Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Open Letter to Bryan Wilfert MP from Mohammad Mohammady in Canada

 Mr. Bryan Wilfert, Richmond Hill Member of Parliament

225 Eat Beaver Creek

Richmond Hill, ON

Dear Mr. Wilfert,

In our meeting on Friday January 25, 2008, you asked me some questions regarding the situation of my sister, Somayeh Mohammady, as well as my parents who are also currently in Iraq, and the correspondent of the Canadian government. I have some doubts that I was able to answer your questions in a satisfactory manner since talking about this situation makes me too emotional and uncomfortable to properly formulate my thoughts and responses. I also wish to remind you that I am personally a victim of this brutal situation and suffered in the same condition that my sister experiences, for four years.

Since 1998, knowing the nature and means of this organization, my parents started an internal campaign to free and return my sister back to Canada. As you might be aware, up to 2003 and before toppling of Saddam Hussein, it was impossible to talk about or disagree with the MKO publicly. If they have this much power to force a young girl to denounce her family and call her parents agents of the Iranian regime just because they tried to take her out of a war zone and from the camp of an organization that has been branded terrorist by many Western governments, you can clearly understand how dangerous and impossible it could have been back than when the leadership of the MKO had the full support of Saddam and anything could have happened to my sister with no consequences to those responsible. Even after my 2004 release, and up to recently, I had serious concerns for my safety to talk about my own situation and just recently decided to come out and support my family regardless of the consequences to myself.

If, even now that this group is supposedly under the custody of American and International forces in Iraq, they can be such potential danger that the Canadian authorities call me to inform me about the threats to my parents lives in Iraq and ask me to force them to return to safety in Canada, you can imagine what it could have been like back in those years. For that reason in those years all my parents could do, that even than it was considered bold and risky by those aware of the MKO’s violent means, was to try to find influential people inside the organization or write to the Rajavi’s to beg for my sister’s freedom and safe return. You might find translated copies of those letters in the possession of our lawyer Ms. Pamila Bhardwaj as part of our legal file. Even the fact that my father agreed to send me to Iraq in 1999 was a hopeless attempt to find a way to bring her back without going public against such a malicious organization.

The rest is documented and I hope you have some knowledge of it. I was captured too and could not get out until 2004 after the regime change in Iraq that also reduced the power of the MKO leaders. Though at the beginning, and by the advice of those close to us, I pretended to be happy and willing as a cover up to set the ground for my sister’s release, as soon as they learned about my real intention, I was kept in solitary confinement and tortured in many brutal and inhumane ways. However, since I was a Canadian citizen at that time, my father was able to take me out in 2004 but, although my sister expressed her desire back then to go with us, since she did not have Canadian status after 7 years of absence from Canada, she was asked by the authorities at the time to remain there till they resolve this issue which they never did up to this point.

What is being used against my father by the MKO, and unfortunately being echoed by some Canadian authorities, is the fact that since that time my father made numerous trips to Iraq, ignoring the dangers on the ground. This should tell you how important the situation is to my family. We tried everything from desperately begging the Rajavi’s and the other leaders of the organization, setting up informative campaigns, following a lengthy legal process and physically going there and putting our lives in danger. What else do we need to try in order to make the Canadian government understand that we are extremely suffering and need to reunite with our sister and daughter? It is not only because we are worried for her and miss her, not because none of us can enjoy our lives knowing that one of us is trapped in such a horrible situation, not because we feel disempowered and humiliated for the constant rejection of our plea, not because knowing the conviction of my father that he will not stop until he brings her back and fulfills his duties as a father even if we lose everything, but simply because we are Canadians and the day we took the oath we were promised the same rights and protection as the rest of the citizens of this great country. Many people come to Canada every year from backward, violent and undemocratic corners of the world trying to make a new start and learn and follow those rules that make this country so great and outstanding. We are learning too but at the same time we need to feel belonging and that we are equally a part of it.

At the end, in my humble opinion, it does not reflect positively on our government to use or repeat the same allegations, against my family, as those used by the MKO mouthpieces. Every day in the past 5 years people left the camp, committed suicide or denounced this organization. The same label was used for all of them that they have been bought by a third party and have a shady agenda. We are opposing this mentality and ask you to use an open and fresh mind to help us.

With many regards,

Mohammad Mohammady

January 26, 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
UK

Apostles of Democracy

 “It is with optimism that I usually regard elections. Win or lose, they are an opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard, but an exception to this will be the Iranian “elections” this March. Elections in Iran are neither free nor fair”. That is how Mark Williams, one out of 35 UK Parliamentarians that took the Government to court to have the ban on the MKO lifted, opens his article released in global politician. He is of the opinion that none of the elections inside Iran are fare and that the entire elected are pre-elected. True or false, the fact is that his source of information is biased toward Mojahedi-e Khalq terrorist cult and the world is well acquainted with the accuracy extent of the information released by the group.

