultaneously condemning Russia’s strong-arm tactics in Ukraine.

So in an environment where Russia is seen as increasingly hostile, and has been known to turn off the gas before (to Ukraine in pipelines that continued on to Europe) the search for alternatives is quickening. The solution will largely be Turkmenistan. It is unlikely you have ever heard of this country or know its workings in any depth. Its relevancy for energy is huge however. It has the fourth largest proven natural gas reserves on Earth (two of the biggest are Russia and Iran both of which are problematic). It is already China’s largest gas supplier. In addition, Turkmenistan’s recently opened Galkynysh gas field is the second largest in the world, eclipsed only by the South Pars Field in the Persian Gulf. The EU has already made moves to embrace Turkmen gas. Last November the head of the EU Mission in Ashgabat (Turkmenistan’s capital) confirmed that among the myriad pipelines the Turkmen’s are building, the Trans-Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan to the EU was being finalized. This is an integral part of the EU’s “Southern Corridor” plan to supplant Russian gas with gas from Central Asia (primarily Turkmenistan) the Caucuses and the Middle-East. In addition to an abundance of natural gas, Turkmenistan also has oil, the other resource which Russia controls over the EU. Oil has developed more slowly than natural gas largely because of maritime disputes with neighbouring Iran and Azerbaijan. Still, there is the potential for up to 700 Million barrels of recoverable reserves, in addition to the 200,000 barrels a day that Turkmenistan currently produces.

Those expecting little more than an analysis of a future EU energy supplier as part of a pivot away from Russia will be disappointed. While the President of the European Commission happily visited Turkmenistan to discuss energy imports while ignoring Turkmenistan’s totalitarian regime, this blog believes that moral obligations are not so easily ignored. Which leads into a brief explanation of life in Turkmenistan. It is one of the most repressive countries on Earth. Its former leader “Turkmenbashi” (Father of the Turkmen) maintained an intense cult of personality often compared to that of Kim Il-Sung. He had complete power and participated in frequent arbitrary policy changes, for example closing all hospitals and libraries outside the capital. His sudden death in 2006 led to absolute control being seized by Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. This gentleman’s unpronounceable name did not ameliorate the situation. Travel is tightly controlled, people are often arbitrarily forbidden from leaving the country. Independent media is non-existent and Turkmenistan is ranked 177^th in the Press Freedom Index, only North Korea and Eritrea score worse. One person who had the gall to talk to Radio Free Europe (who are constantly harassed) woke up the next morning to a bloody sheep’s head. Internet access does not exist, only access to “Turkmenet” is available. This is a strictly controlled Government censored version of the internet, which can only be accessed at Government run computer stations after surrendering a passport. Even the UN is not allowed in, many UN officials have been waiting for visas that have been put on hold indefinitely. Relatively benign acts are often punished harshly. Two popular musicians who appeared on a Turkish talk show were sent to prison for 5 and 7 years for their music and being on international TV.

Admittedly resource rich economies are notorious for authoritarian regimes. No one will allege that oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is coming from an especially free society. That being said, even in the company of resource rich states Turkmenistan still stands out as especially deplorable. The EU prides itself on conveying a strong sense of ethical standards. This is likely why it was banned from negotiating a partnership agreement with Turkmenistan since 1998, which has recently been reopened without any need for human rights improvements. This is all abetted by a public which is largely uninformed concerning Central Asia’s “Stans”. An increasingly pressing need to diversify energy imports away from Russia cannot result in the total disregard for the plight of millions of Turkmen. Unfortunately, dealing with an obscure country which can open up a natural gas bonanza makes ignoring human suffering so much easier. 

Italy's House of Cards

First, let me note that for anyone who has not finished the second season of House of Cards, I recommend you stop reading here as there are spoilers in this piece.

Italy has a fresh face as Prime Minister. Matteo Renzi’s meteoric rise to power vastly exceeds the fictional one of House of Cards’ main protagonist Frank Underwood, in both the speed and cunning with which he reached the highest position in his nation. Those who chastise the writers of House of Cards for being unrealistic in their portrayal of a whip so quickly ascending to the role of presidency, would be advised to have a look at the very real events that occurred in Italy.

