Former members of the MEK

Firouzmand; Interview With BBC

In a press conference in Paris, Mohammed Javad Firouzmand-former senior member of MKO- talked about the condition of this organization in Iraq.

After the US invasion to Iraq, he escaped from Camp Ashraf- MKO’s main headquarter led by Massoud Rajavi- and returned to Iran by the assistance of the international Red Cross. He left Iran illegally in a while and arrived in Europe via Turkey. In an interview with BBC, he said of his escape from Camp Ashraf:

– After the Americans took control of Camp Ashraf and its surrounding areas, they started to identify the members of the MKO. They said they wanted to verify that the members were not dangerous. Indeed, two times, they interrogated the members, fingerprinted them and opened a file for each one. The first time, this process was done with the presence of the MKO officials and therefore, it was not possible to escape. But the second times, none of the MKO officials were there. This was the only chance for me to escape the MKO without announcing my intention. I should say that I had once escaped the camp in 2001 but I was arrested by Saddam forces and I was imprisoned and tortured by Mojahedin, and then Massoud and Maryam sentenced me to death. Anyway, I escaped the US-run camp in northern side of Camp Ashraf.

* How many people are now in the US-run camp?

– If we consider it since about 18 months ago, when the first defectors started leaving the MKO, around 700 members have left the MKO so far. Around 500 of this number have returned to Iran under the supervision of International Red Cross and there are now more than 150 former members in the US-run camp, protected by Americans.

* How many remained in Ashraf camp? What’s your estimation of the number of those who want the leave the MKO?

– Around 3000 to 3100 are now in Camp Ashraf under the control of the MKO, without a clear future. Well, it can be said that all of them like to go. In past 17 months more than 700 escaped from MKO and this is unprecedented. And this loss of forces will take the MKO to a deadlock.

* How were you able to get to Europe? What events did you pass?

– In March 2005, under the supervision of Red Cross, there was no way out of Iraq and I was looking for a path to save myself from the hell of Iraq. Iran was the only solution, but a risky one. I said this to the Red Cross. I asked them whether they guaranteed my safety in Iran, because I had a long record of fighting the regime. They said no and that they couldn’t guarantee that in any form, written or verbal. Well, I accepted this risk.

* How did they, Iranian security agents, treat you in Iran? You and others who had returned from the MKO? during the interrogations?

– More than 500 former members returned to Iran. Around 14 returned to Iran just last week. I swear to God, and with 25-year record of fighting this very regime I frankly say that fortunately the elements of the regime received us from the Red Cross and delivered us to our families. They had no negative or bad behavior and I didn’t see any negative effect in their words or practices. This is a reality that I should say.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

MKO, Banned in New Iraq

Iraqi foreign minister, Hushyar Zebari who is visiting Iran with Ibrahim Al-Jafari referred to the presence of thousands of terrorist Mojahedin-e khalq members in Iraq (who are now under the US protection) and said: "once again, in a meeting with President Khatami and Mr. Yunesi, the Iranian intelligence minister, we stressed clearly that there’s no place Iraq’s policy for armed groups activities against neighboring countries."

"Iraq can’t extradite elements of the Mojahedin-e khalq because they have been given international status by the Red Cross, but we have taken their weapons," he said.

AAwsat and Al-Hayat

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

MKO Documents Should Be Dumped

Speaking at the seminar of "Protecting the Rights of Child Victims of Terror and Violence" held in Tehran, Ms. Lucy Smith, member of UN Commission for the rights of the child, stressed that most of MKO’s documents on Iran should be dumped.

Highlighting the main items of "Universal Convention on the Rights of the Child", she pointed to the victims of MKO’s terror and violence and said: "Last year, I met a number of families of such victims and I was really affected."

"Child victims of the terrorist operations of the MKO in Iran and other places in the world unfold the inhumane nature of the activities of this group"

Referring to children being terrorized by terrorist organizations, she said: "we don’t have executive power to order the groups and governments, so we can only advise them".

She condemned the use of children as tools by terrorist organizations, like the MKO, and said that terrorist organizations shouldn’t be allowed to use the children.

"Mojahedin-e khalq has very small lobbies in Norwegian Parliament and I have seen their documents on situation in Iran and it should be said that most of their documents should be thrown in trash can. This group tries to present invalid forged documents to parliamentarian institutions and pave the way for receiving political aids from those institutions," she said.

Ms. Zahra Nourbakhsh, a victim of the terrorist cult of Rajavi, spoke at the seminar and explained how a city bus in Shiraz was set on fire by the cult of Rajavi and that she and her sister were burnt. In that event in 1981, she was severely injured and her sister died.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

Interview with Yasser Ezzati

Gathering of Roshana Association before German Parliament, Federal State of NRW, Dsseldorf

– Mr. Ezzati, Can you explain why you are here?