Interestingly, he suggests the essentiality of a democratic change inside Iran. At least he has to err on the side of caution not to recommend an undemocratic, terrorist group for the accomplishment of the mission. He believes that the best solution is real democratic change in Iran and that, Britain and the EU must stop hindering the democratic Iranian Resistance as it strives for change.

Mr. Williams has to be notified that a globally proscribed terrorist group whose leading president-elect is neither elected by Iranian people nor even by a single ballot of the organization’s own insiders but promoted to the position by her egocentric husband is not legitimate at all to lead the campaign for the change inside Iran. Claimed by the organization and corroborated at least by two European court rulings, MKO has forsworn terrorism since 2001. Has anybody ever asked what terrorist deeds and atrocities the group has perpetrated against Iranian people before its claimed renunciation of terrorism?

How is that Mr. Williams has obtained information on the claimed number of 120,000 executed members and supporters of the organization while he knows nothing of the number of the key Iranian officials and innocent civilians who were mercilessly killed by the terrorist operation teams of the organization soon after the Iranian 1979 revolution? As a Member of Parliament, Mr. Williams has easy access to the approved evidences and reasons leading to the proscription of MKO as a terrorist organization. Even Mojahedin themselves know well that Iranian have closed the door on them; they only strive to get their foothold secure wherein they have taken refuge and are required to maintain a democratic conduct.  February 5, 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK Terrorists in search of identity

THEY are Iraq’s forgotten terrorists, more than 3,000 fighters of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) languishing at one of their former military camps some 100km north of Baghdad.

‘They are definitely in a legal limbo. No one wants them,’ said Mr Said Boumedouha, a researcher at Amnesty International in London. No one, that is, except Iran.

The MEK, also known as the MKO or the People’s Mujahideen of Iran, is described as an Islamic Socialist group that advocates the overthrow of Iran’s government. Founded in Teheran in 1965, it opposed the rule of Iran’s shah, but was violently suppressed after the Iranian revolution as it was viewed as a threat by Ayatollah Khomeini’s newly established regime.

With its headquarters relocated to Iraq in 1986, the MEK fought with Saddam Hussein’s forces in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. They were organised as a conventionally armed brigade with an estimated fighting strength of 6,000 to 8,000 personnel. In mid-1994, Iraq’s Ministry of Defence announced that these fighters had been formally integrated with the country’s armed forces.

The MEK is designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the European Union and several individual countries – in part, it seems, because of anti-Western attacks and assassinations before the Iranian revolution. Teheran also views the MEK members as terrorists and has sought their extradition from Iraq.

There have been efforts to lift the yoke of this designation, including a 2002 call to end the US proscription signed by 150 members of Congress. In fact, some have suggested that Washington originally tagged it as a terrorist group in 1997 as a gesture to Iran’s newly elected reformist president.

The US proscription nevertheless remains in place, and the EU Council continues to blacklist the MEK despite a December 2006 ruling by the European Court of Justice that overturned Brussels’ edict freezing MEK funds.

There are currently some 3,360 MEK members at Camp Ashraf, located in Iraq’s Diyala province. About 110 others are defectors seeking refugee status and residing at the Ashraf refugee camp. Some have been voluntarily repatriated to Iran, claiming they were forced to join the MEK after being taken prisoner by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says it has helped in the repatriation of 255 former fighters, most recently just this month, but the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq provides a figure of 380.

Though part of the Iraqi army, the MEK effectively declared itself neutral when coalition forces invaded the country in March 2003, and surrendered without a fight after suffering a few air attacks. But there is some confusion concerning its subsequent status.

‘The MEK were never captured or classified as prisoners of war (under the Third Geneva Convention). ‘Protected person’ status (under the Fourth Geneva Convention) was granted as part of a ceasefire agreement negotiated between the US and MEK,’ explained Major Winfield Danielson, a press officer with coalition forces in Baghdad.

‘Each member of the MEK was required to sign a document renouncing violence and agreeing not to take up arms. The MEK was also disarmed.’

However, this is contradicted by earlier statements that MEK members’ status was changed from ‘prisoners of war’ to ‘protected persons’ in June 2004.

‘The change in their status is linked to the change of authority (on June 28, 2004, when an interim government assumed control of Iraq). It was also prompted by a process that saw each individual disarm and renounce violence,’ Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson, a US spokesman for detainee operations in Iraq, told me at that time.