Mr. Renzi was a relative unknown not so long ago. He was the mayor of Florence since 2009 (relinquishing this post just a few days ago) and became Secretary of the Democratic Party (Partito Democratico or PD) in Italy last year. This national party also happened to be the party of the former Prime Minister Enrico Letta, who was recently ousted. This does not appear to make much sense on first glance, how did this obscure Mayor of Florence replace a Prime Minister from his own party? Mr. Renzi was very busy upon assuming his new position within the PD, with his first order of business was to mercilessly criticize the sitting Prime Minister from his own party, Mr. Letta. Unlike House of Cards, where almost everyone surrounding Frank Underwood seems to be uniquely predisposed to manipulation, Mr. Renzi’s blatant gambit for power did not go unnoticed. Everyone knew what the the young ambitious politician wanted. Mr. Letta did not go quietly, but Enrico Letta was never a good politician, and lacked the charisma that the man who took his place has in spades. Mr. Renzi got the support of the majority of the PD to oust Mr. Letta, and formed a coalition within the parliament enacting him as Prime Minister on February 22 of this year.

This move was never popular with the public, and opinion polls after these political machinations clearly show this. That being said, Italy is currently in crisis with unbelievably high unemployment and a deep recession. Enrico Letta, and Mario Monti before him, were both Prime Ministers of a more stale and technocratic nature, and not much seems to have improved concretely in the lives of ordinary Italians under their watch. This explains why in the last election voters turned out in droves to vote for Beppe Grillo, a comedian who seemed to offer something radically new. This also elucidates why Italians, despite not liking the method with which he got to his position, are willing to give their new Prime Minister leeway in his ambitious proposals to remedy Italy’s numerous ills. That being said, Mr. Renzi does not seem to see the need to go to the polls until his term is up, and by his term we really mean the term he ruthlessly seized from Mr. Letta.

Italy has had its fair share of interesting politics, and that is not meant to be a positive statement (Mr. Berlusconi’s failure to leave politics still casts a pall on Italy). This however, takes it to another level. Desperation for new blood should not result in one man being above requiring a democratic mandate, even being elected as an MP would be a good start. Getting insiders within his party to support him does not count. Mr. Renzi is the youngest Prime Minister since Italian unification in 1861, and is the first person to become Prime Minister without having been elected to the national parliament. These are accomplishments the fictional President Underwood could only have dreamed of. Back-stabbing politics, blind ambition, and a disregard for the democratic process are not qualities that should be encouraged however. They make for great TV, but horrible politics. 

Iran and Iraq: How America Turned Foes Into Friends

Zhou Enlai, an instrumental force in Communist China under Mao is reputed to have stated “it is too early to tell” when asked about the ramifications of the French Revolution (which had happened over 200 years prior). As a master of foreign policy and diplomacy during a time when China was routinely embroiled in international disputes, perhaps he could have offered some sage advice to the United States in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the ultimate consequences that conflict could end up having.

To prevent this post from becoming overly esoteric let me clarify that I am referring to reports today of a deal for Iraq to buy weapons from Iran. This contravenes the UN Security Council embargo on arms sales from Iran, which are part of sanctions against Iran due to its Nuclear Program. According to sources in the Reuters report, Iraq’s President Nouri al-Maliki made the decision after frustration with the reluctance from the US to provide munitions to Iraq. The irony in this is that many in the US were hesitant to provide weapons to the Iraqis because of fear that they were growing too close to the Iranians. By withholding the arms it appears that only pushed Iraq closer to a new Iranian ally. This will clearly have an impact on negotiations between Iran and Western leaders on Iran’s nuclear program. The West is counting on effective sanctions to force Iran to make broad concessions in a final deal on its nuclear program, this hampers that desire. More fundamentally, the entire region, including Israel and the Gulf, both of whom are weary of Iran’s growing influence, is changing with this deal that consecrates the relationship between these two countries. While there are many implications for the Middle East and the globe in the arms agreement, the purpose of this article is to examine the historical context of this deal, as will be done below.

