Hot Topics

Mujahedin’s struggle principals

Memoirs of Ms. Batoul Soltani – Part 11-1

In this session, I would like to describe the struggle that today MKO insists on its principals. They say that their struggle is their main investment. I want to talk about MKO fighters, to learn how their fight and their principals were at the beginning, in what stage of their struggle they are now, and how much they have been loyal to their primary principals of their struggle.

Since 1964, I mean when the founders of MKO established the group, they determined a definition for Right and Wrong. Their definition was somehow new at that time. They defined Right and Wrong as “exploiter” and “exploited”. The objective example for the Wrong was US-backed dictatorship of Shah. Along with these principals, they decided to launch an armed struggle against Shah and US military officials, advisors and economic or cultural authorities.

They continued their struggle, even after the mass arrests of the group’s members in 1970, fighting to overthrow Shah’s monarchy. They were killed either inside or outside the prison. It is good to know that at that time Masud Rajavi’s organizational comrades including Badi’ Zadegan, Hanif Nejad and even some others who were at lower ranks comparing Masud, were executed in the prison, but Masud Rajavi survived. Although MKO has always justified this fact by some nonsense, there are a lot of accusations against Masud Rajavi who could manage to survive among so many comrades who were executed. I’d rather explain the process Rajavi headed after the Islamic Revolution; I want to evaluate the way he acted far from those primary principals.

When Masud Rajavi was released from Evin prison, he addressed some speeches in Amjadiyeh stadium and other places. The criterion that can prove Rajavi’s disentitlement for MKO’s leadership was his eagerness to claim himself as the leader of the group immediately after he was released from the prison. He was extremely enthusiastic to introduce himself as the leader of the movement and the revolution and he tried to make others to recognize his self-assigned position. He did not want any other post except that of a leader. He didn’t recognize any other person as the leader.

When his true face was shown, the main problem of MKO was brought about. He showed his hostility toward many individuals. I mean, he was looking for a leadership role when the Iranians had all focused on Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership as the only legitimate leader. In fact, Rajavi’s extreme jealousy and hostility was coming up. When he couldn’t get the first position as the leader of Iran, he tried to get the president’s office but he was not allowed to be a presidential candidate because he hadn’t voted for the constitution he was supposed to prosecute. All these things pushed him to an open opposition against the Iranian Revolution.

After a short period of time, on June 20th, 1981 he declared armed struggle against Islamic Republic. I think since then the organization’s circle of power has completely changed. Indeed, Rajavi himself insists on this change. But the change was in a way that the organization distanced from a popular organization. Actually, he declared armed struggle in that disturbing situation in the society after too much bloodshed, only to achieve his personally lost objectives. It was just for his personality in his cult. Therefore, he did his best to endanger social security.

At the time, I was in grade one at high school. I remember how MKO misused the tiniest complaints or protests in schools for its own cause. As a student, I didn’t know anything about the organization.

Just sometimes I protested against the conditions and MKO took the benefit of my adventurous, immature protests and recruited me. As the first step, once you joined the group, you had to leave your family and go to the group’s safe houses to “fight the Islamic Republic”. MKO members were quite active at schools and they could influence those who had the potentiality and opposed the regime. For example, some students protested against mass praying, they didn’t like to participate it , or they had complaints about veil (hijab). These people were the same ones who fell in MKO’s trap more easily. The group recruiters worked on the students in order to absorb them gradually. Then they used to ask the new recruits to give financial helps. They focused on those who were passionately revolutionary. They continued with the new recruited ones to bring more students to the organization’s net.

I remember that they arranged mountain climbing tours to recruit new students. So gradually I was recruited by MKO without having any information about the group and its cause.

When MKO declared armed struggle, they trapped a group of young people who had no way but to stay in MKO’s safe houses. They were supposed to launch operations. But I didn’t know this at that time. I could only read about it later. I was too young for politics or Rajavi’s theories, but I saw some active, devotee youth who worked for the group.

Finally, the organization was outlawed by the Islamic Republic because of its armed struggle against the regime, the state and the authorities. Some of its members were arrested. Masud Rajavi fled Iran along with Banisadr and survived, although his wife Ashraf was killed in Iran. Masud had no pity for his wife and never tried to get her out of Iran.

