Leading Historian Believes 'It's Pretty Much Inevitable' Trump Will Try to Stage a Coup and Overthrow Democracy

I think it is all Hogwash and America is not foolish

Leading Historian Believes 'It's Pretty Much Inevitable' Trump Will Try to Stage a Coup and Overthrow Democracy

American democracy is in crisis. The election of Donald Trump feels like a state of emergency made normal.

Trump has threatened violence against his political enemies. He has made clear he does not believe in the norms and traditions of American democracy — unless they serve his interests. Trump and his advisers consider a free press to be enemies of his regime. Trump repeatedly lies and has a profoundly estranged relationship with empirical reality. He uses obvious and naked racism, nativism and bigotry to mobilize his voters and to disparage entire groups of people such as Latinos and Muslims.

Trump is threatening to eliminate an independent judiciary, and wants to punish those judges who dare to stand against his illegal and unconstitutional mandates. In what appears to be a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, Trump is using the office of the presidency to enrich himself, his family and his inner circle by peddling influence and access to corporations, foreign countries and wealthy individuals. Trump and his representatives also believe that he is above the law and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes while in office.

What can the American people do to resist Donald Trump? What lessons can history teach about the rise of authoritarianism and fascism and how democracies collapse? Are there ways that individuals can fight back on a daily basis and in their own personal lives against the political and cultural forces that gave rise to Trump’s movement? How long does American democracy have before the poison that Donald Trump and the Republican Party injected into the country’s body politic becomes lethal?

In an effort to answer these questions, I recently spoke with Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University. He is the award-winning author of numerous books including the recent “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning” and “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin.” Snyder’s new book, “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,”  explores, among other things, how the American people can fight back against Donald Trump’s incipient authoritarian regime.

Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. A longer version can be heard on my podcast, available on Salon’s Featured Audio page.

The election of Donald Trump is a crisis for American democracy. How did this happen?

We asked for it by saying that history was over in 1989 [with the end of the Cold War]. By saying that nothing bad could never happen again, we were basically inviting something bad to happen.

Our story about how nothing could never go wrong was a story about how human nature is the free market and the free market brings democracy, so everything is hunky-dory — and of course every part of that story is nonsense. The Greeks understood that democracy is likely to produce oligarchy, because if you don’t have some mechanism to get inequality under control then people with the most money will likely take full control.

With Trump one sees the new variant of this where a candidate can run by saying, “Look, we all know — wink, wink, nudge, nudge — that this isn’t really a democracy anymore.” He doesn’t use the words but basically says, “We all know this is really an oligarchy, so let me be your oligarch.” Although it’s nonsense, and of course he’s a con man and will betray everyone, it makes sense only in this climate of inequality.

In my writing and interviews, I have consistently referred to Donald Trump as a fascist. I have received a great deal of resistance to that claim. Do you think this description is correct? If not, then what language should we use to describe Donald Trump?

One of the problems with American discourse is that we just assume everybody is a friendly democratic parliamentarian pluralist until proven otherwise. And then even when it’s proven otherwise we don’t have any vocabulary for it. He’s a “dictator,” he’s an “authoritarian,” he’s “Hitler.” We just toss these words around. The pushback that you are talking about is 95 percent bad. Americans do not want to think that there is an alternative to what we have. Therefore, as soon as you say “fascism” or whatever it might be, then the American response is to say “no,” because we lack the categories that allow us to think outside of the box that we are no longer in.

Is this a function of American Exceptionalism?

Yes, it is. We made a move towards intellectual isolationism in a world where no kind of isolationism is possible. The fact that democracies usually fail is a rule which can’t apply to us. If you examine American society, there are high points and low points. But there is certainly nothing which puts us in a different category than other people who have failed, whether it’s historically or whether it’s now.

I don’t want to dodge your question about whether Trump is a fascist or not. As I see it, there are certainly elements of his approach which are fascistic. The straight-on confrontation with the truth is at the center of the fascist worldview. The attempt to undo the Enlightenment as a way to undo institutions, that is fascism. Whether he realizes it or not is a different question, but that’s what fascists did. They said, “Don’t worry about the facts, don’t worry about logic, think instead in terms of mystical unities and direct connections between the mystical leader and the people.” That’s fascism. Whether we see it or not, whether we like it or not, whether we forget, that is fascism.

Another thing that’s clearly fascist about Trump were the rallies. The way that he used the language, the blunt repetitions, the naming of the enemies, the physical removal of opponents from rallies, that was really, without exaggeration, just like the 1920s and the 1930s.

And Mr. [Steve] Bannon’s preoccupation with the 1930s and his kind of wishful reclamation of Italian and other fascists speaks for itself.

How did the news media and others get this so wrong? Why did they underestimate the threat posed by Donald Trump and his movement?

What we ended up with, from Bill Clinton onward, is a status-quo party and an “undo the system” party, where the Democrats became the status-quo party and the Republicans became the “undo the system” party. In that constellation it’s very hard to think of change because one party is in favor of things being the way they are, just slightly better, and the other party has this big idea of undoing everything, although it’s unclear what that really means in practice. So no one is actually articulating how you address the problems of the day, the greatest of which would be inequality. When neither party is creative, then it’s hard for scholars to get their ideas into meaningful circulation.

