Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown says that the British government is not convinced at that the Mujahideen-e Khalq has given up terrorism, saying its forced disarmament by US forces was”entirely pragmatic.” During the Iraq war, the MKO was”considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime,”Malloch-Brown said. “Indeed, we had to disarm the organization to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces,”he said. Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed in December that the British government would not deproscribe the MKO, saying there was”no evidence”it had changed and that it was”certainly the case it has been involved in terrorist activity.” Speaking during a House of Lords debate, the Foreign Office minister added that there was also”no evidence that the organization has publicly renounced violence and terrorism.” “We have to be consistent in our views of terrorists,”he told supporters of protracted attempts to have the MKO removed from Britain’s domestic list of proscribed organizations, suggesting they had been falsely influenced. “When we like the people whom terrorists attack, we call them ‘terrorists,’ when it is the civilians of Iran who are attacked, we have a bad habit of thinking of them as liberation fighters,”Malloch-Brown said. “Terrorism and its tactics are objectionable irrespective of the target,”he said. The MKO was”responsible for a number of serious military attacks over a very long period of time,”he said without listing the hundred of Iranians killed in terrorist assassinations. “There is a big difference between military campaigns that fall within the Geneva conventions and the rest of international law and abusive campaigns that target asymmetrically civilians. I hope we have a consistent policy towards such groups,”the minister added. “Its disarming was entirely pragmatic-in the event of the coalition forces forcing it to disarm after the intervention in Iraq,”he emphasized. Malloch Brown also said that despite its claims on supporting women’s rights and being led by a woman,”we are not convinced that in other regards this organization has permanently renounced terrorism.” “Until we are convinced that the organization has really foresworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians,”he said. Feb 6, IRNA
Mujahedin Khalq in the List of terrorist Organizations
British Foreign Office announced on Tuesday that the British government still considers the banned MKO a terrorist organization. Mark Mallon Brown, British deputy foreign secretary for Asia and the United Nations, protested a recent verdict by the Commission for Reviewing the Status of Banned Organization. He noted that until the final verdict is issued about the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), the organization will be considered to be a terrorist organization. Lord Malloch Brown, a member of British House of Lords, pointed out that terrorism is something unacceptable; it does not matter who commits such offense. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had said earlier that the MKO has not changed its behavior, which makes it inelligible to be removed from the list of terrorist organizations. The UK has banned the MKO in line with a decision made by the European Union and another by the US, which is widely known to be cooperating with the terrorist organization, despite officially having it on its list terrorist entities.
PressTV- 06 Feb 2008
“…Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I certainly concede the point that the organization is led by a woman [Iran-Interlink editor – the PMOI is led by a man, Massoud Rajavi, who is the sole decision maker in the organisation, Maryam Rajavi is only his lieutenant.], but I will risk the wrath of a portion of this House when I say that despite that, and despite what it says about the rights of women, the PMOI was involved in numerous terrorist attacks for a very extended period. At the time of the second Gulf War, it was considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, we had to disarm the organization to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces; so, despite what it has to say on women’s rights, we are not convinced that in other regards this organization has permanently renounced terrorism….”
Lords Hansard, February 4, 2008 –
Iran: People’s Mujaheddin Organisation 2.51 pm
Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty’s Government: Whether they will make representations to the European Union to deproscribe the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran. The Minister of State,Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch- Brown): My Lords, the House will be aware that the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran is currently on the domestic list of proscribed organisations. The House might also be aware that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission recently determined that it should be removed from this list. Proscription at the EU level is based in part on the UK’s domestic proscription. Her Majesty’s Government are appealing the decision of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission and the domestic proscription will remain in force until that appeals process is complete.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, that Answer is disappointing, to put it mildly. Does the Minister accept that the findings of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission were absolutely clear: that the PMOI is not concerned with terrorism? In those circumstances, why do the British Government persist in the policy of appeasement of the mullah regime, which has yielded no benefit whatever and is doing a grave injustice to the peace-loving people of Iran?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I think, aware that the POAC judgment turned around particular aspects of the decision. We continue to believe that the PMOI was responsible for a number of serious military attacks over a very long period of time and that its disarming was entirely ragmatic—in the event of the coalition forces forcing it to disarm after the intervention in Iraq. We have seen no evidence that the organization has publicly renounced violence and terrorism. We have to be consistent in our views of terrorists. When we like the people whom terrorists attack, we call them “terrorists”; when it is the civilians5 Feb 2008 : Column 949of Iran who are attacked, we have a bad habit of thinking of them as liberation fighters. Terrorism and its tactics are objectionable irrespective of the target.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in addition to the ruling of the European Court of First Instance and the judgment of POAC, after careful considerationof all the evidence, some years ago the American authorities in Iraq conducteda careful investigation In to the allegation and concluded that it was totally without substance? Why do the Government cling so obstinately to a discredited allegation by adiscredited Iranian Government? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I cannot confirm to my noble and learned friend the circumstances of the US investigation that he refers to, but I certain lycan confirm that we will respect the outcome of the appeals process.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some further indication of what the grounds of appeal are?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the judgment arrived at was that the behaviors of the organisation really amounted to a separation from the use of terrorist tactics. We just believe that there has not been a clear enough renunciation of those tactics. Instead, we see the decision as a pragmatic one in the face of American and British force. Until we are convinced that the organisation has really fore sworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government are consistent in their definition of terrorists? We have a great variety of exiled groups in London—Tamils, Kurds, people from
the north and south Caucasus and so on. We host those groups, although a number of them support opposition groups in their own countries that are not always non-violent. Are the
Government confident that that they are consistent in their approach?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point. In the case of the Tamils, the LTTE is a proscribed organisation. It is quite difficult determining which groups in this country fall on which side of the line—and which support peaceful change in their countries and which support violent change and finance it. We look very carefully at that issue on a continuing basis
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not the noble Lord getting in a terrible muddle? Frankly, we support edviolent revolution in Afghanistan when the Russians were there, Israel was set up by violent revolution, Ireland was set up by violent revolution and in South Africa we, to a certain
extent, encouraged violence by the ANC. We cannot say that all violence against tyrannical regimes is wrong. We also supported the French resistance and the Dutch resistance in the war;
5 Feb 2008 : Column 950
Montgomery objected to that because he said it reminded him of Palestinian and Irish terrorists. Surely the Government are still in a muddle and ought to start thinking straight.
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Earl will understand that we have always objected, most recently in the case of Ireland, to unwarranted attack son civilian targets. There is a big difference between military campaigns that fall within the Geneva conventions and the rest of international law and abusive campaigns that target asymmetrically civilians. I hope we have a
consistent policy towards such groups.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the PMOI, which is led by a woman, Madam Rajavi, has an agenda for peaceful change via a political process, believes in a human rights agenda, including women’s rights, and its policies are the sort that we should support?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I certainly concede the point that the organisation is led by a woman [Iran-Interlink editor – the PMOI is led by a man, Massoud Rajavi, who is the sole decision maker in the organisation, Maryam Rajavi is only his lieutenant.], but I will risk the wrath of a portion of this House when I say that despite that, and despite what it says about the rights of women, the PMOI was involved in numerous terrorist attacks for a very extended period. At the time of the second Gulf War, it was considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, we had to disarm the organisation to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism
and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces; so, despite what it has to say on women’s rights, we are not convinced that in other regards this organisation has permanently renounced terrorism.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, it was encouraging to hear the Minister say that Her Majesty’s Government would accept the outcome of the appeals process. Can we accept that, as a clear implication of that, Her Majesty’s Government will accept that this organisation should no longer be a proscribed terrorist organisation?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, one must always fight terrorism in the context of the rule of law and respect for judicial decisions. One stoops to the standards of one’s terrorist opponents if one does otherwise. We will fully respect the decision of the appeals process.
The paradoxical stance adopted by the US towards Mojahedin-e Khalq cultist organization has turned into a rather serious challenge mounting the already existing tension between the US and Iran. According to a number of political analysts, the dual stance might be the result of internal political disparities among the parties. But it has to be noted that regardless of all disparities, the parties reach a consensus when it comes to confront any alien element that imperils the country’s general interests. However, the prevalent political contradictions emerged mostly after the State Department first designated MKO as a terrorist organization in 1997, a status that the group continues to occupy ever since.
