Page 496 – Nejat Society

The Greed, Cluelessness, and Poor Judgment of the MEK’s American Advocates

U.S. News recently published a long article on the pro-MEK lobbying effort and the terrorist group’s American advocates. Here Karim Sadjadpour offers an explanation for why so many Americans have embraced the group:

Sadjadpour, the Carnegie analyst, finds it remarkable that so many politicians have supported a group with so much baggage. “In some cases it’s greed, in some cases it’s cluelessness, in some cases it’s remarkably poor judgment, and often it’s all of the above,” he said of the political support.

What I still don’t quite understand is how so many high-ranking and prominent people could be genuinely clueless about a group that they are supporting on a regular basis. It would be more understandable if they were simply motivated by anti-Iranian animus and chose to align themselves with the most distasteful allies possible. That wouldn’t make their cavorting with terrorists any less disgraceful, but it would make sense in a very cynical way. What doesn’t make any sense is how so many prominent figures could be so thoroughly ignorant about the background of an organization whose cause they are promoting. At some point, the ignorance defense isn’t credible. Since the MEK’s American advocates obviously know so little about the group’s history, why should anyone else trust their judgment when they say that the group shouldn’t remain on the FTO list?

The Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page would have to be included in the poor judgment category, and unlike the others his involvement has been a one-time event. Here was an interesting part of his recent column that addressed his attendance at the MEK gathering last month:

“Why are they picking on you?” asked one of many outraged emails from supportive readers in a similar vein. “Why aren’t reporters going after the other big names who are raking in big money for speeches like this?” The quick answer: They don’t work for newspapers.

In fact, some reporters, including Justin Elliott, have been publicizing the pro-MEK activism of former officials, politicians, and retired military officers for many months. These reporters have been “going after” pro-MEK advocates for quite a while, so it’s absurd to think that Page received more scrutiny than anyone else. The reason that these other individuals haven’t been censured by anyone is that they are generally no longer answerable to any employer or organization. In that sense, they are free to lend their support to a terrorist group in a way that someone in Page’s position isn’t. Even though they would all seem to be offering “material support” to a terrorist group, there is no real danger that any of them would face charges.

The new report also digs a bit more into the lobbying effort’s finances:

Much of M.E.K.’s support, Gobadi says, comes from the Iranian diaspora. While he doesn’t name the group’s U.S. supporters, the Senate disclosure database reveals the Iranian American Community of North Texas and Iranian American Community of Northern California have been most active. Dozens of similar community groups came into existence after the U.S. government shut down a partner office of the M.E.K. in D.C. in 2003, but many have since disappeared. Requests for comments from both community groups were not returned, but it’s clear that they have had enormous fundraising and sway.

IACNT and IANCC paid the lobbying firms in Washington thousands of dollars to get signatures for the congressional resolution. They paid the speakers lobby thousands of dollars to get Rendell, Giuliani and Crowley, participants said.

P.S. The Post reported late last week that MEK advocates may be in violation of lobbying regulations (via Andrew):

In recent weeks, new questions have been raised about whether private meetings, conference calls and other contact with officials at the State Department and elsewhere in the administration over the past year require the advocates’ registration as lobbyists or agents of a foreign entity.

Under federal law, advocates for foreign organizations are required to register as lobbyists and provide details about their clients and income. But the MEK supporters have not registered, which would require disclosing the amounts they are paid and the identities of officials with whom they meet.

Update: The Post article includes another good quote from Sadjadpour:

“I see them as a cross between Hezbollah and the Branch Davidians,” [bold mine-DL] said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It is legitimate to debate whether the MEK meets the Justice Department’s legal definition of a terrorist organization. But it is outright false to claim that they are a legitimate, democracy-minded opposition group with a wide base inside Iran.”

This false claim that they represent Iran’s democratic opposition is exactly what pro-MEK advocates say about the group all the time.

By Daniel Larison

July 9, 2012 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

The democracy Rajavi believes in

Democracy is a word frequently used by politicians around the world. People are constantly told The democracy Rajavi believes in that they’d better live in a democracy. Most states claim that their political system is “democratic”. Most opposition groups claim that they are struggling for democracy.

A democracy is a government by people; it is rule of the majority. Tolerance is one of the features of a democracy. Tolerance is the capacity for, or the practice of, recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. But, is anyone who chants slogans of democracy,a democrat?