Translated by Nejat Society

May 4, 2009 0 comment

Iraq

Iraqi PM: Mojahedin will never operate from Iraq

Iraqi PM, Noori Al Maliki in London: Mojahedin Khalq will never operate from Iraq

According to the London based Al Sharq Al Aawsat newspaper, concerning the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, Noori Almaliki the Iraqi prime minister said: we have been participating with the British and coalition forces during these times and the British forces have successfully brought to an end their military mission.

…

Concerning the Mojahedin Khalq presence in Iraq he said: Under no circumstances would their presence in Iraq be acceptable. Irrespective of some speculation that this may be due to pressure from Iranians or non Iranians, I should emphasise clearly that even if Iran asks us to keep them in Iraq, we will not allow this. This is a terrorist organisation present in various lists of terrorist entities across the globe which of course concerns many, including Iran, the United Nations and other countries.

From our point of view, this is an organisation which has committed many crimes against the people of Iraq, being Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis, hand-in-hand with the last regime (Saddam Hussein) and even right now they are meddling in the internal affairs of our country and there are allegations of their active involvement in the present insurgencies in Iraq. Therefore we cannot allow their presence in the new Iraq. According to the constitution of Iraq, the country will not be used as a base for any terrorist organisation and no one is allowed to use our soil to act against other countries.

Maliki added: I clearly emphasise to the members of this group that although we will not hand them over to Iran, they should not for a moment think that Iraq can be a base for them.

Translated by Iran Interlink

the original Interview(Arabic): http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=4&article=517372&issueno=11112

May 3, 2009 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

ACLU claims U.S. supported PMOI

LOS ANGELES, May 1 (UPI) — Charges filed against Iranian dissidents for supporting a terrorist group based in Iraq are complicated by alleged U.S. military cooperation with that group.

The U.S. Justice Department accepted guilty pleas Wednesday from six men and one woman for collecting funds for the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, a group listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

The American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California, which is representing some of the suspects, says it will challenge the claims on the grounds the PMOI poses no threat to U.S. national security. The ACLU also claims court documents show the U.S. government provided material support to the PMOI as well.

"It boggles the mind that these seven refugees would be charged with providing material support for a so-called terrorist organization, when the U.S. government has supported the same organization for years," said Ahilan Arulanantham with the ACLU.

There is widespread speculation the U.S. military had used the group to carry out attacks on Iran.

The PMOI received its U.S. listing in 1997 in part because of its violent opposition to the Iranian regime. Some observers suspect U.S. President Bill Clinton listed the group, however, as a favor to the moderate Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

The PMOI surrendered to U.S. military forces in Iraq shortly after the invasion of 2003, and it claims to stand as a democratic opposition to the clerical regime in Iran. It has won several delisting campaigns in Europe and is in the process of similar efforts in U.S. courts.

The sentencing hearing for the California case is scheduled for August.

UPI, May 01, 2009

http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/05/01/ACLU-claims-US-supported-PMOI/UPI-73151241206555/

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2009/05/01/aclu_claims_us_supported_pmoi/dffb/

May 3, 2009 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Seven plead guilty to raising funds for Terrorist MKO

Seven plead guilty to raising funds at LAX for terrorist organization

Members of a group that for the last few years has sought donations from travelers at LAX on behalf of what they said was an Iraqi-based charity pleaded guilty Wednesday to federal charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

In a plea agreement that came just as a jury was being selected for trial, the seven defendants each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and one count of actually providing material support to the group.

In court the defendants admitted that they knowingly raised funds to support the activities of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, by collecting money from MEK supporters and soliciting money from unwitting donors at public locations, including the airport. Donors were told they were supporting a charity called the Committee for Human Rights, which was sometimes referred to as the Committee for Human Rights in Iran.

However, the Justice Department charged that CHR was simply a “front organization” to support MEK operations, including its terrorist activities.

The fundraising activities took place from late 1997 to February 2001, authorities said. The group had established nonprofit status and set up bank accounts from which itwired money to the MEK.

“These defendants raised money at locations like LAX on behalf of the MEK, which is a terrorist organization,” U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O’Brien said. “We cannot allow any terrorist organization to fundraise on our shores or to steal money from our own citizens so that they can finance their own terrorism operations. Terrorism anywhere poses a significant security risk to the United States.”