Despite MKO’s claim that its classification as a terrorist organization was at the behest of the Iranian government, the State Department’s latest report describing the group a cult of personality as well as a terrorist group indicates that the Americans have well realized the group’s threats. The internal disputes to deproscribe MKO in no way mean that some have come to be duped by group’s pro-democratic propagandas but rather it is regarded as an easy tool against Iranian regime. The speculation was even further underpinned when the group came to receive protection of the coalition forces in Iraq following Saddam’s fall. However, there are many undeniable factors, especially disclosed by the State Department’s report, that convince Americans never put any trust on the group. The features can be classified as:
– MKO’s Marxist ideology
– Group’s innate antagonism with capitalism and adoption of armed struggle to start a mass movement against capitalism
– Perpetration of terrorist operations against American military personnel and civilians inside Iran
– Playing a pivotal role to escalate the emerged US-Iran tension following the Islamic revolution
– supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979
– MKO’s secrete ties with the USSR and the communist camp in general
– A zealous attachment to Machiavellianism
– Masterminding terrorist plots against American interests inside Iran
– Unannounced but implicit acknowledgment of al-Qaeda’s 9/11 terrorist operation
– Wearing a mask of pro-democracy as a tactic to assume political power
– maintaining the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts across the world
– close military and intelligence collaboration with Saddam’s regime Regardless of all lobbying attempts to get the group off the hook, MKO remained on the list. But the raised question is that how a designated organization happened to be the first terrorist organization to be granted ‘protected status’ by the US in its move to combat terrorism?
Hardly any of the designated terrorists groups on Americans’ list strive for getting close to the US to gain political legitimacy and most of them are recognized to be jeopardizing American interests here and there. In contrast, MKO hankers after convincing Americans that throughout its campaign, it has tried to accomplish a goal of establishing democracy on the US model. Interestingly, the group in an attempt to justify its claim distorted its past records of activities and adopted ideology. The best evidence is its published Democracy Betrayed wherein the group tries to prove absolute devotion to American favoured capitalism and liberalism.
But Americans are well aware of the fact that exactly in the same way that they manipulate the group, Machiavellian mannerism is theorized within MKO. That is why Americans, in spite of the heavy cost they sometimes have to pay, keep in touch with the group while is keen to it at a distance; that is exactly what America is doing in Iraq.
Soon after Americans settled in Iraq, more than a year after the invasion, they actually frustrated MKO’s liberation army by disarming it. In July 2004 all members of MKO in Iraq, including the leadership of the organisation based there, signed agreements which permitted them release from the control and protection of the Coalition forces in Iraq. In order to obtain that benefit, each individual had to sign a statement containing the following words:
…I agree to the following:
a. I reject participation in, or support for terrorism.
b. I have delivered all military equipment and weapons under my control or responsibility.
c. I reject violence and I will not unlawfully take up arms or engage in any hostile act. I will obey the laws of Iraq and relevant United Nations mandates while residing in this country.
Thus, renunciation of militarism was enforced on MKO against its will and its terrorist potentialities were curbed in Iraq. Furthermore, by setting up Temporary International Presence Facility (TIPF) in the vicinity of Camp Ashraf, dissatisfied members were granted opportunity to leave the group which debilitate the organization to a large extent. Beyond that, the State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in its last report released on April 30 for the first time brought up establishment of a cult of personality by its leader:
In addition to its terrorist credentials, the MEK has also displayed cult-like characteristics. Upon entry into the group, new members are indoctrinated in MEK ideology and revisionist Iranian history. Members are also required to undertake a vow of "eternal divorce" and participate in weekly "ideological cleansings." Additionally, children are reportedly separated from parents at a young age. MEK leader Maryam Rajavi has established a "cult of personality." She claims to emulate the Prophet Muhammad and is viewed by members as the "Iranian President in exile."
To sum up the Americans views, they indirectly argue:
– That MKO is a terrorist group that maintains unusually aberrant manners compared with other blacklisted organizations
– That its mannerism is rooted in its cult-like structure
– That MKO is a greater potential cult threat beyond its terrorist threat
– That the group is not only a global threat but also a closed cult enslaving its own members physically and mentally
– That the granted ‘protected status’ in Iraq is a measure to have it under control and to find an appropriate way of restoring the members’ mental health
– That instilled by the hope that it can win the US support, MKO can be prevented to commit mass-murder suicide like that of Jim Jones cult of the Peoples Temple
– That it is possible to have MKO under strict control through international conventions
– That the US’s paradoxical deal with MKO is the result of recognizing group’s dual terrorist-cult nature
– That MKO respect no political ethics in its campaign to assume the power
– That the gained experiences over destructive cults like Jim Jones and David Koresh is a warning to be more cautious and conservative to cope with MKO
– That ….
It can be continued with more reasons to see why the US has adopted a paradoxical but rational approach concerning MKO. Mojahedin.ws-February 2, 2008
If there are people, notably among parliamentarians, who believe that restraining the threats of the potential adversaries of a nation is ‘bad politics’, then, the good politics would be espousing a terrorist opposition against that nation. Besides, if a country like the UK proscribes an organization, under legislated laws, as terrorist to protect the nation against its threats, it is alleged to be a task of incentive done for political interests rather than for the security of the nation. That is what Roger Gale, a British MP and the former Vice Chairman of Conservative party, strongly advocates.
In an article released by Global Politician, Mr. Gale claims that blacklisting Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK) as a terrorist organisation first by the US in 1997, which was followed by the UK in 2001 and the EU in 2002, was a task to appease Iranian regime. I doubt that Mr. Gale has failed to have access to published reasons by the mentioned countries for proscribing MKO. Or he might have been kept in the dark about the group’s long, bloody, terrorist activities perpetrated against Iranian people.
Following the Iranian revolution, with Massoud Rajavi leading the group, the MKO declared an overall violent armed struggle to topple the ruling power and assume power instead. Iranian history will never forget this bloody chapter which the MKO drafted, and its collaboration with Saddam. The group failed in its violent strategy and taking shelter behind another alias, NCRI, led by husband-imposed leader, started a pro-democratic struggle for the same cause. Never has MKO been concerned about the nation itself but about gaining power regardless of who may pay the price.
The countries that proscribed the MKO were well acquainted with its dual nature and hideous terrorist threat it exposed not only to its own people but wherever it settled to set up a base. In fact, the MKO has turned into a grave problem many countries try to deal with. Redesignation of the MKO in spite of two courts’ ruling indicates that no country trusts the group’s democratic masquerade whether people like Mr. Gale like it or not. The group might have few supporters among parliamentarians outside Iran, but, to assure Mr. Gale, the MKO is short of an iota of publicity inside Iran and lacks the political weight to make any change
Sattar Orangi, Mojahedin.ws, January 21, 2008
13 months ago in December 2006, the European Court of First Instance annulled an EU move to keep Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) on its terror blacklist, ruling it had not given the group a fair hearing or adequate reasons. However, the EU disputed the ruling and kept the organization on a new version of its list. On December 22, 2007 the European Union published its official Journal in which it updated the Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repeated Common Position 2007/448/CFSP.
But the move by MKO to challenge the EU and lodge an appeal against the EU’s decision seems to have encouraged other blacklisted persons to make a try. Reported by the International Herald Tribune, Yasin al-Qadi, head of the Saudi-based Muwafaq Foundation, is trying to appeal the freezing of his assets by the 27-nation bloc under a U.N. order filed after the Sept. 11. The US Treasury officials allege al-Qadi’s organization is an al-Qaida front used to funnel millions of dollars (euros) to the global terror organization. Al-Qadi was one of four plaintiffs whose case was dismissed by the EU court in 2005 after they were added to the EU’s terror blacklist.
It is said that the EU’s high court has also recently overturned a decision to freeze the assets of an exiled Philippine rebel leader and the Netherlands-based Al-Aqsa foundation because they were not informed why their assets were frozen.
Mojahedin.ws, January 18, 2008,
13 months ago in December 2006, the European Court of First Instance annulled an EU move to keep Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) on its terror blacklist, ruling it had not given the group a fair hearing or adequate reasons. However, the EU disputed the ruling and kept the organization on a new version of its list. On December 22, 2007 the European Union published its official Journal in which it updated the Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repeated Common Position 2007/448/CFSP.
But the move by MKO to challenge the EU and lodge an appeal against the EU’s decision seems to have encouraged other blacklisted persons to make a try. Reported by the International Herald Tribune, Yasin al-Qadi, head of the Saudi-based Muwafaq Foundation, is trying to appeal the freezing of his assets by the 27-nation bloc under a U.N. order filed after the Sept. 11. The US Treasury officials allege al-Qadi’s organization is an al-Qaida front used to funnel millions of dollars (euros) to the global terror organization. Al-Qadi was one of four plaintiffs whose case was dismissed by the EU court in 2005 after they were added to the EU’s terror blacklist.
It is said that the EU’s high court has also recently overturned a decision to freeze the assets of an exiled Philippine rebel leader and the Netherlands-based Al-Aqsa foundation because they were not informed why their assets were frozen
Mojahedin.ws,January 18, 2008
Some of Britain’s closest allies in the fight against terrorism have accused the Government of allowing banned terrorist organisations to operate openly in this country.
An investigation by The Times has revealed that at least six countries have complained about the failure of the Government to enforce the Terrorism Act 2000, which proscribes 46 foreign terrorist organisations.
The countries include Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Turkey. Iran has also voiced criticism. America, Britain’s closest ally, is known to have serious reservations about the Government’s commitment to enforcing the law.
The Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by Jack Straw, now the Justice Minister, was supposed to prevent London becoming an important terrorist hub, where groups were able to raise funds, distribute propaganda and plan terrorist operations.
From the start, however, the law has been difficult to apply. Many groups simply changed their names, others concealed their operations and some simply seem to have been ignored by the authorities.
One of the most blatant cases is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish separatist movement responsible for a recent spate of attacks in southern Turkey.
A Turkish official said that the group ran a multimillion-pound operation in North London, controlling businesses, running a political office and printing a newspaper.
“The British Government tolerates the PKK,” a Turkish official said. “if anything the group has increased its profile over the past decade.”
He said that where once the organisation extorted money from local businesses and ran human trafficking rings, now it owned supermarkets, jewellers, cafés and restaurants.
“We have complained so often about this to the British authorities that we are sick and tired of nothing being done,” he told The Times.
Pakistan, arguably Britain’s most important ally in fighting terrorism, also feels aggrieved. It has repeatedly helped the British authorities to track and apprehend terror suspects, yet it feels that its own problems have been ignored.
A Pakistani official said that Britain was “slow to respond” to the activities of the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), which is on the Home Office proscribed list. The Pakistanis are also frustrated that Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Muslim group banned in Pakistan, has still not been proscribed in Britain despite promises from the Government.
Similar complaints have been made by the Sri Lankan High Commission over the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, another banned group that continues to raise money and distribute propaganda in Britain among the expatriate Tamil community.
The Israeli Embassy in London has also had reason to complain over the activities of Hezbollah, the militant Shia Muslim group in Lebanon, and Hamas, the radical Palestinian group responsible for attacks against Israel.
“Hamas has been using the UK for the past few years as a major centre for publishing and distributing incitement-based material, whilst taking advantage of legal loopholes and lenient enforcement policy, an Israeli official said.
He added that a senior Hezbollah member, involved in the group’s al-Manar broadcasting service, was recently granted a visa to visit London. Al-Manar has been taken off the air in France and other countries for anti-Semitic programmes and glorifying terrorist attacks.
Saudi Arabia, another key partner in the anti-terror campaign, is also unhappy that Saudi exiles in Britain, some with connections to al-Qaeda, are able to operate openly.
“To be allowed to use Britain as a base to attack other governments and societies, to us this is puzzling,” Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi Ambassador to London, told The Times.
“We have no problem with people seeing Britain as a safe haven, but they should not use that generosity to attack other countries and to undermine relations between Britain and other countries,” he said. “And they should absolutely not use Britain as a platform from which they can preach an ideology of hatred and violence."
Part of the problem is the support that some groups enjoy from the British Establishment. Last week the banned Mujahidin-e-Khalq won a court appeal to have its name removed from the terrorist list, in a move supported by dozens of MPs.
The group, which currently operates under the name the National Council of Iranian Resistance, was armed and financed for years by Saddam Hussein and is responsible for attacks against targets in Iran.
Patrick Mercer MP, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, urged the Government to enforce its own laws.
“An organisation is either proscribed or it is not. If it is proscribed then it must be given the pariah status that it deserves,” he said. “If the Government will not enforce these proscriptions, what is the point in doing it?”
The Home Office insisted that the proscription was an effective way of preventing terrorist groups operating in Britain.
“It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to take action where there is evidence of an offence being committed,” a Home Office spokesman said.
“Clearly, it is easier for the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to take action where they have firm evidence of illegal activities taking place. Any evidence that funds are being directed to a proscribed organisation from within the UK should be passed to the police.”
The Time
Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, and Zahid Hussain, December 8, 2007
As stated in the previous article, if MKO insists to recognize the POAC’s judgment and is standing resolute against the renunciation of terrorism as it claims, at least it must revise its previously adopted principles to prove the earnestness in its decision. Notably, a series of the organization’s early pamphlets, designed to provide the basis for its general aspirations and systematic world-outlook, explicitly theorize and advocate the violent strategy of armed struggle. In fact, the cornerstone of its struggle when emerged as an opposition was partly the Machiavellian doctrine of the ‘end justifying the means’.
A specified catalogue of these early booklets and pamphlets that were drafted by a selected ideological team to manifest the organizational ideology and policy are still strongly valued as practicable. The specific series are entitled Takamol (Evolution), Shenakht (Epistemology), Cheguneh Quran biamuzim (How to study the Koran), Rah-e anbiya rah-e bashar (The way of the prophets: the way of humanity) and finally a book entitled An account of the formation and short history of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from 1965 to 1975.
Explicitly stated in these works, MKO reveals the reasons for its adopted strategy of armed struggle based on Marxist-Islamic eclecticism. Mojahedin were on the belief that armed struggle was an inevitable consequent of a historical determinism; any intransigent attitude would be equal to that of a reactionary. Although at first it was hard for the Westerners to comprehend what was lying behind Mojahedin’s ideology, but some later made references indicate that they were developing a real understanding of Mojahedin’s ideological infrastructure and methodology. They are well aware of the fact that the merely stated words put no bonds upon Mojahedin that hardly respect obligations whenever an opportunity is grabbed at. As stated in POAC’s ruling, in a draft refusal letter dated September 1, 2006, the Secretary of State clearly declares his doubt on Mojahedin’s renunciation of terrorism:
Mere cessation of terrorist acts do not amount to renunciation of terrorism. Without a clear and publicly available renunciation of terrorism by the PMOI, I am entitled to fear that terrorist activity that has been suspended for pragmatic reasons will be resumed in the future. [1]
The duplicity of Mojahedin is a fact that is also referred to in the US State Department’s report. To expect Mojahedin forswear terrorism for ever is like expecting a leopard change its spots. The group’s abandonment of terrorist acts is temporal and might be retained if circumstances deem them necessary. In paragraph 46 of the POAC’s ruling we read:
However, at the heart of his submission lay the contention that the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the PMOI was “otherwise concerned in terrorism” within the meaning of sub-paragraph (d) of Section 3(5) of the 2000 Act because, although it was not actually committing acts of terrorism, it retained a future will to do so. In effect the Secretary of State’s case was that Section 3(5)(d) covers the category of situations such as the present, where the Secretary of State concludes that an organisation that for whatever reason is not actually committing acts of terrorism retains a future will to re-engage in future acts of terrorism if or when future circumstances permit. [2]
The conclusion by the Secretary of State asserts that MKO’s resort to militarism is not the outcome of a deliberate decision but innate in its methodology of struggle, its world-outlook and a dialectical process leading eventually to the establishment of a classless society. As Abrishamchi has point out:
We are not the ones to decide the necessity of an organized or aggressive struggle; we are not the ones to decide where to an organized or unorganized struggle leads us. It is not our mentality to decide the necessity of an armed struggle. [3]
The Organization, formed as a political group with militarist bent, naturally opposes any criticism of strategy and resists urges of modifications in general ideology and uses a variety of labels for the dissidents. They are dim-witted who cannot grasp the necessity of laws ruling over the phenomena:
To make any change in any phenomenon, one has to develop a comprehensive recognition of it. In respect to society and social movement and struggle, the recognition is of great significance because of their complexity. Thus, any change within a phenomenon, society and social movement requires recognition of the laws controlling them. [4]
Relatively, if any change is to happen within MKO concerning disavowal of terrorism, the ideological principles recognizing aggressive conduct has to be removed from its methodology of struggle, otherwise, it is hard to believe that it will be unwavering in its renunciation of terrorism. Armed strategy is the effect of the group’s principal ideological cause and source and its renunciation is totally out of question if the cause remains intact.
The change in principles is a move of such great significance that even Mojahedin themselves cannot ensure to what degree it is feasible and practical. As a testament in POAC’s ruling, the organisation states that it had to exercise extreme prudence before officially publicizing its decision since all those who had up to that point been involved in military operations or assisted the operational units, had to be fully informed of and convinced about the reasons and wisdom of the decision made by the organisation’s leadership. Not in a single occasion has the organization tried to convince the insiders that it intends to actualize the will to stop military and terrorist activities.
[1]. PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS APPEAL COMMISSION, Appeal No: PC/02/2006, p. 10.
[2]. ibid, P. 13.
[3]. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s lecture delivered on the ideological revolution for the sympathizers in Norway.
[4]. An account of the formation and short history of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from 1965 to 1975 (originally in Persian), p. 17.
Omid Pouya, Mojahedin.ws, January 8, 2008
TEHRAN, Jan. 12 (MNA) — In a letter released on Saturday, Iran’s Union of Islamic Students Association (UISA) in Europe has thanked the European Union for its decision to keep the terrorist Mojahedin Kalq Organization (MKO) on the blacklist of terrorist organizations.
The letter, a copy of which provided to Mehr News Agency, is addressed to Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga, the European Union foreign policy chief, EU countries, and members of the European Parliament.
“We would like to convey our seasonal greetings on the birth anniversary of Jesus Christ, a messenger much revered by both Christians and Muslims who is a propagator of peace and unity for both our Abrahamic religions. Furthermore we wish you all a great start to 2008 and a blessed year to come. We hope that 2008 bears witness to substantial strides towards strengthening worldwide peace via measures taken by influential international bodies.
“The recent decision by the EU to preserve the MKO on its terrorist organization blacklist, which demonstrates the intellectual and humane standards of this Union, is a move fully appreciated by the UISA, the most reputable Iranian student body within Europe.
"The 28 year old history of the Islamic revolution in Iran is tainted by the violent victimization of a sovereign nation via organized terrorist factions aiming to inflict an immobilizing blow to the dignity and morale of the Iranian people. Through a doctrine of fear and assassination such terror attacks have claimed the lives of some of the greatest and most admirable people of this nation, from religious scholars to university lecturers and from distinguished public servants elected by the people to ordinary members of society pursuing their daily lives. The use of highly sophisticated weapons including chemical armaments in assaulting the peaceful people of Iran is so horrifying in nature that the bitter memory of these losses will forever be engrained in the minds of every Iranian.
“One must ask why a unique democratic movement such as the Iranian revolution has been the target of a continuous wave of organized terrorist attacks for the past 28 years. Hitherto the query of how these terrorist groups are supported both speculatively and financially for their inhumane conduct still remains unanswered for the Iranian nation.
“We believe that, in concordance with section 3 of resolution 1483 issued by the United Nations (approved in the 4761 UN general session, on May 22, 2003), it is time for the leaders of MKO — which is an inherently criminal group — to be prosecuted in international courts for cooperating with the Ba’thist regime and performing criminal acts against the two oppressed nations of Iran and Iraq. Furthermore, we express our gratitude towards the EU for their appropriate stance on the enforcement of this ruling across all the European countries so that none of the members of this terrorist group are authorized to seek refuge anywhere within Europe and exert their inhumane terrorist acts.
“Considering the aforesaid group is known as one of the most abhorrent terrorist groups by the Iranian nation, undoubtedly any strides from the respected union to prevent their terrorist activities can be alleged as an evident support of conforming the human rights, human dignity, and admiration at the threshold of honoring the sixtieth anniversary of the issuance of the worlds human right manifesto which with no doubt resides in peoples minds as a worthwhile memento.
“Since a court in the United Kingdom has recently eradicated this criminal terrorist group from the terrorist blacklist, it has offended the Iranians public opinion as the rights of hundreds of innocent people who were martyred by this group is neglected.”
The statement says that the union is expected to make arrangements to have the British government respecting the decision made by the EU in order to include and preserve the MKO on its terrorist organization blacklist.
“Ultimately we would like to once more express our greetings for the arrival of the New Year and inform you that as Iranian students abroad we appreciate your prudent and judicious decisions and will reflect your positive conducts to the Iranian nation. We hope that the collective efforts of politicians, parliamentary representatives, and intellectuals amount to the obliteration of terrorism in all shapes and forms resulting in a state of harmony and global security. Surely even the smallest stride towards this humanitarian goal is in itself a significant achievement and shall leave behind a distinguished mark on the pathway to international safekeeping.”