Why is Trump not being held accountable for all of his failures, scandals and incompetence?

Mr. Trump is primarily a television personality. As such, he is judged by that standard. This means that a scandal does not call forth a response, it calls forth the desire for a bigger scandal. It just whets the appetite for a bigger scandal because a television serial has to work on that logic. It’s almost as though he has to produce these outrageous things, because what else would he be doing?

I think another part of it has to do with attention span. It’s not so much a lack of outrage — people are in fact outraged. But in order for a scandal to have political logic, the outrage has to be followed by the research, it has to be followed by the investigation, it has to be followed by an official finding.

In your book you discuss the idea that Donald Trump will have his own version of Hitler’s Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control of the government by declaring a state of emergency. How do you think that would play out?

Let me make just two points. The first is that I think it’s pretty much inevitable that they will try. The reason I think that is that the conventional ways of being popular are not working out for them. The conventional way to be popular or to be legitimate in this country is to have some policies, to grow your popularity ratings and to win some elections. I don’t think 2018 is looking very good for the Republicans along those conventional lines. Not just because the president is historically unpopular. It’s also because neither the White House nor Congress have any policies which the majority of the public like.

This means they could be seduced by the notion of getting into a new rhythm of politics, one that does not depend upon popular policies and electoral cycles.

Whether it works or not depends upon whether when something terrible happens to this country, we are aware that the main significance of it is whether or not we are going to be more or less free citizens in the future.

My gut feeling is that Trump and his administration will try and that it won’t work. Not so much because we are so great but because we have a little bit of time to prepare. I also think that there are enough people and enough agencies of the government who have also thought about this, and would not necessarily go along.

What can citizens do? What would your call to action be?

The whole point of my new book, “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,” is that we have a century of wisdom and very smart people who confronted situations like our own — but usually more demanding — and that wisdom can be condensed.

What my book does is it goes across the arc of regime change, from the beginning to the end, and it provides things ranging from simpler to harder that people can literally do every day.

The thing that matters the most is to realize that in moments like this your actions really do matter. It is ironic but in an authoritarian regime-change situation, the individual matters more than a democracy. In an authoritarian regime change, at the beginning, the individual has a special kind of power because the authoritarian regime depends on a certain kind of consent. Which means that if you are conscious of the moment that you are in, you can find the ways not to express your consent and you can also find the little ways to be a barrier. If enough people do that it really can make a difference, but again only at the beginning.

What are some of the more difficult and challenging things that people can do?

The last lesson in “On Tyranny” is to be as courageous as you can. Do you actually care enough about freedom that you would take risks? Do individuals actually care about freedom? Think that through. I think if enough of us take the little risks at the beginning, which aren’t really that significant, this will prevent us from having to take bigger risks down the line.

We are still at a stage where protest is not illegal. We’re still at a stage where protest is not lethal. Those are the two big thresholds. We are still on the good side of both of those thresholds and so now is the time you want to pack in as much as you can because you could actually divert things. Once you get into a world where protest is illegal, then the things that I recommend like corporeal politics, getting out on the streets — they have to happen but they are much riskier. It’s a much different kind of decision.

How much time does American democracy have left before this poison becomes lethal and there is no path of return?   

You have to accept there is a time frame. Nobody can be sure how long this particular regime change with Trump will take, but there is a clock, and the clock really is ticking. It’s three years on the outside, but in more likelihood something like a year. In January 2018 we will probably have a pretty good idea which way this thing is going. It’s going to depend more on us than on them in the meantime. Once you get past a certain threshold it starts to depend more on them than on us, and then things are much, much worse. It makes me sad to think how Americans would behave at that point.

Then Trump and his forces have the momentum because, again, we the American people are up against the clock.

I hate to sound like a self-help person but I’m going to. Every day you don’t do something, it makes it less likely that you will ever do something. So you’ve got to get started right away. “On Tyranny” is a suggestion of things that everyone can do. There are plenty of other great ideas from people coming from other traditions, but the basic thing is you have to change your protocol of daily behavior now.

Don’t obey in advance, because you have to start by orienting yourself against the general drift of things. If you can manage that, then the other lessons — such as supporting existing political and social institutions, supporting the truth and so on — those things will then come relatively easily if you can follow the first one, which is to get out of the drift. To recognize that this is the moment where you have to not behave as you did in October 2016. You have to set your own habits now.

Chauncey DeVega is a politics staff writer for Salon

Trump's Twisted History:

Trump's Twisted History: His Presidential Idol Andrew Jackson Paved the Road to the Civil War by Suppressing the Abolitionists

Trump's claim that Jackson would have prevented the war between the states is a fantasy.

By Jefferson Morley / AlterNet May 1, 2017

Photo Credit: Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

When President Trump mused in an interview with SiriusXM radio that “People don’t ask [the] question, but why was there the Civil War?" the internet choir answered in unison, "because of slavery," followed by the observation that there are few questions that have been asked more often by historians.