The seven defendants are: Roya Rahmani, 48, of Vienna, Va.; Alireza Mohammadmoradi, 38, of Los Angeles; Moustafa Ahmady, 54, of Los Angeles; Hossein Kalani Afshari, 52, of Mission Viejo; Hassan Rezaie, 54, of Los Angeles; Navid Taj, 58, of Santa Monica and Mohammad Omidvar, 54, of Corona.

The defendants face a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 10.

Updated at 10 p.m.: Over the years, the MEK has carried out bombings, assassinations and cross-border attacks aimed at unseating Iran’s government, and was provided sanctuary safe harbor in Iraq by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The group contends that it has since abandoned violence and is working to promote democratic transition. Ironically, U.S. troops in Iraq were once given the task of protecting an MEK base there.

Julie Cart

May 2, 2009 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Terrorists living among us

Terrorists living among us: The Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) – Also called MEK by Iranians

MKO was founded in September 1965, by three graduates of Tehran University Terrorists living among us: The Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) - Also called MEK by Iranians involved in religious-nationalist political activism, namely: Mohammad Hanifnezhad, Saied Mohsen and Asghar Badizadegan.

The central ideology of MKO was based on revolutionary armed struggle as being the only viable opposition against the U.S. backed and supported government of the Shah in Iran. Their ideology relied heavily on an interpretation of Islam as a revolutionary message compatible with modern revolutionary ideologies of Marxism.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq (also known as MEK inside Iran) means People’s Advocates, yet more than 90% of their intended targets and almost 95% of their casualties have been Iranian civilians.

After completing its primarily efforts on developing a revolutionary ideology and training its members in urban guerilla warfare, thirteen MKO members traveled to Jordan and Lebanon in 1970, and received 4 months of military training inside Palestinian Liberation Organization camps.

Prior to carrying out any armed activities, the MKO planned to develop its ideology further and built an infrastructure and train new recruits. However, this strategy was thwarted by the emergence of a competing Marxist guerilla group, the Fadaian Khalq Organization.

On February 8, 1971, members of the Fadaian launched their first operation by attacking a police station in the village of Siahkal in the northern province of Gilan. This incident marked the emergence of armed struggle against the Shah’s government.

The MKO’s leadership, surprised by the Siahkal incident, decided to expedite their plans for armed operations by organizing a spectacular bombing attack against the electric power grids in Tehran. At this time, the government was in the midst of promoting a large-scale celebration marking 2500 years of Persian monarchy in Iran.

During their efforts to acquire explosives, the MKO were infiltrated by the SAVAK security forces who tracked their activities and arrested thirty-five members of the MKO on August 23, 1971, just days before the scheduled onset of their first operation.

MKO’s remaining members who escaped detection by the security forces continued to recruit new members as well as carrying out a number of armed operations against Iranian government and, in particular, targeted American personnel and tourists in Iran since they regarded the U.S. support for the Shah as his Achilles Heal.

There were about 40,000 American citizens and military personnel living and working in Iran. MKO assumed that if they could stop U.S. support for the Shah, his control over the country would collapse. During these attacks against Americans many more Iranian civilians also died (a ratio of 25 to 1).

There is no doubt that the MKO is a terrorist organization and has long been on U.S. government’s terrorist list. European countries have detailed records of countless numbers of terrorist activities, planning, and funding initiated in Europe (although not targeting European citizens) against Iranian government officials and citizens including a bombing that maimed current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. However, MKO states that they target civilians because that is the only way to overthrow governments in Iran by putting pressure on the people.

When Nixon was supposed to visit Iran in 1972, MKO launched time bombs in more than ten Iran-U.S. centers in Tehran where Americans and Iranians would be gathered to welcome Nixon during his visit. These centers included: Association of Iran-US, Office of US Information, Iran-U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Offices of Pepsi Cola and General Motors in Tehran.

From 1972 to 1975, Mujahedin Khalq Organization continued bombings and damaged some targets like the offices of Pan-American Airlines, Shell, Du Pont, and EDS.

In 1975, U.S. State Department concluded that 4 American citizens were murdered by MKO to pressure the U.S. to stop its support for the Shah of Iran and leave the country. During the same year, there were more than 40 attacks against American tourists in Iran. There were many American casualties in Iran directly contributed to MKO and they promptly claimed credit for all at the time.

Lt. Col. Lewis L. Hawkins, Col. Pal Shiffer, Lt. Col. Jack Turner, Donald J. Smith, Robert R. Grengrad and William C. Catrel from Rockwell International were victims of MKO attacks against U.S. interests in Iran.

