There have been times everywhere in the world when some people, strongly adhering to some adopted political stratagem and ideology, feel responsible to rise and make sacrifices to redeem their peoples’ dignity and fundamental liberties from the shackles of bondage or revolted against oppression, against foreign aggression, against the usurpation of their land and more. Many of these groups had to get armed in their struggles; however, some lost the battle, some overcame the opponents, and some laid down the arms and abided by the rules that stood for a new order. It was much because they fought for the cause of their homeland and people and hardly their clamor was tainted with organizational or individual ambitions.
The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), for instance, was a loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland formed in 1966 as an armed group from the very beginning and declared war on the IRA, and made note of the fact that they were "heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause”.
In the course of its forty-year long armed activities, UVF had been reportedly responsible for the killing of some 550 people. Whatever the cause, it had created a nightmare of terrorism threat that led to its proscription as a terrorist group. Although the group had declared a ceasefire 13 years ago, but since then its members have been blamed for more than 20 murders. However, through an officially issued statement, UVF declared that “as of 12 midnight, Thursday 3 May 2007, the Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commando will assume a non-military, civilianized, role”.
Transformation from a terrorist to a civilian organization includes measures as stated in the statement: “All recruitment has ceased; military training has ceased; targeting has ceased and all intelligence rendered obsolete; all active service units have been de-activated; all ordinance has been put beyond reach and the IICD instructed accordingly”.
The statement seems to be a sensible recognition of a new political reality that the world is no more a place for armed or violent actions, rather any pro-democratic move is welcomed if the repentant armed groups really mean it.
It is true that the terrorist organizations that for national causes decide to forswear violent campaign and practice of terrorism may be granted the opportunity to accomplish their political demands through peaceful avenues. The groups and organizations that claim to have renounced armed campaign are mostly judged by their actions rather than the words. There are groups that indeed mean what they say and declare it publicly for the world to see and judge. On the contrary, there exist groups that their non-proclaimed but quoted claims of renouncing terrorism corroborate the intention of evading a just judgment rather than adhering to non-violent practices to fulfill the rightful objectives.
Good news as it may seem, MKO stresses that, if not publically and officially declared, it is no more adhering to an armed policy in its struggle against Iranian regime. But the organization totally disregards the fact that those who claim to be supporting the establishment of democracy in a country should first themselves hold onto the principles of democracy. Cunning claims, while the organization’s main military camp is still heavily run and guarded under the same unchanged military disciplines and practical cultic ideologies in Iraqi Camp Ashraf, make the public opinion laugh at the group clearly lying through its teeth. With some 3500 insiders held against their will, in no way the claims correspond with the tenets of democracy the group advertises in the European communities.
Once chanting revolutionary slogans when MKO started its struggle some forty years ago, its objective seemed to be achieved following the establishment of a non-monarchical regime in Iran. Refraining to lay down the arms and to abide by the rules that stood for the new order, the group formed a new front against the regime much because its leaders could hardly adhere to the adopted regulations that could at least temporarily restore order. Its views tainted with organizational and personal ambitions, MKO failed to win public support to live longer than a couple of years on the political scene and resorted to its aggressive way of campaign.
Actually, MKO is neither an armed group, as the circumstances permit it not and since it has been removed from some terrorist lists, nor a political weight inside nor outside of its homeland to defend masses’ rights; it has always been moving against the current in any field. Once only a domestic trouble that had jeopardized the Iranian internal, public security and had turned its own people’s daily life into nightmare, MKO is now a recognized global problem, a malignant tumor that has to be dealt with and removed. Closure of Camp Ashraf not only helps dismantling such a problematic group but also sets many enslaved members of the cult free. For sure, removal of a malignant tumor lets other parts survive.
Furthermore, it is a proven fact that the transfer of MKO to any other land faces that nation with a terrible predicament that consumes the energy as it is going on in Iraq at the present. Why Iraq has to lose so much energy to tackle with a problem that is the remnant of a collapsed regime while it has to encounter and overcome many of its own internal crises? It is a question that many of the group’s advocates have to answer that what is really the use of an organization that in none of the phases of its forty-year long history has gained a single success and victory neither in political nor in social stages? A history all packed with terror, murder, defiance, treason, espionage and much more.
Much approved and supported by the ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam, it was revealed that MKO was running prison camps within Iraq and were committing severe human rights violations; the only survived dissidents were those who could manage to escape while no humanitarian organization was permitted to monitor the organization. The Iraqi government’s decision to close MKO camp and to let the people living there leave for a secure and free destination is a sound decision to end their plights and the group resistance is another instance of violating human rights.
It is not bad to be an idealist provided the ideals do not risk people’s life or dispossess anyone of freedom. The least the organization can do to bring the chapter to an end is to apologize for all its crimes and misdeeds and stop enslaving the forces that could have been usefully employed for peaceful and social purposes. Sooner or later they will be freed but the ultimate end of those who did betray freedom for the cause of freedom will be simply a vague record in history.
by A. Kavehpur – Mojahedin.ws – April 20, 2009