The shift is curious in either case. ‘Protected person’ status applies to civilians, whereas the MEK personnel were uniformed soldiers in an established army – and affiliated with a proscribed terrorist group at that. ‘It is not the responsibility of the ICRC to independently determine their status,’ said ICRC official Dorothea Krimitsas in an e-mail from Geneva. The ICRC has never visited Camp Ashraf due to security concerns. But the coalition would contend that this may be unnecessary as the MEK members are not being detained.

‘Neither the active MEK members nor the former MEK refugees are being detained,’ said Major Danielson. ‘The Ashraf refugee camp refugees have every right to depart and travel in Iraq using an Iraqi-issued laissez-passer. They can also repatriate to Iran if they desire, or they may stay in the camp.

‘The active MEK members who live in Camp Ashraf have ‘protected persons’ status. As part of the ceasefire agreement, they may travel outside the city of Ashraf but must do so under the protection of coalition forces.’

Nor are MEK members at Camp Ashraf facing criminal charges, with Major Danielson noting that ‘they are not charged with criminal offences’. This appears peculiar in view of existing laws in the US and elsewhere that criminalise support for terrorist organisations.

According to the US State Department, for example: ‘It is unlawful for a person in the US or subject to the jurisdiction of the US to knowingly provide ‘material support or resources’ to a designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation.’

As prisoners of war, the MEK personnel would have to be ‘released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of hostilities’, according to Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention. For ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention ‘internment shall cease as soon as possible after the close of hostilities’, according to Article 133.

The ICRC maintains that the Iraq war ended with the transfer of sovereignty to the country’s interim government in June 2004, with the fighting since then characterised as ‘an internal conflict internationalised by the presence of multilateral forces’.

The coalition argues that the MEK personnel at Camp Ashraf are not being detained. But nor are they wandering about or relocating.

‘Our position is that they shouldn’t be returned to Iran due to the fear of torture and the death penalty. And they shouldn’t be handed over to Iraq for the same reason,’ said Amnesty’s Mr Boumedouha. ‘Their immediate future looks bleak.’

In this context, Mr Boumedouha sees the US-led coalition’s oversight of MEK personnel at Camp Ashraf as something of a humanitarian act in keeping with the ‘protected persons’ provision. If that is the case, the coalition is upholding the spirit of the Fourth Geneva Convention but perhaps not its legal mandate, as Article Six states: ‘In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the close of military operations.’

However, some have suggested an alternative interpretation of the coalition’s treatment of the MEK people.

Unconfirmed allegations have surfaced in Teheran and elsewhere that the US Central Intelligence Agency is using the MEK for covert operations in Iran. Teheran failed to respond to a request to substantiate these claims.

Straits Times, Robert Karniol, Defence Writer

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
UK

British Government answer to the ‘Lords of Terror’

 “…Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I certainly concede the point that the organization is led by a woman [Iran-Interlink editor – the PMOI is led by a man, Massoud Rajavi, who is the sole decision maker in the organisation, Maryam Rajavi is only his lieutenant.], but I will risk the wrath of a portion of this House when I say that despite that, and despite what it says about the rights of women, the PMOI was involved in numerous terrorist attacks for a very extended period. At the time of the second Gulf War, it was considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, we had to disarm the organization to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces; so, despite what it has to say on women’s rights, we are not convinced that in other regards this organization has permanently renounced  terrorism….”

Lords Hansard, February 4, 2008 –

 

Iran: People’s Mujaheddin Organisation 2.51 pm

Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty’s Government: Whether they will make representations to the European Union to deproscribe the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran. The Minister of State,Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch- Brown): My Lords, the House will be aware that the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran is currently on the domestic list of proscribed organisations. The House might also be aware that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission recently determined that it should be removed from this list. Proscription at the EU level is based in part on the UK’s domestic proscription. Her Majesty’s Government are appealing the decision of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission and the domestic proscription will remain in force until that appeals process is complete.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, that Answer is disappointing, to put it mildly. Does the Minister accept that the findings of the Proscribed  Organisations Appeal Commission were absolutely clear: that the PMOI is not concerned with terrorism? In those circumstances, why do the British Government persist in the policy of appeasement of the mullah regime, which has yielded no benefit  whatever and is doing a grave injustice to the peace-loving people of Iran?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I think, aware that the POAC judgment turned around particular aspects of the decision. We continue to believe that the PMOI was responsible for a number of serious military attacks over a very long period of time and that its disarming was entirely  ragmatic—in the event of the coalition forces forcing it to disarm after the intervention in Iraq. We have seen no evidence that the organization has publicly renounced violence and terrorism. We have to be consistent in our views of terrorists. When we like the people whom terrorists attack, we call them “terrorists”; when it is the civilians5 Feb 2008 : Column 949of Iran who are attacked, we have a bad habit of thinking of them as liberation fighters. Terrorism and its tactics are objectionable irrespective of the target.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in addition to the ruling of the European Court of First Instance and the judgment of POAC, after careful considerationof all the evidence, some years ago the American authorities in Iraq conducteda careful investigation In to the allegation and concluded that it was totally without substance? Why do the Government cling so obstinately to a discredited allegation by adiscredited Iranian Government? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I cannot confirm to my noble and learned friend the circumstances of the US investigation that he refers to, but I certain lycan confirm that we will respect the outcome of the appeals process.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some further indication of what the grounds of appeal are? 

