MEK Camp Ashraf

MEK Terror group Supporters Demand Delay in Closure of Iraqi Camp Ashraf

Fresh off Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s statement to the United Nations insisting that MEK Terror group Supporters Demand Delay in Closure of Iraqi Camp Ashraf Mujahedin e-Khalq (MeK)’s Camp Ashraf should be closed by year’s end has sprung the State Department-listed Foreign Terrorist Organization into action, with a series of condemnations from both them and their supporters.

A gathering of hundreds of MeK supporters rallied in Brussels, today, with former US Senator Howard Dean condemning the idea of closing the camp and demanding that the US force Iraq to postpone the closure before ending the occupation.

“The US remains morally responsible for the people of Ashraf,” Dean insisted. The camp was established by Saddam Hussein as a headquarters for his allies in the MeK in 1986. The US seized the camp during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the group negotiated a ceasefire.

But while the MeK is enjoying something of a renaissance among US officials as a group of “freedom fighters” the group’s open hostility toward Iran and history as a Saddam ally has earned it considerable scorn among the Maliki government, which is determined to see the camp closed.

Jason Ditz

October 22, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

UN must tread carefully in dealing with Camp Ashraf

Trapped in the camp Trapped in Camp Ashraf

As the Mojahedin-e Khalq (aka; MEK, MKO) is painfully slowly being nudged toward compliance with both international and Iraqi law over its activities inside Camp Ashraf in Iraq, cult experts warn that external agencies must be wary of falling foul of cultic manipulation techniques as the group struggles to maintain its hold over the 3400 Iranians trapped inside.

Efforts over the summer by US Ambassador Lawrence Butler to convince the MEK leader Massoud Rajavi that he would have to act on the Government of Iraq’s deadline to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, yielded little progress. MEK front personnel still refused to allow any residents to be interviewed by UNHCR staff without MEK minders being present. Then by the end of September Vincent Cochetel, a Washington representative for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that an agreement had been reached through the MKO’s legal counsel in London for individual screening for refugee status with the UNHCR offering an alternative location near Ashraf for those who have been processed.

Maryam Rajavi immediately qualified this news from her HQ in France with the Farsi language diktat: “… we will not allow the line of the mercenaries Maliki and Barezani and the strategy of their masters, the Iranian regime, to prevail under the pretext of interviewing people one by one and …” and she continued “… all the Mojahedin members should only be taken for interviews using helicopters …” – which meant that in order to interview the people trapped in the camp she expected the US to fly over seven thousand helicopter sorties.

Such statements are plainly silly and we should not imagine that either Massoud or Maryam Rajavi expect anyone to take them seriously. They are meant first and foremost for internal consumption and as a time wasting exercise. Such a stance is reminiscent of the time when the MEK’s London lawyers announced in English that the group had given up armed struggle in order to be removed from the UK and EU terrorism lists. At the same time Rajavi told her followers in Farsi that as soon as the MEK was de-listed the Americans would re-arm them and they could continue with their violent activities.

The latest salvo from the MEK’s armoury of lies and deception was introduced in the form of an MEK claim that over seventy Iraqi MPs have called for the UNHCR to open an office inside Camp Ashraf and take over control of the camp from the Iraqi government. This comes at the same time that Alsumeria News has reported that a British parliamentary group headed by Baroness Nicholson is discussing with a visiting Iraqi parliamentary delegation headed by Mr. Alnajifi to find way to actually get access to the inside of the camp.

On the surface the MEK offer to allow the UNHCR into the camp might look like cooperation and progress. But in the light of the MEK’s past behaviour the agencies involved in the issue of Camp Ashraf would be wise to view this latest stance with deep suspicion. In the book ‘The Life of Camp Ashraf – Mojahedin-e Khalq Victims of Many Masters’ published by Iran-Interlink in September, we warn that “the MEK loyalists will continue to resist and try to provoke violence to prevent any interference in the internal affairs of the camp… The MEK has an armoury of defensive tactics with which to prevent such interference. The obvious one is to meet all attempts to enter the camp with violent, suicidal resistance. But the MEK system is also supremely manipulative as the American army discovered in 2003. Certainly both MEK cult experts and recently escaped residents will be needed to identify loyal cult leaders and activists. These experts will also be able to identify and challenge the MEK’s manipulative techniques which would otherwise be effective in deceiving less experienced agencies – no matter how well meaning.”

The Government of Iraq is very clear that it is dealing with the phenomenon of a dangerous, destructive mind control cult. Unfortunately, Western agencies do not appear to have got to grips with this fundamental aspect of the group and as such continue to fall under the spell of the MEK leaders and their unearthly and insatiable demands. It would be unfortunate in the extreme if the UNHCR did not understand during all its negotiations with the group’s front personnel that Massoud Rajavi does not represent anyone but himself and his own interests.

Cult experts warn that the MEK are not seriously offering to allow the UNHCR to open an office inside Camp Ashraf in order to conduct individual screening and processing with a view to removing the residents. The most the MEK could hope for is that the UN will, for any reason, raise its flag over the camp beside or in place of the Iraqi flag which is currently there.
Raising the UNHCR flag over the camp over which the Iraqis themselves have no jurisdiction would of course be extremely provocative, a challenge to the rule of law and cause conflict between external agencies and the Iraqi security forces. Exactly the kind of scenario which the MEK would love to create so the MEK leader continues with impunity to occupy the camp and hold hostages there.