Relations between Iran and Iraq were frosty for a long time. When the Shah came to power in Iran through a US sponsored coup, he was distrustful of both the Socialist government and Arab nationalist Baath party in Iraq. A major dispute over a waterway led to Iranian warships being used to intimidate the Iraqis. In addition, Iran under the Shah, along with close ally Israel, concocted an elaborate scheme to provide weapons to Kurdish rebel insurgents in Iraq by using Soviet weapons captured by Israel. The relationship did not ameliorate with the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah that culminated in the Islamic Republic of Iran that is currently in place. Saddam Hussein who ruled Iraq with an iron fist and as a Sunni was worried that the majority Shia (Sunni and Shia are both different sects within Islam) who had been repressed in Iraq would see the Iranian revolution as a model. This launched the Iran-Iraq war, 8 years of brutality marking the longest conventional war of the 20^th century and longest sustained campaign of chemical weapons.

The war’s end in 1988 did not result in a thaw or sudden good will between the two countries however, but the US war in Iraq would take care of that. With the overthrow of Saddam Hussein the road was paved for democratic elections and a horrific civil war between Sunni and Shia. The pendulum shifted in Iraq and Shia leaders came to dominate government with Sunnis being relegated to second class citizens. This led to a gradual, and perhaps unsurprising shift towards Iran as a fellow Shia controlled nation. Iraq is finally finding itself as a nation that is run by Shia and finds one of its few natural allies in Iran. Iran too, ever since the Islamic Revolution has faced a dearth of allies and a strongly hostile environment. This helps explains Iran’s unyielding support for Syria’s tyrannical government as one of its very few close allies in the region.

This is not the first case where Zhou Enlai’s words of wisdom have applied before, but this is an important example. It is almost certain that the “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq did not envision that their war to drive out Saddam would result in the creation of a powerful Iran-Iraq nexus in the Middle East. This is not to say that international interventions should never be considered, but actions should be considered with caution as the long-lasting implications can rarely be ascertained with certainty. In turbulent Iraq today it is still “too early to tell” what the result of the US invasion will be.

Goodbye Unions, Hello Inequality

There has been a trend of union berating that has been present for decades now. It is especially prevalent among conservatives, which is unsurprising, but in my experience also widely held among the mainstream. At the same time there is also a welcome concern about income inequality which has seen dramatic increases. The culprits of rising inequality are numerous and include everything from tax regimes that favour the wealthy, to the effects of increased trade liberalization. Paramount among these however, as well as the focus of this entry is unionization. It is not an accident that declining unionization happened concurrently with increasing inequality.

It may not be initially intuitive why unions contribute to greater equality. As a result of their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their workers for higher wages, unions have had a strong contribution on maintaining a middle-class. The same middle-class whose gradual demise is lamented today. In fact, union’s representation is heavily concentrated among middle-class workers. This has positive spillover effects for entire sectors, even for non-unionized employees. When unions at one workplace secure higher wages and better working conditions, competing companies are pressured into matching this to ensure they do not loose workers and to discourage their own workers from unionizing. Critics of unions, foremost among them economist Milton Friedman retort that while resulting in higher wages, unions have the deleterious effect of fewer available jobs. It is also widely believed that much outsourcing can be attributed to unions which increase the cost of domestic labour, and make labour abroad for everything from call centres to computer programming more appealing.

There is no question that unions are not perfect. Economic doctrine establishes that there are trade-offs and Mr. Friedman might have had a legitimate claim that unionization has led to less jobs. Having full employment by sending workers to poor conditions might not be desirable either however. To use a brief example, many recent jobs have been created by retail goliath Wal-Mart. Wal-Marts in Ohio held food drives for their employees for thanksgiving because wages were too low for most employees to be able to afford holiday Turkeys for their families. Wal-Mart unsurprisingly has been a flash point for unionization with the company determined to ensure that workers do not unionize. I think many people would argue that these are not the types of jobs and working conditions that should be encouraged. Again, unions are often subject to bad management, ineffectively representing their workers, and are only representing their own interests. When large American unions support the Keystone XL pipeline they are not taking into account the environmental implications, they are simply interested in the jobs it could lead to for their employees. The flip side is that companies repeatedly suffer similar problems but no one advocates for the elimination of corporations. The fact that unions sometimes have problems does not circumscribe their important role in worker representation and helping in an economy-wide manner to greater equality.