The June 23 gathering of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization was allegedly called a “pro-democracy” event. The organizer of the rally said it was held “for democratic change in Iran”!
As the organizers of the event, national Council of Resistance of Iran is the propaganda arm of the MKO. Self assigned president of the NCRI, Maryam Rajavi is now running the group – which is widely known as a cult- in the absence of his disappeared husband Massoud Rajavi. Massoud went in to hiding in 2003 after the US invasion to Iraq and the fall of Iraqi dictator and also following the arrest of Maryam by French Police in June 2003. As Elizabeth Rubin of the NYTimes asserts the MKO "is something more like a husband-and wife-led cult ".[1]

On July13, 2003, Rubin published a comprehensive article on the cult-like devotion of members to the group leaders. Interviewing both advocates and opponents of the group she concludes, "It seems dangerously myopic that the US is even considering resurrecting the Rajavis and their army of Stepford wives." She writes of Iranians view on the MKO, ”those who knew and remembered the group laughed at the notion of it spearheading a democracy movement.”[2]

To clarify the type of democracy the MKO speaks of an example of their so-called pro- democracy acts should be noticed: Prior to the June23 gathering, several former members of the group staged a rally in Saint-Mitchell square in the southern suburb of Paris on Friday, June22 to voice their resentment at the terrorist activities of the MKO ,reported PressTV. The defectors rally was confronted by a number of MKO members wielding knives, snap-off blade cutters, chains and baseball bats. [3]

This undemocratic act of intolerance by MKO members was not unexpected. On June17, 2007, over 50 MKO members attacked a public meeting in Paris at which several people were injured. PressTV reported that it was later revealed that the assault had been orchestrated by top MKO leaders. [4]

This is the democracy the MKO leaders believe in. Neither respect, nor tolerance is included in their “type of democracy”.

Those Western politicians who were invited and paid by “the Organizing Committee for Convention for Democracy in Iran”(!), should watch their behavior. They badly risk their reputation by advocating for an officially terrorist designated group- under the name of democracy!

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1] Rubin,Elizabeth, the Cult of Rajavi, New York Times, July13,2003
[2]ibid
[3] PressTV, French security forces arrest 16 MKO terrorists, June24, 2012
[4]ibid

July 8, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq as an Opposition Group

Ex-MEK leaves Paris hospital after vicious attack by Mojahedin

Nader Naderi, a former MEK member who was attacked and beaten up by Mojahedin Khalq cult members in Paris, was released from hospital after being treated for broken ribs and other injuries.

The attack on Mr Naderi took place in a busy street in Paris where a group of ex-MEK members were holding an authorized rally against violation of human rights by MEK cult leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.

Naderi writes in his weblog, "more than 15 members of the MEK attacked us like they wanted to kill us. I say directly to Maryam Rajavi that these violent offences will not stop me or my friends from telling the world about what the MEK have done to us."

According to another ex-MEK member, who was one of the organizers of the rally, the MEK members were organized and had orders to stop the rally. Hamed Sarrafpour says, "Maryam`s terrorists hid among the tourists who were passing along the streets, they chased us and then attacked us. They don’t want any criticism of their cult to be heard."

The attack on Naderi was witnessed by a citizen of Paris and a British tourist who filmed the incident and later accompanied Mr Naderi to hospital. In a statement given to the French police the British woman – who wished to remain anonymous – said, “I came here as a tourist and I was shocked when I saw what was taking place, I felt unsafe. What really disgusted me is that I think I have given money to this group in London in the past. I hope the police catch them and prosecute them.”

Many ex-MEK members who managed to escape from the MEK’s Iraqi base, Camp Ashraf, in recent years have testified to numerous violations of human rights inside the garrison. These include the and false imprisonment of members who did not want to stay with the group any more.

During recent years, the MEK has spent millions of dollars in order to get itself removed from the US terrorist list (FTO). They have held rallies and invited speakers who were paid amounts of between 10 to 40 k dollars.

The Rajavis run the MEK along the lines of a totalitarian cult which governs how relations are organized inside. This includes ordering members to divorce their spouses, forcing them to attend daily confession meetings and denying them access to external information and communication.

By our Europe Correspondent,

July 8, 2012 0 comments

USA

US: MEK Must Vacate Iraqi Base or Jeopardize Bid to Change Status

The Iranian group has been lobbying to be taken of the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations

The US has again warned the Iranian dissident group Mujahadin-e Khalq (MEK) that they must vacate vacate the Iraqi base Camp Ashraf and said if they don’t leave it will harm their chances of being delisted from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s coordinator for counter-terrorism, said the MEK must move out by the Iraqi government’s deadline on July 20.

The MEK has a long history of terrorist activity going back to the 1970′s and it remains on America’s official list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and has the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government. Because of this goal, there has been a big money push by many influential people in Washington to get the group removed from the State Department’s terrorist list, presumably to make it eligible for US funding to act against the Iranian regime.

As recently as 2007, a State Department report warned that the MEK, retains “the capacity and will” to attack “Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond.” In 2002, the Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein’s support for the MEK ”terrorist” group justified a US invasion of Iraq.

After an extended and expensive lobbying effort on the part of the MEK, a congressional resolution was recently signed by 99 members of Congress asking the State Department to change the status of the group.

And as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told US lawmakers earlier this year, “Given the ongoing efforts to relocate the residents, MEK cooperation in the successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, the MeK’s main paramilitary base, will be a key factor in any decision regarding the MEK’s FTO status.”

by John Glaser,

July 8, 2012 0 comments

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Iraqi Deputy FM: Baghdad Resolved to Expel MKO

Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abawi underlined that presence of the anti-Iran terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as MEK, PMOI and NCR) in Iraq is illegal, raq's Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abawi reiterating that Baghdad is determined to expel the terrorist group.

Abawi said in a statement that MKO’s presence in Iraq does not meet the description of asylum, and stressed that Baghdad is determined to close the terrorist group’s main training base, Camp Ashraf, and drive MKO elements to another country.

He reiterated that MKO’s presence in Iraq has not justification, saying, "The elements of the MKO are illegal . They came to Iraq and were used by the former regime for military purposes, they are not refugees because according to the Iraqi law they don’t qualify for asylum."

The MKO, whose main stronghold is in Iraq, is blacklisted by much of the international community, including the United States.

Before an overture by the EU, the MKO was on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations subject to an EU-wide assets freeze. Yet, the MKO puppet leader, Maryam Rajavi, who has residency in France, regularly visited Brussels and despite the ban enjoyed full freedom in Europe.

The MKO is behind a slew of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, a number of EU parliamentarians said in a recent letter in which they slammed a British court decision to remove the MKO from the British terror list. The EU officials also added that the group has no public support within Iran because of their role in helping Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988).

Many of the MKO members abandoned the terrorist organization while most of those still remaining in the camp are said to be willing to quit but are under pressure and torture not to do so.

The group, founded in the 1960s, blended elements of Islamism and Stalinism and participated in the overthrow of the US-backed Shah of Iran in 1979. Ahead of the revolution, the MKO conducted attacks and assassinations against both Iranian and Western targets.

The group started assassination of the citizens and officials after the revolution in a bid to take control of the newly established Islamic Republic. It killed several of Iran’s new leaders in the early years after the revolution, including the then President, Mohammad Ali Rajayee, Prime Minister, Mohammad Javad Bahonar and the Judiciary Chief, Mohammad Hossein Beheshti who were killed in bomb attacks by MKO members in 1981.

The group fled to Iraq in 1986, where it was protected by Saddam Hussein and where it helped the Iraqi dictator suppress Shiite and Kurd uprisings in the country.

The terrorist group joined Saddam’s army during the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988) and helped Saddam and killed thousands of Iranian civilians and soldiers during the US-backed Iraqi imposed war on Iran.

Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group, which now adheres to a pro-free-market philosophy, has been strongly backed by neo-conservatives in the United States, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.

July 8, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Lobbying for MKO terror group by US officials under investigation

A major lobbying campaign by prominent US politicians and former top officials to promote the globally recognized Iranian terror group Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) has raised legal questions.

A major lobbying campaign by prominent US lawmakers and former top officials in support of the anti-Iran terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), has raised legal questions on the legitimacy of such top-level advocacy.

American advocates of the terrorist group, notorious for terror bombings and assassinations of scores of Iranian officials and civilians as well as siding with executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran in the 1980’s, have met with senior officials of President Barack Obama’s administration to push for MKO’s removal from the State Department’s terrorist list and special treatment of its members at a military camp in Iraq, The Washington Post reported Friday.

According to the report, public appearances on behalf of the MKO by such high-profile American politicians as former national security adviser to Obama administration, James Jones, former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, and ex-governor of Pennsylvania Edward Rendell had already triggered a Treasury Department probe into whether the tens of thousands of dollars received as payments for such publicity efforts violated US anti-terrorism laws.

New questions have been raised in recent weeks on whether the private meetings, conference calls and other communication with administration officials over the past year would require the MKO supporters to register as lobbyists or agents of a foreign entity.

Despite arguments by MKO advocates that they are ‘legitimately’ acting to facilitate US policy decisions, experts on lobbying regulations insist that contact with administration officials “easily meet the definition of lobbying under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, a law that has sometimes led to criminal charges,” says The Post.

The new questions, the report adds, pose the latest challenge for the MKO, which has been listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization since 1997 and was linked to the deaths of six Americans in the 1970’s.

This is while, the anti-Iran MKO terror group and its umbrella organization, the National Council of Resistance, have been engaged in high-priced campaigning in the US for years to get off the terrorist list, including the purchasing of advertisements in The Washington Post and other major mainstream publications (at an average cost of over $50,000 per day).

A US federal appeals court, meanwhile, has given Secretary of State Hillary Clinton until October to make a decision on whether to remove the MKO from its list of international terror groups.

The Post report further reveals that the anti-Iran terror group has enlisted “some of the biggest names in US politics and national security,” including former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, former Joint Chiefs chairman Hugh Shelton, former FBI director Louis Freeh, former UN envoys John Bolton and Bill Richardson, former US attorney general Michael Mukasey, former speaker of US House of Representatives and recent Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich, as well as Mitchell Reiss, a former State Department official who has been one of the top foreign policy advisers to the current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney since 2008.

Rendell, Giuliani, Mukasey as well as Gingrich were among 16 high-profile US officials that flew to Paris last month for a pro-MKO event. In a video published by the terrorist group, Gingrich is seen bowing to MKO’s co-leader Maryam Rajavi. Afterward, according to the report, “Gingrich appealed for ‘decisive action’ by the United States on the group’s behalf.”

Furthermore, in a speech on behalf of the terrorist organization in late May, former homeland security secretary during the late George Bush administration Tom Ridge called for “regime change” in Iran, claiming, “The heart of this effort, we all believe, is to recognize democratic opposition – it is the [MKO].”

The Post report, however, goes on to quote an Iran expert as saying, “It is outright false to claim that they (MKO) are a legitimate, democracy-minded opposition group with a wide base inside Iran.”

Prominent MKO surrogates in the US have acknowledged accepting “travel expenses” from unspecific “MKO-allied groups” as well as payments of $10,000 to $40,000 for each speaking engagement. Rendell, meanwhile, has acknowledged accepting over $150,000 in expenses from “supporters” of the MKO. He also admits that before engaging in public speaking on their behalf, “he knew very little” about the terrorist group.

The US daily further reports that Treasury Department officials have interviewed several of MKO’s supporters to determine whether they violated US law by providing support to an organization on the US terrorist list. While refusing to specifically comment on the case, Treasury spokesman John Sullivan described MKO as a “designated terrorist group,” adding, “Therefore, US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with or providing services to this group.”

Other US officials familiar with the terrorist organization say, however, that the probe into paid lobbying for the MKO “remains on hold while awaiting a formal decision on its terrorist status.” Clinton, meanwhile, told US Congress in May that the State Department would favor removing MKO from its terrorist list if it complies with UN efforts to relocate its members in Iraq to a new temporary location.

US officials, according to The Post, have expressed concerns about rising tensions and an ensuing violence between Iraqi authorities and MKO members if the terrorist group members refuse to vacate the Camp Ashraf military base by the July 20 deadline.

July 8, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The MEK Still Has Not Changed

Nicole Gibson notices that the columnist Clarence Page also spoke at the recent MEK gathering in Paris. Page’s defense is worth quoting again:

“I thought they were simply a group of Iranian exiles who were opposed to the regime in Tehran,” Page said. “I later found out they can be construed as a MEK front group, and I don’t think it’s worth it to my reputation to be perceived as a paid spokesman for any political cause.”

I love that “they can be construed as a MEK front group” line. That’s rather like saying that Sinn Fein could be “construed” as the IRA’s political wing, as if it were something up for debate or interpretation. It could be “construed” that way because that was the truth. Just look at the website of the organizing group. “Delist MEK” and “Camp Ashraf” are two tabs prominently displayed on the site. Who else would be so focused on these issues other than a front group for the MEK? How does someone agree to speak at an event sponsored by this group and not know that? Page deserves some credit for deciding to return the group’s money right away, but what was he doing at the event in the first place?

One of Page’s defenders isn’t helping him by highlighting what Page said in Paris. According to Achy Obejas, Page said the following:

* “Thanks for inviting me to speak up for values I believe we share: Freedom, democracy and respect for human rights for men and women across racial, ethnic and religious lines.
* “I believe we share a desire for regime change in Iran to a more fair and democratic society.
* “The historical record shows – and a variety of experts have told me – how the MEK has been America’s ally in our war against terrorists [bold mine-DL], but as former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has said, the State Department appears to have been left behind with outdated information. Now a federal court has said the State Department should check its relevance.
* “You have allies to whom you should reach out in common cause as long as you advocate the values all decent human beings share. As long as you work for freedom, equality, human rights and democracy, you are not working alone.”

It is obvious from these remarks that Page was badly misinformed. Whoever offered him the “expertise” he cites here did him a disservice. These views are “pretty mainstream” in the sense that a lot of prominent former officials and politicians have made similar claims. One small problem with these views is that they are based on misinformation.

The MEK has been trying to reinvent itself over the last decade by claiming that it has embraced all of the principles Page mentions, but the reality is that the group’s beliefs are antithetical to liberal and democratic principles. The MEK’s reinvention as a “democratic” opposition group is a classic example of a revolutionary organization adopting the rhetoric of its would-be Western patron. Suffice it to say that a group that relied on the patronage and protection of Saddam Hussein for over two decades is not one interested in creating a “fair and democratic society.” The MEK has not been an “ally” in a war against terrorists, and any “experts” that told Page this were not telling him the truth.

Ray Takeyh testified about the MEK’s ideology last year:

As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone. Such convenient posturing should not distract attention from its well-honed ideological animus to the United States.

Terror has always been a hallmark of MEK’s strategy for assuming power. Through much of its past, the party exulted violence as a heroic expression of legitimate dissent. One of the central precepts of the party is that a highly-dedicated group of militants could spark a mass revolution by bravely confronting superior power of the state and assaulting its authority. Once, the masses observe that the state is vulnerable to violence, than they will shed their inhibitions and join the protest, thus sparking the larger revolution. Thus, the most suitable means of affecting political change is necessarily violence. Although in its advocacy in Western capitals, the MEK emphasizes its commitment to democracy and free expression, in neither deed nor word has it forsworn it violent pedigree.

P.S. The point here isn’t that Page’s remarks are unusual, but rather that they are unfortunately entirely too “mainstream” nowadays. This episode reflects how extensive the pro-MEK lobbying effort has become, and it underscores the need to show that the lobbying effort is based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

By Daniel Larison

July 7, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK behind second violent incident in Europe in a month

Attacker of Iranian diplomat in Frankfurt linked to Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) terror group

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi told reporters that one of the Iranian consular members in Frankfurt had been attacked by an African woman on Monday while he was returning home from work.

While the German police appear to have not fully investigated the incident, Iran-Interlink has learned that the African woman in question had previously been paid to attend a rally held by the Mojahedin Khalq terrorist cult in Villepinte, France on June 23rd.

The MEK had paid and bussed in several hundred such African and other refugees from all over Europe to make up an audience for its paid speakers, who mostly came from America.

This is the second violent incident in the past month involving the MEK. Nader Naderi, a former MEK member, was attacked and beaten up by Mojahedin Khalq cult members in Paris, during an authorised march to protest human rights violations by the MEK cult leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi.

Mr Naderi suffered a broken rib and other injuries and was taken to hospital by a shocked English tourist who had filmed the event as evidence for the police.

—————————
Iran summons German envoy over police misconduct

Press TV reported on July 05 2012

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has summoned the German ambassador to Tehran Bernd Erbel to strongly protest against the police confrontation with an Iranian diplomat in Frankfurt.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi said that one of the Iranian consular members in Frankfurt was attacked by an African woman on Monday while he was returning home from work, IRNA reported on Wednesday.

“Instead of confronting the assailant individual, the German police unfortunately displayed a violent behavior toward our country’s diplomat…” he said.

“Following the occurrence, the German ambassador to Tehran was summoned to the Foreign Ministry and he received the strong protest of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the German police behavior toward the diplomat],” Qashqavi added.

The Iranian government has also demanded German officials to launch an immediate investigation and explain the police misbehavior.

The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Berlin and its consulate in Frankfurt have also sent letters to German officials, made contacts and held talks with them to voice Tehran’s protest in this regard.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry further condemned the move as part of an anti-Iran plot, aimed to undermine Tehran diplomatic image.

July 7, 2012 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

U.S. steps up warnings on Camp Ashraf

The United States warned an Iranian dissident group on Friday that time was running out for it to vacate its Iraqi base camp, and said its hope to be taken off the official U.S. blacklist of terrorist steps up warnings on Camp Ashraf in Iraq organizations could depend on its compliance.

Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s coordinator for counter-terrorism, said the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MEK) must complete its move from the Camp Ashraf facility, which the Iraqi government has vowed to close by July 20.

"It is past time for the MEK to recognize that Ashraf is not going to remain an MEK base in Iraq," Benjamin told reporters, saying Baghdad’s patience was running out.

"The Iraqi government is committed to closing it, and any plan to wait out the government in the hope that something will change is irresponsible and dangerous."

The dissident group, which calls for the overthrow of Iran’s clerical leaders, is no longer welcome in Iraq under the Shi’ite-led government that came to power after Saddam Hussein’s downfall in 2003.

Also known as the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran, the group led a guerrilla campaign against the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran during the 1970s that also included attacks on U.S. targets.

The United States added the MEK to its official list of foreign terrorist organizations in 1997, but the group has since said that it has renounced violence and has mounted a legal and public relations campaign to have its terrorist designation dropped.

COURT DEADLINE

Last month, a U.S. appeals court asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make her determination on the MEK’s status by October, a ruling hailed as a victory by MEK supporters.

But U.S. officials have stressed that Clinton – who has herself said that the disposition of Camp Ashraf will be key to her eventual decision – may still find against the group.

"MEK leaders appear to believe that the secretary has no choice now but to delist them. That conclusion is quite plainly wrong," Benjamin said.

"The MEK’s relocation will assist the secretary in determining whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is committed to leaving that past behind."

Despite repeated U.S. appeals to close the camp and the successful relocation of some 2,000 MEK members to a new holding facility near Baghdad, the group continues to have 1,200-1,300 members at Camp Ashraf and has taken no steps to relocate them since May 5.

The MEK has complained of mistreatment and poor conditions at the new facility, a large former U.S. military base, and U.S. officials say they have urged the Iraqi government to take steps to address some of the group’s concerns.

Daniel Fried, Clinton’s special advisor on Ashraf, said that while the Iraqi government had shown flexibility on earlier deadlines for Camp Ashraf, there was no indication it would do so again unless there were signs of significant movement from the camp by July 20.

"That date should put everyone on notice, and the MEK on notice, that it needs to proceed with the next convoy of people out of Camp Ashraf," Fried said.

Reporting By Andrew Quinn; Editing by Paul Simao

July 7, 2012 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

The MEK Designation and the Current Situation at Camp Ashraf

Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Daniel Benjamin and Special Advisor to the Secretary on Camp Ashraf Ambassador Daniel Fried on the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) Designation and the Current Situation at Camp Ashraf

Special Briefing The MEK Designation and the Current Situation at Camp Ashraf
Office of the Spokesperson
Via Teleconference

July 6, 2012
——————————————————————————–

MR. VENTRELL: Hey. Good afternoon, everybody, and thanks for joining us. Today, we’ve got an on-the-record conference call with Ambassador Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and Ambassador Daniel Fried, our Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf.

And so we’re going to go ahead and start this on-the-record call. I believe Ambassador Benjamin will make some remarks at the top, and then we’ll turn it over to both of our speakers for questions. So let’s go ahead and start.

Ambassador Benjamin.

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Yes. Thank you very much. I wanted to talk today a bit about the situation in Iraq, where there is an impasse between the Iraqi Government and the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the MEK, over the relocation of residents from the group’s paramilitary Camp Ashraf to the temporary transit facility at Camp Hurriya. The Iraqi Government and the United Nations continue to encourage the secure, humane relocation of residents to Hurriya for refugee status determinations by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Almost 2,000 individuals have already relocated, but the remaining 1,200 to 1,300 are holding at Ashraf until various MEK demands are met by the Iraqi Government. The last convoy of individuals, about 400 people, was on May 5th. And the patience of the Iraqi Government is wearing thin.

The MEK seems to have misinterpreted the June 1 order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. MEK leaders appear to believe that the Secretary has no choice now but to delist them. That conclusion is quite plainly wrong. In short, the court did not order the Secretary of State to revoke the MEK designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As the Secretary has made clear, the MEK’s cooperation in the successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf will be a key factor in her decision regarding the MEK’s FTO status. The court has told the State Department that it must act by October 1, but it did not mandate a particular result. I think that’s very important to underscore. The Secretary thus retains the discretion to either maintain or revoke the designation in accordance with the law. It is past time for the MEK to recognize that Ashraf is not going to remain an MEK base in Iraq. The Iraqi Government is committed to closing it, and any plan to wait out the government in the hope that something will change is irresponsible and dangerous.

The MEK is a group whose violent history against the United States includes the bombing of U.S. companies in Iran, the assassination of seven U.S. citizens, and the provision of support for the attack, occupation, and hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The MEK is also one of the few foreign groups to attempt an attack on U.S. soil when, in 1992, it launched near simultaneous attacks in 13 countries, including against the Iranian mission to the UN in New York. Even the MEK itself has admitted to continuing violent attacks until 2001.

With such a history, cooperating fully with the UN’s efforts in Iraq would be a tangible demonstration that the MEK has left its violent past behind and that it no longer retains the capability and intent to engage in acts of terrorism. This is the MEK’s moment to show that it has taken on a fundamentally different character. It should act quickly and complete the relocation and close Camp Ashraf.

And with that, I’ll be happy to take your questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, if we can go ahead and get the first question.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your touchtone telephone. You will be prompted to record your name in order to be introduced. Once again, press * and 1. One moment.

Our first question comes from Bahman Kalbasi from BBC Persian. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions for the ambassadors. You talked about tangible change in their behavior. If the criteria for removing them from the FTO is to not have the capability and the intent, how does changing the location from Ashraf, as the Secretary has indicated, gets them closer to that removal? U.S. Government has said to NBC, for instance, that as late as February, that they were involved with the assassination of scientists in Iran.

And my second question really is that if you end up removing them, mindful of the unprecedented lobbying that is going on, are you worried that this will politicize the FTO? It will show that at the end of the day, politics trumps everything else?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Let me take the second question first. The – any decision, one way or the other will be taken entirely on the merits, and we’re committed to doing it that way and no other way. And that’s our requirement under the law.

On the other point, I can assure you that I have never said that they were involved in current assassinations in Iran. That was a story that ran, and I have no information to confirm that, so I certainly wouldn’t have said it. What I have given you is the established record, and nothing more and nothing less.

QUESTION: But how does it – removing them from Ashraf change the issue of intent?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Right. Well, the history and the use of Ashraf is that of an MEK paramilitary base. It’s where the MEK had its heavy weaponry and from which it carried out a number of military operations during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The MEK’s relocation will assist the Secretary in determining whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is committed to leaving that past behind. And that really is going to be a very important illustration – or demonstration, I should say – of what the MEK’s orientation in the future will be.

So I do want to say that it is an absolutely essential move and we hope that they will get – move forward with it.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, can we get the next question?

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Robert Burns – your line is open – from the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Regarding your encouragement for them to complete the relocation, if they don’t complete the move by October, is it the case that they won’t be de-listed?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: I’m not going to prejudge the Secretary’s action on this, but she has made it extremely clear how important this step is. And she is sticking by that and this is the message everyone involved needs to understand.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Mehrnoush Pourziaiee from BBC. Your line is open.

QUESTION: My question is regarding the dates that Iraqi Government has given, which is 20th of July for the closure of Camp Ashraf. And has there been any communication with U.S. Ambassador in Iraq and Iraqi Government on the Iraqi side plans in case the relocation is not complete by that time?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: This is Daniel Fried speaking. Our charge in Baghdad, Steve Beecroft, has been in contact with the Iraqi Government at senior levels on more than one occasion recently about the situation with respect to Camp Ashraf. Specific to your question, you are right that July 20th is a date set by the Iraqi Government by which they want Camp Ashraf to be emptied.

Now, in the past, the Iraqi Government has extended deadlines when there has been significant progress in moving people out of Camp Ashraf, and it is our hope – though only a hope – that if there is significant progress in the next two weeks, that deadline could be extended. However, that puts – that date should put everyone on notice and the MEK on notice that it needs to proceed with the next convoy of people out of Camp Ashraf. There have been five convoys. All have been successful; that is, they went from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya peacefully, without roadside bombs or attacks. And this process needs to resume.

QUESTION: And in the previous briefing, the officials of State Department mentioned that there has been no communication from MEK with UN officials or Iraqi Government, and they have stopped all the communication. Have you tried different channels to get this message to them, or what are you doing to make sure that they get the seriousness of this issue?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I’m happy to tell you that after a lot of work, communications have resumed. It took a frustratingly long period of time to arrange it. But Ambassador Kobler, the head of the UN Mission in Iraq, is back in contact with the MEK, has allowed this contact to resume. So these messages have been sent.

It is – we are all – that is, the U.S. Embassy – we at the State Department and the UN are all working hard to address as many legitimate concerns of the residents of Camp Hurriya and Camp Ashraf as we can in order that conditions be met for convoys to resume. And we do think that the Government of Iraq could and should do more to address these legitimate humanitarian concerns and show generosity to the residents. And there has been some progress in that regard. We hope that this progress – in fact, it’s imperative this progress be made swiftly and that the convoys of residents resume.

QUESTION: And Ambassador Fried, I have a question regarding Camp Ashraf itself. We have various accounts of people who have been a member of MEK before talking about the horrible situation in the organization and relations which is in Camp Ashraf and the relation between the members and how the human conditions of the Camp and the situation they live in because of the setup from the MEK. Can you elaborate on living condition in Camp Ashraf a little and tell us if all these stories are true or there’s no truth into them?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I am familiar, as you are, with all sorts of stories about life in Camp Ashraf. I can’t confirm or deny any of them. We just don’t know, but I’m familiar with them. Our purpose is humanitarian, however. Our purpose is neither to advance the interests of the organization – hardly – nor is it to fight the organization. Our interest is in saving the lives of the people that are there as individuals and helping them find – helping them get out of Ashraf safely to Camp Hurriya, and then out of Camp Hurriya to a life outside of Iraq. That is our purpose; it is humanitarian.

QUESTION: And The Washington Post report yesterday about the meeting between MEK advocates with senior Administration officials, can anyone elaborate on this and tell us if this is true and where and with whom the meetings has taken place and what is the nature of them?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I can certainly confirm that we have responded to inquiries and communicated with all kinds of private parties, including former U.S. Government officials, members of the European parliaments, and other advocates. We have made clear in all of these communications that the only viable option to resolving the issue of Camp Ashraf is a peaceful solution. We have offered our perspective on what is necessary for that to be achieved, and we offer that perspective knowing full well that these persons had a preexisting dialogue with the MEK, and we believe that they have conveyed our views to their MEK interlocutors. Now, they’re not representing the U.S. Government as they do so, but we believe they have passed these messages back. So I’m certainly not going to deny the fact of these contacts. I’m not going to get into the details either.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Jill Dougherty from CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I just wanted to find out, legally, what can the Iraqi Government do if that date of July 20th comes? Can they physically remove the people? What legally are they entitled to do?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well – this is Dan Fried. I’m not a lawyer at all, much less an expert on Iraqi law. As I understand it, the Iraqi Government views them as in Iraq illegally. That’s their official position. They do not regard the invitation extended by Saddam Hussein to the MEK as valid, especially given the history of the MEK in Iraq. That said, the Iraqi Government has confirmed repeatedly and publicly that it also seeks a peaceful, humane solution to this problem. They have confirmed that bilaterally to us. We welcome this confirmation, and we intend to work with the Iraqi Government so that only a peaceful solution is followed.

QUESTION: So then I’m presuming that that is the – if you are giving any advice to the government or advising them in any way, that that is what you’re saying, it has to be peaceful?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Absolutely right. That has been our message front and center. We have worked with the Iraqi Government. Given Iraqi conditions, I’m more impressed by the progress that has been made than concerned by the problems that remain. This is Iraq. Things often do not go well in Iraq. Given that spectrum, we’re doing all right so far, but the situation remains precarious, and it is up to everyone to work to see that Camp Ashraf is emptied soon and peacefully.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our question will come from Jonathan Broder, Congressional Quarterly. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, I’d just like to ask: Why is this Administration so concerned about humanitarian issues involving a terrorist group?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: We’re interested in humanitarian issues full-stop. And I think it’s important to underscore that many of the people in this camp are not likely to have participated directly in terrorist attacks, although we don’t know on a case-by-case basis. And in any case, we would seek to protect any such group that was essentially holed up in a camp if they were threatened with violence. So this is in keeping with our values.

I should also underscore that we also are interested in whether or not any particular group is involved in terrorist activities, whether it’s directly aimed at us or at others. This is – these are the lights we steer by. So I don’t see any problem with that.

I would like to go back to the issue that was asked before regarding lobbying, and I do just want to underscore that when it comes to the designation itself, we have not met with any lobbyists or others. There was, in fact, one gentleman who came into my office under false pretenses from a foreign country to lobby for the MEK, and he was promptly thrown out. But other than that, I’ve had no conversations on this issue. And again, to underscore, we’re just looking at the merits of the particular case.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, we’ve got time for just one more question.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from Christina Wilkie from Huffington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Could you please give us a better sense of the types of demands that the MEK is making of the Iraqi Government and the stipulations the Iraqi Government is placing? Are they – are the MEK’s demands generally realistic? Is it your position that they’re actually intended – that they – that they’re realistic to get, or are they – do you think this is being set up so that there’s an inevitable conflict?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: That’s a very good question, and I’ve asked myself that as well. Some of the MEK demands are reasonable. For example, given the hot weather in Iraq, they’ve requested more air conditioners. The Iraqi Government has agreed to provide them, that is agreed to allow a special shipment of air conditioners from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, and this is being arranged as we speak. Some of the other demands strike me as not central – for instance, private cars. Well, that’s not an issue critical to basic humanitarian needs.

You’ve asked a question about the MEK’s intentions. I can’t answer that with full knowledge. They, of course, say that all they want are their basic humanitarian needs to be met. But it has been frustrating to deal with constantly shifting demands, many demands. We find that U.S. Embassy and State Department and the UN will work to resolve problems and, a la whack-a-mole, you find that new ones – you’re constantly presented with new ones. But hopefully, the next couple of weeks – in fact, it’s critical that the next couple of weeks will be a period in which some of these issues are resolved, enough so the MEK will allow convoys to resume. That’s absolutely critical.

MR. VENTRELL: Okay. Thank you all for joining today’s call. Any other last remarks from either of the ambassadors?

AMBASSADOR BENJAMIN: Yes. Again – Daniel Benjamin here – I really just wanted to emphasize again one point that I made at the outset. The Secretary of State can – is within her rights in either listing – re-listing or de-listing. And that really is the bottom line here, and no one should be unclear about that in any way. And that’s really all I have to say.

MR. VENTRELL: All right. Thank you all. Have a good afternoon.

July 7, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts