Western (Syrian) Kurdistan has now become so closed off that the talk of massacres against its Kurdish residents sounds like a mystery. Unfortunately, that sounds similar to what we hear to be happening in a state like North Korea.
The Democratic Union Party (PYD) claims that massacres are being perpetrated against the Kurds in Syria. But some civil rights organizations dismiss such claims, saying that the PYD is using it as propaganda tool and a means to gain popular as well as financial support. None of the many other Syrian Kurdish parties back up PYD’s claims either.
These Kurdish parties have bases and supporters in areas like Afrin, Kobane, Sere Kaniye and Girespi, where the PYD says the massacres are happening. So, not backing up the reports of massacres against Kurds by Islamist rebels throws PYD’s claims into serious doubt.
The harm to an independent state when it decides to stay closed off -- like North Korea -- is that it becomes isolated from the rest of the world and lags behind. But for a place like western Kurdistan where there is an important national cause to address, being closed off loses a great historical opportunity towards that end.
For a place like western Kurdistan where there is an important national cause to address, being closed off loses a great historical opportunity towards that end. 
After the uprising of 1991 in which Iraqi Kurds rid themselves of Iraq’s central rule, two major factors helped the Kurds maintain their freedom.
One was media. Cold and shaky hands that held and clicked the cameras in the mountains eventually managed to show the outside world evidence of the suffering, and they made the world intervene on their behalf. As a result, the UN resolution 688 imposed no-fly-zones on Iraq, the outcome of which was today’s Kurdistan Region.
Second was the formation of the Kurdistan Front, which guaranteed pluralism and prevented any single party from imposing itself on the Kurdish society. The Front gave every political party a chance to participate in running the newly-gained autonomous region. This kind of cooperation convinced the international community that their intervention to save the Kurds was worthwhile.
It goes without saying that if following the 1991 uprising either the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) or Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) had ruled single-handedly -- even for a short few years -- and conducted its negotiations with Baghdad and the neighboring countries without regard to the other parties, the Kurdistan Region would have never reached the stage we see today.
The PYD has now prevented the participation of all other Kurdish parties in the political process and it has also killed any concern or attention the international community or world media may have for the Kurdish areas of Syria.
On top of that, the PYD has practically discarded the Erbil Agreement, signed by all Kurdish parties, and sidelined every other group by not allowing them any role.
It is clear that the Kurdish areas of Syria are in an already semi-autonomous state, but its people do not seem happy. They do not feel like they live under a rule they do not fear.
It is clear that the Kurdish areas of Syria are in an already semi-autonomous state, but its people do not seem happy.
A United Front and power sharing is the best guarantee for the complete freedom of western Kurdistan. The cooperation of all parties would give no one the opportunity to attack the Kurdish areas. In fact, the situation for a multiparty framework is so ripe that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggests that western Kurdistan be run jointly by the PYD and the Kurdish National Council (KNC).
All parts of Kurdistan are connected to each other through their shared land, and the Kurds as a people are the extended members of the same nation in the region. Therefore, it is natural for a particular party to be active and have bases and branches in all areas, such as the PYD, the KDP and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). But the issue is when the PKK wants to rule western Kurdistan from its mountain bases and with a single-party mentality.
Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan should not become like North and South Korea. The people of Syrian Kurdistan should not be compelled to come to Iraqi Kurdistan secretly, just as North Koreans risk their lives to reach South Korea.
The PYD has established a Maoist style movement called Tev-Dem for a civil administration of the Syrian Kurdish towns and cities. It also has an armed wing called Peoples Defense Units (YPG) and says that no other armed group is allowed.
Meanwhile, the finger of blame is pointed at the PYD for the assassination and killing of more than 50 Kurdish politicians and activists in Syrian Kurdistan. This has created a negative political atmosphere in those areas in which the spirit of cooperation will never flourish. It will also weaken the line of trust between the people and their rulers in Syrian Kurdistan.
Opening a border crossing between Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan in the beginning of this year has now taken an official form and created a national and international line of exchange. But the strong one-party rule in Syrian Kurdistan has been all but discoursing to the KDP on this side of the border. It intended to use the crossing more efficiently to send support for Syrian Kurds. The PYD wanted to use the crossing point for a secret shipment of arms.
On the other hand, KDP’s allies in Syrian Kurdistan believe that the KDP should be careful and not help strengthen the muscles of one group – the PYD -- that sees itself as the only righteous governor. These parties also speak of the seizure of $15 million by the PYD on the same border, without any accountability.
This kind of attitude by the PYD has made it very difficult for anyone to prove if massacres are taking place against the Kurds in Syria. The Berlin-based Kurdwatch -- a Syrian Kurdish organization -- says that no massacre of Kurds has taken place in Syria. It says that the PYD is rather trying to compensate for the damage it sustained after it killed six innocent protesters in Amude earlier in the summer.
On the other hand, KDP’s allies in Syrian Kurdistan believe that the KDP should be careful and not help strengthen the muscles of one group – the PYD -- that sees itself as the only righteous governor.
Why should a part of Kurdistan that has only recently got rid of a repressive regime still continue to be closed off and isolated in a way that no one can tell what is happening, just as it was when Bashar Assad’s regime was in charge?
When some Iraqi and Iranian Kurdish groups said they were ready to send forces to defend Syrian Kurds against attacks by the extremist Islamist Jabhat al-Nusrah, the PYD leader Salih Muslim said that he did not need help and could in fact spare some fighters to help others.
So the question is: What is the PYD trying to achieve by crying blue murder while it turns down all offers of support?
What has helped the PYD continue this wrong policy -- which may in the end stifle the chance of true freedom for Syrian Kurds -- is that certain groups in Iraqi Kurdistan are indirectly helping the PYD only to spite the KDP.
For instance, the PUK has always had its influence in Syrian Kurdistan through the Democratic Progress Party. But that group has little support and influence in Syria. But it should be noted that by supporting the PYD the PUK cannot win the influence it needs in Syrian Kurdistan.
All in all, PUK patting the PYD on the back will make the group even less inclined toward a multiparty front, which will in the end be more detrimental to the cause of Syrian Kurds.