Trump has answered his own question by saying, "had Andrew Jackson been around, you wouldn't have had a civil war." That isn’t convincing many people. Even Breitbart News found it "puzzling."

But the counterargument that conflict over slavery caused the Civil War is incomplete at best, because it doesn’t explain why the differences could not be resolved peacefully.

"Some issues aren’t amenable to deal-making," argues Yoni Appelbaum at the Atlantic. "Some principles don’t lend themselves to compromise."

But there were literally millions of people who wanted compromise on the slavery issue 25 years before the Civil War. They were, for the most part, the people who wanted to abolish slavery by peaceful and legislative means. They were dubbed "abolitionists" and they were amenable to peaceful change. Their opponents were not. 

The truth is that Americans went to war over slavery in 1861 because those who sought a peaceful solution had been systematically suppressed for decades by leaders in Washington—starting with President Andrew Jackson. Such historical polemics are not important because they reveal Trump’s limited understanding of Jackson, his favorite president. They matter because Trump's answer, intentionally or unintentionally, glosses over Jackson’s attack on American democratic norms in the 1830s, just as Trump seeks to gloss over his own attacks on democracy today. 

'Land of the Free'

Trump, like most Americans, is largely ignorant of Jackson’s unconstitutional suppression of the anti-slavery movement in the 1830s. The story seems unknown even to writers at the Atlantic, a magazine founded in anti-slavery principles in the 1850s.

The anti-slavery movement emerged as a potent political force in 1833 with the creation of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Originally consisting of 10 chapters in Massachusetts, the society grew to 200 chapters nationwide two years later. Jackson used every tool at his command to blunt this burgeoning movement, which was the first mass membership interest group in American politics.

As Jackson began his second term in 1833, he appointed Francis Scott Key, the famous author of the "Star-Spangled Banner," as the district attorney for the city of Washington. Jackson wanted to deploy Key’s patriotic celebrity in service of pro-slavery law enforcement.

One of Key’s first actions was to indict an itinerant editor named Benjamin Lundy and his young assistant, William Lloyd Garrison. They dared to publish Lundy’s anti-slavery magazine, The Genius of Universal Emancipation, in the District of Columbia. Facing the constant threat of assault by enraged slave traders and the prospect of Key’s persecution, Lundy and Garrison had to retreat to the safety of the northern states. Key also indicted Thomas Cary, a black barber on Pennsylvania Avenue, who distributed anti-slavery material to his customers. Cary moved to Toronto, Canada.

Key, the man who celebrated the "land of the free and the home of the brave," had no problem with enforcing white supremacy at the behest of Jackson.

Jackson did not let the law get in his way. When the abolitionists launched a mass mailing of anti-slavery literature in the summer of 1835, a white mob in Charleston, South Carolina trashed the post office to prevent their delivery. With Jackson’s blessing, Postmaster General Amos Kendall sanctioned this attack on the freedom of the mail, and Jackson urged Congress to pass legislation outlawing anti-slavery publications. While the legislation did not pass, postmasters in the South and North felt free not to deliver anti-slavery material even to those who wanted it. 

Jackson’s action “may well have been the largest peacetime violation of civil liberty in U.S. history,” writes historian Daniel Walker Howe.

‘Gag Rule’

The conflict over slavery only grew. In December 1835, the anti-slavery societies of the North started petitioning Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Within a few months, hundreds of petitions had arrived in Washington, and pro-slavery congressmen were apoplectic. With Jackson’s uncompromising support, they changed the rules of Congress to bar consideration of and debate about the petitions. The so-called gag rule stifled all debate in Congress about the legality of slavery for the next 25 years.

The abolitionists’ agenda was almost entirely peaceful. As evangelical Christians, the anti-slavery activists were pacifists. Even the most militant among them, including the soon-to-be famous William Lloyd Garrison, rejected a violent response to slavery. Garrison argued that slave rebellions were inevitable but unwise. Only moral suasion, he said, would convince the sinning slave owner to repent.

The anti-slavery societies advocated peaceful resolution of the slavery issue by immediate or gradual emancipation of two million black people then living in bondage. Only many years later did John Brown and a handful of militant abolitionists, black and white, advocate violent resistance to slavery.

The abolitionists were open to compromise. The tens of thousands of Americans who petitioned Congress in the 1830s did not seek to abolish slavery in the Southern states, only in the nation’s capital. They wanted to set an example for the slaveholding states, not impose their emancipationist interpretation of the Declaration of Independence on others.

Even that was too much for the slave masters. Jackson and Co. did not seek to rebut the moral, religious and practical arguments against slavery. They sought to silence them with the threat of violence or prison.

Supreme Court Appointee

To enforce the suppression of free speech, Jackson looked to the Supreme Court. With the death of Chief Justice John Marshall in 1835, Jackson had a vacancy to fill. He named one of his closest confidants, Roger Taney, to the court. (Taney, incidentally, was brother-in-law and best friend of Francis Scott Key.)

Jackson especially liked Taney’s views on slavery. In 1833, Taney wrote in a legal opinion for Jackson, “The African race in the United States even when free are everywhere a degraded class, and exercise no political influence. The privileges they are allowed to enjoy are a matter of kindness and benevolence rather than right.”