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the judgment arrived at was that the behaviors of the organisation really amounted to a separation from the use of terrorist tactics. We just believe that there has not been a clear enough renunciation of those tactics. Instead, we see the decision as a pragmatic one in the face of American and British force. Until we are convinced that the organisation has really fore sworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government are consistent in their definition of terrorists? We have a great variety of exiled groups in London—Tamils, Kurds, people from

the north and south Caucasus and so on. We host those groups, although a number of them support opposition groups in their own countries that are not always non-violent. Are the

Government confident that that they are consistent in their approach?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point. In the case of the Tamils, the LTTE is a proscribed organisation. It is quite difficult determining which groups in this country fall on which side of the line—and which support peaceful change in their countries and which support violent change and finance it. We look very carefully at that issue on a continuing basis

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not the noble Lord getting in a terrible muddle? Frankly, we support edviolent revolution in Afghanistan when the Russians were there, Israel was set up by violent revolution, Ireland was set up by violent revolution and in South Africa we, to a certain

extent, encouraged violence by the ANC. We cannot say that all violence against tyrannical regimes is wrong. We also supported the French resistance and the Dutch resistance in the war;

5 Feb 2008 : Column 950

Montgomery objected to that because he said it reminded him of Palestinian and Irish terrorists. Surely the Government are still in a muddle and ought to start thinking straight.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Earl will understand that we have always objected, most recently in the case of Ireland, to unwarranted attack son civilian targets. There is a big difference between military campaigns that fall within the  Geneva conventions and the rest of international law and abusive campaigns that target asymmetrically civilians. I hope we have a

consistent policy towards such groups.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the PMOI, which is led by a woman, Madam Rajavi, has an agenda for peaceful change via a political process, believes in a human rights agenda, including women’s rights, and its policies are the sort that we should support?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I certainly concede the point that the organisation is led by a woman [Iran-Interlink editor – the PMOI is led by a man, Massoud Rajavi, who is the sole decision maker in the organisation, Maryam Rajavi is only his lieutenant.], but I will risk the wrath of a portion of this House when I say that despite that, and despite what it says about  the rights of women, the PMOI was involved in numerous terrorist attacks for a very extended period. At the time of the second Gulf War, it was considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, we had to disarm the organisation to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism

and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces; so, despite what it has to say on women’s rights, we are not convinced that in other regards this organisation has permanently renounced terrorism.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, it was encouraging to hear the Minister say that Her Majesty’s Government would accept the outcome of the appeals process. Can we accept that, as a clear implication of that, Her Majesty’s Government will accept that this organisation should no longer be a proscribed terrorist organisation?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, one must always fight terrorism in the context of the rule of law and respect for judicial decisions. One stoops to the standards of one’s terrorist opponents if one does otherwise. We will fully respect the decision of the appeals process.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

Javad Firuzmand interviewed by Mehrdad Farahmand

Former MKO seeking refuge in western countries The military coalition under the US commandment in Iraq confirmed that some MKO members have left this organisation and their base in Iraq.  BBCConfirmation of this news takes place after some reports were published indicating that in the past few weeks the efforts of dozens of former MKO to escape Iraq and seek refuge in western countries have failed and many of them are left hanging around in Iraq where they are in a very desperate situation.

In the past four years since Iraq was occupied by the US forces and its allies, some MKO members gradually left this organization and Camp Ashraf which is their base in Iraq.

The US army which is guarding Camp Ashraf during this period, kept the dissidents under its own protection in a camp near to this base. As the press office of coalition forces under the US command has informed the BBC, during the last four years 380 individuals of MKO have returned to Iran at their own request. But those dissidents who did not wish to return to Iran despite the efforts made by the United States did not gain the confirmation of any country for their application for refuge.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that within the last few weeks, dozens of them decided to leave the camp they were living in which was protected by the US forces and try to leave Iraq through different ways but this effort was unsuccessful for most of them and they returned to the camp protected by the US forces. Some were arrested after crossing the Turkish border and returned to Iraq, a few managed to remain in Turkey or go to Greece illegally.