Ezzati: We are now before the Westfalen parliament; we have gathered here to help underage people who have been brainwashed by the MKO. Even people like Turaj or Alan Mohammedi who committed suicide were sent to Iraq at the age of 13-14. We have gathered here to say that these people should talk to international organizations in a free situation. I was there and I know that the MKO puts them under pressure. These young people don’t want to stay there and I recently talked to Amir Vafa Yaghmayee- the son of Ismael Vafa Yaghmayee, member of NCRI- and he said that he is under pressure even in the US camp and he can’t speak.

– How many people are there in the US-run camp?

E: the children of MKO, I mean dissident ones in the US camp are 4. Heidar Naghash, Amir Vafa Yaghmayee, Saeed and a girl, Azadeh Boostani.

– Are you familiar with them?

E: I have lived with them, in Germany and in Camp Ashraf.

– Do you gather here to ask the parliamentarians to return those having the citizenship of Germany?

E: We want them to send a group there. Talk to the children and let the children choose between Ashraf and Europe because the MKO has limited their choice to Iran and Ashraf.

– Why did the MKO let you out but prevents them from leaving the group?

E: When I was in Ashraf I knew that Americans don’t help anyone. So I believed that escaping from Ashraf is easier. I didn’t go to the US camp and I pretended that I wanted to stay with the MKO.

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

Alen Cheuvalrias interviewed Mr.Masoud Khodabande- Part Two

–          Regarding to your past story, while your presentation in MKO, which event was the most astonishing?

–          It’s more than an event, I remember the way Masud separated children from their parents, the first separations contained forced divorces, the children became teams, the younger ones stayed in the organization and were grown by babysitters. Relation with parents had been nearly cut. In 1991 during the first Gulf War, Masud Rajavi  abused the situation and sent all the children out of Iraq territory.

–          You say abuse, didn’t he really use?

–          At all. Masud had ordered to put the flags of Iran and the organization all around the camps so that the camps would be saved from American’s air attacks.

–          You want to say, he had signed some agreement with Americans?

–          Yes, under his own order, I sent messages to all the headquarters so that the pilots could  see the flags …

–          Get back to the children.

–          I understood that this work was not a security process because of two reasons, on one hand Masud didn’t order to take the old and sick members and on the other hand, to reach Jordan we had to drive across a road from Baqdad to Amen which was more dangerous than staying in our camps with a view to Americans air attacks.

–          So, why did he separate these children from their parents?  

–          Firstly to prepare their parents for military service better, then to exploit the children.

–          How?

–          You’ll see. I was responsible for several buses carrying the children. When arriving at Jordan Border, we waited for more than 24 hours in the area between the two countries. It was forbidden to exit Iraq. The king of Jordan interfered personally and even received several children in his own palace and ordered to keep them in Jordan but we didn’t accept, therefore he facilitated their exit to Europe without passport.  

–          Didn’t the mothers come with their kids?

–          No, we prevented them. While we were leaving the camps in Iraq, there were terrible stages. The mothers were groaning and crying. Some of them became mad.

–          How could the children enter Europe without passport and their parents?Since, according to international laws, it is forbidden.

(Masud laughed)

–          As usual, we played with the laws. We had organized small groups containing children and adults. We sent them to several European airports. In my own case, a young woman and I were responsible of five groups of , five to six year old children. In Frankfort when dismounting the plane, we tore our tickets and also the children’s, to make sure that they wouldn’t return us to Jordan. Then we appeared at police security check, and claimed that we have escaped from Iran and applied political refugee status.

–          Did you introduce yourselves as children’s parents?

–          No, as friends or relatives. Thus, the children arrived the country under the duty of the authorities of that European country, in my case Germany.

–          In this way, they were lost for their parents and the organization.

–          Not yet, since we had also thought of this one. German officials insisted on the children’s needs. According to our own orders, the Mujahedin had to introduce themselves as tutors, regarding their nationality, Iranian and knowing Persian. Instead, for each little refugee, the adopting family received financial aid from German government. The same process was accomplished in many other countries such as Netherlands.

–          Up to here, it’s a little complicated but legal. 

–          Yes, the money German government gave, was not spent for children. Mujahedin seized it and sent it to Paris,their financial center.

–          Keeping children cost a sum even if a very little sum.

–          That’s why they were kept in one room in a group of five or six and sent to streets to gather funds under the cover of an establishment called "Iran Aid", after several months, the German and Dutch officials found out that the government charities for the children are embezzled. Therefore Mujahedin again distributed the children among the families.

–          What happened to the children?

–          They were finally grown up by their step – parents. But all of them have a revengeful feeling for their real parents and more than that for the organization. After years, the organization tried to take the possession of the children in order to recruit them for its campaign unities, but a few of them accepted; less than 20 among hundreds.

–          What did you feel while arranging children’s departure from Iraq?

–          At that time nothing. Since my brain was washed, just like all my other colleagues, I found it a usual process. For me, it was one of the results of our fight. But, today when I look back, I feel disgusted. Imagine mothers’ suffer , under the pressure of this extravagances, mothers today separated from their children …

–          There is something strange in Mujahedin’s structure, and that is women’s position. How do you explain their number in high ranks of the organization?