Taney would go on to have a three-decade career on the Supreme Court, culminating in his notorious decision in the Dred Scott case of 1857. Taney ruled with the majority that Scott, a freed slave living in Minnesota, had to be returned to the family that claimed ownership of him. By then Jackson was dead, though there is no reason to think he would have disagreed with Taney's decision.

Trump’s musings, while uninformed, are a reminder that the conflict over slavery might have been resolved peacefully if American democracy had allowed the public debate the abolitionists sought.

Slavery was not universally popular, as the slave masters knew full well. A proposal for compensated emancipation of slaves nearly passed the Virginia legislature in 1834. By that time, the anti-slavery bloc in Congress, led by former President John Quincy Adams, held about 20 percent of the seats on Capitol Hill. The proposal to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia might have inspired action elsewhere. For a passing moment in the 1830s, peaceful change on the slavery issue could have been possible.

The Southern states, led by Andrew Jackson, were not merely uninterested, they were violently opposed. Jackson, who owned 100 people himself, hated the abolitionists with characteristic fury. He loathed the idea of emancipation for black people, compensated or not. He despised all those who challenged the white man’s constitutional right to own human property. He used the Congress, the courts and the press to demonize and suppress those who disagreed with him.

Fantasy

Trump’s belief that there would have been no Civil War if Jackson had been president in 1860 depends on believing that a tough but big-hearted president who stood firm against Southern secession could have prevented the war. But the United States did have a tough but big-hearted president who did just that. His name was Abraham Lincoln, and all he got for his trouble was war. Jackson would have received the same.

Trump’s vision of Andrew Jackson is a historical fantasy. In reality, Jackson, as much as any other president, killed the possibility of peaceful change and paved the road to the Civil War. 

Jefferson Morley is AlterNet's Washington correspondent. He is the author of Snow-Storm in August: Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835 and Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA.

OPEC Deal Backfires: Saudis Lose Market Share To Iran, Iraq

Since the start of OPEC’s production cuts, oil market analysts and experts have been focusing on how U.S. shale would respond to the relatively higher and stable oil prices, possibly eating up some of the cartel’s global market share while the cuts last.

The market share war is also going on a micro level within OPEC itself – a diverse group of producers, with each pushing and pursuing their own agenda in every meeting and collective decision. This time around it is no different.

Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s biggest producer and de facto leader, is losing market share, while Iran and Iraq have so far emerged as winners of the cuts with in the cartel in a battle for market share, according to Christof Ruehl, former chief economist at BP who is currently Global Head of Research at the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA). 

“If you’re talking about winners, you can count Iran and Iraq,” Ruehl said at a Dubai conference last week, as quoted by Bloomberg.

The Saudis were aware that they would be ceding some market share with the OPEC deal, but opted for higher and more stable oil prices by signing up to a deal that allowed Iran to slightly lift its output, while others— especially Riyadh—would have to cut.

The lower-for-longer oil prices have led to a considerable deficit in Saudi Arabia’s budget, and the Kingdom had to draw from reserves and increase the issue of debt to finance the gaps in its oil-dependent government revenues.

The Saudis now need higher oil prices if they want their oil giant Aramco to be valued in next year’s IPO anywhere in the vicinity of US$1 trillion, let alone the US$2-trillion valuation that Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has mentioned.

The Saudi 2017 budget sees higher oil prices this year lifting oil revenues by 46 percent compared to the 2016 estimates.

So, the Saudis entered the OPEC production cut deal knowing that Iran might use the leeway it was given to slightly raise its production, and Iraq might not fully comply with the cuts.

As per OPEC’s agreement, Saudi Arabia had to cut output by 486,000 bpd to a ceiling of 10.058 million bpd. OPEC’s no.2 producer, Iraq, promised to cut 210,000 bpd to a level of 4.351 million bpd, while Iran -- the cartel’s no.3 and bitter regional rival of Saudi Arabia -- was allowed to raise its output to 3.797 million bpd.

While the Saudis have overcomplied with the cuts and kept output below 10 million bpd since January, as per OPEC’s secondary sources, Iran has been pumping as much as it was allowed, and exceeded its quota in February. Iraq, for its part, has failed to comply with the cuts in each of the months through March for which data are available. 

Iran and Iraq are looking beyond the cuts and taking steps to raise their output, taking advantage of Saudi Arabia’s current play of overcomplying with cuts and compensating for rogue members.

“The Saudis are losing out because other countries are able to squeeze out more production,” Edward Bell, commodities analyst at Dubai-based lender Emirates NBD PJSC, told Bloomberg.

Saudi Arabia is trying to preserve its market share amid the cuts and has been lowering the official selling price for Arab Light and Arab Extra Light varieties for Asia for two months now. The Saudis are expected to slash Arab Light prices to Asia for June to the lowest pricing in nine months, as the Middle East benchmark Dubai crude is falling due to oversupply, according to a Reuters survey of five Asian refiners.

Saudi Arabia is also said to be trying to lure buyers from European markets by changing the way it prices its oil in order to make it easier for hedging.Related: ‘’OPEC Has Failed’’

In a sign that the higher oil prices are helping Saudi budget revenues, reports suggested last week that Saudi Arabia had reinstated perks for civil servants, after revenues for the first quarter turned out higher than expected.

Now the oil market and analysts are waiting to see whether OPEC will decide to roll over the production cuts until the end of the year. The current Saudi rhetoric to the market is that there seems to be a consensus over extending the cuts beyond June, but further discussions need to be held, including with non-OPEC Russia.

The Saudis may demand that Iran also cuts output and insist that non-complying members (such as Iraq) finally get in line as a condition to roll over the cuts, S&P Global Platts reported in March, citing people familiar with the Saudi thinking. With Iran unlikely to concede to any cuts now that it has regained the market share it had lost to the Western sanctions, the Saudis may find it difficult to impose such a deal. But with the possibility that oil prices may fall below US$40 if the deal is not extended, in the end Saudi Arabia may once again choose higher oil prices over market share.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

YPG: People’s Protection Units and Kurdish Peshmerga

YPG: People’s Protection Units

YPG is an acronym whose translation means People’s Protection Units. It is the home grown defense forces of the Kurdish area of Syria. It emerged after the Civil War erupted in Syria and started to spill over into Syrian Kurdistan, now known as Rojava, or Western Kurdistan.

The People of the YPG

The men and women who make up the fighting force come from local communities and are mostly Kurdish, but the YPG also fights alongside non-Kurdish soldiers from the area including Syrian, Assyrian and Armenian Christians. And there are a small number of Americans and Europeans who’ve volunteered individually to join YPG in the fight against ISIS.

History of YPG

The Kurdish communities in Rojava have lived there for thousands of years. The modern-day YPG was formed after the Qamishli uprising in 2004 by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD).

Role in Kobane

During the Kobane siege in 2014, Turkish Kurds demonstrated in support of their brethren in Rojava who were poorly equipped and prepared.  The YPG were being pushed back and it looked like ISIS would achieve victory.  Then the U.S. started providing air support striking key targets and dropping military supplies and Turkey allowed Peshmerga Units to transit Turkey to support the YPG, the siege was broken and YPG has taken control of Kobane. This has been the first major defeat for ISIS which many hope will be the turning point in the War against ISIS.   And this has brought worldwide attention to the YPG.

Structure of YPG

The YPG is a democratic socialist organization in which Officers are elected by troops and equality regardless of gender, religion and ethnicity is guaranteed.

The YPG operate like a guerrilla force using stealth, surprise and hit and run tactics which has been proven to be effective against more conventional forces who invade and occupy. They operate with a large degree of autonomy so they can adapt quickly to battlefield conditions and mobilize their forces rapidly.

YPG Relations with Other Organizations

The YPG has aligned itself with other forces against ISIS. Its’ forces were joined by the Peshmerga in the battle for Kobane. The YPG joined Peshmerga in Iraq to free the Yazidi community in Sinjar and was instrumental in providing security through Syria to Turkey for the refugees as they were fleeing ISIS forces. YPG has joined forces with the Free Syrian Army to fight ISIS.

The war against ISIS has been the catalyst to put aside the differences between the various parties to fight the more immediate battle against a brutal force.  But as the conflict subsides, the differences will arise again:  the Turks are suspicious of the alliance between the PKK and the YPG; the Peshmerga are concerned that the YPG and their sponsors, the PYD and PKK may have intents on unifying Kurdistan which would be a threat to the KRG in Iraq.  It is very much a liquid situation that is evolving and  no one really knows what the future holds.

Although the battle is far from over, it appears that the YPG including its’ all female brigade, the YPJ, are capable,  given the air support,  military equipment and arms as well as regional ground support, as a force to be reckoned with in the battle with ISIS for the Middle East.

Kurdish Peshmerga

Peshmerga, which means, “those who face death,” is the military of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Iraqi Kurdistan. Their existence dates back to the mid-20th Century when Mustafa Barzani picked up arms to fight for Kurdistan autonomy.

“No Friends But the Mountains”

But the tradition of a guerrilla resistance force fighting for Kurdish autonomy goes back to the origins of the Kurdish people. Because the land area has always been subject to regional and major powers vying for dominance, a resistance force always emerged as they took refuge in the mountains.

Up against much greater forces in the Iraqi Army and Air Force, the Peshmerga was not successful until after the 1990-1991 Gulf War when the U.S. and U.K. enforced a no-fly zone in the North of Iraq.

After the Kurdistan Regional Government was established, the Peshmerga officially became the armed forces and responsible for the security of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

Kurdish Civil War: Peshmerga Divided

Originally, the Peshmerga was led by Mustafa Barzani, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), but in the aftermath of another failed revolt, which resulted in the defeat of the Peshmerga by Iraqi forces in the mid-1970’s, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) arose and formed their own Peshmerga.

The ideological split along both tribal (Barzani family) and political (PUK is more progressive and liberal) lines divided Kurds, and eventually led to the Kurdish Civil War of the 1990’s. During the Civil War, the Peshmerga took sides and opposing forces were responsible for Kurds killing and maiming other Kurds. It ended when KDP’s Head, Massoud Barzani, signed a peace treaty with the PUK Head, Jalal Talibani.