It was shocking for the U.S. to lose six of its senior officers in a country which had closest ties with the U.S. in the Middle East. MKO’s deliberately targeted and planned sabotaging operations against US personnel and interests in Iran.

The Shah of Iran and his Israeli trained security forces (SAVAK) conduced a sweeping operation and many of MKO leaders and planners were arrested and imprisoned. The list included: Masoud Rajavi (the current leader of MKO), Hadi Roshanravani (top Intelligence official) , Mohammad-Ali Jaberzadeh Ansari (high ranking theorist), and the frequent FOX News guest, Alireza Jafarzadeh, the group’s spokesperson. The other key figures arrested included of: Reza Qaremi, Saied Mohsen, Mohammad Hanif-nezhad, Abdelreza Nikkbin called Abdi, Ali Asghar Badi Zadegan, Mahmoud Asgarizadeh, Rasoul Meshkinfam and Ahmad Rezaim and Lotfollah Meisami. All had taken part in assassinations, bombings, and planning operations against U.S. personnel.

One of the consequences of the Islamic Revolution was the freedom of all political prisoners, including Masoud Rajavi, and all the other senior operatives and senior members. Although the revolution was Islamic in nature, Marxist members of Leftist groups and also Marxist-Islamist members of MKO were also among the freed and subsequently merged.

Once regrouped the MKO was stronger than ever before. In November 1979, MKO officials asked for interrogating embassy staff. Thankfully, it was refused by "Revolution council".

After the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, MKO claimed that all the violence and ‘muscle’ against the Shah was directly attributed to the MKO and hence it deserves (it claimed) that it should be given political and economic control of Iran. When the new government of the Islamic Republic refused, MKO launched terrorist operations against Iran and joined Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-88). The group is also known to have carried out order by the former dictator Saddam Hussein in suppressing the 1991 uprisings in southern Iraq and the massacre of Iraqi Kurds.

After leaving his wife Ashraf Rabii, who was later killed in an armed clash by the Iranian security forces in the company of Moussa Khiabani the head of the MKO inside Iran, Masoud Rajavi remarried his current wife, Maryam Uzdanlu, now known as Maryam Rajavi who is now the co-leader of the MKO.

Her first decision was to change the name from MKO to National Council for Resistance (or NCR) which was Maryam Rajavi’s most important contribution to the MKO in decades. This allowed the MKO to stay on the political scene in Europe and America and not be treated as a terrorist organization. Its main use was to deceive the Americans and Europeans against thinking that this is the same Mujahedin responsible for assassinating American citizens in Iran.

Once the NCR started campaigning for money and influence in Washington for assistance against the Iranian Islamic government, the U.S. politicians and the Israeli lobbyist ignored their origins and their past activities against American civilians. The new face and spokesperson of the NCR became Alireza Jafarzadeh, the frequent FOX News "Iran Analyst". Mr. Jafarzadeh was comfortable in Washington’s power corridors, much like Ahmed Chalabi, the exiled Iraqi who provided much of the now-discredited information on Iraq’s weapons program.

Fox News now introduces Jafarzadeh as either their employee, or Iran Analyst, or as the head of a consultancy company. But as recently as 2002 the same man was interviewed by Fox News as the MKO’s representative in the US Congress. And, it doesn’t help the U.S. image overseas or the cause to unite against terrorism when Gen. McInerney publicly called for the U.S. government to support MMKO terrorist organization to carry out deadly bombings in Iran.

“This group loves the United States. They’re assisting us in the war on terrorism; they’re pro-U.S.,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) in an interview. But not everybody agrees.

Middle East scholars widely dispute the assessment that the MKO is a legitimate democratic alternative to the Iranian regime. “That’s patently nonsense,” said the Neo Conservative Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, who is often against Iran and supports military actions against the Islamic government.

“I know about support on Capitol Hill for this group, and I think it’s atrocious,” said Dan Brumberg of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I think it’s due to total ignorance and political manipulation. There’s not much debate [about the MKO] in the academic circles of those who know and understand Iran and Iraq.”

Elahe Hicks of Human Rights Watch said that “many, many Iranians resent” the MKO/MEK. “Because this group is so extremely resented inside Iran, the Iranian government actually benefits from having an opposition group like this,” she said. The families of those civilians that lost their lives as a result of MKO bombing are staunch opponents of the MKO in Iran.