–          Marxism influence on Masud, justifies their choice to some extent. According to communism doctrine, the suffering class, victim class must lead the revolution. Considering the absence of workers, Rajavi proceeded with women. He presented them as a mistreated social class. The other reason is the problems of recruitment. Men are not enough, so he recruit women. Besides, for his campaign, Saddam aided him financially. And the last reason is that this method causes the men get marginalized to prohibit their ambitiousness.

–          What has remained of NCRI National council of Resistance, today?  

–          This council was founded while Masud’s arrival to France, in 1981. He had to unite a dissident against Islamic government in Iran. Its principal members included Banisadr, PDKI Kurdish Party, and some other well known personalities. But, in March, 1983 Banisadr resigned from Masud and left NCR. On April 14th, Kurds Party also left it. Nowadays, NCR is only a dead and depraved establishment made of Mujahedin which has the duty of showing a democratic appearance and providing them a cover. In fact it has no independence.

–          I’d like to know your answer to one question which has occupied my mind from the very beginning. Are Mujahedin a terrorist movement or not?

–          I have no doubt that they are terrorists.

–          Why?

–          To answer this question, I refer to the rules announced by United Nations. An organization is called terrorist which has targeted the civilians on one hand and has used violence to achieve its political, financial or personal benefits on the other hand. These criteria are exactly conformed with Mujahedin’s functions and motivations.

–          So  why do they answer: "we are not terrorist but resistants’ "

–          Resistant against what? As I know they don’t have any foreign armed campaign against Iran.

–          According to their states, they resist against Islamism of Regime in Tehran.

–          First of all, I don’t think that armed combat is a good means to change regime in Iran because it obstructs process and evolution. In this case, the condition just becomes worse. I believe in the transition of minds to have a mutation in Iran society. Not with violence. After twenty years of armed attacks to Islamism, Mujahedin didn’t do anything but making it more powerful. They were the best supporters for the regime.

–          I’ve heard somewhere, that MEK and AlQuida are considered in the same position. Don’t you find this analysis exaggerated?

–          Not at all. The both organizations use the same system of psychological training to recruit their members and send them to death. This is their weak point and strength point at the same time. The strength point; since in this way they have individuals who follow them to the death. The weak point; because they must keep the members, isolated, in a definite situation for a long time. Therefore they need a territory. In the case of Al Quaida this territory was Afghanistan and for Mujahedin it was Iraq. Nor this one and neither that one could train their members in a free country with regulations and morals restrictions and organize their operations.

–          However we see the cults developing in free countries too. In Europe, for instance, they use the process of brain washing for their partisans.

–          Yes, but they don’t lead them to a point that they commit suicide and terrorist operations. It’s simple because in these cults the absolute isolation is impossible.

–          What other similarities do you see between these two organizations?

–          None of them have principals. They consider themselves over rules.

–          But Al Quiada says that it acts according to Qoran and prevents its members from eating alcoholic and other foods which are forbidden in Islam.

–          They say what they like. AlQuiada also uses Islam as a means to lead its goals, just like Mujahedin. Ben Ladeen and Masud Rajavi claim that they are Muslims but they often don’t follow Islam. When they send people to death, it’s not for religion but it’s for their avidity for power. Do you think that all Muslims are convinced with Masud Rajavi and Osama Ben Laden declarations?

–          In Rajavi’s case, I don’t know but about Ben Laden it seems in Muslim society, most of the people have feeling of sympathy for him.

–          Not for a long time. Today terror operations of Al Quaida have mainly targeted the muslims’ countries; the same sisters and brothers they say. This is a suitable prove for the absence of principals in this organization. Rajavi kills Iranians and AlQuiada Muslim arabs. While presence of Soviet Union in Afghanistan AlQuiada took Americans part and today they are fighting them. Mujahedin were Imam Khomeini’s friends and were operating attacks against American civilians, then they assisted Saddam Hussein against Iran. Now they are looking for taking themselves under US flag. Now, you tell me they have principals?

There is another similarity between Mujahedin and Al Quiada:

The culture of suicide.

They use Islam to justify themselves. Although, according to a Muslim’s rule, a martyr is a person who dies to defend his/ her faith, not a person who causes him/ her to be killed freely and willingly. Mujahedin the same as AlQuiada believe in the highest value for suicide. Therefore you have normal martyr and saint martyr. It is graved, on the tomb of those who self-immolated in June, 2003:"Saint Martyr"

–          You want to say their action was excited by the organization?

–          Not excited, they were ordered. Maryam, herself wanted her fans to victimize themselves if she or Masud are arrested. In order to excite the members for self- immolation, a ballet was arranged in the organization and was performed as a real religious custom.