While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much of the upswing in economic inequality is the result of decreasing union presence, researchers at Harvard have tried to quantify this. They used data from the population survey from 1973-2007 in the US, during which time union membership collapsed from 34% to 8% of private sector employees. They conclude that a fifth to a third of growth in inequality during this timeframe was determined by the decline in organized labour. The trend to decreasing unionization has been slower in Canada but like our neighbours in the USA and UK the development has been ever-present. Perhaps one of the most striking visual representations of this trend and its economic effects are found in the following graph from the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in the US.

The question is why this is happening? And while once again there are several factors, government policy is a significant reason. Instead of taking serious steps to tackle excessive levels of inequality which should include a healthy organized labour movement, policy has been routinely anti-union. Scott Walker the governor of Wisconsin might be the most famous anti-union activist. He is not alone however, so called “right to work” legislation is spreading in the US. The tenants behind right to work are enticing. Most workers do not particularly like having part of their salary taken away in the form of union dues. If workers have the option of opting out of their union as this legislation enshrines many will choose to do so. This law is pernicious because it undercuts the union’s bargaining position and effectively guts all unions in the states which have this law enforced. Canada is not immune from Ideological laws that hamper the middle-class by attacking unions. Russ Hiebert a little known conservative MP from White Rock has introduced bill C-377. This bill had the support of the Conservative caucus but is mercifully being held up and gutted in the Senate. This represents one of the few moments the Senate has been anything other than a wasteful repository for partisan faithful and actually served a purpose. This bill apparently aims to make unions transparent. This sounds great, but is terrible. It imposes extremely onerous requirements that apply to unions and no one else. These include a minimum of 24 different detailed statements, including reporting any transaction over $5,000. These extremely costly requirements would place more burden of “transparency” on unions than any other group in Canada including companies, non-profits, even government departments themselves face less requirements. The fact is this bill is not necessary, by law unions must make annual financial statements to their members and provide necessary financial disclosures publicly, as well as being democratically accountable to their members. Mr. Hiebert ostensibly states that the reason for this bill is because unions receive public funding. Shockingly we are still awaiting the announcement that oil companies and agri-business that receive millions in government subsidies will be under the same scrutiny.

Unions are increasingly under attack accelerating the decline of organized labour that has been taking place for years. Many still view unions as antiquated and archaic, if that is the case than apparently adequate economic equality and a thriving middle class are antiquated as well. 

The Olympics and Russian Crimes in Chechnya

Russia has been in the spotlight recently over a myriad of issues, many of which have been heightened due to the upcoming Olympics in Sochi. This is important, Russia has many human rights abuses to atone for under the present leadership. Russian President (for life) Vladimir Putin is under intense pressure and has released many political prisoners. These range from Greenpeace activists to a former Russian oligarch who fell out of favour with Mr. Putin. While many political prisoners have been released in the past weeks, too many still rest in Russia’s prison archipelago. The Olympics have also put pressure on laws contrary to homosexual rights, more explicitly legislation banning “homosexual propaganda”. While perhaps less directly related to the Olympics, Mr. Putin’s persistence in maintaining Syria as an ally in the face of horrific atrocities has been widely criticized. Finally, a subject that was broached on this blog is the situation in Ukraine. Russia is playing off Ukrainian reliance on trade and cheap gas to keep this nation within Moscow’s orbit, this has also been widely panned. Conspicuously absent from this list is the Chechen situation and the rampant human rights abuses there.

That is not to say that Chechens have been completely excluded from the news cycle. Rather infamously, the Boston Marathon bombing was the work of Chechens (though their ties to Chechnya were tenuous). Of late, the bombing in Volgograd appears to originate from the North Caucasus (the region that Chechnya is in). This has raised concerns of security for the Sochi Olympics, which is understandable since the games will be a prime target for terrorist acts. This story is not as one sided as it seems however, and there is a complete vacuum regarding the plight of Chechens. Terrorist acts are never tolerable and Chechens, especially Islamists have committed many atrocities. These include bombings in Moscow subways and even attacks on schools. These are often targeted by “black widows” the term for the predominantly female suicide bombers who commit these violent acts after they have lost their spouse (along with undoubtedly many other family members). Unfortunately atrocities are not one sided in this case, and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union has been responsible for some hideous carnage.