The Society for Defending Immigrants and Iranians in France (ARIA) tries to help the MKO dissidents to leave Iraq and settle in another country. According to this society 208 MKO dissidents were staying in the US camp up to last month. The press office of the US forces today gives their number at 110. Javad Firuzmand, the spokesman of ARIA society who himself has left the MKO says that this number had reduced to 50 last week and the number 110 indicates that some of those who had left there have returned to the US camp.

Mr Firuzmand told the BBC that 70 of the dissidents tried to go to Turkey afterJavad Firuzmand;former member of MKO they left the Americas with the aid of some smugglers, but the Turkish border police arrested them and after one month in prison and remaining in compulsory camp were handed over to the Iraqi Police. One of these people was shot and wounded by the border police and is in hospital now in the city of Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. The spokesman of ARIA society says that the autonomous government of Iraqi Kurdistan is keeping the people who were handed over by the Turkish police in a temporary camp in Arbil. But some of these people tried again to cross the Turkish border. Ten of them were arrested again by the Turkish police and handed over to Iraqi police and they are now in prison in Arbil. Amongst those who managed to cross the border ten were able to reach Greece with the aid of smugglers and 15 are living covertly in Istanbul and Ankara and Van in Turkey.

According to Javad Firuzmand, the MKO dissidents who are staying in Turkey could not approach the Human Rights and Turkish organizations since if they are revealed they would be arrested and returned to Iraq. The ten who stay in Greece are also in covert situation in that country. The ARIA society spokesman added that about 15 individuals approached Jordan and there is no information about the destiny of other 8.

The BBC’s effort to contact the UNHCR to obtain information about the destiny of these MKO dissidents did not reach anywhere but enquiries are still ongoing. The ARIA society which is a human rights establishment defending Iranians has demanded help for these people and the chance to live legally in European or other free countries. During the last four years some MKO dissidents have returned to Iran – the press office of forces under US command in Iraq gives their number at 380. Javad Firuzmand, the spokesman of ARIA society says that these individuals are living and working in several Iranian cities and are freely active in the society and he himself is in contact with some of them. According to him, inside Camp Ashraf which is still run by the MKO, some 200 individuals have left the MKO too. These people are not willing to move to the American’s camp and they are kept in a separate place inside Ashraf. Mr Firuzmand says that these people also seek refuge from western countries.

Camp Ashraf was established in 1986 after MKO leader [Massoud Rajavi] moved from France to Iraq and the members of this organisation launched an armed struggle against Iran benefiting from the military facilities given by Saddam Hussein’s regime. They participated in military operations against Iran during the Iran Iraq war. This base is situated in the district of Khalis in the province of Dyala in the east of Iraq and the coalition forces under US command have given the total number of individuals living there as 3360. The United States designated the MKO as a terrorist organisation but according to international regulations and Geneva Convention, they are kept under the entity of "protected persons".

The Iranian government demands that Camp Ashraf be dismantled and all MKO members be expelled from Iraq and accuses the Americans of protecting them in order to use them against Iran.  January 26, 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

Symposium on Terrorism in Iraq

A round table discussion centred on the issue of terrorism in Iraq and possible solutions to this problem. The Symposium was divided in to 3 parts: – the general threat posed by terrorist groups and the ways they operate in Iraq – foreign terrorist organisations in Iraq – the creation of terrorist organisations in Iraq and the global supporters of these terrorist groups Participants of the Symposium ranged from university professors including, Dr. Aziz Jabar Shayal, Dr. Samir Alshweely and Dr. Rasheed Saleh, professors of Political Studies from the University of Baghdad. The Symposium was also attended by many governmental and non-governmental representatives from a wide range of ministries and NGOs, including representatives from Iraq’s Ministries of Defence, Human Rights and Security.

Symposium on Terrorism in Iraq - Khodabande

Massoud Khodabandeh from the Centre de recherches sur le terrorisme depuis le 11 septembre 2001 (Paris), who was in Baghdad for meetings concerning the fate of the remaining individuals following dismantlement of Camp Ashraf which houses the disarmed Iranian terrorist organisation Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, was invited to participate in the discussion.

Prominent among the participants was Mr. Bassam Alhassani, advisor to Prime Minister Noori Al Maleki.

Symposium on Terrorism in Iraq - Khodabande

The Symposium ended with a full report on the issues discussed and Dr. Aziz Jabar Shayal delivered the end resolution in which one paragraph emphasized the necessity for the dismantlement and deportation of the foreign terrorist Mojahedin Khalq organisation and encouragement and facilitation by the government and others to help the remaining individuals find a safe palace outside Iraq and return to normal life.