James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation agreed. “When they sided with Iraq against Iran in the [1980-88] war, that was the kiss of death for their political future. Even Iranians who might have sympathized with them were enraged that they became the junior partner of their longstanding rival,” he said.

“Some of their representatives are very articulate,” Phillips continued, “but they are a terrorist group. They had a longstanding alliance with Saddam Hussein, and they went after some of the Kurds at the behest of Saddam Hussein and performed with precision brutality and catastrophic results. Many Kurdish people died and many others maimed for life. They regularly performed torture on behalf of Saddam. ”

Now MKO’s once 30,000 strong members are living with their families throughout Europe and some here in United States, almost all on refugee status collecting benefits paid by taxpayers to live outside Iran and avoid being prosecuted for bombing civilians to achieve political goals.

While the MKO and Fox News and their friends are weaving a web of deceit, Richard Perle is giving aid and comfort to MKO terrorist, the same terrorists who wanted to interrogate our people being held as hostage. MKO has blood on their hands from their wanton acts of violence. Now the “Conservative” TV network (FOX) takes a MKO spokesman and pays him to consult with us on Iran. It is indeed tragic.

I don’t know if I’m disgusted or saddened or heart-broken by our government’s indifference to the presence of this terrorist organization in our country despite being on U.S. State Department terrorist list.

As an American who served in Gulf War I, whose father served in Vietnam, and grandfather had served in the Second World War, I am bewildered that these individuals are allowed to stay near our families and live in our cities and towns.

Writers views.com By Charles Kent

April 30, 2009 0 comment

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Iraq is adamant about expelling terrorists

Iraq blasts were engineered from abroad: security advisor

TEHRAN – A top Iraqi security official has said foreign hands were behind a Al-Rubaie also said his government is adamant about expelling the terrorist MKO group from the country. recent wave of terror attacks across the country which left at least 140 people dead, half of them Iranians.

“Recent blasts in Iraq were directed by foreign agents,” Iraqi national security advisor Muwafaq al-Rubaie said, according to Alforat TV.

“It is impossible that a terror group can continue its operation in a country unless it gets logistical and financial support from abroad,” the security official noted after a meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

Iran has faulted the U.S. for the murder of pilgrims in Iraq, accusing it of failing to establish security in the country.

Al-Rubaie said he briefed the ayatollah about the national security issues. However, he said, “We believe that the general atmosphere is very good in the country.”

Al-Rubaie also said his government is adamant about expelling the terrorist MKO group from the country.

“It is impossible that we allow this group stays in Iraq because this issue contradicts our constitution.”

He added the MKO had “committed crimes against the Iraqi people.”

He said the only alternative facing the MKO is returning to Iran or going to a third country.

Al-Rubaie announced in March that Iraqi security forces have besieged Camp Ashraf housing members of Mojahedin Khalq Organization. The camp is home to 3,500 people.

On a visit to Iran on Jan. 23, Rubaie said Camp Ashraf would be ""part of history within two months"".

MKO immigrated to Iraq in the 1980s and fought alongside Iraqi forces against Iran during Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).

The group has claimed responsibility for carrying out numerous terror attacks against Iranian nationals and officials, and has also been accused of assisting former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the slaughter of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the 1990s

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=193351

April 29, 2009 0 comment

The cult of Rajavi

The walls have ears

In Camp Ashraf and camp Maryam all the walls have ears. As a member of MKO cult one can never talk to a colleague. Every working group includes a superior member and a minor one because the latter should be supervised by the former .”They even force the most high-ranking members to move jointly. They say that there shouldn’t be any exclusions.” according to Ms. Batoul Soltani former member of MKO leadership Council. She escaped from the cult after she found out a report of false allegations about herself on the computer. The report was written by her colleagues and was supposed to be sent to Maryam Rajavi.

In the destructive cult of Rajavi like any other mind control cult, the members should watch each other. They should report everything they learn about their colleagues to increase their own credit near the leaders. The mind Control system makes them think that a perfect cult member is the one who shows more loyalty for the leaders.

In a mind control cult like in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia you must be careful of what you say and do;”The walls have ears”. Everyone is encouraged to watch out for”struggling”brothers and sisters and report what they see to leadership. Often information given in deepest confidence is automatically reported to leadership. Cult leaders will then use this information to convince their members that they have a supernatural link, the trusting member does not suspect the very natural mechanism behind the supernatural revelations they are given.

People in a mind control cult will also hide their true thoughts and feelings, and instead wear a mask which presents them as a perfect cult member. This mask is a defense against being reported to leadership and being punished for not measuring up (cult members never feel like they measure up to the cult’s ideals, and yet often believe the other members around them do, when in reality the others feel the same as them). Hence cult members are trained not only to deceive outsiders, but also to deceive their fellow cult members. Rarely can close friendships form in cults, and if they do the cult’s leaders may see them as a threat and move those people away from each other. Nothing is allowed that can be more powerful than the cult members’ allegiance to the group and its leaders.

Is Information you expected to be kept confidential reported to leadership? If so then it’s a cult

There are various cult jargons in MKO destructive cult. They serve the main objective of the cult. Some of them are called “Current Operation”, “cleansing meetings” and “nil-nil” meetings. These jargons include different forms of reporting system. As you read in memoirs of Batoul Soltani,” Masud Rajavi calls the current operation as “spiritual Jihad” and even “higher than Martyrdom.”, so he convinces the members to confess their own thoughts or to report their comrades’ affaires. The reporting system makes the members more dependent on the group’s leader.

By Mazda Parsi

Reference: HowCultsWork

Some sensible answers to Mojahedin claims

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Written answers

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iraq: Mujahedin-e Khalq

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of alleged attacks on residents in Ashraf City by members of the Iraqi secret service; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Harlow, Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>holding answer 20 March 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>We are aware that such allegations have surfaced in the Iraqi media. We have discussed these allegations with the US, who retain a presence inside Camp Ashraf, and with the Iraqi government. We have seen no evidence to support the allegations.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

Written answers

Monday, 20 April 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>House of Lords

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iran

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Crossbench)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure that Camp Ashraf residents who are members of the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran are not expelled to Iran by the Iraqi authorities; and what alternatives to that they have proposed through the United Nations.

Lord Malloch-Brown (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Responsibility for the security and administration of Camp Ashraf was transferred on 1 January 2009 from the US to the Iraqi authorities. Prior to this handover the US received assurances from the Iraqi authorities towards their clear commitment to the humane treatment and continued well-being of the camp residents. The US retains a presence at the camp in an advisory/monitoring capacity.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights visits the camp and has delivered assurances to a representative body of the residents. The International Committee of the Red Cross follows developments at the camp closely and continues to visit. It also discusses on a confidential basis all of the issues surrounding the camp with the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) and the Iraqi and US authorities.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The UN High Commission for Refugees has previously determined that Camp Ashraf residents do not qualify as refugees. While there is no evidence to suggest that the Government of Iraq intend forcibly to relocate the residents, our Embassy in Baghdad has requested a call on the Ministry of Human Rights to make known the level of interest in this issue in the UK and to remind the Iraqi Government of their earlier assurances. Our Embassy in Baghdad is also pursuing the possibility of a visit to the camp by a consular official.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

Written answers

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>House of Lords

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iraq

Lord King of West Bromwich (Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iraq to safeguard the human rights and safety of Iranian residents in Ashraf City; and with what results.

Lord Malloch-Brown (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The US held responsibility for the security and administration of Camp Ashraf until 1 January 2009. Responsibility was then transferred from the US to Iraqi authorities. The modalities of the transfer had been discussed by both sides with UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq. Prior to the transfer, the US received assurances from the Iraqi authorities towards their clear commitment to the humane treatment and continued wellbeing of the camp residents. The US retains a presence at the camp in an advisory/monitoring capacity.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The Government of Iraq have stated that no Camp Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution. The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights visits the camp and has delivered assurances to a representative body of the residents. The International Committee of the Red Cross follows developments at the camp closely and continues to visit. It also discusses on a confidential basis all of the issues surrounding the camp with the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MeK) and the Iraqi and US authorities.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>While no specific representations to the Government of Iraq have been made, our embassy in Baghdad has requested a call on the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights to make known the level of interest in this issue in the UK and to remind the Iraqi Government of its earlier assurances. In addition to this, as stated by my honourable friend, Bill Rammell, Minister of State for the Middle East, during an adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 25 March 2009 (Hansard, col. 90WH) "the British embassy in Baghdad is pursuing the possibility of a visit by a consular official to Camp Ashraf" to ascertain whether any of its residents might be entitled to consular assistance.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

Library of the House of Commons

In brief: Camp Ashraf and the Geneva Conventions

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Standard note: SN/IA/05022

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Last updated: 20 March 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Author: Arabella Thorp

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Section: International Affairs and Defence Section

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>What is Camp Ashraf ?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Ashraf is a settlement in Iraq’s Diyala province, near the border with Iran, which houses the headquarters of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) or Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO). The PMOI is the main body in the coalition of Iranian opposition groups known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and is regarded as a terrorist organisation by a number of states but has now been removed from the UK and EU lists of terrorist organisations. It sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, but following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 the PMOI surrendered to US forces and 3,800 PMOI members were disarmed and cantoned in Camp Ashraf. Some 370 have since been voluntarily repatriated to Iran , and in 2004 restrictions and controls were removed. The Iraqi government has stated its intention to close the camp and expel all PMOI personnel from Iraqi territory.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Who is responsible for the inhabitants of Ashraf?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>The main responsibility to protect civilians lies with the states that have effective control over them. From 2003 until 31 December 2008 US forces protected Camp Ashraf. Then on 1 January 2009, control passed to the Iraqi Government, under the new US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. Both the US and Iraqi governments have given assurances that, within the framework of Iraqi national legislation, Ashraf residents will be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and with the principle of non-refoulement in particular. The UK considers the issue primarily a US rather than a UK responsibility.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>What are the main concerns?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Lliving conditions at Ashraf are not generally a cause for concern, although an explosion damaged Ashraf’s water-supply station in February 2008. The main concern is that its inhabitants would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations if they were to be returned involuntarily to Iran. Iraq has reportedly given Ashraf’s inhabitants two options: return to Iran or find a third country for exile. Iraqi officials have however stated that PMOI members would not be forcibly repatriated to Iran and have called upon the international community to offer asylum to Ashraf’s occupants.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>People who have left Camp Ashraf voluntarily have reported ‘brain-washing’, forced indoctrination and rough treatment by the PMOI of those who wanted to leave the camp.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>In July 2004, the PMOI forces in Ashraf were declared by the US to be ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, because they had not been belligerents during the Iraq War. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians who, as the result of an international armed conflict or of occupation, find themselves in the hands of a country of which they are not nationals. It states that in no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>What other international law is relevant?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Under the international law principle of non-refoulement, no-one should be deported, expelled or repatriated if there is a real risk that they may be subjected to any kind of ill-treatment, or that they may face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The US has ratified international conventions embodying this principle (the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture), but Iraq has not. However, non-refoulement is widely recognised as a principle of customary international law that binds all states.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Further reading

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), 5 March 2009 [available through the Parliamentary Intranet]

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Juan-Pedro Schaerer, Iraq: ICRC activities in behalf of Iranian nationals living in Ashraf, 3 December 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Zouhair Al Hassani, ‘International humanitarian law and its implementation in Iraq ’, International Review of the Red Cross Vol. 90 No. 869, March 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Knut Dörmann and Laurent Colassis, ‘International Humanitarian Law in the Iraq Conflict’, German Yearbook of International Law 47 (2004), 293–342

‘ font-size: 10pt”>International Committee of the Red Cross, Protected persons and property and international humanitarian law [viewed 20 March 2009]

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Amnesty International, Iraq: No Iranians in need of protection should be sent to Iran against their will, 28 August 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Amnesty International, Security agreement puts 16,000 Iraqi detainees at risk of torture, 28 November 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Massoud Khodabandeh (former member of PMOI), Camp Ashraf: a test of US-Iraqi relations, 7 April 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iran Interlink, Nejat Society Asks UK to Support Iraqi Government Plans for Camp Ashraf Victims, 11 December 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Hon. David Kilgour, J.D., ‘Catastrophe on horizon for Camp Ashraf refugees’, Middle East Times 8 October 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>House of Lords debate, Iraq: Ashraf City, HL Deb 2 March 2009 cc504-6

April 26, 2009 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

UN Fourth Geneva Convention status is not for sale

The MKO’s supporters in the European Parliament today pushed through a last-minute resolution on Camp Ashraf just before the close of parliament for the Do the Geneva Conventions apply? elections. Although voting does not take place until tomorrow, the resolution is already defunct as it clearly contains false information and misleading political assertions.

The resolution, did not include any criticism of MKO behaviour in Iraq, nor did it oblige the MKO to abide by Iraqi and international law. Instead it re-iterates the false assertion that UN Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the group even though there can be no doubt that the Geneva Convention referred to has not applied since June 2005. Tomorrow members of parliament will be asked to vote on a resolution which is hopelessly flawed.

In my view, as I explained in my latest letter to the European Parliament, the only way forward is for the EU to cooperate with the Government of Iraq to open alternative camps and help these people to reintegrate into mainstream society.

From the UK House of Commons Library

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNIA-05022.pdf

(…)

Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

In July 2004, the PMOI forces in Ashraf were declared by the US to be ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, because they had not been belligerents during the Iraq War. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians who, as the result of an international armed conflict or of occupation, find themselves in the hands of a country of which they are not nationals. It states that in no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.

In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004.

(…)

April 25, 2009 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

A golden opportunity for Ashraf residents

The focal point of the recent statements of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, the Iraqi security advisor, on MKO has been the necessity of detoxifying the ideological bastion of Ashraf to make its residents decide their own destiny. Also, it can At the time being, Iraqi officials can prepare the ground for Ashraf residents to make an informed decision and be master of their own destiny be used as a model for averting the potential danger of other cults and guaranteeing the freedom of their members. He further referred to the radical nature of MKO as one of their primary features and stated:

We believe that if we can separate individuals from the all-encompassing domination by their leaders, we can allow them to begin to exercise their rights as individuals and make appropriate choices. That is, we hope to remove them from the toxic effects of their indoctrination and leaders.

These statements confirm the truth of the solutions offered so far by MKO detached members and experts of cultist relations. Furthermore, they prove the idealist viewpoints of the Iraqi security advisor toward the terrorist, ideological, and cultic nature of MKO. Although as a man of authority, he has to just take the political and security aspects of this issue into consideration, yet his attention to humanitarian aspects of the issue reveal his goodwill in finding a peaceful and appropriate solution for the challenge posed by Mojahedin to the Iraqi government and it is praiseworthy.

Meanwhile, Mojahedin have made a hostile and abusive propaganda war against him following his made statements. Despite the unethical and abusive reaction of the organization, the formal fair position taken by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie toward this terrorist and cultic group signifies his charity and tolerance. On the other hand, Mojahedin still grab at the lever of threat and aggressive behavior for postponing the enforcement of the decision made by Iraqi government in expelling them. The international bodies and western advocators of the organization have to take this point into consideration that the Iraqi government is doing its best to pursue its legal demands through international conventions and prohibit any kind of suicide attack and disaster in Camp Ashraf despite the hostile propaganda blitz of the organization.

Mowaffaq al-Rubaie has provided comprehensive explanation on the policy and position of Iraq toward MKO in his interview with Anne Singleton and now it is on the western countries and advocators of Mojahedin to find a fair solution for this challenge in an idealist mood far from any false judgment and prejudice. This needs the clear reports of Iraqi government on the course of events to prohibit Mojahedin from misusing the present circumstances.

At the time being, Iraqi officials can prepare the ground for Ashraf residents to make an informed decision and be master of their own destiny forever and free from cultic relations of MKO. It may also determine the final destiny of the organization once forever. The present conditions and regional transitions confirm the fact that Mojahedin have no hope in the future and are faced with a cul-de-sac.

It has to be acknowledged that these determining measures in themselves cannot solve any problem and all depend first of all to the will and decision of Ashraf residents. They have to move a step forward for building their free future. The focus of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie in removing the pressure of MKO leaders on Ashraf residents is an optimal solution for their detoxification and breaking the bonds of cultic relations. The entrance of Iraqi forces to Camp Ashraf and interrogation of all Ashraf residents under the control of international bodies that is an imminent event may pave the way for Ashraf residents to choose either their personal interests and a free life or organizational relations that have captured them for more than three decades in its chains. This solution that has been repeatedly offered so far yet needed legal levers and a relative majesty of law to be achieved. It seems that the present conditions have prepared all means for setting this solution into action and detoxifying Camp Ashraf. The rest depends on the will of Ashraf residents and their degree of awareness of their humanistic and legal rights.

April 23, 2009 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts