Freedom Aspiration
Masoud Banisadr is an Iranian historian and political analyst. He is a former senior member of the Iranian opposition group the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization (MEK), and was its representative in the United States from 1990-96. Banisadr left the MEK in in June 1996 and has lived in London since. He finished his PhD research in chemical engineering and engineering mathematics at Newcastle University in 1981. Banisadr’s book Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel is widely regarded as the most authoritative ideological exposition of the MEK.
The MEK, which in some countries, including the US, has been placed on a terror watch list, has been based since 1986 in Iraq. It has been backed in the US by right-wing lawmakers, hardline
neo-conservatives and retired military officers, among others, who believe the MEK could be used to help destabilize the Iranian regime, if not eventually overthrow it in conjunction with US military strikes against selected targets. This interview was conducted on May 10 in London.
Mahan Abedin: This June will mark the 10th anniversary of your defection from the MEK. What is your feeling toward this organization today?
Masoud Banisadr: I am sad for the organization’s members and supporters and those who lost their lives on this path. I am also sad to see the organization in its current state, when they are fighting for survival and have abandoned all their original core principles. At the same time, I am happy that I have at last freed myself of them, physically, emotionally and ideologically. When I left the organization I did not have a deep understanding of what was wrong with it. After 10 years I am confident I know what went wrong.
MA: And what is wrong with them?
MB: We were attracted to the organization for two reasons: its sacrifices during the struggle against the shah’s regime and its sincere commitment toward the Iranian people. By changing from an ideological and political organization into a cult with a political agenda, the Mujahideen[-e-Khalq] fully disconnected themselves from this heritage. Many Iranians do not understand the concept of a "cult". This is partly rooted in language; the word "cult" is firqah in Persian and as such it has no negative connotations. When hearing the word firqah, Iranians immediately think of innocuous Sufi orders, so they don’t fully appreciate the implications of this word.
The MEK is a cult in the conventional sense of the word, and as such it has no respect for the values to which it was originally committed. The organization had five original goals and aspirations for the Iranian people: (1) independence; (2) freedom (as in individual rights); (3) democracy; (4) progress and social justice, including some elements of socialism borrowed from Marxist-Leninist ideology; (5) Islamic culture. When it changed into a cult, the interests of the cult entirely eclipsed those of the country and the people. To advance the interests of the cult, they were prepared to collaborate closely with the worst enemies of the country, in particular Saddam Hussein, thus jeopardizing our independence.
A cult that is deeply committed to an "ideological leadership" cannot believe in equality, social justice and democracy. The first rule of membership in a cult is sacrifice of personal individuality; therefore a cult cannot believe in Western concepts of freedom and democracy based on individualism. Merit and personal ability are prerequisites for progress in any realm, but in a cult where lack of individuality and blind obedience toward the guru are conditions of membership and promotion, real progress is impossible.
For instance, despite the proliferation of talent, the Mujahideen have been unable to solve their financial problems, thus relying on Iran’s enemies for funding. The Mujahideen’s deeply rooted cult culture came to the fore in June 2003 when Maryam Rajavi and dozens of her closest advisers were detained by French counter-terrorism police. The Mujahideen’s response was to encourage their members to set themselves on fire in major Western capitals.
How can you justify this level of submission and servitude toward another human being within the framework of Islamic monotheism? The real tragedy is the Mujahideen’s acceptance that all their sacrifices and commitment [are] to the leadership and no other entity. This, by itself, highlights the depth of their ideological decline and is a stark reminder of their abandonment of all original values and objectives.
MA: How do you assess the MEK’s activities against Iran’s nuclear program?
MB: This goes back to the most important value outlined above, namely independence. When it was formed back in the 1960s, the organization was a vociferous champion of Iranian independence, but since its transformation it is exclusively preoccupied with the interests of the cult rather than the country. It was this transformation that led it to cooperate with Iran’s national enemy Saddam Hussein, and is now leading it to side with those who want to sabotage Iranian aspirations for a peaceful nuclear program.
MA: But some people say the MEK has provided a valuable service by exposing aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, not least the August 2002 exposure of the Natanz and Arak facilities.
MB: Despite being a cult, the organization has a distinct political agenda, and it uses a variety of methods to promote that agenda. For instance, it is well known for gross exaggerations and downright fabrications.
MA: But on that occasion its exposure proved accurate. My question is whether the MEK is providing a valuable service to international stability by exposing aspects of the country’s nuclear program that the Iranian government wants to conceal.
MB: The Iranian nuclear program – as long as it remains peaceful – is a truly national aspiration regardless of the nature of the Iranian government. This is a national asset, and as such it belongs to all Iranians. Given this state of affairs, the MEK’s activities are treacherous through and through. Even if there is any truth to its propaganda, every sensible and conscientious Iranian is well aware of our country’s military weakness, vis-a-vis the Western powers and our immediate neighbors.
Moreover, every sensible observer knows that Iran has not committed a single act of aggression in the past 200 years and has, in fact, been invaded by a coterie of Western and regional enemies. Given this state of affairs, I don’t think many Iranians would object to possessing nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.
MA: You have recently given media interviews, and the MEK has hit back through character assassination. I refer specifically to your interview with the Persian service of Radio France. How do you assess its reaction to your interviews?
MB: Well, they are very predictable in this regard. I am happy that they are showing such reaction because it vindicates my decision to leave the organization. If their reaction was any different, I would have doubted myself and my achievements in the past 10 years.
MA: What does it hope to achieve by these character assassinations?
MB: Since their transformation to a cult in the past two decades, their only interest is to advance the interests of the cult. So whatever they do is guided by this central goal. Their first priority is to safeguard the reputation of their "Guru" (Masoud Rajavi), and they do this by labeling any dissident member as a traitor and agent of the Iranian government. This is standard procedure for them.
MA: What do you think the MEK’s reaction to this interview will be?
MB: (Laughs) Probably the same as always!