According to the 1992 Constitution of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the President of Kurdistan is the Commander-in-Chief of the Peshmerga Armed Forces.[1] In an effort to unite against the Islamic State in August 2014, KRG President Massoud Barzani issued orders to the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs to reform the Peshmerga under a unified single command structure.

The Peshmerga and the U.S. Military

In addition to functioning as a military force, the Peshmerga has intelligence gathering capabilities. The Peshmerga, the KRG and the U.S. share information to make the area and the world safer from terrorist organizations and activities. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led Coalition Forces, the Peshmerga played a part in capturing Saddam Hussein.

In 2004, the Kurds (Peshmerga) on instructions from the CIA apprehended and captured an envoy traveling through Kurdistan to get to Iraq. His name was Hassan Ghul and he in the employ of Osama bin Laden. While the Kurds interrogated him (he was not tortured), Ghul revealed that bin Laden always used the same courier to send and receive messages — Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. This was the key piece of intelligence that led to finding the location of bin Laden’s hideout and his eventual execution.[2]

The Peshmerga and ISIS

When the ISIS forces burst onto the battlefield in Syria and Iraq capturing large swathes of land, infrastructure and resources, the Kurdish Peshmerga mobilized while the Iraqi Army fell into full retreat. Peshmerga forces immediately moved in to take control of Kirkuk, and have been defending against an onslaught of offensive attacks by ISIS ever since.

Although the media have portrayed the Peshmerga as a reliable and effective modern force in an area where the news reports are more gruesome day after day, significant challenges lie ahead. Peshmerga training and equipment may not even be up to par with the Islamic State, since the latter was able to capture American-made equipment and munitions originally supplied to the Iraqi Army.

With the ISIS onslaught, the Peshmerga has gotten the attention of the U.S. as well as regional powers that the Peshmerga is best positioned to defeat ISIS — but they’ll need support, training, equipment and arms.

KDP: Kurdistan Democratic Party

The Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) is the oldest Kurdish political party in Iraqi Kurdistan. It was founded in 1946 in the Kurdish region of Iran where the Iraqi Kurds led by Mustafa Barzani were taking refuge.

From its inception, the KDP has led the fight for autonomy and independence from Iraq, but has suffered setbacks and defeat at the hands of the much more powerful Iraqi Army and Air Force. Towards the end of the 20th century, the KDP turned toward Iran for support to further its own nationalist objectives. Iran and Iraq have both played the KDP against their eachother for political and military purposes.

Founding of the KDP

Founded in 1946, the Soviet Union pushed Mustafa Barzani to form the KDP in an attempt to support the Kurdish nationalist movement against the monarchies of Iran and Iraq which were supported by the West.

As the first modern political party, the various factions of the KDP spanned a wide spectrum of ideology from left wing communists to right wing tribal conservatives. In the middle, there were progressive socialists and traditionalists. Some wanted their own nation, others were content with limited autonomy within a federated government based in Baghdad.

KDP and the Iraqi Government

During 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s a pattern repeated itself again and again. A new Arabist leader would assert his belief in the Kurds as distinct and equal ethnic group in Iraq with political rights. Once the leader was successful at consolidating his power, he would repress Kurdish political rights, put armed forces in Kurdish regions, ban nationalist political parties, destroy Kurdish villages, and forcibly impose resettlement (especially in petroleum-rich areas).

As a result, from late 1961 onwards, conflict became normalized in Iraqi Kurdistan. A major development towards peace was initiated when the Iraqi government and Kurdish leaders signed the 1970 Peace Agreement. It promised Kurdish self-rule, recognition of the bi-national character of Iraq, political representation in the central government, extensive official language rights, the freedom of association and organization, and several other concessions aimed at restoring full civic rights to the Kurdish population. It was to come into effect within four years. In 1974 the weaker Law of Autonomy in the Area of Kurdistan was actually implemented with much weaker citizenship protections. Moreover, the law didn’t extend to Kirkuk, an oil industry center recognized as Kurdish, so conflict soon resumed.

The 1980s, especially during the Iran-Iraq war, was a particular low point for Iraqi Kurds. Approximately 500,000 Kurdish civilians were sent to detention camps in southern and eastern Iraq and the Iraqi armed forces razed villages and hamlets in and near the battle area. It was also at this time that the Iraqi military infamously used chemical weapons on Kurdish towns in the Al-Anfal campaigns.

The KDP and the PUK

In the wake of their defeat during the 1974–1975 War, Mustafa Barzani and his sons Idris and Masoud fled to Iran. The power vacuum they left behind was filled by their ideological opposition, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who, together with his Leftist supporters, announced the formation of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

Despite the terrible hardships suffered by the Kurds as a whole, the tension between the PUK and KDP sparked internecine fighting that would continue for decades. The fighting ceased after the Kurdish Civil War, which began in 1994 and concluded in 1998 when Masoud Barzani and Talabani signed the Washington Agreement..

KDP and Movement for Change

Following the 2011 Egyptian protests, another political party, the Movement for Change, called for the resignation of the Cabinet and the disbanding of the Kurdistan Regional Government. In response to the accompanying protests against the Kurdistan Regional Government, the KDP was cited as opening fire, killing two protesters and wounding several others. Later in the evening, they burnt down several buildings belonging to Movement for Change, including a TV and radio station. This violence has led to more demonstrations and public outrage.

KDP Criticism

A State Department cable leaked by Wikileaks noted that “The KDP consists of family clans, operating very much like a mafia organization. For example, Massoud Barzani’s uncle is Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, his nephew/son-in-law is KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani and his son Masrur is Head of KRG’s Intelligence Directorate”.

The KDP has historically maintained a broad base of political allegiances, acting as a big tent party ranging from tribal conservatives to socialists. Today the party is regarded as populist and nationalist.

PUK: Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) is a leftist Iraqi-Kurdish political party that splintered from the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in the mid 1970’s after the KDP’s Mustafa Barzani-led Peshmerga was defeated by the Iraqi Army led by Saddam Hussein. The PUK is said to have been founded by Jalal Talabani, Nawshirwan Mustafa, Ali Askari, Fuad Masum and others.

Left-Leaning Intellectuals

The PUK founders were the intellectuals and academics of the KDP who had a more left-leaning, democratic, socialist political philosophy. The KDP was more traditional, conservative and tribal in their political philosophy and constituency.

hen the Barzani-led Peshmerga was defeated, Barzani took the KDP into exile in Iran.  Talibani and his colleagues formed the new PUK party to fill that vacuum and provide leadership for Iraqi Kurdistan. At it’s founding, the PUK was an umbrella group for various leftist organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan. The PUK’s constituency comes from the southern part of Iraqi Kurdistan centered in Sulaymaniyah.

Civil War with KDP

Almost from its’ founding, the PUK was at odds with the KDP who, even though they were exiled in Iran, objected to the way the PUK was conducting its resistance to the Iraqi army. Eventually, the KDP re-emerged in Kurdistan and during the 1980’s Iran-Iraq War, they put aside their differences to gain autonomy and defend against the genocide campaign.

After the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the Coalition Forces implemented a no-fly zone in Kurdistan which protected them from Iraqi Air Force and allowed them to maintain their autonomy.

Unfortunately, due to clashes between the KDP and PUK in how to administer the government and oil resources, a civil war erupted and lasted till 1998 when the Washington Agreement was signed by Masoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani.

KDP and PUK controlled areas after 1998 Washington Agreement.

Power Sharing and Gorran

Since peace was instituted and has held, there’s been elections in 2005 and 2009 in which the KDP and PUK ran as a united party and shared power and positions.  But in 2009, a new party called the Movement for Change (Gorran) Party, splintered off from the PUK and ran as an anti-corruption and anti-nepotism party and won a surprising number of votes and parliamentary seats (25 out of 100) winning over votes from both the KDP and PUK constituencies.  In 2013, the KDP and PUK ran separately; the KDP won 38 seats and the PUK 18 out of 100 while the Change Party won 24.

Under the new Government, the KDP’s Massoud Barzani is the President, KDP’s Nechirvan Barzani is the Prime Minister, PUK’s Qubad Talibani is the Deputy Prime Minister and Movement for Change‘s Yousif Muhammed is Speaker of the Parliament.

Diamond demand to normalise in 2017

Debswana Mining Company’s Managing Director, Balisi BonyongoDebswana Mining Company’s Managing Director, Balisi Bonyongo
Debswana Mining Company’s Managing Director, Balisi Bonyongo says although the diamond market seems to have stabilised, this does not call for any celebration yet. It emerged from the company’s stakeholder engagement this week Tuesday that the world’s biggest diamond producer by value has realised a business improvement of 40 percent, a three-points increase from last year’s figure.


The improvement was largely driven by higher revenue from strong rough diamond demand, favourable exchange rates and improved cost and operational efficiencies. The first three cycles of the year 2017 started on a promising note with the cycles reaching US$729m, US$553m and US$580m respectively. Carats produced remained in line with 2015 production at 20.5 million carats, because of the company’s strategy to produce to demand by maximising production at its core assets and scaling down at its lower value.


However, Bonyongo cautioned that nonetheless, volatility remains. “A volatile situation is complex and anything can happen. We have to be aware of the global dynamic macro-economics when making decisions. 2017 will be a stable year and will probably remain so going ahead. 2015 stocks were all sold last year and destocking started taking place by sizeable numbers and the rough diamond demand is expected to normalise in 2017,” said Bonyongo.


The global growth will depend on macroeconomic factors including; the policies of the new Trump administration in the US; the strengthening of the US dollar impacting consumer demand, economic performance in China as well as the effects of the Indian demonetisation. US is however expected to remain the main driver of the global growth through 2017. 
With the anticipation of continued sales and price volatility, Bonyongo emphasised that Debswana shall maintain its operational flexibility, drive costs and operational efficiencies and improve planning and forecasting.