The symposium was covered by media representatives who reported from the meeting room.

Alaraghia television, Iraq’s main TV network, reported the Symposium and broadcast a brief interview with Massoud Khodabandeh.

In the interview, Massoud Khodabandeh emphasised above all the right of the Iraqi people to enjoy security and have justice served against the perpetrators of violent acts in their country, in particular the criminal heads of the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation which was involved in the massacre of the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings against Saddam Hussein in March 1991. Mr Khodabandeh said that in his belief and according to all the studies of the Centre de Recherches sur le Terrorisme, the phenomenon of terrorism cannot have a single solution and needs inter governmental cooperation as well as the involvement of NGOs to protect the human rights of the who have been inveigled by terrorist leaders into this path, and to give them a second chance of integration back into their societies.

Thanking the organisers of the Symposium Mr Khodabandeh emphasised the cult culture of terrorist organisations and the methods they use to brainwash their followers. He also gave examples of foreign support by some influential groups and parties who facilitate the flow of finance for terrorism. Not the least the relationship between the remainders of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, London, Washington and other countries with the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, and the way this relationship is becoming clear in the escalation of violence in Diyali province as well as the streets of London and other European countries.

The Symposium lasted for over two hours. Afterwards the participants formed smaller groups to further discuss the variety of issues raised by the Seminar.

A full report and media coverage will be published shortly. Thursday, 31st of January 2008.

Centre for International and Inter-governmental Studies of the University of Baghdad

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The cult of Rajavi

Autopsy of a paradoxical dealing with MKO

The paradoxical stance adopted by the US towards Mojahedin-e Khalq cultist organization has turned into a rather serious challenge mounting the already existing tension between the US and Iran. According to a number of political analysts, the dual stance might be the result of internal political disparities among the parties. But it has to be noted that regardless of all disparities, the parties reach a consensus when it comes to confront any alien element that imperils the country’s general interests. However, the prevalent political contradictions emerged mostly after the State Department first designated MKO as a terrorist organization in 1997, a status that the group continues to occupy ever since.

Despite MKO’s claim that its classification as a terrorist organization was at the behest of the Iranian government, the State Department’s latest report describing the group a cult of personality as well as a terrorist group indicates that the Americans have well realized the group’s threats. The internal disputes to deproscribe MKO in no way mean that some have come to be duped by group’s pro-democratic propagandas but rather it is regarded as an easy tool against Iranian regime. The speculation was even further underpinned when the group came to receive protection of the coalition forces in Iraq following Saddam’s fall. However, there are many undeniable factors, especially disclosed by the State Department’s report, that convince Americans never put any trust on the group. The features can be classified as:

– MKO’s Marxist ideology

– Group’s innate antagonism with capitalism and adoption of armed struggle to start a mass movement against capitalism

– Perpetration of terrorist operations against American military personnel and civilians inside Iran

– Playing a pivotal role to escalate the emerged US-Iran tension following the Islamic revolution

– supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979

– MKO’s secrete ties with the USSR and the communist camp in general

– A zealous attachment to Machiavellianism

– Masterminding terrorist plots against American interests inside Iran

– Unannounced but implicit acknowledgment of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist operation

– Wearing a mask of pro-democracy as a tactic to assume political power

– maintaining the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts across the world

– close military and intelligence collaboration with Saddam’s regime Regardless of all lobbying attempts to get the group off the hook, MKO remained on the list. But the raised question is that how a designated organization happened to be the first terrorist organization to be granted ‘protected status’ by the US in its move to combat terrorism?

Hardly any of the designated terrorists groups on Americans’ list strive for getting close to the US to gain political legitimacy and most of them are recognized to be jeopardizing American interests here and there. In contrast, MKO hankers after convincing Americans that throughout its campaign, it has tried to accomplish a goal of establishing democracy on the US model. Interestingly, the group in an attempt to justify its claim distorted its past records of activities and adopted ideology. The best evidence is its published Democracy Betrayed wherein the group tries to prove absolute devotion to American favoured capitalism and liberalism.

But Americans are well aware of the fact that exactly in the same way that they manipulate the group, Machiavellian mannerism is theorized within MKO. That is why Americans, in spite of the heavy cost they sometimes have to pay, keep in touch with the group while is keen to it at a distance; that is exactly what America is doing in Iraq.