To be continued

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Iran Focus: The MKO Propaganda Machine

I’ve written several times about my distrust of several news sources by hard-line monarchists or the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organziation (a.k.a MKO, MEK, National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI, People’s Mojahedin of Iran, PMOI, etc.) as well as those who rely on these sources as "news". Reading news from one of these agencies isn’t about reflecting on different interpretive accounts of events. This isn’t like choosing between the New York Times and Washington Post where there are different “spins” on the same source of information. Both the Time and the Post believe they are being objective, but in different ways. Relying on news sources by hard line monarchists and the MKO, is about choosing an agency that absolutely lies or exaggerates incidents in order to enhance their own political objective. Let us take Iran Focus as an example. In the past I have noted that Iran Focus is a agency run by the MKO for various reasons:

1) The current executive director of Iran Focus is Mohammad Hanif Jazayeri. Hanif is the son of Hassan Jazayeri. Until three years ago, Hassan Jazayeri was rumored to have died in 1980 as a result of being abandoned by MKO and Iraqi trainers. Later the story was changed to Hassan being executed by the Iranian regime for his membership with the MKO. Given Iran and the MKO’s history of human rights abuses, I won’t argue which is the correct account. Before Iran Focus was ever created, Hanif has time after time advocated his support for the MKO. In fact, earlier this year Hanif was engaged in a campaign to remove the MKO from the UK’s list of terrorist organizations (it is worth noting that the MKO is also included in the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.)

Additionally, in various posts dated in1998 and 1999, Hanif has advocated his support for the MKO as Iran’s only "democratic alternative."

Hanif’s signature also appears on this petition supporting the MKO cause.

2) Iran Focus along with its sister site Iran Terror (look at the website designs and stories as well as the website for the MKO and you can easily see they’re created by the same designer) are registered in London and Paris respectively. In fact both organizations, including the MKO, tried to allege that the Human Rights Watch report illustrating all the human rights abuses committed by the organization was a result of some conspiracy between HRW and agents in the Iranian government. A response to the allegation can be found here. I’d like to add that the "Gulf 2000 list" which Iran Focus and Iran Terror refers to is a listserv with hundreds of academics, politicals, and thinkers on the Persian Gulf with different political viewpoints. Nevertheless, the Iran Terror email refers to emails sent in the listserv as "secret emails" which they had intercepted.

3) The Iran Focus website uses language supporting the MKO cause. There are particular ideological positions and phrases which MKO members and supporters use. By continuously using the MKO as Iran’s "democratic alternative" both the Iran Focus and Iran Terror websites intend to create the misleading image that the group, as well as their political counter-part NCRI, are legitimate proponents of human rights and democracy with a significant backing inside and outside of Iran. Read this article, this article, and this article for an image of the type of propaganda used by the websites.

As I stated before, the purpose of both Iran Focus and Iran Terror is twofold: 1) to disseminate information for political purposes and enhance a movement for external regime change and 2) legitimize the MKO in Western government by removing them from terrorist lists and enhancing their political influence. The sum of these objectives is to persuade Western governments to militarily engage Iran in order to replace with Mullahs with the Mujahedin.

That being said there’s a variety of reasons to view the MKO news agencies and similar modules as instruments of propaganda as opposed to instruments of news.

First, the organization is a terrorist group under both US and European law. The State Department continues to list the MKO as a terrorist group. Although MKO agents have claimed that the inclusion was part of Clinton’s appeal to the reformist government in Iran, the argument is no longer cogent in light of the fact that during Bush’s 5 years in office he has yet to remove the MKO as a terrorist group despite significant political pressure by various neo-conservatives (this includes Daniel Pipes who currently has a chair with the US Institute of Peace) and various Republican Congressmen. (see this article for a summary of US political figures who have been lobbied by MKO representatives and supporters). Not only were the MKO were designated as a terrorist group under executive order on November 2, 2001, but the President used the MKO as an example of Saddam’s support for terrorism during the drive up to the Iraqi war:

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

By their very nature as a terrorist organization, information by them should not be trusted. Lets put it that way, would you trust al-Qaeda about news in the US or Lebanon?

Second, the MKO have demonstrated time and time again the extents for which they’ll engage a disinformation campaign for purposes of propaganda. For example, the MKO continuously contend that no Mujahedin member has targeted Americans or Europeans figures during acts of terrorism. These arguments are clearly false in light of the following:

–          In 1973, the MKO assassinated Lt. Col. Lewis Hawkins, a U.S. military advisor in Iran.

–          In 1975, MKO members shot and killed two U.S. Air force officers in Tehran and attacked a U.S. Embassy van in Tehran resulted in the death of a local employee.

–          In 1976, the MKO assassinated three American employees of Rockwell International working in Iran.

–          In 1979, the MKO openly supported the holding of US hostages until 1981 when they began directing their attention to Khomeini.

Whether or not the MKO targeted Americans or not is a irrelevant argument anyways. Terrorism anywhere is terrorism everywhere regardless of our relationship with its targets. Evidence of MKO propaganda in Iran Focus is also apparent when we compare their report to a report by the Washington Times concerning a recent MKO event. The Iran Focus report indicates that there were thousands of participants, while the Times only reports 300. See a similar report where Iran Focus reported that over 40,000 participants intended to protest in Berlin. Interesting for an organization that is only reported to have 10,000 members.