The MEK effort is to create conflict and prevent change to the status quo. If anyone is in any doubt of this they must be made aware that at the same time this so-called offer is on the table, Rajavi’s special forces have manufactured a specialised missile launcher with which they fire stones at the families on the periphery of the camp .

Iranian.com

October 18, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MKO Camp inhabitants seek refugee status from Europe

Chief of Iraqi foreign policy commission Sheikh Humam Hammudi in a meeting on Monday with the Secretariat of Habilian institute said inhabitants of Ashraf camp sought refugee status from Europe and Australia.

He told Mohammad Javad Hasheminejad (Head of Habilian Association in Iran) that inhabitants of the camp have embarked on high profile interaction with European and Australian ambassadors to Baghdad seeking refugee status from them.

Hammudi reiterated that Iraqi state and nation unanimously want to expel MKO members from Iraq or at least to remove them from Iran-Iraq border line.

He said they also are getting in touch with some prominent clan leaders of Iraq to stay more in Iraq.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has offered the Ashraf camp inhabitants to come home without any conditions.

Habilian institute is a Tehran-based Non-Government Organization offering safe living conditions for members of Mujahedeen Khalq Organization who opted to come home.

Iran granted amnesty for MKO members except for those who committed terror operations and have criminal charges in the court of justice.
IRNA, October 17 2011
http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30616702&SRCH=1

October 18, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Dissolving camp Ashraf will save 3400 terror victims

Any action to dissolve Camp Ashraf will save 3,400 terror victims, Advocacy Group for Victims of Terrorism in the Middle East said on Sunday.

Advocacy Group: Dissolving camp Ashraf will save 3400 terror victims

In a letter to the EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, the advocacy group said that ‘the international community has a duty to help members of terrorist organizations around the world including members of Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO) to be liberated and find their human dignity.’

‘The appointment of Ambassador De Ruyt and continued violation of human rights in Camp Ashraf is the reason for sending the letter,’ it said.

The letter underlined that although since 2003 and subsequent MKO disarmament, MKO tries to show its peaceful face defying the fact that it has assassinated 12,000 Iranian citizens, 7 US citizens and thousands of Iraqi citizens over past three decades.

Referring to the continuation of military structure of Camp Ashraf and military discipline there, in addition to trainings given to MKO members for conducting terrorist operations similar to those carried out by MKO members in June 2003 self-immolation acts in various European countries, this NGO letter to Ashton emphasized that MKO leaders are still willing to provoke terrorist operations.

‘Brain washing, forced separation of female and males including forcing divorce upon married couples, forcing members to cut their relations with family and relatives and the whole society and in the meantime, imposing the organization rough rules to all members are just part of the inhumane actions done in Camp Ashraf against international rules and regulations,’ the letter expressed.

It also underlined that reports published by independent institutions such as Nuclear watchdog in 2005, RAND report in 2009, the report released by German Federal Government security apparatus in 2007 and recent US Secretary of State and the separated MKO members reports and interviews proves anti-humane and racial structure of the Camp Ashraf.

MKO today is misusing human rights and the related international organizations to prevent the dissolution of this terrorist organization by the complete transfer of Camp Ashraf somewhere out of Iraq, possibly a European country, the Advocacy Group of Victims of Terrorism in the Middle East stated in its open letter.

‘The complete move of the Camp Ashraf contradicts the civil liberties of Camp residents; If members of MKO have the right to decide about their future life, they will choose freedom and become separated from this terrorist organization.’

Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs recently appointed De Ruyt to advise the European Union’s response to Camp Ashraf.

Ambassador De Ruyt has served as Belgium’s Permanent Representative to the European Union.

In April, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Baghdad is determined to shut down Camp Ashraf, where members of the terrorist Mujahidin Khalq Organization (MKO) live and disband the group.

Members of the MKO fled to Iraq in 1986, where they enjoyed the support of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and set up Camp Ashraf near the Iranian border in Diyala.

The group has carried out numerous acts of terror and violence against Iranian civilians and government officials.

The terror organization is also known to have cooperated with Saddam in suppressing the 1991 uprisings in southern Iraq and the massacre of Iraqi Kurds in the north.

Tehran has repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to expel the group, but the US has been blocking the expulsion of MKO by pressuring the Iraqi government.

October 17, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Concerns over the Plight of Camp Ashraf

“A fictional world of female worker bees”, this is how Elizabeth Rubin, a contributor to New York Times, describes camp Ashraf, the Mujahedin Khalq (MKO) base in Iraq.[1] Concerns over the Plight of Camp Ashraf

In recent weeks this “fictional world” has been in the Western media’s limelight as the fate of about three thousand (mostly Iranian) residents of the camp has been discussed. The fate of these members has been a controversial issue since 2003 when the Iraqi former dictator Saddam Hussein fell and the camp was left in the hands of Americans, who protected them. The camp is full of former Saddam Hussein mercenaries whose leaders have strategically instructed them to interact with US forces in a peaceful manner. But even with apparently docile conduct, Iraq still doesn’t want them. And the fact that most are Iranians, doesn’t necessarily make them a welcome sight in Iran because ultimately, the public sees them as traitors, despite the fact that the Iranian Government has a special program to help ex-cult members reintegrate. But the group has caught the ear of the international community.