The company’s response to these external shocks is guided by its commitment to safety matters; employee engagement and morale and driving cost and operational efficiencies hence doing more with less; preserving jobs in readiness for an upturn; investing in projects to sustain the future of Debswana; investing in communities within which Debswana operate to leave a legacy of prosperity and sustainability; investing in health and wellness and; investing in citizen economic empowerment. 


Addressing the shareholders’ Annual General Meeting this week in London, Sir John Parker, Chairman of Anglo American plc indicated that looking to 2017… on the demand side, the fortunes of the mining industry will inevitably continue to be influenced by developments in China, where the authorities have recently reduced the country’s growth target for 2017 to 6.5 percent as the country seeks to balance its economy through a mixture of stimulus and managed slowdown.


Turning to Anglo American’s performance last year, which Debswana is a member through De Beers; Parker emphasised the importance of safety. Although the Anglo group had a most encouraging 24 percent reduction in recordable injury rates compared with 2015, the number of people who lost their lives at its operations increased from six to 11. 
This contrasted sharply with the declining trend of the past few years. “It was all the more surprising, given the increased focus on safety across the Group, including our emphasis on critical controls in high safety-risk areas. As a Board, we regard each loss of life with great sadness, and it is particularly distressing that several of these fatal incidents were preventable, given that they resulted from front-line operational practice being out of alignment with our safety policies,” he said.


While there was a clear imperative to reduce net debt during 2016, the underlying asset strategy holds true. Going forward, Parker says the Group’s commitment remains to a portfolio focused on the highest quality assets where they can deliver attractive margins and returns in the context of the right corporate and capital structure.

Page from the Past -Sikhism: What is the history behind 12 o' clock jokes on Sikhs?

Its easy to joke on a Sardar, but It's too difficult to be a Sardar"

I was standing at Amritsar Railway station when my attention went towards a Sikh youth standing near me wearing a Black turban having a long beard and wearing a kirpan over his shirt.

After a while, one local train arrived, which was totally packed. The Sikh youth tried to alight the train but failed to do so. Just then a voice was heard from the back coach 'Sardarji Barah Baj gaye' (Sir it's 12 o'clock!)

The Sikh youth looked over at that voice maker who was a young Mischievous type of person and instead of showing any anger made a smile towards him.

The smile made was so enigmatic that it seemed as if some type of truth lies behind it. Not able to resist my temptation, I walked towards him and asked why did he smile at that person who teased him.

The Sikh youth replied, 'He was not teasing me but was asking for my Help'. I was surprised with these words and he told me that there was a big history behind that which one should know. I was eager to know the History and the Sikh youth narrated:

During 17th Century, when Hindustan was ruled by Mughals, all the Hindu people were humiliated and were treated like animals. Mughals treated the Hindu women as there own property and were forcing all Hindus to accept Islam and even used to kill the people if they were refusing to accept.That time, our ninth Guru, Sri Guru Teg Bahadarji came forward, in response to a request of some Kashmir Pandits to fight against all these cruel activities.

Guruji told the Mughal emperor that if he could succeed in converting him to Islam, all the Hindus would accept the same. But, if he failed, he should stop all those activities. The Mughal emperor happily agreed to that but even after lots of torture to Guruji and his fellow members he failed to convert him to Islam and Guruji along with his other four fellow members, were tortured and sacrificed their lives in Chandni Chowk. Since the Mughals were unable to convert them to Islam they were assassinated.

Thus Guruji sacrificed his life for the protection of Hindu religion.

Can anybody lay down his life and that too for the protection of another religion?

This is the reason he is still remembered as "Hind Ki Chaddar", shield of India. For the sake of whom he had sacrificed his life, none of them came forward to lift his body, fearing that they would also be assassinated.

Seeing this incident our 10th Guruji, Sri Guru Gobind Singhji (Son of Guru Teg Bahadarji) founder of khalsa made a resolution that he would convert his followers to such human beings who would not be able to hide themselves and could be easily located in thousands. At the start, the Sikhs were very few in numbers as they were fighting against the Mughal emperors. At that time, Nadir Shah raided Delhi in the year 1739 and looted Hindustan and was carrying lot of Hindustan treasures and nearly 2200 Hindu women along with him. The news spread like a fire and was heard by Sardar Jassa Singh who was the Commander of the Sikh army at that time. He decided to attack Nadir Shah's Kafila on the same midnight. He did so and rescued all the Hindu women and they were safely sent to their homes.

It didn't happen only once but thereafter whenever any Abdaalis or Iranis had attacked and looted Hindustan and were trying to carry the treasures and Hindu women along with them for selling them in Abdal markets, the Sikh army although fewer in numbers but were brave hearted and attacked them at midnight, 12 O'clock and rescued women.

After that time when there occurred a similar incidence, people started to contact the Sikh army for their help and Sikhs used to attack the raider's at Midnight, 12 O'clock. Nowadays, these "smart people" and some Sikh enemies who are afraid of Sikhs, have spread these words that at 12 O'clock, the Sikhs go out of their senses. This historic fact was the reason which made me smile over that person as I thought that his Mother or Sister would be in trouble and wants my help and was reminding me by saying off 'Sardarji Barah Baj Gaye'.