Lastly, the MKO are highly disliked and disregarded by Iranians worldwide. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Saddam Hussein financed and utilized the MKO to institute several attacks against Iranians. (Note: the MKO were also responsible for assisting Saddam Hussein suppress Shiite and Kurdish uprisings in 1991.) It is no surprise, therefore, that most Iranians regard the MKO as a cultish organization. There is no statute of limitations against murderers or conspirators to murder, nor is there one for terrorists and those who conspire with terrorists. Similarly, the MKO do not gain immunity for their previous actions simply by refraining from targeting European and American targets for 30 years. Nor have they in the eyes of Iranians.

For all these reasons I note that Iran Focus, Iran Terror, people who rely on the two for information, and all affiliated groups should not be used as a source of "alternative information." There’s nothing alternative about propaganda, regardless of if it addresses the same human rights issues which we are concerned with. "The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted."

I would like to note that often those who do not share the same political sentiments of the MKO or hard-line monarchists are branded as “apologists” as if to place them in the same group as hezbollahis. We are not apologists when we wish freedom Iran based on principles of reconciliation and accountability. To do so would be similar to saying that opponents to the Khmer Rouge were apologists when the Cambodian government was committing human rights abuses in the early 70’s. As Congressman Bob Ney rightfully stated, “Opposition to the Mujahedin is not the same as support for the regime in Iran.”

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

Open Letter to Human Rights Watch

With regards and thanks,

I read the long overdue, very brief but nevertheless justice seeking report on the inhuman behaviour of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (MKO) after it was published. I preferred to wait to see the consequences of the report as well as the reaction which would follow before writing this letter.

Any crime can have four distinguishing characteristics. The first is totally related to the criminals and the others are based on that. The second is related to the victim of the criminals, the third relates to the defenders of human rights who have taken on the task and duty of exposing the crimes of these criminals, and the fourth relates to international public opinion and the international conscience to judge according to the findings and the reports produced by the defenders of these victims of crimes. The politicians and the men in power do not usually have a pivotal role in this part as their interests always come before their logic.

For years the MKO committed crimes on the regional level (Iran and Iraq) under the authority of Saddam Hussein. On the internal level also the MKO changed the organisation into an ‘ideological military cult’ using brainwashing techniques, and  practiced a range of crimes to the extent that by putting every one under it’s sword, it tried to achieve a situation in which "no one would be left unless they have passed the process of internal revolution". On the international level, the MKO did not spare any action to get support and logistics for its crimes and to legitimise it for its forces, it called this "bridging".

In September 1995, when a number of survivors of the Mojahedin cult got together in Geneva to put their complains against Mr. and Mrs. Rajavi to the United Nation’s Special Rapporter to Iran, the MKO in a hysterical offensive, which revealed its anger at facing exposure of its crimes, shouted that the international and humanitarian bodies are all employed by the "mullahs’ regime" working against the "Iranian Resistance" and started a coordinated offensive against them. (Iran Zamin, [Mojahedin newspaper] number 9.)

Since then, whoever takes an stance against the Mojahedin, will first be categorised as being part of the ruling regime in Iran and then subjected to all sorts of attacks. This practice of course comes from the way of thinking that believes: "if you are not with us, you are against us, and if you are against us, you are with the Iranian regime, and to shed the blood of whoever is with the regime is of course legitimate".

Human Rights Watch, in a researched report about the MKO, has only looked at the crimes which have been committed against the members after they have distanced themselves from the organisation and maybe this is why the report has been titled "No Exit". But if we look at the psychological operations carried out by the MKO on its forces with a critical eye to the extent that the organisation is forced to stop using these psychological methods, it is clear that no one except a handful of losers would not stay there. Therefore it may be logical to ask you as an international body with the respected credibility that you have, to investigate into the brainwashing techniques used by the organisation and perhaps produce a second report in line with informing the victims as well as their families. In the next stage, it would be appropriate that all the victims of MKO terrorism, and the survivors of the MKO’s operations, and the families of the ones who have lost their lives, as well as the ones who have been disabled for life, would be invited to produce a report so that the few people in some parliaments who still insist on supporting this cult know the degree of crimes they are willing to ignore. Crimes as evident as firing mortars in the streets of Iran and publishing the reports of their disgusting activities in their newspapers.

And the third subject on which Human Rights Watch could perhaps work and produce a report, would be an investigation and a report about the systematic and planned crimes with the logistical, intelligence and military backing of the toppled Iraqi regime against Iranian soldiers, as well as the forces of the National Liberation Army of the Mojahedin which by any standard would be considered as war crimes.

The few backers and the huge number of critics of the MKO should know that respecting the human rights of every individual, irrelevant of their way of life, thoughts and political beliefs, is a basic which should not be allowed to be influenced by these offensive measures employed by the Mojahedin and we should not allow them to wear democratic clothing to hide their cult nature.