In the first place, one should know what kind of a place Camp Ashraf is. The most recent description about the camp was presented by Elizabeth Rubin in August 2011. She also authored an extended article on the group in 2003 after she visited camp Ashraf, Iraq. In the former article, she notes, “Everywhere I saw women dressed exactly alike, in Khaki uniforms and mud-colored head scarves, driving back and forth in white pickup trucks, starting ahead in a daze as if they were working at a factory in Maoist China. I met dozens of young women buried in the mouths of tanks, busily tinkering with the engines. One by one, the girls bounded up to me and my two minders to recite their transformations from human beings to acolytes of Ms. Rajavi.”[2]

Without including Iran’s input, how can the international community help resolve the complicated issue which will, in due course, either provide a path of freedom or otherwise for the members in the camp? Rajavi’s cult of personality has maintained its brainwashed army there in isolation for decades. For starters, the European Union has named a senior Belgian diplomat to work with the United Nations, Iraq and others to help resolve the plight of more than three thousand opponents of the Iranian government living at a Camp in Iraq, according to Reuters. [3] Jean De Ruyt, a former Belgian ambassador to the EU, will act as an advisor to EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton on Camp Ashraf, reported Reuters. [4]

The real challenge for international officials is not about the fate of these members, but how to deal with the cult leaders, Maryam and Massoud Rajavi. This challenge will continue until the day the Rajavi’s allow cult members choose their own futures, and unfortunately that day might never occur. But last week, Barbara Slavin of IPS reported that Vincent Cochetel, a Washington representative for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that an agreement was reached about 10 days ago through the MKO’s legal counsel in London. [5] "They have agreed to individual screening” he told IPS. “We have offered an alternative location near Ashraf.”[6]

The news sounds good because MKO leaders have so far refused a similar suggestion offered by a US Ambassador, Lawrence Butler.[7] Slavin reports that “in the past, the MEK leadership has refused to allow most residents of Camp Ashraf to apply for refugee status or to speak with UNHCR representatives without MEK officials present.” [8]

The real problem here is not the future of the MKO, who are beefing up their media campaign to legitimize themselves by burying their terrorist background, but the future of the individual residents. The group of MKO members, are in fact being held hostage at Camp Ashraf by the cult leaders, and certainly they deserve pity. The international community should be concerned about their fate because according to a 2007 RAND Corporation study on the MKO, up to 70 percent of the group’s members are held in the Camp against their wills.[9] What the international community needs to do is decide the fate of the criminal cult leaders, because once members’ testimony is revealed, it will further add to the enormous amount of evidence that the Rajavi’s are power hungry monsters with absolutely no moral backbones.

The role and input of the Iraqi government is crucial, because Camp Ashraf as a part of Iraqi territory has been in existence and occupied by the MKO for over thirty years. During the past month, Iraqi authorities have taken strong stances against the MKO’s presence in Iraq. In his meeting with Ms. Catherine Ashton, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi Foreign Minister expressed that his government is committed to close Camp Ashraf by the end of this year. [10]

Most Iraqi authorities and civilians oppose the presence of foreign forces in their country. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, now the leader of Iraqi Shiite coalition, announced that a judicial ruling has been issued for a number of members of the cult. He says that lawsuits have been filed against a number of the members of the terrorist MKO group and rulings have been issued. He notes that, ”it has been emphasized that their presence in Iraq is illegal.”[11]

Iraq is no more an appropriate place for the MKO, and perhaps that’s why the Rajavis are pressing for residents to apply for refugee status, which—as part of the application process—requires them to be interviewed individually. The leaders’ decision to allow un-chaperoned interviews however is bizarre given their history as a cult. The decision indicates a strong change in an undercurrent of member oppression. Barbara Slavin has documented that the “[MKO] leaders insist that they have renounced terrorism and now advocate a democratic government for Iran. But their literature continues to treat their leader, Maryam Rajavi, who lives outside Paris, as the object of a personality cult."She continues that “the whereabouts of Mrs. Rajavi’s husband, Massoud, who led the group into exile, is unknown.”[12]

If members of the MKO are granted refugee status, which country would accept them? “The challenge for us is to find countries to receive them,” Cochetel told IPS. “The likelihood that they can remain in Iraq is very limited.”[13]The MKO is still on the US State Department’s list of designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTO), so American law forbids the group’s presence. European countries are probably not so eager to receive a group of military trained cult members who may still be dedicated to their leaders.

A time will come when the fate of the members of the MKO is decided. What will be the result of those long years of isolation, indoctrination and brainwashing? What will happen to the existence of the MKO?

By Mazda Parsi

References:
[1] Rubin, Elizabeth, An Iranian cult and its American Friends, New York
Times Magazine, Augst13,2011
[2]ibid
[3]Reuters, EU names advisor to help resolve Camp Ashraf issue, September
26, 2011
[4]ibid
[5] Slavin, Barbara, Iranians in Iraqi camp seek refugee status, IPS
September29,2011
[6]ibid
[7]Arango, Tim, Iranian Exile Group Poses Vexing Issue for U.S. in Iraq, New
York Times, July22, 2011
[8]Slavin, Barbara, Iranians in Iraqi Camp Seek Refugee Status, IPS,
September29,2011
[9] Goulka, Jeremiah, Lydia Hansell, Elizabeth Wilke, and Judith Larson.
"Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum." *RAND National Defence
Research Institute* (2009): Web. 3 Nov 2010.
[10]Iraq Foreign Ministry, Iraq Objects to EU in the issue of Camp Ashraf
September22, 2011 (translated by Iran-Interlink)
[11] Mehr News Agency, Iraq- US. Security agreement will not be extended:
ex-PM September25, 2011
[12] Slavin, Barbara, Iranians in Iraqi Camp Seek Refugee Status, IPS,
September29, 2011
[13]ibid

October 11, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MEK;Iranian dissidents in Iraq seek refugee status in ‘positive step’

More than 3,000 Iranian dissidents who’d been threatened with expulsion from Iraq on Dec. 31 have applied to the United Nations for refugee status, a move that could help clear up one of Rand study had concluded that most of the Camp Ashraf residents “were being held against their will” Iraq’s thorniest international problems from the era of dictator Saddam Hussein, U.N. and western diplomats said Sunday.

The U.N. High Commission for Refugees said it would review the 3,200 individual applications received in the last month from Iranian residents of Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad, which has been run by the paramilitary People’s Mujahidin of Iran.

“It’s a very positive step forward,” said a western diplomat, who couldn’t be named as he wasn’t authorized to speak on the record.

Although UNHCR won’t require the dissidents to disassociate from the group, it said in a recent statement that refugee status could be granted only to individuals and not to the group as a whole. In effect, the MEK, as its known by its Farsi language initials, appears to be on the verge of accepting the demand by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey in July to disband as a military formation.

The U.N. refugee agency has appealed to the Iraqi government to delay closure of Camp Ashraf by as much as six months, according to the Western diplomat. The U.S. Embassy hasn’t yet endorsed the request and is waiting for the refugee agency to present its plan for reviewing applications, an official said Sunday. Iraqi government spokesmen had no immediate comment.

The MEK had fought as a mechanized division in alliance with Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 war with Iran. But it was left stranded by the U.S. invasion in 2003 that toppled the dictator. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has called MEK a terrorist group and demanded that Ashraf be dismantled and its members deported by the end of the year. Iraqi troops drove the point home in April in a military operation that cut the size of the camp by one-third and left at least 35 dead.

Until recently, the MEK had insisted on group refugee status, but it shifted its stance in late August following talks between Struan Stevenson, a Scottish conservative in the European parliament, and UNHCR High Commissioner Antonio Guterres in Geneva.

Stevenson said he hoped that individual requests for refugee status would lead to resettlement of Ashraf residents in the European Union and in third countries. “They have long since given up any pretense of being a military force and they have long abandoned any idea of remaining together,” he told McClatchy by email.

The U.S. government has characterized MEK as a cult and designated it a terrorist group in 1997, holding it responsible for the assassinations of three U.S. Army officers and three civilian contractors prior to the Iranian revolution. With funding from the Iranian diaspora, the MEK has mounted a major campaign in the U.S. and Europe and enlisted many top national security figures from mostly from Republican administrations as well as a number of prominent Democratic politicians to get its terrorist designation lifted.

Shahin Gobadi, the Paris-based MEK spokesman, told McClatchy that all residents of Ashraf, including the leadership, had applied for refugee status, with the exception those in hospital or holding travel documents from a third country.

Meanwhile, Iran has renewed its offer to repatriate the residents of Ashraf or provide documents so they can resettle in third countries.

“We are sure that 65 to 70 percent of the people who are living in Ashraf camp are captive of the other members,” Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hasan Daniaei-Far, told McClatchy in a recent interview. “Let them be free, let them choose their own destiny.”

“In case he or she wishes to go back to Iran … we will provide the necessary documents. Even if they wish to go to a third country, we will provide them the necessary documents,” he said. He said hundreds who had already returned to Iran “are conducting a normal life.”

The ambassador also reiterated that Iran had issued a mass pardon to the MEK members except for about 100 who have criminal charges pending against them.

Gobadi ridiculed the offer and called the assertion that MEK members were being held against their will “a big lie.”
“The claim that the clerical regime would provide documents to the individuals who wish to go to other countries is not a serious point worthy of a response,” he said.
He called the “claim” of a mass pardon “more of a joke” and said returning to Iran to live a normal life “means completely giving up the struggle, succumbing to the mullahs and absolute cooperation with the regime’s intelligence and suppressive organs.” He called it a “red line that Ashraf residents have rejected repeatedly.”

James Dobbins, a respected American diplomat now affiliated with the Rand Corp., a Pentagon-funded think tank, disputed the MEK spokesman. He said a recent Rand study had concluded that most of the Camp Ashraf residents “were being held against their will” and said there was no information that those who’d returned to Iran had been harassed by the authorities. “Are they enjoying a normal life? There’s no information available to the contrary,” he said.

By Roy Gutman

October 3, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

A Reporter Shields His Identity and MEK’s Viewpoint Goes Missing

Reporting on the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran and their complicated plight at Camp Ashraf in Iraq has proved challenging for The New York Times. So when reporter Tim Arango had the opportunity to visit the camp with Ambassador Lawrence E. Butler, an American diplomat negotiating with the group, he took it.

Because the camp has been off-limits to journalists, Mr. Arango “embedded” with Mr. Butler’s contingent and did not identify himself to the group. The result of going incognito was, unfortunately, more problems and more complications.

A bit of background is helpful. The group of 3,000 at Camp Ashraf had once been, as Mr. Arango’s story reported, “a powerful paramilitary organization bent on overthrowing the government in Iran. In the 1970s, the group killed Americans in Tehran, and after being given refuge by Saddam Hussein its members were suspected of serving as a mercenary unit that took part in his violent suppression of the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shiites in the south.”

With such a history, the group has been precariously housed at Camp Ashraf, inside a hostile Iraq and not far from the border of a hostile Iran. With the American military’s departure from Iraq coming soon, Mr. Arango noted, “the situation at Camp Ashraf is among the most vexing of the unfinished chapters of the American war here.”

It has fallen to Ambassador Butler to negotiate with the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (often referred to by the acronym MEK) to move them out of the camp – first to another camp farther from the Iranian border and ultimately to other countries for resettlement.

In his story, published July 22, Mr. Arango described an encounter between the ambassador and camp residents during one of the ambassador’s sessions there. The story provided background information and recorded Mr. Butler’s comments to the group and also some additional comments from him in interviews away from the negotiating session.

The story makes apparent that Mr. Butler is pretty frustrated with the MEK, takes a dim view of the group’s hiring of prominent Americans – including retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark – to speak on their behalf and feels strongly about the group’s activities in the 1970s when, according to the State Department, it killed U.S. personnel in Tehran and supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy there in 1979.

“These people have blood on their hands,” the ambassador is quoted as telling Mr. Arango during the negotiating session.

What’s unusual is that the story is so heavily weighted with the ambassador’s words and point of view. The only direct quote from someone with the MEK is five words from an unidentified person claiming General Clark and other American speakers were not “doing it for the money.”

After the story’s publication, I received a complaint from an MEK representative, detailing numerous points and capturing the essential problem of the story: that it read like a soliloquy by the ambassador.

“During that two-and-a-half hour negotiation session, was Mr. Butler talking to a wall?” wrote Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman for the group. “I mean throughout a two-and-a-half hour negotiation session, there was not any response by Ashraf residents to Mr. Butler’s amazing lies and bewildering insistence to relocate Ashraf residents in Iraq (that is tantamount to signing their death warrant), worthy of mention in a 1,200-word article? Could this be construed as providing a complete, fair and impartial picture of negotiations?”

As I sought to understand why the piece was so one-sided, I learned that the problem traced back to Mr. Arango’s decision to travel unidentified with the ambassador.

When he submitted his story draft to the foreign desk, he informed the foreign editor, Susan Chira, that he had not identified himself as a Times reporter because of restrictions on journalists’ access to Camp Ashraf, according to Ms. Chira, who has since been named assistant managing editor for news. Mr. Arango suggested to her that, as a result, he should not include any comments made by camp residents. MEK members’ comments were unpublishable, Ms. Chira told me, “since they were not knowingly in the presence of a reporter.”

She suggested, though, that he should solicit comment from the MEK after the fact. So Mr. Arango submitted questions by email, which elicited a lengthy response from the MEK.

The problem was not cured, however, because so little of the MEK response was incorporated in the story. One simply does not learn from this story why the group seems so intransigent about its unwillingness to relocate, disband or accept an end to American protection. The MEK’s point of view on this was an essential, but missing, element in a story that so thoroughly reported on the ambassador’s perspective.

(Certainly, it is true that the MEK remains a very controversial group, within the U.S. as well as Iraq and Iran. The group is still listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S., although a federal court has ordered the State Department to review the classification. In addition, the veracity of statements from the group cannot be relied upon in some instances – for example, the MEK denied it paid General Clark and yet he acknowledged to The Times that he had been paid by the group. These issues, however, don’t remove The Times’s obligations to get the MEK’s side.)

In sum, two problems stand out. Because the MEK’s comments at the meeting could not be included, The Times sought to obtain the group’s perspective after the fact and then did not do a thorough job of incorporating them. Second, there is the matter of Mr. Arango’s status as an unidentified member of Mr. Butler’s negotiating party.

Mr. Arango, in an email, provided more background on this aspect: “I was invited by Ambassador Butler to accompany him to the camp for one of his sessions, to embed with him like we do with the military (this mission was State Department, but Amb. Butler’s regular job here is with U.S. military and we were accompanied by U.S. military). The idea was I would sit in the back and observe – not be introduced as a reporter, but not be introduced as something I wasn’t (like a State Dept. employee, as the MEK claims).”

Indeed, among the claims in Mr. Gobadi’s complaint was that a State Department official at the negotiating session did identify Mr. Arango as a State Department representative. However, Mr. Arango said he did not hear this and the State Department told my assistant, Joseph Burgess, that this did not take place.

Ms. Chira, in an e-mail message, defended Mr. Arango’s decision to go unidentified. “While it is of course unusual for a reporter not to identify himself, I thought it defensible in very restricted and rare circumstances. We do enter countries without visas or publicly proclaiming ourselves as journalists when we believe there is something newsworthy and when other attempts to gain access have failed – the most recent example was Anthony Shadid’s trip to Syria,” she wrote. “We do attempt to gain access to places that seek to keep reporters out. Camp Ashraf has been a restricted area, despite requests to visit it. It is a point of great tension between the Iraqi and American governments, and there are clearly lives at risk. So it seemed to meet the newsworthy bar.”

I think Ms. Chira makes a reasonable case for Mr. Arango’s decision to accompany the ambassador without identifying himself. However, given that the resulting story detailed the pointed perspective of Mr. Butler, it was incumbent on The Times to present a much more thorough version of the MEK’s perspective. It could be argued that this would have been very hard to do in a story constructed like this one – one in which the reader is treated to numerous quotes captured during a live negotiating session.

With the American presence in Iraq possibly close to ending, it would be ideal if The Times made another attempt soon to report on Camp Ashraf, this time taking pains to detail the MEK’s point of view.

By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE

The article by Mr. Arango that prompted a response from the MEK.

October 2, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MEK in Iraqi Camp to Seek Refugee Status

In a development that could help resolve an eight-year-old diplomatic and humanitarian standoff, the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition group that has several thousand adherents at a military camp in Iraq, has agreed to allow residents to apply for refugee status and be interviewed individually by U.N. officials.

Vincent Cochetel, Washington representative for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), told IPS Wednesday that an agreement was reached about 10 days ago through the MEK’s legal counsel in London.
"They have agreed to individual screening," he said. "We have offered an alternative location near Ashraf," the camp north of Baghdad where the MEK members reside.

The decision by the MEK could help resolve a crisis that has weighed heavily on the United States as it prepares to withdraw most of its remaining troops from Iraq. Iraqi officials are considering allowing a few thousand U.S. troops to stay in the country but only to provide training and other military assistance.

Mark Toner, deputy State Department spokesman, told IPS, "We fully support the international community’s efforts to resolve the situation at Ashraf."

There are about 3,300 Iranians left in the camp.

In the past, the MEK leadership has refused to allow most residents of Camp Ashraf to apply for refugee status or to speak with UNHCR representatives without MEK officials present.

Former members of the group, who contend that the MEK is a cult that fosters blind obedience to its leaders, say that many Ashraf inhabitants have been held against their will and would eagerly leave the camp if they could. There have been fears that the leaders would order members to commit suicide en masse rather than let them go.

The agreement with UNHCR is a necessary first step to close the camp – something the Iraqi government has long sought – but does not resolve the problem of where the residents find refuge.

"The challenge for us is to find countries to receive them," Cochetel said. "The likelihood that they can remain in Iraq is very limited."

The current Iraqi government, dominated by Shiites and Kurds, has tolerated the MEK camp only under U.S. and international pressure. The Iraqi leadership blames the MEK for allying with Saddam Hussein and participating in brutal crackdowns against Iraqi Kurds and Shiites following the 1991 Gulf War.

The George W. Bush administration initially promised to declare residents of Ashraf enemy combatants following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam’s regime. Instead, however, U.S. forces put the camp under their protection. Since 2008, when Iraq regained sovereignty over the camp, Iraqi troops have entered Ashraf several times in a futile effort to convince residents to leave. A few dozen people have been killed in skirmishes between the Iraqis and the Iranians.

Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council, told IPS the agreement with UNHCR "could potentially be a breakthrough", but that it remained unclear whether the MEK leadership would allow everyone in the camp to be interviewed.

"Hopefully, if given enough protection, camp residents will be able to be truthful about conditions in Ashraf and where they want to go," Parsi said.

Several hundred camp residents have managed to return to Iran since 2003 through the auspices of the International Red Cross. Many of those who remain would fear to go to Iran [..].
Originally a Marxist-Islamist group that helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, the MEK lost a power struggle with more Islamic-oriented factions following the 1979 revolution. The group has very little support within Iran because of its siding with Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. During the following decade, while Saddam remained in power, the MEK carried out assassinations of prominent officials and other attacks within Iran.

The U.S. State Department put the MEK on its list of foreign terrorist organisations in 1997 because of the group’s bloody record, which includes the assassination of six U.S. citizens in Iran during the 1970s.

MEK leaders insist that they have renounced terrorism and now advocate a democratic government for Iran. But their literature continues to treat their leader, Mariam Rajavi, who lives outside Paris, as the object of a personality cult. The whereabouts of Mrs. Rajavi’s husband, Massoud, who led the group into exile, are unknown.

In recent months, wealthy supporters of the MEK have waged an aggressive lobbying campaign to be removed from the U.S. terrorist list, paying tens of thousands of dollars apiece to prominent former U.S. officials to speak on the group’s behalf.

One argument advanced by MEK adherents has been that removal from the list would allow Ashraf residents to come to the United States. However, a State Department official told IPS last month that U.S. law forbids immigration to anyone with ties to a foreign terrorist organisation. He said this includes "those who provided material support to, or received military-type training from the group, as many MEK members have".

Asked if UNHCR was looking to Europe – where many Ashraf residents have relatives – to give refuge to camp residents, Cochetel said, "I can’t say at this point that their response has been overwhelming."

IPS – By Barbara Slavin

September 29, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Trapped in Camp Ashraf- Warning and an appeal

Trapped in Camp Ashraf- Warning and an appeal to the int’l community

We are approaching the end of year 2011; the deadline announced by the Iraqi government to evacuate Camp Ashraf. Over the past few months the USG’s diplomatic representative in Iraq Mr. Lawrence Butler has met seven times with the leaders of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organisation in the garrison to talk about the future of the group. His efforts have failed due to the stubborn resistance and rejection on the part of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Some European countries have also have attempted to start a dialogue with the leaders of the group to convince them to allow the people inside to be sent individually to other countries under the supervision of the United Nations. But their efforts have also faced absolute intransigence on the part of the leaders of the group.

In addition, we have witnessed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealing to the international community to help the Iraqi government in this case. But no meaningful action has been offered.

The Government of the United States of America also in a clear and transparent way has warned the leaders in the camp that if they do not respond positively to the suggestions put forward, then the USG will no longer be able to act as a negotiator and that the consequences of such action would be entirely attributable to the leaders of the Mojahedin-e Khalq .

The people inside the camp are described as “non status” and they are not accepted as refugees or even asylum seekers. The Iraqi government is adamant it will carry out the decision to close the camp – which is one of the last remains of the Saddam regime – and on the other hand the leaders of the Mojahedin inside the camp insist on keeping the status quo without any logical, legitimate, legal or other reasons.

And in this situation, as advocates of human rights and as ex-members of this organisation, we are deeply concerned about how this camp will be dismantled and especially about the misuse of the people inside the camp by the leaders of the group.

According to witnesses inside camp Ashraf it is said that Massoud and Maryam Rajavi have ordered all the leaders of the MEK to arrange meetings for everybody and give the order to them that “We will go along with the American army to the point that there is no physical interaction but when it comes to the Iraqi government we will become physical and we will make them pay the highest price.”

Considering what the Rajavis have said, although we believe that the imposition of Iraqi sovereignty over this illegally occupied territory at this time is an indisputable right of the government of Iraq, we urge the government and the committee in charge of dismantlement of the camp to try, as they have done over the last past 8 years, to only use non-violent solutions to solve this problem.

Although we know that the existence of this camp in this country of Iraq has no logical or legal basis but we are concerned that the heads of the MEK cult will use the 3400+ people stranded there as human shields to pursue their illogical and illegal demands.

We are deeply concerned that, according to much evidence and many documents, not least the report by the RAND Institute, about 70% of the people inside the camp are kept there against their will, and if we add to this their loss of hope due to the grim and uncertain future they face, the lack of access to media and information and the resulting ignorance this brings, and the existence of never ending barriers and security provisions across the camp, if we add all these then the reasons behind the existence of such an isolated island can become clear.

We are deeply concerned that in a situation where the dismantlement of the camp has begun, the leader of the group would force the low level members and the ordinary people trapped inside to fight the security and law enforcement agencies of Iraq.

On top of our concern over the human rights as an indisputable right for every individual inside the camp we remind you that many of the signatories of this letter have a family member, father, mother, spouse, sibling or friend inside the camp as a hostage. Therefore the primary aim of the MEK in keeping the members trapped inside is nothing except using them as a tool and human shield to save the neck of the leader Massoud Rajavi who remains in Iraq.

We warn that considering that the leaders of the group have already rejected the intervention of the Americans and insist on the relocation of the whole organisation as a group to another country, while it is clear that according to international law, asylum can only be given to individuals, the leaders are placing this kind of suggestion on the table only to further reject any non-violent solution and therefore exploit the members and endanger their lives.

We must warn the international community and humanitarian organisations across the globe, time is running out. And we are witnessing that the US proposal is the only feasible and realistic solution during the remaining time. Therefore while we condemn the leaders of the group for their lack of cooperation with the American and Iraqi officials, we warn that the responsibility for any resistance to the decision of the Iraqi government and endangering the lives of the people is primarily on the shoulders of Massoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi and the other high ranking leaders of the group.

We also believe that dialogue can be the solution to dismantle camp Ashraf and there should be no need for violence. We ask the leaders of the group to stop their ridiculous behaviour and obduracy and return to the dialogue and negotiation table

The government of Iraq has repeatedly announced that, respecting international humanitarian laws, these people will not be deported to countries where they may face problems and it has shown its commitment to this day. Accommodating and facilitating the voluntary exit from the camp of nearly 100 individuals who have given themselves up to the Iraqi forces from 2009 to the present is clear evidence of this commitment.

Therefore we ask the international community and humanitarian organisations and all the people who are worried about the future of these people to use whatever communication and/or other tools at their disposal to convince the leaders of the group that after the fall of Saddam Hussein Iraq is no longer a place for them to stay and it is their responsibility to seek assistance from international bodies such as the ICRC and UNHCR to get themselves out of there.

We the signatories of this letter would like to bring this issue to the attention of the following:

– The office of the Prime Minister of Iraq (Committee in charge of dismantlement of Camp Ashraf, Baghdad)
– Lady Catherine Ashton and relevant MEPs in European Parliament
– US State Department
– Human Rights Watch, New York
– Amnesty International, London
– United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Ms Navi Pilay, Geneva

The signatories:
Ariaee Milad (Germany)
Abbassloo Mohsen (Austria)
Abdollahi N (Netherlands)
Ahmadi Ali (Sweden)
Alishahi Behzad (Netherlands)
Behboodi Nasrin (Netherlands)
Barati Farideh (Netherlands)
Barati Mahboobeh (Netherlands)
Ebrahimi Jafar (France)
Fatahian Ghafoor (France)
Ghashghavi Ali (Germany)
Ghiabi Fatemeh (Germany)
Gholami Karim (Germany)
Haghi Karim (Netherlands)
Haji Mahrokh (Canada)
Hoseinin Kazem (Netherlands)
Jabani Massoud (Netherlands)
Jahani Ali (Germany)
Kalani Visha (France)
Karami Mohammad (France)
Kazemi Fereshteh (Netherlands)
Khodabandeh Massoud (United Kingdom)
Khoshal Mehdi (Germany)
Kohzadi Homayoon (France)
Kord Rostami Amirhossain (Canada)
Maleki Batool (Switzerland)
Mirasgari Alireza (Germay)
Mirzaee Zahra (Netherlands)
Mohammadi Mona (Denmark)
Mohammadi Mostafa (Canada)
Mohammadi Zahra (Netherlands)
Mohammadi Mahboobeh (Canada)
Movasaghi Amir (Germany)
Naderi Nader (France)
Naghashzadeh Alireza (Austria)
Nasrollahi Alireza (France)
Naseri Saeed (France)
Nazari Mansoor (France)
Noroozi Elham (Canada)
Noroozi Simin (Canada)
Noroozi Soheila (Canada)
Noroozi soosan (Canada)
Piransar Hassan (France)
Rastgoo Ali Akbar (Germany)
Razaghi Mohammad (France)
Rezvani Naser (Sweden)
Roodgar Khodabakhsh (Canada)
Roohi Majid (Denmark)
Sadeghi nejad Abbass (Germany)
Sagharchi Merhdad (Germany)
Sajoodi Mehdi (Germany)
Sarafpoor Hamed (France)
Sepahi Mahmood (France)
Sepher Minoo (Netherlands)
Shahrokhi Robabeh (Sweden)
Shams Hayeri Hadi (Netherlands)
Singleton Anne (United Kingdom)
Sobhani Mohammad Hussein (Germany)
Soltani Batool (Germany)
Termado Edward (Germany)
Thomasini Nelly (Netherlands)
Yousefi Mitra (Sweden)

September 19, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

How to Help the People of Camp Ashraf

Removing group from terrorist list would do nothing to help reportedly abused rank and file.

[Opinion] The Obama administration will decide this month whether to remove the Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MEK; also known as MKO and PMOI) from the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). Proponents of the group, including former U.S. officials who have recently been paid large sums by the MEK, claim that delisting is needed to save 3,400 MEK members stuck in Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad, where the military wing of the organization has been based since 1986 — though they do not make clear how delisting is essential to achieving that goal.

Lost in the discussion is recognition of the dire human rights situation of Camp Ashraf residents. According to a RAND Corporation report, up to 70 percent of Ashraf residents may be there against their will. Human Rights Watch, independent Iran experts, and the U.S. government have all documented the cult-like and abusive practices carried out by the MEK against its own members. And while for the past three decades, governments hostile toward Iran’s revolutionary government have used the group as a political pawn against the Islamic Republic, the international community has turned a blind eye to the plight of those isolated inside the camp.

The international community should urgently address the situation of these rank-and-file MEK members. There are five steps the United States, the international community, and the MEK itself can take to resolve the situation at Camp Ashraf. These steps should precede any decision to delist the group from the FTO roster.

First, Camp Ashraf should be dismantled under the supervision of the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and the U.S. military. Clashes similar to those that took place earlier this year between Iraqi forces and camp residents must be prevented, and the rights of MEK members should be upheld.

Second, MEK leaders should be distinguished from rank-and-file members and should not be granted immunity from prosecution for any possible involvement in terror attacks or human rights abuses. There are concerns that MEK leaders are using the current negotiations with the Obama administration to ensure their own security while exploiting their members as bargaining chips. The RAND corporation reports that the MEK has frequently used the threat of mass suicide as a negotiating tactic. In RAND’s description, this is evidence of the group’s "cultic characteristics."

Third, law enforcement and psychological support services should be provided to assist camp residents who wish to leave the organization. This step will be difficult since the MEK — like most cults — has made its members emotionally, psychologically, and financially dependent on the organization and fearful of retribution if they leave.

Fourth, residents of Ashraf should be offered resettlement in third countries and reunification with their families if they meet the requirement of the United Nations to renounce violence. According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the majority of Camp Ashraf residents have not yet explicitly renounced violence, which would make them eligible for refugee status. Most importantly, there should be no forcible return to Iran .

Fifth and finally, the MEK as a whole — not just its political wing, the National Council for Iranian Resistance (NCRI) — must renounce violence in an official proclamation, published both in English and Persian, and completely disarm before being considered for FTO delisting. American forces have never searched the camp, nor have they searched vehicles moving in and out it. Full access to the camp must be given to verify the MEK’s disarmament.

The rights of MEK members to express their opinions, to associate, and to peacefully assemble are guaranteed by international law and should be recognized. But those rights must be exercised in accordance with democratic principles and others’ human rights, and in the absence of violence or its threat.

The current debate over delisting seems premature to most experts, but it presents an important opportunity to restore the rights of hundreds of individuals trapped at Camp Ashraf. Removing the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list would do nothing to end the human rights violations faced by MEK members. Only by dismantling the camp, disarming the group, separating the leadership from the rank and file, and providing low-level members rehabilitation support can the human rights situation be resolved. If these urgent steps are not immediately implemented, residents of Camp Ashraf are in grave danger of falling victims to a humanitarian catastrophe.

Dokhi Fassihian is a senior advisor to United4Iran. Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC); for more, see the NIAC blog.

by DOKHI FASSIHIAN and TRITA PARSI in Washington, D.C.

August 16, 2011 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts