Supporting PYD means supporting PKK

The United Nations has announced that invitations were sent to the parties for the Syria peace negotiations that are planned to start on Jan. 29 in Geneva. The major figures from the Kurdish opposition in Syria were also invited. After that, Russian news agency Sputnik alleged that the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is active in northern Syria, was also to attend the negotiations.

Ankara responded harshly to the report since it considers the PYD to be a partner and Syrian counterpart of the outlawed PKK, which has been fighting against the Turkish state for 30 years. To put otherwise, Ankara is not disturbed by the possibility of a new state for Kurds in the region. If this was the case, Ankara would not be the only ally of Northern Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which is recognized by many states today.

Therefore, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said in an interview he gave to CNN that Ankara does not want to see the PYD in Geneva, but they are ready to accept Syrian Kurds in the negotiations.

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu also announced that Turkey would boycott the peace negotiations in Geneva if the PYD is invited to take part.

PYD Co-Chair Saleh Muslim appeared on Tuesday, speaking to Reuters, he said he had not yet received an invitation to the Geneva negotiations.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius clarified the debate to a considerable extent with a statement he issued yesterday in which he said said that the U.N. special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura sent the invitation letters and told him that he had not sent an invitation letter to the PYD.

So, the PYD, whose participation in the opposition delegation is insistently supported by Russia, will probably be excluded following the harsh response from Ankara, or a middle way will be sought by finding a moderate name.

No matter what the results indicate, it is obvious that many states, particularly Russia, will continue to regard the PYD as a legal and legitimate political party rather than an affiliate of a terrorist group. On his visit to Istanbul over the weekend U.S. Vice President Joe Biden also said that it is necessary to differentiate the PYD from the PKK.

The PYD, however, is an offset of a regional terror network just like the PKK.

To clarify, the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK), an umbrella network with the goal of a united Kurdistan, has organizations with different names in every country with Kurdish populations. The name of its affiliate in Turkey is the PKK. The PKK is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S., Iran, Iraq, Syria and the EU. The Iranian affiliate of the KCK is the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK). This organization is also listed as a terrorist group by the U.S., Iran and Turkey.

Now I would like to come to my point. Although two KCK affiliates are recognized as terrorist groups, why is the PYD not regarded as a terrorist organization?

Is Abdullah Öcalan not the unquestioned leader of the KCK, PKK, PJAK and the PYD?

The PYD, which is regarded as an independent organization, does not have an armed force separate from the KCK army. The PYD's armed forces, known as the People's Protection Units (YPG), which fought against DAESH militants in Kobani, were PKK members sent from the Qandil Mountains in Iraq, the headquarters of the KCK.

Also, all the weapons sent to the PYD as part of Kobani clashes, including the weapons air dropped by the U.S., are used in activities organized by the PKK. By saying activities, I do not mean assaults on military units. As already known, the PKK mostly prefers uncourageous and despicable methods such as the latest incident in the southeastern province of Diyarbakır last Friday in which children between the ages of five and 10 who were about to enter a midterm break were bombed.

Are you confused by all these acronyms? This confusion is the only reason why the KCK is referred to with a different name in every country.

The saddest part is that this method, employed by the KCK to solidify power in the international arena, has been as influential as it was thought to be.

If it had not, would the states governed by sane, reasonable and fair politicians regard the KCK's PYD as an ally while seeing the PKK and PJAK as enemies?

By the way, are Western states still clear on the point that al-Qaida and all its wings that fight in every country under a different name are terrorist groups beyond dispute?