As a brief digression, some background is important. Chechnya along with other former members of the Soviet Union declared their independence after the collapse of the USSR. This was not to last however, due to Chechnya’s slightly different status Russia saw it not as a former Soviet Socialist Republic, but as part of its territory. This resulted in a first Chechen war from 1994-1996. In the lead up to this war and immediately following it Chechnya had a democratically elected government that was quite moderate. In the period before the second Chechen war started however, the creeping tide of radical Islam started to take hold. This was largely felt in the presence of foreign Wahhabi troops. These Wahhabis support a puritanical version of Islam and receive much of their support from Saudi Arabia (basically like Al-Qaeda). This lead to many clashes between moderate Chechen groups and largely foreign Wahhabis in the inter-war period. The second war commenced in 1999 and effectively ended in 2009. Contrary to the first war which saw the shocking victory for Chechen rebels, this one saw Russian victory and the reassertion of Russian control in this territory.

That Russian control did not come without a price however. Credible reports, reported by Amnesty International detail indiscriminate shelling and bombing of towns. Perhaps more heinous, civilians and medical teams were specifically targeted by Russian troops. In addition, hundreds of civilians and Prisoners of War were extra-judicially executed. This led to untold numbers of mass graves, the current count is approximately 60 but it is assumed thousands more are buried. Russia has an official policy of not exhuming or searching for these graves, this helps expedite a process of war crimes denial. In order to find some recourse in the face of Russian orchestrated impunity Chechen victims appealed to the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights. This court has ruled against Russia stating that it has violated many human rights laws. These horrors were responded to by often equally objectionable acts, particularly from the radical Islamic elements of the resistance. In my view, the brutality of the Russian invasion caused extremism to flourish and made the problem of radical Islam even rifer in Chechnya.  Mr. Putin was President during this period up until declaring victory in 2009. His policies have not improved during his present tenure.

Human rights activists in Chechnya were awarded the 2013 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. This award is given by ten of the most influential human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It was awarded to “Joint Mobile Group” who have given themselves the task of aiming to bring to justice those who perpetrate forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and torture in Chechnya. This award is significant and well deserved. The state of Chechnya in the aftermath of the second war with Putin’s counterinsurgency campaign is marred by abduction, arbitrary detention and torture. Their bravery is clear, in 2009 several of the most prominent human rights defenders in Chechnya were abducted and executed, that fate could easily follow these brave crusaders. This is not to mention the persistent plight of ordinary Chechens under Russia.

International events with the prestige of the Olympics are critical in galvanizing international condemnation for abuses of all kinds. This has already begun with the release of political prisoners, the spotlight on Russia’s anti-gay law, and perhaps closer attention to Russian foreign policy. This has not happened with what is perhaps the most blatant of Russia’s human rights abuses. The Global community cannot in good conscience ignore Chechnya, these people should not be regarded as simply Muslim terrorists (though some are and those should be condemned) but as victims of horrific Russian policy. Hopefully the world will take note of this soon, the likelihood of that happening unfortunately seems slim. 

The Kurdish Dimension to Syria

The Syrian Civil War has drifted in and out of the news ever since its inception, but an important new front is beginning to take shape. This is the Kurdish dimension to the war. As always however, before delving into this topic some context is vital.

The Syrian Civil War itself most likely requires fairly little contextualization, but a brief review of the major forces involved would be sensible. Bashar al-Assad received his position after his father’s passing, and refuses to surrender the family legacy. Internationally he is supported by Iran and Hezbollah (the armed Shia political party in Lebanon). Both of these Middle-East partners will support Assad to the end since their interests rely so heavily on him. Iran, because Syria is their sole ally in the Middle-East, and Hezbollah because their weapons and support all flow through Syria. They are joined by Russia which under Putin’s reign wants as much sway in the international arena as possible. Syria under Assad is a holdover puppet state from the Soviet era and represents an ideal foothold of control with which Putin can exert his clout.

On the other side the West timidly supports the Rebels, largely out of disdain for Mr. Assad. Their support has been primarily in the form of non-lethal assistance, which, as of today, both the UK and US have partially cut off because of reports that this equipment was falling into the hands of Islamists. This brings us to the radical Islamist contingent in this conflict. This is largely made up of foreign jihadis fighting on behalf of The Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Syria, two al-Qaeda linked groups. These are supported by Jihadis worldwide and without question a large amount of Saudi Arabian encouragement. In fact, the Gulf Countries in general support the rebels as all see Syria and Iran as a threat. In addition, all of the Gulf countries are Sunni led in stark opposition to Shia Iran and Syria. Qatar is the home base for the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), the umbrella for the major non-Islamist rebels nominally leading the fight against Assad. The SNC has official backing from the Gulf countries, as well as Turkey and the West.

This brings us to the oft overlooked group that has not been mentioned above, the Kurds. Kurds are the largest stateless group on Earth and are found in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. I have a level of personal experience in this subject having spent some (albeit short) time in the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Turkey, as well as encounters with Kurds while in Iran. Kurds in Iraq have a regional government with a large amount of autonomy. Upon crossing the border with Turkey I met a Kurdish border guard, most important institutions in Iraqi Kurdistan are maintained by Kurdish authorities, and the pervasive Peshmerga presence (Kurdish militia literally translated to “those who face death”) assures a completely safe and peaceful oasis in conflict torn Iraq. This local autonomy came about after Saddam Hussein horrified the world with his genocidal nerve gas campaign against his Kurdish population, and forced a US led no-fly zone. The area protected by that no-fly zone in Northern Iraq from 1991 till the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 allowed for the establishment of what is today Iraqi Kurdistan. In Turkey, moves have been made at negotiating a peace deal with the PKK, the Kurdish group there responsible for many terrorist attacks in the past. The PKK wants greater autonomy as well, and undoubtedly aspires to what was attained in Northern Iraq.

This long prelude finally leads to the current situation in Syria. A Kurdish militia closely aligned with the aforementioned PKK in Turkey has taken over large areas of Syria from Islamists. Mainstream media often mentions that there are divisions among rebel fighters in Syria, largely between moderates and Islamists, but the Kurdish addition to this battle is crucial. At a time when Islamists increasingly seem to be making gains among the rebels at the expense of the Free Syrian Army, (supported by the SNC and Western Countries) the Kurdish PYD militant group has been incredibly successful combating the Islamists. Many villages have recently transferred from al-Qaeda linked hands into Kurdish hands in Hasakah province, which has further cemented gains for the PYD in Syria’s Kurdish dominated northeast. Even more strikingly, the PYD has announced that they are establishing provisional self-rule in the Kurdish territories they have annexed. This again is clearly a step towards an Iraqi-Kurdistan style government within whatever future Syria develops.

The SNC immediately rejected this bid for self-rule and said it goes against their efforts to build a unified independent Syria. Some rhetoric among moderate rebels has even gone so far as to label this Kurdish group the enemy now. There has also been much questioning about collusion between Assad and the Kurds. The PYD has repeatedly denied this, but some question whether Assad’s forces retreated too easily when the PYD moved into government controlled areas, and fighting between the government and the PYD had been scarce. Many Kurds were initially tepid in their opposition to the Syrian government and this has caused some of the current distrust. It is crucial to mention that many Kurds in Syria do not support the PYD, and there are Kurds within the SNC as well, though they tend to also favour at least some greater autonomy for their people.

In Iraq, when there was an uprising among Sunnis and the war in Kuwait, Kurds took advantage and went to war with Saddam Hussein. Similarly, Kurdish militias are now working to carve out their territory within conflict torn Syria. In Turkey, a long running campaign against the government comprising of many terrorist attacks finally appears to be leading to peace and more Kurdish sovereignty. As a distinct ethnicity Kurds are increasingly exerting control over their territories, and dreams of a united Kurdistan still resonate. Kurds are generally secular, pro-Western and increasingly influential. Adding to their geopolitical importance, Kurds in Iraq and Syria happen to be in areas with very significant oil reserves. In Iraqi-Kurdistan which serves as the bastion of safety in Iraq, this is already being taken advantage of.

Kurdish gains in Syria are significant and should not be ignored. The world’s largest stateless ethnic group is slowly building up a state and the ramifications across the Middle-East are huge. The gains Kurds have made in Syria and their declaration of autonomy ought not to go unnoticed. Though too often overlooked in history, Kurds are on the way to being one of the most important groups in the region.