MA: But your critics do raise an interesting point, namely that you left the organization 10 years ago and for most of that period you were politically inactive. It is only recently that you have come out to defend yourself and criticize the organization. How do you explain the long years of silence?
MB: That is a very good question. First and foremost, it is important to understand that physical separation from a cult might happen overnight, but emotional, spiritual and, most important of all, ideological separation needs time and hard work. I had to understand what had happened to me. I had to get to know myself all over again. Don’t forget that I was a member of a cult and had spent more than 15 years suppressing my personality.
When I left in June 1996, my personality had been reduced to virtually nothing, and I needed time to recover from this trauma. I had to understand what had attracted me to the MEK in the first place, and this led me to review the organization’s history and ideology all over again. I had to go through this journey to be able to explain to myself, my children and whoever wants to know, what went wrong. I am afraid I feel that some of those who have left the organization and are currently engaged in a single-minded struggle against it are (despite appearances to the contrary) still trapped in the Mujahideen’s ideological cosmos.
They are still living in the bipolar and black-and-white world of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. It seems that their opposition to the Mujahideen is more born out of personal grudges than a desire to expose the organization for its betrayal of our people. Furthermore, their activism (against the Mujahideen) is not even effective. It serves to make ordinary supporters more committed to the organization.
MA: Curiously the Mujahideen did not attack you for writing the book. But they started an onslaught of character assassinations when your book was translated into Farsi. Why is that?
MB: The book (in its English version) was published about two years ago. When it was translated into Farsi, it became immediately accessible to ordinary supporters. The Mujahideen were terrified of the prospect of supporters questioning them because of the contents of the book. You should note that ordinary supporters (as opposed to members and cadres) are more valuable to the organization as their support is more effective and doesn’t cost much financially.
Furthermore, holding on to them doesn’t require significant organizational effort. I believe the ordinary supporters are the real members of the Mujahideen, as they have not been forced to change their personality and individuality. Therefore, their support is truly meaningful. This is in stark contrast to the members who had to change into a new person to be able to remain fully committed to the organization. Moreover, members have to be supported financially and have to be kept under constant ideological surveillance, to prevent them from "rediscovering" their old personalities.
MA: Have you now completed the journey of self-discovery?
MB: There is now much more clarity. But on rare occasions I find myself exhibiting some old organizational behavior. The difference is that I recognize this instantly and fight it accordingly.
MA: Let us now discuss anti-Iran lobbying in the US. You spent many years as the MEK’s main representative to the US and developed impressive lobbying skills in the process. Please summarize your insights.
MB: First you have to understand the American system. I don’t know how much Asia Times Online readers understand the American foreign-policy establishment. Direct and intensive lobbying has a lot of influence on the key foreign-policy centers in the US, in particular the Senate and the House of Representatives. As for the State Department, the NSC [National Security Council], the administration, Pentagon and the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], lobbying takes the form of common interests. There is a lot of common interest between some of these centers, in particular the Pentagon, and exiled Iranian opposition outfits, regardless of the meager weight of these organizations. But insofar as the Congress is concerned, you need conventional lobbying power.
MA: Explain what you mean by lobbying power.
MB: There are three components: numbers of constituents, money, and organizational strength. There are basically two anti-Iran lobbies in the US. The first belongs to the supporters of the former monarchical regime and the second to the Mujahideen. Both lobbies are very weak and would be completely ineffectual were it not for the support of the pro-Israel lobby. To take a hypothetical case, if you need 1,000 lobbying units to influence Iran policy in the US Congress, 999 of these are provided by the pro-Israel lobby or the American administration, and the remainder by the weak and fragmented exiled opposition. Those 999 units constitute the weight and the one unit provided by the exiled opposition brings a fig leaf of legitimacy to these anti-Iranian activities. It also enables the pro-Israel lobby in the US or other American entities to claim there is effective opposition to the Iranian government.
MA: Explain the dynamics in the MEK-Israel lobby relationship.
MB: If there is an anti-Iran petition on the table in the Congress, the two lobbies would work hand-in-hand to promote it, without necessarily communicating directly.
MA: Are the two lobbies organizationally linked?
MB: To give you an example, we knew which members of Congress were influenced by AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], so when we needed signatures we’d go to these congressmen first. AIPAC has a lot of weight in Congress, and without having to communicate with them directly, we benefited enormously from their deep influence. We also copied their lobbying techniques. Consequently the Mujahideen’s lobby in the US is organizationally strong but it lacks the two core elements I outlined earlier, namely numbers and money. They have a tiny constituency among Iranian-Americans, and even with the addition of imaginary names and addresses they cannot deliver votes or similar political advantages to congressmen. It also lacks an independent financial base. Much of its funding came from the former Iraqi regime.
MA: Your claim that there were no direct contacts between the MEK and the pro-Israel lobby is undermined by the organization’s intensive and very direct cooperation with the "Iran Policy Committee", which seems to be a spin off of AIPAC. There are also regular media reports alluding to direct MEK-Israel ties.
MB: I would not be surprised if these links existed. As I said earlier, the MEK is exclusively motivated by the interests of the cult, and as such it will cooperate with any constituency. If there is any hesitation in collaboration, it stems from Israeli reluctance, since the Mujahideen, because of its close relationship with the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization], is not fully trusted by the Israelis. On the other hand, from an Israeli perspective, the MEK is the only viable tool against Iran.
Monarchists are deeply divided and lack organization. However, Western and Israeli intelligence are well aware of the MEK’s limitations. They are perfectly aware of the cult nature of the organization and know that it has – at most – around 5,000 members and active sympathizers (most of whom are stranded in the Ashraf camp in Iraq) and are in no position to seriously threaten the Iranian government. This factor – coupled with the organization’s cult-like and totalitarian ideology – dissuades the US State Department from working with them.
To put it simply, the Americans do not trust Mujahideen-e-Khalq, for they know they have no principles, save the interests of the cult. This is why, despite all the efforts of the organization in the past quarter-century, they have not been able to pass a single substantial resolution in support of the organization in Congress. Note also that the US government regards the Mujahideen as a terrorist organization and does not want to create another al-Qaeda.
…
Mahan Abedin is the editor of Terrorism Monitor, which is published by the Jamestown Foundation, a non-profit organization specializing in research and analysis on conflict and instability in Eurasia. The views expressed here are his own.
By Mahan Abedin
Did you know Why ‘freedom of thought’ is a sin in the Mojahedin? Why every single member of the Mojahedin is required to write a daily report about every thought which comes to their mind during the day?
With the introduction of the”Second Phase of the Ideological Revolution”in 1989, married couples and children were separated from one another in a bid to divert all personal love and affection towards the Ideological Leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The Revolution did not stop at that point however. Soon, unmarried people were also expected to ‘divorce’ in their hearts and minds everything to do with the opposite sex. They should not allow themselves to think about the opposite sex at any time during the day even, for that matter, during their sleep and dreams. A sex related dream or, remembering your child or, a passing memory of a girl or boy you knew perhaps as a teenager, were all declared to be signs that a person is”drowning in a world of sexuality”, and that therefore they”needed the Leaders’ help”.
The problem outside of Ashraf Camp was that members would meet and talk
over the phone with people of the opposite sex, see billboard advertisements, and even sometimes watch uncensored television. Inside Ashraf Camp the refectories were separated, men and women would not sit in the same car, and even the petrol station had separate timetables for men and women so that they would not meet. This resulted in a different level of thoughts about the opposite sex.
The Rajavis’ compulsory daily report was introduced thus:”once you write down all these ‘contradictions’ and read them aloud in the meeting at the end of the week, then the collective presence [peer pressure] will shame you sufficiently that you will reduce and will ultimately eliminate these bad thoughts or ‘contradictions’ to the point that your heart and mind will eventually belong solely to the leader.”
Once people were forced to write down their ‘contradictions’, the daily reports began to read along these lines:”I used the petrol pump after sister x, and I felt aroused”, or”I saw two birds together in a tree and I had an erotic thought”, or”when I sat on the chair that sister x has just left, I felt”. The more that time passed, the more ridiculous the reports became. And the more they wrote, the more they had things to write about. It became clear that most members over the years came to the conclusion that the daily report is something they have to do in order to get the leaders off their backs, and that what they actually think and do (when they get the chance) is not really what they should write about. After all, the reports should show”progress”. If not, you will be accused of resisting”Massoud and Maryam’s Ideological Revolution”. And of all other crimes only this is absolutely unforgivable.
Although no one has claimed, and is unlikely to claim, that any individual can ever achieve this totally pure state of mind (Massoud and Maryam Rajavi declared that from the start they did not have this problem, and that is why they are the ideological leaders and that is why they can remain married without corruption), the process intensified year after year to the point that the daily report has evolved into the ‘daily collective meeting’.
These meetings are held on a daily basis under any circumstances, even if there are only two or three people together for any task or mission. In the daily meeting, daily reports have to be read out in turn (except for the head of the meeting who must attend a separate meeting with peers in the hierarchy), and the others have to attack the writer, swear at him or her as hard as they can and in their own words”crack”the person by whatever means. If anyone comes down soft on the target, he or she will be accused of having something to hide inside, and of not taking the side of the Leaders in confronting the outside savage world. These meetings nowadays frequently result in physical fighting and abuse. Those who resist are labeled as agents of the intelligence ministry of Iran, who have no claim to any rights and can be treated according to the will of the Ideological Leaders. (In fact, such ‘traitors’ are ideologically condemned to execution by the Leaders. Actual execution of the order depends on the circumstances, and according to the whim of the Leaders. For instance, sending a ‘traitor’ to Abu Ghraib prison was equivalent to putting into practice the death sentence, since the victims were unlikely to survive there.)
As this psychologically cohesive method combined with other manipulations have been exercised over the years, the behaviour of people in the Mojahedin, including the way they see other nonmember people, the language they use and even in some cases the physical tone of the voice, face and body features and even the day-to-day desires of members have changed. For instance, it is not abnormal any more to see women who have more pronounced body and facial hair growth. The practice of self satisfaction [masturbation – which in Islamic teachings is forbidden] has become something so widespread for both men and women, that it has even been mentioned by Maryam and Massoud Rajavi in the general meeting as a problem which has arisen after banning sex.
The extent of the problem is such that in Ashraf Camp, new regulations for men’s dormitories emphasise among other things that:
– No two men are allowed to stay in the dormitory without the presence of a third man.
– In the case of two people being sick, a third man should be chosen to stay with them.
– People are not allowed to change their clothes in the dormitory except behind a screen.
– Rubbing medicine on the back or chest of a patient should preferably be carried out by an older member and supervised by a third man at all times.
– Taking a shower or bath should only take place at certain times of the day and only according to specific regulations.
And for the people outside Ashraf Camp (in Europe, etc):
– Men are not allowed to report to or talk in private to their women commanders except in the presence of another member, and vice versa.
– Members who need to go online. They should be a minimum of two people and one should ask frequent questions about the other’s need to visit sites or download emails.
– Members who have to go to meetings with politicians, etc. There should be at least one other person present at all time during travel outside the base until return.
There are many other rules and regulations similar to the above which govern the daily minutiae of life in the Mojahedin. It is interesting that now in some cases it is preferred to send a supporter to monitor a member while outside. This is because more and more frequently, two members would plan together to go to a cinema, sex shop, etc and agree not to tell the commanders. Distant supporters are told that because they have come from the Iraqi deserts, such members need their help until they get used to their new environment. It seems that not only have these regulations brought no real relief or for that matter”love of the Ideological Leaders”, instead they have overwhelmed the hearts and minds of members. During recent years, crimes like”rape and related murder and other crimes”against women in Ashraf camp, which had never been seen in the Mojahedin before the Ideological Revolution, have increased to shocking numbers.