Maryam Khoshnevis

Ex member of MKO

3rd July 2005

cc:

Human Rights Committee in European Parliament

International Committee of the Red Cross

Amnesty International 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

Diplomacy and the MKO’s Foreign Supporters

Interview with Ebrahim Khodabandeh

 Interviewer – Mr. Win Griffiths came to Iran and saw the reality of your condition at first hand; but he evaded, in a way, admitting this reality! Why does a figure such as him ignore his responsibility and resort to partiality in his judgment?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – There are various reasons for this, the clearest of which is his formal ties with the [Mojahedin] Organization. In the end, it’s been 25 years that he is working with the MKO and there’s a kind of formality between them.

Many MKO members (like me and others) are the people who have had relations with the people who are now in the House of Lords. These people have had contact with the MKO since they were young and were in the Labour Party and then they had become members of parliament, stood down and became Lords, but kept their contact.

There are a few such people, such as Win Griffiths, Lord Corbett, and Lord Clark; they’re the products of the 1980s when a big wave was in motion against Iran (at that time it was said that every 25 minutes an Iranian is executed). These people came at that time and I saw that Labour Party formally supported the NCRI. A representative of the Labour Party came and said that they wanted to support the MKO. Anyway, this was their policy at that time.

These [people] are the products of that period of time and when they retire, no one replaces them. Most of them are concentrated in the US and the UK; in other European countries you can’t find such similar conditions. This is because the MKO had strong foreign relations in the US and UK. It had people on the ground who had made friendship with parliamentarians.

There may be a thousand reasons for Win Griffiths’s position; he may have formal relations with a person in the MKO.

But this is only related to a person. If you look closer, you can see that support for the MKO has become restricted and limited. At one time, a majority of the Swedish parliament supported the NCRI, when Maryam Rajavi was in Paris, but it is now finished.

After that, it was reversed and opponents of the MKO in European Parliament increased. The MKO has never been able to get good support from the parliaments in Germany and France.

It also depends on the political situation of the MPs and their record as an MP. The presence of some people, who were influential, could be decisive; but Parliament is not an important organ in the foreign policies of these countries, and so the position taken by a member of parliament is not important.

If all the MPs of the world gather and sign a petition in favor of the MKO, nothing will be changed for this organization. All of them together can’t have the value of a diplomat or an expert from a Foreign Office. The professional views of such experts have always been decisive. No one, even a simple expert, in any foreign ministry, supports this organization.

Except with Saddam, the Organization couldn’t establish solid relations with other states; it has not had even a simple discussion. Other nations don’t count on the MKO to sit and talk to it. Instead, the MKO has always wanted a person from any foreign ministry to come and talk to them. This never came true for the MKO and then the terrorist lists showed up. First, the US list of terrorist organization and then, the UK, and then it was extended to European Parliament.

Now if you compare the words of Win Griffiths and the [Terrorism] Act [2000] passed by the UK parliament which introduced the MKO as a terrorist organization; they’re not comparable. I mean the words of Griffiths are not decisive.

Interviewer – Your explanations about the diplomacy of the organization and that where it is going and its propaganda positions have been very useful. But when we address Mr. Win Griffiths as a human being, he has taken a position against your case; how should we evaluate this?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – We should remember that Mr. Griffiths is retired [as an MP] and he would be dealing with the supporters of the MKO. If I were him, I’d work cautiously because the members of the MKO are present there in the UK and I would meet them again; in the end, one should think that he had 20 years of relationship and he needs more caution than people like Teddy Taylor who has no formal relation with the MKO or Emma Nicholson who has always taken position against the MKO.

I mean this position taking depends on personal characteristics; it can’t be analyzed politically.

Interviewer – Another point was that the MKO put pressure on Homa Khodabandeh and tried to convince her that she should protest and set herself on fire. Mitra Bagheri had said this, 20 days before organized self-immolations in France; before Marzieh Babakhani and Sedighe Mojaveri in Paris and Neda Hassani in the UK set themselves on fire; of course, the total number of self-immolations was 16 out of which 2 deaths were reported.

But the organization claims that it was not organized by the MKO.

I want to establish a link between what the MKO had said to Homa and the events in France. Can we say that what happened in France was a move by the members themselves?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – I can’t believe that even a move is performed by itself in the MKO; I mean if someone can do something in the MKO by himself, then the MKO is not the organization that I know.

If someone wants to drink water, it is done under the supervision of the organization. In most of the cases we couldn’t decide and waited for the organization to give us commands. We couldn’t even decide on the simplest affairs of all human beings.

It is possible that an official of the MKO has not directly ordered someone to execute the orders, but there are special methods to force the members indirectly to do something; the MKO is master at such methods.

For instance, in the meetings they didn’t tell us to attack a person, but they prepared the situation so that all the people in that meeting attacked a person who did not have similar ideas. In that system, ordering members is easy.

If it was something spontaneous, the people who were closer to the center of the MKO (Maryam Rajavi) should have been more affected; but why didn’t the veterans come to the scene and why were the younger members involved; why was it limited and why wasn’t it wider?

My daughter told met that someone had called her and said that ‘if she was really my daughter, she’d set herself on fire’. When they can say such things to my daughter, consider the things they may have said after Maryam was arrested.

They may have said that if something like this happens, we would do so and so; well, there are a number who are influenced and would do the same

Let me tell you something; if the MKO didn’t want these events to happen it had the ability to prevent them although the members had become very excited.

Interviewer – When Mr. Griffiths came to Iran, you asked Ms. Elahe Azimfar to come to Iran and meet with you in person and you guaranteed her return. Would you repeat this again? Would you ask her or any other MKO representative to come to Iran?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Sure; I’m assured that I can guarantee this. I’m sure about it due to the things I’ve see here. It’s not restricted to one case. One can see many things, courts, revolutionary courts, judges, interrogators, intelligence ministry; prison guards the families, people in the streets. All this can’t be a big theater.

My analysis is that right now, Ms. Elahe Azimfar can come to Iran. She can go around and see everyone and then she can return to the UK!

Who benefits from this? If you look at it very carefully, you’ll see that the only loser is the MKO. It is the MKO which should answer these questions: where’s the torture, where’s the execution, why was x not tortured, why was y not executed? This is one of the first results of such a visit to Iran.

Win Griffiths came to Iran and returned; he can say what he wants. That he came to Iran after 25 years of enmity with the Islamic Republic and supporting MKO, that he was welcomed like a guest, he went everywhere he wanted and talked to everyone he liked, and then he returned, that is enough.

He can say nothing; anyone who witnesses this must ask himself "Where are all those claims?" I mean there’s a contradiction.

Once we see a person like Emma Nicholson, who came here to say "don’t execute these people". She didn’t ask for anything in return. She was not given money. My brother asked him and she came to Iran and asked Iran not to execute us. And then we see how the MKO treats her.

What has she done that the MKO insults her? What has she said that the MKO is so angry? So, the only loser out of visits to Iran is the MKO and no one else.

That’s why the MKO tries to isolate those who talk about Iran and who go to the Iranian embassy. It wants to create a situation in which no one thinks of returning to Iran. A situation in which members think they have committed a betrayal; they can do anything but they must never approach Iran.

I know that the Iranian government has a good insight into the MKO and knows that if someone is separate from the MKO for 10 days, then that person won’t be the same again. Iran is always open to such people.

This is not like Europe. The punishment for armed robbery here is death, but how is that [Iran] pardons MKO members, even those who have participated in operations? Because they know that if a person leaves the MKO, and the ‘Current Operation’" [brainwashing] sessions are stopped, that person can be reconstructed and sent back into society. It means that these persons have not been terrorists and criminals but they have been in a situation that has forced them to be so.

Experience shows that those who survived their own [terrorist] operations in Iran, made a 180 turnabout during a short time. Unfortunately, some of them committed suicide or were killed during the operation.

This turnabout can’t be achieved through torture, or mental pressure since they were ready for torture and mental pressure. The thing they were not ready for was seeing reality. That’s why they were told to swallow cyanide capsule.

I’m sure that if someone like Ms. Elahe Azimfar comes to Iran, she would be warmly received and then she can return freely. Then she can return and say that she was tortured here.

She can say whatever she wants, it’s not important. But the only loser will be the MKO and the MKO won’t allow such a thing to happen.

Interviewer – It was announced on behalf of Mr. Griffiths that he is carrying a message of peace for Iranian officials and whether it is possible for the government to stop its enmity toward the MKO and issue a pardon or not. Do you think it was a personal request or was it something which had been coordinated by the MKO?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – No, I think it was personal. As far as the system in Iran is concerned it has no problem. What would they want to do if they return to the country? Would they hold the ‘current operation’ sessions in a stadium?

The system’s behavior with us shows that it doesn’t consider the MKO to be a serious threat.

Win Griffiths said that he was personally opposed to armed struggle. He said that he didn’t accept that MKO has performed military operations.

Interviewer – Of course, he later withdrew these words.

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Anyway, this was what he told us. He said that he wanted to create understanding. But I don’t believe that the organization will abandon its principles. Mr. Griffiths should know that MKO’s basis is that the regime should be toppled. Well, first of all, it should withdraw from this position and then there is room for other discussions.

For instance, first I say that I seek your death! Now I want to sit and talk to you. It’s impossible because I have not left any room for discussion.

So, this was something personal. He said that he had something like the model of South Africa in his mind. But the cases are not similar at all.

Interviewer – Mr. Griffiths and two of his friends had formed an ad hoc parliamentary committee to save you, "The Committee for the freedom of Ebrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam"! But as the MKO’s propaganda decreased, this committee was shut down (although if its purpose was humanitarian it should have continued its activities until achieving a clear result). Now the question is, whether these committees and other similar movements are created at the request of MPs or at the request of the MKO?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – All the activities by these MPs are planned by the MKO. MPs are very busy. Iran may be at the bottom of their agenda. They are so busy that they can’t enter into such cases. They only let their names be used by such committees- which are usually fixed and are run by a few who have old relations with the MKO.

These committees don’t have formal or legal aspects. They’re not influential at all. They’re more propagandistic and help the MKO in its propaganda programs.

Interviewer –  You mean they have internal applications in the MKO?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Yes, they’re used to recruit and keep members. For example, consider the committee which had been formed for us. It was not for our freedom. It had propaganda use, up to a point? Up to where? Up to when Baroness Emma Nicholson came and visited us. Then my daughter came and visited me. And later, Griffiths came and then the time for using this committee was expired.

One of the things that was explained here for Mr. Griffiths here was our case and the accusations against us. The UNCR also said that we should be returned to Syrian and that the extradition was illegal because we had UK citizenship. But they couldn’t charge Iran because we had threatened Iran’s security and Iran had the right to receive us wherever we had been arrested.

For instance, a number of people were arrested by the US in Afghanistan. They were taken to Guantanamo Bay. The US says these people were threats to its security. It was explained to Win Griffiths that there were clear charges against us.

It was explained for him that we should go on trial court because we had been arrested and charged.

Anyway, such committees have temporary applications; to fill newspapers and show activities and …

They show these to attract new members and keep some people busy.

Interviewer –  You mean Mr. Griffiths has accepted Iran’s reasoning on judicial issues?

Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Yes, he had a meeting with Mr. Javad Larijani about us. They explained our case to him and said that they are ready to explain it for anyone who has criticisms of the judicial process in this regard.

These are mostly political noises, there’s no legal discussion in them. They lack diplomatic and legal value. They’re only for propaganda.

Interviewer –  Thank-you. 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Office of Foreign Assets Control clarification to MEK

Foreign Terrorist Organization ("[FTO]") the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE OF IRAN (NCRI) has now also been listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist ("[SDGT]"), including its U.S. representative offices and all other offices worldwide. The following clarifications to existing entries have also been issued: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE (NCR) (a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. MEK; a.k.a. MKO; a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ; a.k.a. NLA; a.k.a. ORGANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE’S HOLY WARRIORS OF IRAN; a.k.a. PEOPLE’S MUJAHEDIN ORGANIZATION OF IRAN; a.k.a. PMOI; a.k.a. SAZEMAN-E MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ-E IRAN; a.k.a. THE NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY OF IRAN), including its U.S. representative offices and all other offices worldwide [FTO][SDGT]

PEOPLE’S MUJAHEDIN ORGANIZATION OF IRAN (a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. MEK; a.k.a. MKO; a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ; a.k.a. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE (NCR); a.k.a. NLA; a.k.a. ORGANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE’S HOLY WARRIORS OF IRAN; a.k.a. PMOI; a.k.a. SAZEMAN-E MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ-E IRAN; a.k.a. THE NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY OF IRAN), including its U.S. press office and all other offices worldwide [FTO][SDGT]

PMOI (a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. MEK; a.k.a. MKO; a.k.a. MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ; a.k.a. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE (NCR); a.k.a. NLA; a.k.a. ORGANIZATION OF THE PEOPLE’S HOLY WARRIORS OF IRAN; a.k.a. PEOPLE’S MUJAHEDIN ORGANIZATION OF IRAN; a.k.a. SAZEMAN-E MUJAHEDIN-E KHALQ-E IRAN; a.k.a. THE NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY OF IRAN), including its U.S. press office and all other offices worldwide [FTO][SDGT]

Office of Foreign Assets Control

08/15/2003

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

IHRC concern as US redefines terrorism to support banned group

Press Release: IHRC concern as US redefines terrorism to support banned group. UK & US aiding terrorism through tacit support of banned Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO) terror group.

IHRC is deeply concerned at the latest inconsistent application of the definition of terrorism used by the US and its allies. A ceasefire was called last week between US forces in Iraq and the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO), an anti-Iranian group responsible for attacks including bombings around the world, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians.

The MKO were trained and funded in large part by the Saddam Hussein regime and were until the ceasefire enemy combatants. IHRC expresses its concern that in addition to the ceasefire, the MKO have been allowed to retain their weapons. This continuing blind-eye shown by the US and UK governments towards MKO activities within their borders and in US-administered Iraq exhibits not only a shameful lack of consistency but a complete deficit of ethical motivation.

IHRC fears that firstly, the MKO will be granted carte blanche the freedom to continue its terror activities. Secondly the message it will send out to the wider Middle East in this critical period. The US is prepared to act against Ansar al-Islam and other Islamists. However it is positively hesitant to take any action against MKO terror camps within Iraq, despite MKO’s long-established status as a proxy of the Saddam regime.

IHRC notes that both the UK and US have designated the MKO as a terror organisation (i). Indeed the MKO further participated in Saddam’s brutal crushing of the post-Gulf War Kurdish and Shia civilian uprisings.

(i) On 8 October 1997, the U.S. Secretary of State designated MKO as amongst 30 foreign terrorist organisations that “engage in terrorist activities that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States”. The British government under the “Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, banned MKO as a terror organisation.

Islamic Human Rights Commission – 27 April 2003

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts