There are points to contemplate concerning the European Parliament Resolution of 24 April 2009 issued on behalf of Camp Ashraf residents onto which Rajavi holds to impose demands on the Iraqi Government. The contents explicitly helps to demonstrate the open irresponsibility of the EP towards its global responsibility to combat against terrorism by backing a globally proscribed terrorist group that occupied a place on the EU’s own terrorist list for a few years. Removing MKO from its terrorist list, and so far failed to present justifiable evidences to convince France and England, the EP now urges the Iraqi Government to treat the group in the way the union charges.

Of course, the Iraqi Government feels under no obligation to undertake full implementation of the resolution but it has reiterated that it would treat the residents in accordance with humanitarian obligations. And while it holds the opinion that a more serious and complete engagement of the European states, in collaboration with the globally adopted conventions, would lead to finding feasible solution to the issue of MKO, the only presented alternative is calls and urges to compromise between the government and a threatening terrorist group.

The EP’s Resolution contains points that well demonstrate its tendentious attitude on behalf of terrorist MKO and which completely disregards the group’s terrorist background in an attempt to please the demands of the group and its advocates for certain political reasons. Noteworthy, it criticizes the statements made by the government concerning MKO members’ expulsion, extradition and their forcible displacement inside Iraq. But, there are more to consider. Take, for example, the article two of the resolution:

2. Respecting the individual wishes of anyone living in Camp Ashraf as regards his or her future, considers that those living in Camp Ashraf and other Iranian nationals who currently reside in Iraq having left Iran for political reasons could be at risk of serious human rights violations if they were to be returned involuntarily to Iran, and insists that no person should be returned, either directly or via a third country, to a situation where he or she would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights abuses;

There can be seen some distorted points in this item of the resolution. It asserts that those living in Camp Ashraf have left Iran for “political reasons”. It is really amazing to see the EP so politically naïve about MKO’s background. Everybody knows that it is nearly thirty years since the group announced and waged armed struggle against the Iranian regime. The group did not left Iran for political reasons; it left only when its many perpetrated terrorist operations proved unproductive and Rajavi ordered the forces to exit to reorganize them abroad. Settled in France, it instituted its military headquarters there, according to the reports of French Government, to mastermind armed operations against Iran. Then, considering MKO a political opposition is out of question unless the EP insists to legitimize a terrorist group by referring to it as so.

Even when they left, or escaped from, Iran, it was not for political reasons but because they were alleged terrorists indicted by jurisdictions in Iran for many terrorist crimes. Despite the granted general amnesty from criminal prosecution against the members of the group, the Iranian regime insists prosecution of the perpetrators of criminal and terrorist acts from among the members. If the EP means the latter group, yes, they are right. Even such assertion that calls them political figures contradicts the earlier judgment of the EU that removed the organization from its terrorist list since the judgment was based on the finding that MKO had ceased its terrorist activities since 2001. Then, does not it mean that the EU would recognize the members of the organization as terrorists rather than political campaigners? MKO is the only opponent, armed group, once heavily supported by Saddam, residing in Iraq; all other opposition groups are active either inside Iran or European countries.

Granting that the Ashraf residents are a number of political activists seeking refuge in Iraq for some political reasons under some globally adopted conventions, then, why none of the country members of the EU accepts them on its soil as political refugees and even some of them are expelled or awaiting trial on terrorist charges? Furthermore, did not the EU know about the terrorist or political nature of the organization when it registered it on its terrorist list? The Iraqi Government has openly announced that unless volunteered, it will not repatriate the members, but it has made it clear that it will never withdraw from its decision to expel the group. It is really unfair to deprive a country of its rights by imposing a group of terrorist on it merely through some conventions that totally exclude the perpetrators of terrorist crimes.

The points mentioned does not necessarily mean partiality for Iran or Iraq. The significance lays in the fact that the EP has knowingly or unknowingly violated the boundary demarcating between political opposition and terrorism. At the present, many Iranian opposition are granted political asylum and favor the protection of global conventions and are freely living in many European and non-European countries with no problem. Some of them even take the opportunity of coming and leaving Iran freely. To know the truth, the EP is repeating the very same words of Rajavi who has been using them for many years to conduct his terrorist plans under the disguise of political opposition and refugees. Why the EP insists to recognize a terrorist entity that can never be condoned is a question it is obliged to answer.