The major problem for the Mojahedin are those who have regular contact with supporters as part of their work. Supporters report that after any long visit by a member to their homes or places of work it is usual for them to receive bills for long hours of connection to sex websites. Many supporters now refuse to allow their children into the presence of MKO members and prefer only to meet them in the streets or in the MKO safe houses in Europe. Women members are expected not to concern themselves with the minimum of hygiene and personal grooming. As a result, most of the women members who are no longer as young as before suffer from all sorts of mental and physical disorders, including the above mentioned coarsening of beards and moustaches which is mainly due to hormone imbalance or disorder. Woman are denied treatments or any kind of make up, bleaching or waxing, etc. – except for Maryam Rajavi and the women she chooses to have looking acceptable. While Massoud Rajavi has been dying his hair for the last fifteen years and all of his, and Maryam’s family, have had the most expensive cosmetic dental treatment possible, ordinary members are expected to have no more than a backpack to contain all their belongings; that is, all their clothes, books, mementos etc. These backpacks are regularly checked for forbidden items including any trace of contact with,or pictures of, family or friends. At its inception, the daily report accompanied by follow-up”ideological meetings”served the leaders’ purpose to keep a grip on the members on one hand and on the other hand provided blackmail material for a rainy day in case any member found the courage to try to escape the cult. It is now, however, increasingly working against the Rajavis as they attempt to whitewash their image as heads of an Islamic Marxist terrorist cult who have used their members to attack the interests of the west as and when needed to pursue their own agenda.
Mojahedin members (which includes around 97% of those claiming membership of the NCRI) are indoctrinated in the Rajavis’ anti-imperialist ideology. They are motivated by their promise to destroy world imperialism and replace it with what the Rajavis call”the divine, classless society”. It is with this motivation that they submit to the suffocating strictures imposed on them by the Rajavis. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, such members cannot reasonably be expected to change their ideological direction without a total re-programming of their world view. The Rajavis know this only too well.
However, an explanation is needed for these members, who are very much needed for activities like the self immolations of June 2003 to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi, as they see current Mojahedin behaviour in contradiction to everything they have been taught to believe.
The explanation is that”fooling the Americans and their allies”is a tactic. The ideology has not changed, but the path to”the divine classless society”at this point of time, must pass through this tactic, until we are ready to confront”imperialism and the world devourers”again. Members are praised for their superior understanding, and the leader is worshiped as the members are taught to realise that they could not have passed this phase of the struggle to save humanity if it had not been because of the ideological leader and the introduction of the”ideological revolution”at the very right time.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (UPI) — Human Rights Watch reasserted claims of abuses by an Iranian dissident group Wednesday even after a report compiled by a European Parliament delegation denounced its initial report as "devoid of any truth."
Earlier this year, the global watchdog group published a report alleging serial abuses at Camp Ashraf, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq headquarters, six miles north of Baghdad. The report described the MeK as an extremist sect, whose leaders had exerted a manipulative psychological influence on their followers, as in the case of the 1980s mass divorces enforced to ensure total loyalty to their cause. Members who wish to leave the organization suffered from beating and prolonged solitary confinement, resulting in a number of fatalities, the report said.
The MeK denies the allegations, claiming an Iranian conspiracy to discredit the group.
A report by the parliamentary delegation, based on a visit to Camp Ashraf in September, backed the MeK’s claims. In its report, the delegation said that the watchdog group had gone "far beyond the mandate of a human rights organization." The delegation heard counter-testimonies from MeK members, supporting this view and vilifying Human Rights Watch.
"We found the allegations contained in HRW report unfounded and devoid of any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was procedurally flawed and substantively inaccurate."
The HRW has been criticized by the delegation for not visiting Camp Ashraf and for basing their report on testimony gathered in 12 telephone interviews.
But HRW’s Joe Stork Wednesday fiercely defended his conclusions, throwing his own accusations back at the EU delegation.
"They’re fine ones to talk about methodology," he told United Press International. "The counter-testimonies are all from people high up in the MeK. Most of the criticisms in the delegation’s report are from MeK sources."
Asked why HRW did not visit Camp Ashraf, despite invitations from the MeK, Stork explained that his organization’s allegations dated back before the occupation of Iraq led by the American coalition. "We were invited during the Hussein era. No human rights organization could credibly take up that offer."
HRW had sought permission to visit the camp since the fall of Saddam, he said. But "U.S. forces did not respond positively to later requests. In hindsight, I regret not including that in the report." Coalition forces in Iraq were unable to confirm that these requests had been made, according to Stork.
The MeK was designated a terrorist organization by the Clinton administration in 1997. But the group has since won favor in the United States by providing information on the Iranian nuclear program. In 2004, MeK members were given ‘protected status’ by coalition forces in Iraq.
The group’s seemingly contradictory status, at once a source of valuable intelligence and an acknowledged terrorist organization, is fuelling a fierce propaganda war between the MeK and the Iranian regime, in which HRW, the European Parliament and the United States Government have become players.
Stork is a target of an elaborate deception by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, claims Raymond Tanter, a Georgetown University academic and founding member of the Iran Policy Committee, which advises the United States government, citing a June White Paper issued by the IPC that describes HRW as "victims of a world class intelligence operation."
According to the IPC paper, many of the witnesses interviewed by HRW were in fact Iranian agents. These included Hossein Sobhani, "whom HRW cites as a "credible" victim but who, in fact, runs an intelligence ring in Europe that works under the direct supervision of MOIS deputy chief Mohammad-Reza Iravani."
"Human Rights Watch has been duped," said Tanter.
Terrorists or indispensable friends? Uncertainty over the true personality of the MeK has prompted debate over the U.S. administration’s relationship with the group. In an October report by Foreign Policy magazine, freelance writer Erik Saas suggested that MeK intelligence might not be quite as indispensable as their advocates claim:
"The group has a record of exaggerating intelligence or sometimes simply making things up. U.S. officials have learned to take MeK claims with very large grains of salt," wrote Saas.
Nevertheless, there is, according to Saas, increasing co-operation between the MeK and the United States. (Although they remain on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list.) Saas even claims MeK fighters have been deployed in Pakistan and Afghanistan, although this has not been confirmed.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, President of Strategic Policy Consulting and former MeK leader, says he sees no reason why the terrorist designation should not soon be lifted. MeK was placed on the terrorist list in 1997 as a conciliatory gesture aimed at Iran’s president at the time, Mohammed Khatami Jafarzadeh told UPI. "The designation came weeks after Khatami was elected," he said. But with the election this summer of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a shift in policy was likely. "With the new regime, the situation will change."
Tanter gives credence to the suggestion that the terrorist list has more to do with political expediency than human rights. "The designation is a diplomatic football tossed around to gain various diplomatic benefits," he said.
Asked if, in the light of the HRW allegations, co-operation with the MeK could damage the image of the United States, Tanter said: "American credibility is damaged if it doesn’t take sides with the Iranian resistance in general. The U.S. has to stand with the dissidents. That doesn’t mean picking a group."
"Regime change is the implicit policy of the Bush administration," he said. "Diplomacy has failed and the number of nuclear installations makes military action unfeasible." If Tanter is right, alliance with dissident groups, however unsavory, is one of increasingly few options.
By LEIGH BALDWIN
Four months after HRW’s report on MKO (and its violation of human rights) was published, those accused of violating human rights held a 250-member carnival, spent astronomical amounts of money, and repeated the same words they had expressed 4 months ago.
Human rights violators easily accuse others of being “mercenary”, call themselves “protectors of human rights” and say that others accusations are coming from enemy’s intelligence services.
Unlike other cases, this time there are witnesses (with enough evidences such as Abu Ghraib prison and registered by Red Cross as prisoners), ready to give testimony anywhere anytime. As an opponent of HRW’s report said, one should look at the faces of victims when giving testimony in order to find whether their testimony is true or not.
Taking advantage of deceived people and a large group of human rights experts- all unaware of being trapped- can only help the victims of MKO human rights violations to prove their claims.
The people who say testimonies against human rights violators (MKO) are not true have took the burden to go to Iraq in order to get the testimonies of those entangled in that country, but they didn’t accept to have an interview with any of the victims in Europe.
Can anybody ask these impartial “judges” why? This could help you hear the complaints of both sides and have a better decision-making.
Anyway, Roshana Association is ready to hold a seminar, with MKO officials and human rights experts, to discuss the accuracy of these claims.
Some MKO defectors recall a common amazing memory: After the US disarmed the MKO and realized that most of MKO members want to leave the Organization, they established a camp near Camp Ashraf and settled defectors-whether those who had escaped MKO or had left it with the assistance of Americans- in that camp. MKO, entangled in a crisis, resorted to dirty tricks to stop members from leaving. For instance, Americans’ interpreter in interviews was a woman called “Paria”. MKO bribed her with gold and jewelry and asked her to change the translation of defectors’ words (that is, to distort the reality) so that Americans open an unreal file for them. Defectors were not aware of this since they didn’t know English. But the time came for a former member who had lived in the US for years and had come to Iraq (MKO) from the US. During the interview, American general (State Department’s interviewer) asked if he was tortured by the MKO. He realized that “Paria” changed his words and said: “MKO treated me very well but I want to go to my own life”! He became angry by this distortion of reality by her and started himself to tell the truth in English. Americans fired her as soon as they found that she was not honest and employed another interpreter called “Fatima” (apparently from Afghanistan). It’s been said that Paria had not even a gold ring when she came but after a while, she wore several bracelets. Even the former members asked her about this. “Ms. Paria! You’re dressed with gold!!!??,” they said to her ironically. Indeed, why the MKO is so much afraid of realities regarding former members, being interpreted? If they have acted according to the criteria of human communities, and if they have observed democratic factors in their organization, why should they bribe an interpreter with gold and jewelry?! Isn’t it that they wanted to prevent the publication of realities?! But, these defectors and former members will finally cry out to the world and Rajavi won’t be able to silence these cries anymore.
With regards and thanks,
I read the long overdue, very brief but nevertheless justice seeking report on the inhuman behaviour of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (MKO) after it was published. I preferred to wait to see the consequences of the report as well as the reaction which would follow before writing this letter.
Any crime can have four distinguishing characteristics. The first is totally related to the criminals and the others are based on that. The second is related to the victim of the criminals, the third relates to the defenders of human rights who have taken on the task and duty of exposing the crimes of these criminals, and the fourth relates to international public opinion and the international conscience to judge according to the findings and the reports produced by the defenders of these victims of crimes. The politicians and the men in power do not usually have a pivotal role in this part as their interests always come before their logic.
For years the MKO committed crimes on the regional level (Iran and Iraq) under the authority of Saddam Hussein. On the internal level also the MKO changed the organisation into an ‘ideological military cult’ using brainwashing techniques, and practiced a range of crimes to the extent that by putting every one under it’s sword, it tried to achieve a situation in which "no one would be left unless they have passed the process of internal revolution". On the international level, the MKO did not spare any action to get support and logistics for its crimes and to legitimise it for its forces, it called this "bridging".
In September 1995, when a number of survivors of the Mojahedin cult got together in Geneva to put their complains against Mr. and Mrs. Rajavi to the United Nation’s Special Rapporter to Iran, the MKO in a hysterical offensive, which revealed its anger at facing exposure of its crimes, shouted that the international and humanitarian bodies are all employed by the "mullahs’ regime" working against the "Iranian Resistance" and started a coordinated offensive against them. (Iran Zamin, [Mojahedin newspaper] number 9.)
Since then, whoever takes an stance against the Mojahedin, will first be categorised as being part of the ruling regime in Iran and then subjected to all sorts of attacks. This practice of course comes from the way of thinking that believes: "if you are not with us, you are against us, and if you are against us, you are with the Iranian regime, and to shed the blood of whoever is with the regime is of course legitimate".
Human Rights Watch, in a researched report about the MKO, has only looked at the crimes which have been committed against the members after they have distanced themselves from the organisation and maybe this is why the report has been titled "No Exit". But if we look at the psychological operations carried out by the MKO on its forces with a critical eye to the extent that the organisation is forced to stop using these psychological methods, it is clear that no one except a handful of losers would not stay there. Therefore it may be logical to ask you as an international body with the respected credibility that you have, to investigate into the brainwashing techniques used by the organisation and perhaps produce a second report in line with informing the victims as well as their families. In the next stage, it would be appropriate that all the victims of MKO terrorism, and the survivors of the MKO’s operations, and the families of the ones who have lost their lives, as well as the ones who have been disabled for life, would be invited to produce a report so that the few people in some parliaments who still insist on supporting this cult know the degree of crimes they are willing to ignore. Crimes as evident as firing mortars in the streets of Iran and publishing the reports of their disgusting activities in their newspapers.
And the third subject on which Human Rights Watch could perhaps work and produce a report, would be an investigation and a report about the systematic and planned crimes with the logistical, intelligence and military backing of the toppled Iraqi regime against Iranian soldiers, as well as the forces of the National Liberation Army of the Mojahedin which by any standard would be considered as war crimes.
The few backers and the huge number of critics of the MKO should know that respecting the human rights of every individual, irrelevant of their way of life, thoughts and political beliefs, is a basic which should not be allowed to be influenced by these offensive measures employed by the Mojahedin and we should not allow them to wear democratic clothing to hide their cult nature.
Maryam Khoshnevis
Ex member of MKO
3rd July 2005
cc:
Human Rights Committee in European Parliament
International Committee of the Red Cross
Amnesty International
Summary The Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) is an armed Iranian opposition group that was formed in 1965. An urban guerrilla group fighting against the government of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, it was an active participant in the anti-monarchy struggle that resulted in the 1979 Iranian revolution.
After the revolution, the MKO expanded its organizational infrastructure and recruited many new members. However it was excluded from participating in power sharing arrangements, and the new revolutionary government under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini forced it underground after it instigated an armed uprising against the government in June 1981. The majority of its top cadres went into exile in France. In France, the MKO continued its active opposition to Iran’s government. In 1986, under pressure from the French authorities, the MKO relocated to Iraq. There it established a number of military camps under the banner of the National Liberation Army and maintained an armed presence inside Iraq until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the MKO fighters made regular incursions into Iranian territory and fought against Iranian government forces. After the end of Iran-Iraq war, the group’s armed activities decreased substantially as Saddam Hussein’s government curtailed the MKO’s ability to launch attacks inside Iranian territory.
The fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in April 2003 put an end to Iraqi financial and logistical support of the MKO. The MKO fighters remained neutral during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. After the occupation of Iraq, the U.S. military disarmed the MKO fighters and confined them inside their main camp known as Camp Ashraf.2 U.S. military sources told Human Rights Watch that as of March 10, 2005, there were 3,534 MKO members inside Camp Ashraf.3
Some MKO fighters took advantage of an amnesty offer by the Iranian government. Since October 2004, 273 MKO members have returned to Iran.4 The U.S. military has recognized the MKO fighters in Iraq as Protected Persons under the Geneva Conventions.5 Their fate remains uncertain; the Iraqi government and the U.S. military appear not to have reached a decision regarding their future.
During Saddam Hussein’s last year in power, some Iranians held in Abu Ghraib prison were repatriated to Iran in exchange for Iraqi prisoners of war (POWs). These were dissident members of the MKO who had been sent by the organization for “safekeeping” in Abu Ghraib.6 The release of these prisoners in 2002-2003 provided a direct window into conditions inside the MKO camps that was previously inaccessible to the outside world.
Human Rights Watch interviewed five of these former MKO members who were held in Abu Ghraib prison. Their testimonies, together with testimonies collected from seven other former MKO members, paint a grim picture of how the organization treated its members, particularly those who held dissenting opinions or expressed an intent to leave the organization.
The former MKO members reported abuses ranging from detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization, to lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings, and torture of dissident members. The MKO held political dissidents in its internal prisons during the 1990s and later turned over many of them to Iraqi authorities, who held them in Abu Ghraib. In one case, Mohammad Hussein Sobhani was held in solitary confinement for eight-and-a-half years inside the MKO camps, from September 1992 to January 2001.
The witnesses reported two cases of deaths under interrogation. Three dissident members—Abbas Sadeghinejad, Ali Ghashghavi, and Alireza Mir Asgari—witnessed the death of a fellow dissident, Parviz Ahmadi, inside their prison cell in Camp Ashraf. Abbas Sadeghinejad told Human Rights Watch that he also witnessed the death of another prisoner, Ghorbanali Torabi, after Torabi was returned from an interrogation session to a prison cell that he shared with Sadeghinejad.
The MKO’s leadership consists of the husband and wife team of Masoud and Maryam Rajavi. Their marriage in 1985 was hailed by the organization as the beginning of a permanent “ideological revolution.”7 Various phases of this “revolution” include: divorce by decree of married couples, regular writings of self-criticism reports, renunciation of sexuality, and absolute mental and physical dedication to the leadership.8 The level of devotion expected of members was in stark display in 2003 when the French police arrested Maryam Rajavi in Paris. In protest, ten MKO members and sympathizers set themselves on fire in various European cities; two of them subsequently died.9 Former members cite the implementation of the “ideological revolution” as a major source of the psychological and physical abuses committed against the group’s members.
At present, the MKO is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and several European governments. The MKO’s leadership is engaged in an extensive campaign aimed at winning support from Western politicians in order to have the designation of a terrorist organization removed.
Ali Moradi had been a sergeant in the Iranian army at the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war. He was captured early on and spent nine years as a POW in Ramadi camp. He was among a group of Iranian POWs recruited into the Mojahedin shortly after the ceasefire by promises of marriage and paid work. This is an extract from a longer interview conducted after his return to Iran. After Maryam returned to Iraq in 1997 the Rajavis imposed more radical changes to combat what Maryam called our bourgeois mind-set. Under the new rules, a gender apartheid was introduced so that men and women were physically separated. Now there were only all male units and all female units both of which had 3 or 4 women commanders. All were completely separate. A man and woman were no longer allowed to be alone in the same room. We were not allowed to speak to women unless authorized for work purposes. In the autumn of 2002 when the US stepped up its threats against Iraq, Massoud and Maryam held a meeting for all the combatants. They analyzed that in 2005 the Khatami government would be toppled by a popular uprising and we must ready ourselves for a final operation.
Just about everybody had questions at that point. What would we do if the Americans attack us? The answer came, ‘We will attack Iran’ with everything we have’, said Massoud.
Now I have to say that most members don’t actually expect to die, but Massoud Rajavi boasted that we would go like Ashura (marking the martyrdom of Imam Hossein with his followers). This was the Black Phase and it was clearly a suicide mission for the whole organization.
The next news we had from the leadership was that Mohammad Mohaddessin had written to the UK Foreign Office and the US Department of State and had announced our neutrality.
In another meeting, Rajavi read a message to us which said that the US and UK had agreed not to attack our camps. Within a month two of our camps had been attacked by the coalition forces and around fifty combatants had been killed. According to Rajavi’s orders the NLA should now launch its final all-out attack on Iran. But they did not move. Most people, I can say 95% of people felt devastated then. Everyone had the same thoughts in their minds. ‘I gave my life to this struggle, what has happened to my aims now?’
Worse was to come when Hossein Abrishamchi, (brother of Mehdi Abrishamchi who is subject to the French judicial investigation into the MEK’s terrorist activities in France) and Mojgan Parsii (nominal head of the MEK in Iraq) negotiated first a ceasefire then total disarmament with General Ordinero of the US army. Within a week the MEK’s armour and weapons was collected and the US surrounded Camp Ashraf to where all the MEK’s combatants were rounded up and sent. (A cache of weapons had been hidden by the MEK, but US air forces soon discovered it.) Again, the combatants felt devastated. Everyone began questioning what had happened to the organization, what was the future, what about the aims I had given my life to, what about the overthrow of the regime. Remember too that at this point we still had no idea that around 250 leading members had escaped Iraq and fled to Europe, including Maryam Rajavi.
In the chaos which followed the US and coalition invasion of Iraq, the combatants enjoyed a little freedom, and we began to talk and discuss the event and the possible outcome for the organization. After the American forces rounded everyone up into Camp Ashraf they began to interview everyone. The first interview was to establish the name, origin and other basic information so that an ID card could be issued. The second interviews were held to collect DNA information from each resident of the camp. The third interviews were held by representatives of the US Department of State. They were asking everyone for information. One thing that we were asked in every interview was ‘where is Massoud Rajavi’, it was a question for all of us as much as for the Americans. In the third interview we were asked where we would like to go once we left Iraq. The MEK had told everyone to answer that they want to stay in Iraq, but most people disregarded this and insisted they wanted to go to another country. The MEK had told everyone that if you go to Iran they will torture you and hang you and that you can’t go to Europe because they won’t accept you. In spite of this, during the first interviews around 115 asked directly for help from the US forces to get out of the camp. These were taken to the North of the camp where the US army had it barracks.
To date, over 600 MEK resident of Camp Ashraf have taken refuge with the US forces in the North camp. From these, over 250 have been repatriated to Iran and the others remain. The only reason it had been possible for these people to escape to the North camp was because MEK commanders do not have guns and cannot stop them.
People want to leave, but they are afraid of the unknown. They don’t have any real information. No one has told them where they can go, that they have alternatives. The Mojahedin told us that it would not allow the Red Cross to visit our camp.
Hossein Madani told me personally that ‘we have tried everything we can, including lobbying them intensively in Switzerland, so they will not come to our camp’. It was a deliberate policy to prevent people from asking to leave. But I had a PoW card from the Red Cross, so I was able to go to the North camp and ask for refuge with the Americans. I had nothing left to keep me there. I had no family, I had lost my aims, and worst of all was the deception of the MKO which I could now clearly see.
I would say that right now around sixty to eighty percent of the people in the camp are dissatisfied and would leave if they could. The conditions inside Camp Ashraf are really severe. The control over the members has become even more rigid after the protected persons status was given.
You are not allowed to talk to one another. If two people get together and start talking, suddenly someone will pop up and start interrogating them and accusing them, ‘what are you talking about, you are undermining the leader …’ There is no news from the outside world. We have no real information and now I know that all the news they gave us about Iran is wrong. I mean ALL of it. In the camp if anyone expresses any questions about anything they are taken into a group of about twenty people who talk to that one person to convince them. They have confiscated everyone’s documents too to make it hard to get out. The US army haven’t been very helpful either. In the north camp they told us they had to make sure people wouldn’t be a terrorist threat if they go to Europe, but how do you want to prove that. But people still escape, and the MKO commanders have no guns so they can’t stop them. I know several of the top people have run away; Said Jamali, Khalil Ramazanpour and Alireza Ahad are all in the North camp. Davoud Baghervand came back with my group and is now in Iran.
I think that everyone in the MKO has questions about their future, even the leaders. Many want to leave but they have nowhere to go. Around 80% of those who had the courage to leave did so after they had been visited by their families. That’s why the MKO is so afraid to let the families in the camp.
When it comes to the point that they can’t deny a family visit, they take you aside and
have an intensive meeting to prepare you. I met with Fereshte Yegahni for one and a half hours before a visit from my brother. She told me, ‘your brother will tell you lies. The Iranian government has sent him. Be very careful as this is a political activity by the regime. Don’t see him as your brother, you must believe that you are talking to the regime. Don’t cry, and don’t let him persuade you to leave.’ This was unacceptable to me. I saw my brother and shortly after that
meeting I went to the North camp, determined to get home. I wrote to Colonel Georgis and the Red Cross and told them I want to leave and go back to Iran. Conditions in the North camp are very difficult, they gave us non-halal meat, pig meat, and there is no air conditioning. In every twenty four hours we have to line up five times on parade. We weren’t able to have contact with our families because the Americans told us that letters would be censored by the country receiving them, which in our case was Iran, so people were afraid to write, though we did get letters. When I finally got to go home I remember looking down from the airplane window as we took off, at the flat ground of Iraq. When we flew over the border and I saw the mountains of Iran with the snow on them, I was so happy I just wanted to jump
straight out of the plane and land in the snow of my homeland. At the airport in Tehran I expected hostility, but people came forward to greet us and welcomed us warmly. For two days I was really fearful. I thought this had just been for propaganda. But as the kindness continued for five and six days, only then did I believe it. I am now home with my family. I have had no problems since I came back to Iran. They have tried to help us here as much as possible. But in the end I have wasted years of my life with that organization. I have no wife, no children, I have no job and no wealth.
I have nothing. And now I know I lost all my life for the selfish ambition of one man. When I was in Camp Ashraf everyone in the camp was asking the same question ‘Where is Massoud Rajavi?’ The last time I saw him was the day before the US invasion of Iraq. He has not been seen or heard from since that time. That’s over two years. For his followers at all levels of the MEK hierarchy, this has become the major issue. When anyone asks, Rajavi’s commanders say it’s for security reasons. But no one accepts that. A leader should be at the front of his forces, not run away at the first sign of danger. Rajavi always boasted ‘I am the leader and I am the first in line for sacrifice’. But the combatants are now comparing him with Sattar Khan, Mirza Kuchik Khan, Mousa Khiabani and other rebel leaders who died fighting alongside their forces. Rajavi’s commanders say his disappearance is for security reasons, but no one has
any doubt that Rajavi has just run away to save his own skin. People in the camp feel totally betrayed. This has been the worst betrayal, no one can trust anything anymore. Morale is so low in the camp that that even if Rajavi should reappear before them tomorrow, the vast majority of forces in Ashraf Camp will refuse to follow him. Everyone now has questions only about their own future.
Our forces returned to the garrison and were disarmed. The US forces freed the people of Iraq and for a while we kind of felt saved too. The atmosphere in the camp opened up a little and we had some freedom. At this time a lot of people abandoned the garrison and went to the US camp and didn’t return.
Soon after the disarmament the organization closed the atmosphere again.
Even though they didn’t have guns, the commanders kept the organization intact using Rajavi’s methods of fear and intimidation. We all saw how we had lost everything, our whole struggle had come to nothing and morale was very low.
The most important thing that happened during these two years has been the visits of families. The organization was severely opposed to contact with our families. Even a phone call was not allowed. I tricked them and said I would ring my family and ask for money – the organization is always desperate to get money. I called my brother and he convinced me to come home. The organization described the family visits as an emotional war. They said our families had been sent by the regime to destroy us. They told us the Iranian Intelligence Ministry had motivated our families to come to Iraq. For this reason, many people were afraid to speak to their own families.
One of the things that gave us courage to leave and go to the American camp was that we had been given recognition
as people. I’m not talking about the protected persons status, I mean that the Americans interviewed us and wrote down our names and gave us an identity. Now we could not just disappear. In the beginning the Americans were not good with us, but after the protected persons status their relations with us improved. When we went for interviews the MKO told us, ‘don’t tell the US that you want to leave, defend the MKO in front of the Americans.’ But in our hearts we all wanted to leave. A month after the protected persons status was granted, the MKO set about destroying all its documents. Particularly those relating to the relations with the Iraqis and with the US. We destroyed all our military schedules and destroyed the books and songs which were against the USA.
More than anything else, Massoud Rajavi’s disappearance destroyed morale in the organization. We were all thinking that if he’s the leader why has he left. We felt betrayed. We watched the video of Ebrahim Zakeri’s [Rajavi’s former head of MKO intelligence] funeral in Paris. We showed no reaction, but in our hearts we were all stunned to see the organization’s top people all there in Paris. They had all run away.
Rumours started that Massoud must also be hiding in Europe. No one knew what to think, but no one dared discuss it. Only, everyone knows in all our hearts that the organization is finished. When the families started coming to visit, the MKO told us they are the representatives of imperialism and we must destroy them. The families became our new enemy rather than the Islamic Republic. They told us stories about the US camp. They said the Americans had killed two of our people and thrown the bodies away. They said they would make us immoral if we went there. People stay because of this. And because they don’t have any place to go. The Americans said we had four options, to stay in Iraq, to go to Iran, to apply for asylum in another country or to leave through international organizations.
We were always asking, ‘where are the international organizations, where is the Red Cross?’ But the MKO wouldn’t let them come into the camp. They told us we have to stay there. They tried to make the members forget about the other three options.
Even so, the men have the courage to escape now the leaders don’t have guns. They can apply to leave and go to the north camp. But the situation for women is desperate beyond description. In the time I was there I only saw three women who had dared to come to the north camp. That’s out of over six hundred people. What they told us was really shocking. Even these women who escaped did so believing that they would be raped by the Americans when they got to the north camp. That’s how bad things are. The younger women are controlled by the older women and they are under observation all the time. There is strict gender separation in Camp Ashraf. Men and women are not allowed to speak to one another. They have separate vehicles. Let me tell you how absurd and at the same time shocking this is.
When they want to put petrol in their vehicles the men and women have separate times. The men go between 8 and 9 am. Then there is a gap of twenty minutes before the women can visit the petrol pumps from 9.20 to 10.20 am. The reason for the gap is so there is absolutely no possibility that men and women meet one another at the station. That is how the situation is.
The Mojahedin really has two faces. In spite of all their external propaganda, the situation of women in the organization is really worse than anything you can imagine. I saw Maryam Rajavi in the last Women’s Day celebration. She released a symbolic white dove. In my mind when I imagine her, I see this dove in one hand and her other hand is like a claw grasping my neck and viciously strangling me. In the end, Rajavi crossed the boundary and tortured his own people. He killed and tortured his own people and he exploited women. I can never forgive him for this.
Older Posts