Iraqi officials assert that despite conferring with 25 countries, they have failed to convince any country to offer political refuge to MKO. Although the US has shown eager in adopting a policy of supporting Mojahedin in recent years, it refuses to let them in and also describes MKO as a terrorist and unreliable group. To worsen the conditions of Mojahedin, the US has placed the responsibility for making the final decision for MKO on the Iraqi Government.
Furthermore, France has recognized the terrorist nature of Mojahedin and refuses to provide them with refuge. However, it has to bear the settlement of a number of MKO members in Auver-sur-Oise. It is investigating the terrorist charges of Mojahedin regarding the dossier of 17 June, 2003 and has objected to the removal of the name of the organization from the terrorist list of the EU and hopes to convince its European counterparts to review the exoneration MKO from terrorist charges.
In spite of the fact that the UK has removed the bans of political activities for the organization, it refuses to give refuge to its members. The general and official position taking of other European countries is based on labeling MKO as an unreliable organization. Iran’s neighboring countries have a dual policy toward MKO, yet whenever the issue of giving refuge to its members comes out, they absolve responsibility from themselves and give priority to their national interests.
Iraqi people insist on expelling Mojahedin after three decades of their interfering presence in their soil. The false claims of the organization on enjoying a great social support is no more taken seriously since at the time being only Saleh Mutlaq, leader of the Arabic Front for Iraqi National Dialogue, is their strong advocate. Before, it was deemed that Mojahedin were favored by many Iranians due to their anti-monarchy fighting, yet the course of events after the fall of Pahlavi’s regime led them to be the first political group to flee Iran due to their lack of social support. Though Mojahedin have resorted to violence and suicide attacks to keep their residence in Iraq, the evidences indicate that their efforts are futile and they have no position therein.
These positions are taken while it seems that Europe and the US are wiling to fish in troubled water due to the position of Iran in international scene and their own pragmatist and instrumental diplomacy. In other words, they tend to use Mojahedin as a lever of pressure against Iran. The approach cannot be dismissed since the type of relations of the west toward Mojahedin indicates that they can neither abandon MKO as an instrument in their political relations nor brook the costs of the presence of Mojahedin in their soil. Consequently, they refuse to qualify MKO members as political refugees yet watch for an opportunity to make an instrumental use of MKO against Iran. The significant point is that none of these countries recognizes Mojahedin neither an alternative for Iran nor a trend parallel to other oppositions.
Despite Mojahedin’s attempt to exaggerate their status in international scene, the European countries even fail to recognize the legitimacy of Mojahedin as an opposition. This paradoxical policy taken by the West has its roots in political considerations and can be discussed in depth. The unstable and hopeless situation of MKO in the past three decades proves that no country consents to support Mojahedin and even its host governments are after a way to get rid of them.
What is of considerable importance to be discussed here is the unspoken consensus of above countries on the least probability of referring to MKO as an alternative for Iranian government and futility of instrumental use of the organization against Iran. The reasons and evidences of this consensus have been focused on for many years and they have to be investigated and traced more deeply. For instance, it remains a question that the European countries, despite their fundamental fraction with Iran on issues like nuclear issues and the propagation of Islam in the world, still avoid close approach to MKO.
They just try to impose Mojahedin on others like Iraqi government and then benefit from the organization whenever necessary. Anyway, the reason why no country consents to legitimize Mojahedin is to be elaborated on. The reason may be the notorious history of organization full of hostile reactions against their host countries and also misusing the facilities provided by these countries for them against national interests of governments and nations.
The problems Mojahedin have created for European countries in last three decades and the considerable costs paid for their expelling from Iraq can be one of the reasons of that has aggravated the situation. As the European countries witness the costs imposed on Iraqi government and the violent reactions of MKO in Iraq, they can understand that they would be faced with the very same problems if Mojahedin were allowed as refuges on their soil.
They are well aware that the presence of Mojahedin in their soil has many negative consequences like damaging their foreign relations as well as being lambasted for adopting an aberrant political and social policy. Although Mojahedin pretend to follow international law and norms, the evidences shows that after achieving their objectives they are no longer hew to their obligations. In fact, Mojahedin are not so concerned with humanity yet aim at developing an organizational strength and stability. As soon as they meet their objective, their true terrorist and violent nature shows up.