Soon after Americans settled in Iraq, more than a year after the invasion, they actually frustrated MKO’s liberation army by disarming it. In July 2004 all members of MKO in Iraq, including the leadership of the organisation based there, signed agreements which permitted them release from the control and protection of the Coalition forces in Iraq. In order to obtain that benefit, each individual had to sign a statement containing the following words:

…I agree to the following:

a. I reject participation in, or support for terrorism.

b. I have delivered all military equipment and weapons under my control or responsibility.

c. I reject violence and I will not unlawfully take up arms or engage in any hostile act. I will obey the laws of Iraq and relevant United Nations mandates while residing in this country.

Thus, renunciation of militarism was enforced on MKO against its will and its terrorist potentialities were curbed in Iraq. Furthermore, by setting up Temporary International Presence Facility (TIPF) in the vicinity of Camp Ashraf, dissatisfied members were granted opportunity to leave the group which debilitate the organization to a large extent. Beyond that, the State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in its last report released on April 30 for the first time brought up establishment of a cult of personality by its leader:

In addition to its terrorist credentials, the MEK has also displayed cult-like characteristics. Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in MEK ideology and revisionist Iranian history. Members are also required to undertake a vow of "eternal divorce" and participate in weekly "ideological cleansings." Additionally, children are reportedly separated from parents at a young age. MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has established a "cult of personality." She claims to emulate the Prophet Muhammad and is viewed by members as the "Iranian President in exile."

To sum up the Americans views, they indirectly argue:

 

– That MKO is a terrorist group that maintains unusually aberrant manners compared with other blacklisted organizations

– That its mannerism is rooted in its cult-like structure

– That MKO is a greater potential cult threat beyond its terrorist threat

– That the group is not only a global threat but also a closed cult enslaving its own members physically and mentally

– That the granted ‘protected status’ in Iraq is a measure to have it under control and to find an appropriate way of restoring the members’ mental health

– That instilled by the hope that it can win the US support, MKO can be prevented to commit mass-murder suicide like that of Jim Jones cult of the Peoples Temple

– That it is possible to have MKO under strict control through international conventions

– That the US’s paradoxical deal with MKO is the result of recognizing group’s dual terrorist-cult nature

– That MKO respect no political ethics in its campaign to assume the power

– That the gained experiences over destructive cults like Jim Jones and David Koresh is a warning to be more cautious and conservative to cope with MKO

– That ….

It can be continued with more reasons to see why the US has adopted a paradoxical but rational approach concerning MKO. Mojahedin.ws-February 2, 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

‘MKO! Let our children go!’

The families of several members of Mojahedin Khalq Organization on an Italian TV program call for their children to return.

The program, called ‘La Rubrica Politica Estera’, was aired by Italy’s state broadcaster RAI1 on Friday. At the beginning of the program a number of Iranian families were shown holding pictures of their deceived children, asking for them to be allowed to return to Iran.

Following those images, the commentator of the program explained that the MKO are communists who were supported by the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and later fled to Europe and the United States.

The commentator continued that the Mojahedin separated many families by using persuasion techniques similar to those of Pol Pot, the former communist head of Cambodia. The program pointed out that many of the terrorist organization’s staff and senior members have told unsettling tales of insanity about the time they spent cooperating with the group.

According to RAI, MKO’s former financial head has revealed that members of the group live in absolute poverty and in the absence of their families, while the organization’s leader, Mas’oud Rajavi and his wife Maryam, live lavishly.

The program said that the group currently seeks to steer the dispute over Iran’s nuclear issue to more dismal corners by writing a letter to the US following the January 4 Strait of Hormuz naval incident.

MJ/JG/RA  PRESS TV, Sat, 26 Jan 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraq

NGO should facilitate safe MKO exit from Iraq

Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights: NGO should facilitate safe MKO exit from Iraq As concerted moves are getting underway in Iraq to deal with the foreign terrorist organisation Mojahedin-e Khalq in that country, Iran-Interlink was invited to attend a meeting at the Ministry of Human Rights in Iraq today. In a visit to Iraq this weekend, Massoud Khodabandeh from Iran-Interlink met with senior officials at the Ministry to talk about the future of the Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq cult in that country.

During the three hour meeting, Massoud Khodabandeh expressed concern for the human rights situation of people involved in the Mojahedin cult. The American Forces in Iraq have been given notice to evacuate Camp Ashraf and its surrounds before the land is returned to its rightful owner by a court. This means that over 3,000 people must be urgently re-located. American Military Police have already begun to empty the Temporary International Presence Facility (TIPF) which had been established adjacent to Camp Ashraf to house individuals wishing to dissociate from the terrorist group. Around 800 former MKO members have been processed through TIPF. Over 500 have successfully accepted voluntary repatriation to Iran. Those who rejected this option were granted UN refugee status.

In December last year the American Military Police began to remove the remaining individuals from TIPF, driving them in small groups to nearby residential locations to make their own way. Mr Khodabandeh told the Iraqi Human Rights officials that although more difficult to achieve it would have been more effective to have removed the MKO members from Camp Ashraf first. This would allow anyone who wished to leave the cult to find a place of safety in TIPF and to seek refuge under US protection.

Mr Khodabandeh requested that the individuals involved in the evacuation of TIPF be provided immediate help. They must be afforded a safety net and not allowed to fall through the system to fend for themselves, he said. This would include around 100 people who remain at TIPF as well as those who have already left – some of these individuals are now in Iraqi prison, some in Turkish prisons and the remainder are fugitives whose whereabouts are unknown.

It was suggested that a NGO be established under the patronage of personalities and human rights charities in Europe and the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry. This would offer the US military appropriate help in dealing with the evacuation of TIPF and also Camp Ashraf within the framework of Iraqi law.

The officials at the Ministry of Human Rights gave a very clear answer saying that under no circumstances whatsoever would any member or former member of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation be allowed to remain on Iraqi soil. They gave two main reasons for this decisive position. Firstly, that the MKO have been responsible for the murder of many Iraqi citizens. Respect for the rights and memories of the families of these victims make it impossible for the MKO to continue any presence in the country.

Secondly, and perhaps more urgently, the MKO remains directly attached to the Baath Party and former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Should amnesty by given to any MKO and they escape, they would pose a danger to Iraq. They have been trained by Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards and maintain the potential to perform terrorist acts anywhere in Iraq.

To compound this decision, officials pointed out that the case of the Mojahedin has now been moved from the jurisdiction of the Government of Iraq to the Iraqi Judiciary which now has the task of making ruling judgements on the group and its members.

This is a highly significant step as it takes the MKO out of the political arena and places the future of the group in a legal framework. In this framework judgement has already been reached by several judges which has resulted in indictment papers and arrest warrants being issued against the three leading MKO members in Iraq, Abbas Davari, the MKO’s political liaison official in Camp Ashraf, Mozhgan Parsaii, the Commander of Rajavi’s army in Iraq and Sediqeh Hoseini, the Secretary General of the MKO, in three separate courts including the Baghdad Criminal Court.

The Human Rights Ministry officials said Iraq’s Government will demand the US hand over these individuals, stressing that US refusal to comply with Iraqi law will not reflect positively on the US presence in that country. This would not be a political decision but is based on the separate findings of three Iraqi judges. The Judiciary will send police to arrest the individuals concerned.

The meeting concluded with the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry again stressing that the Iraqi Government would under no circumstances have any direct contact with anyone from the MKO or even former members of the MKO in Iraq. All of these people must leave Iraq. However, Ministry officials conceded that they are willing to work with appropriate human rights organisations as well as Iran-Interlink and its representatives to provide temporary help and to facilitate the safe removal of these people.

The officials gave permission for an NGO to be established to offer humanitarian emergency aid to those who will be evacuated from the camps. The Ministry of Human Rights would work with the NGO to de-brief individuals from the MKO and to help reunite them with their families. Temporary places of refuge will be established to help these people. For any who request repatriation to Iran, the Ministry and the International Committee of the Red Cross would jointly guarantee that their human rights would not be violated. However, if third countries were sought, the NGO must find these itself.

January 27, 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
USA

Financing MEK, a cause of enmity between US-Iran

 The Libertarian Party seems to know how to get its own message out to a politically sensitized electorate who are really fed up with Bush’s irrationality and seek for something better. Bush is said to deliver his annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress next week and Libertarian Steve Kubby delivered his own version directly to the American people via Internet video in advance.

In part of his speech that he referred to as offering “an assessment of our nation’s situation and answers to the question, Steve Kubby said he had a pretty good idea of what Bush was going to say and leave many things untold. In respect to Iran and financing terrorist groups like MKO he said:

President Bush is going to tell you that IRAN represents yet another military challenge to US power and that “all options remain on the table” for dealing with that threat. What he’s not going to tell you is that neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor our government’s very own intelligence services agree with his claim that Iran is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Nor is he going to tell you that enmity between Iran and the US is and always has been almost entirely a function of US intervention in the Middle East, including financing the bombing and murder campaigns of terror groups like the MEK within Iran’s borders.

President Bush will tell you none of these things, because telling you those things might lead you to ask yourself what the hell you were thinking when you consented to allow him, his party, and those who pretend to be his opponents in Congress, to exercise power over yourself, your family, your friends and your neighbors in the first place.

January 26, 2008

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts