UK

British Government fights to keep ban on main Iranian opposition group (MKO)

The government is to appeal today against a court ruling, won by 35 MPs and peers, that it should remove the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), the main Iranian opposition organisation, from the list of banned terrorist organisations.

The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) ruled last November that the government’s decision to keep the PMOI on the list was "perverse", flawed and must be set aside.

The cross-party parliamentarians backing the delisting of the PMOI – an organisation dedicated to overthrowing Iran’s fundamentalist regime by democratic means – include a former law lord, Lord Slynn, two former solicitors general and a former home secretary, Lord Waddington.

The POAC, a body set up by the government to hear appeals from organisations on the UK blacklist, ruled that the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, acted illegally in refusing to take the PMOI off the list drawn up under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The commission, chaired by former high court judge Sir Harry Ognall and cleared to see secret material, said: "We recognise that a finding of perversity is uncommon." It added: "We believe, however, that this commission is in the (perhaps unusual) position of having before it all of the material that is relevant to this decision."

Three senior judges headed by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, will hear the home secretary’s appeal. The POAC ruled that in deciding to maintain the ban the Home Office had misunderstood the law and ignored facts. The commission concluded that action by the PMOI against Iranian targets had ended in 2001, that the organisation maintained no military structure, that it had disarmed in 2003, and that it had not attempted to re-arm.

However, the government argues that it has only temporarily ceased terrorism for "pragmatic reasons". A Home Office spokesman said: "The PMOI was engaged in terrorism until 2001, and until 2003 kept an extensive arsenal at its base in Ashraf, Iraq. It is now seeking to establish itself as a non-violent democratic movement.

"However, our assessment is that the PMOI may not have genuinely renounced terrorism and that there may have been only a temporary cessation of terrorist acts for pragmatic reasons. We believe there is a risk of the PMOI returning to terrorism in the future that warrants its continuing proscription in this country."

The organisation, which campaigns for the replacement of the Iranian regime by a secular democracy, drew the world’s attention to Iran’s nuclear programme in 2002. Jack Straw stated in 2006 that he had put the PMOI on the terror list at the behest of the Iranian government.

The POAC’s ruling followed a decision in December 2006 by the European Court of First Instance that the PMOI should come off the EU terror blacklist. Despite that ruling, it remains on the EU list.

Masoud Zabeti, a solicitor at Mishcon de Reya and chairman of the Committee of Anglo-Iranian Lawyers, said: "The PMOI now has two legal authorities finding in its favour, but the group still remains on both the UK and EU lists.

"If terrorism legislation is to be respected and not brought into question, it is critical that the government honours the procedures that parliament has put into place to deal with such matters."

Clare Dyer, legal editor The Guardian, Monday February 18 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/18/iran.uksecurity

February 24, 2008 0 comment

GOVERNMENT- IRANIAN GROUP SHOULD STAY BANNED

Is UK inviting Massoud Rajavi to London today?

An appeal panel’s decision to remove the main Iranian opposition movement from the UK’s list of banned terrorist organisations was challenged by the Government in the Court of Appeal today.

Lawyers for Home Secretary Jacqui Smith argued that the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) had not given "a clear and unequivocal denunciation of terrorism".

Last November, a cross-party group of 35 MPs and peers won a ruling from the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) that the PMOI should be delisted and that the Government’s decision to keep it on the proscribed list was "perverse".

But Home Office counsel Jonathan Swift told the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, today that the Government feared the PMOI’s professed cessation of terrorist activities was temporary and "for pragmatic reasons".

Lord Phillips, sitting with Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden, heard that the pro-democracy PMOI was formed 40 years ago with the aim of replacing the then-government of the Shah of Iran. During the 1970s, it carried out a number of violent attacks against the Shah’s government and its western allies.

After the current regime came to power in 1979, the PMOI was engaged in a 20-year campaign of violence, internal and external, against the government.

Since the mid-1980s, it had also maintained an armed force in Iraq until it gave up its arms to US invaders in 2003.

The PMOI insisted it had been involved in no military activities since 2001 and that it had publicly denounced terrorism. The American authorities had granted special protected status to 3,000 of its members still held in Camp Ashraf, Iraq.

But Mr Swift told the judges that, in the light of the organisation’s history, the Home Secretary could not accept its assertion that it had undergone a significant and radical change of direction.

The POAC’s ruling followed a European court decision in December 2006 that the PMOI should come off the EU terror blacklist. Despite that ruling, it remains on the EU list.

The hearing, set for three days, was adjourned until tomorrow. The judges are expected to reserve judgment on Wednesday.

By Mike Taylor, PA-Press Association National Newswire

February 24, 2008 0 comment

The UK Government fights to keep ban on MKO

Reported by The Guardian the UK government is to appeal against a court ruling, won by 35 MPs and peers, that it should remove Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), from the list of banned terrorist organizations. The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) ruled last November that the government’s decision to keep MKO on the list was "perverse", flawed and must be set aside.

According to the report, three senior judges headed by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, will hear the home secretary’s appeal. The government argues that the proscribed group has only temporarily ceased terrorism for "pragmatic reasons". A Home Office spokesman said: "The PMOI was engaged in terrorism until 2001, and until 2003 kept an extensive arsenal at its base in Ashraf, Iraq. It is now seeking to establish itself as a non-violent democratic movement.

Mojahedin.ws -February 18 2008

February 19, 2008 0 comment

The UK, in a quandary to tackle MKO

The ruling of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) to remove the ban on MKO’s activities remains a serious challenge failing to convince the UK government that the organisation has really foresworn the terrorist tactics which continue to be a potential threat to civilians. Far beyond being an internal threat, terrorism stages a global threat that has to be fought by all the means. A globally proscribed terrorist organization, MKO may appeal to a variety of lawful judiciary bodies and take advantage of proficient lawyers and proponent parliamentarians to divert governments and international bodies from the potential terrorist threat of the organization. The advocates of MKO should be notified that to win a judicial decision in appeals process to de-proscribe a terrorist organization never implies that its terrorist threats have ever been curbed. It has to be noted that it is a tactic commonly exploited by MKO to alter its serious ideological and cultic challenges from an internal issue to a globally concerned judicial case, a ploy manipulated by majority of cults. A comparative study of some current cults reveals amazing results that never excludes MKO as an exception. The tactics employed by cults and a number of political groups to influence public perception and debate are considerable. I spite of countless suppressive measures to extend their hegemonic domination over the insiders, they escape any scrutiny and controls from the outside world. As Margaret Thaler Singer discusses in her Cults in Our Midst, “Despite a rather grim record of atrocious behavior, time and again cults escape the scrutiny and controls bestowed upon other organizations and activities”. To find out how cults benefit from legal leverages and influential individuals and authorities to circumvent law enforcement is possible only through a careful study of the approaches utilized by certain cults and groups. For instance, involving in lawsuits against respondents are generally costly affairs and time consuming but cults utilize a variety of approaches to overcome the problem. Explained by Thaler Singer, “Legal suits are costly affairs. But some cults have developed large in-house legal staffs, including huge numbers of paralegals to help the resident lawyers. Thus legal actions are not very costly for the cults to pursue, whereas the people who must defend themselves can easily go broke battling against such tactics”. It has also to be pointed out that not all advocates and supporters of a cult and political group are in total agreement with ideological tenets and objectives of the target group. A variety of factors like political and party interests as well as personal interests and financial concerns may involve. Brought to attention by Thaler Singer, “Some people committed to cultic groups become downright illogical in their support. For example, there is a small claque of social scientists who have become procult apologists. Some have been given trips to exotic places by large, wealthy cults; some fear revealing critical findings because certain cults have paid for research and underwritten trips to professional meetings”. As noted, in some cases, the laws not only fail to deter the threat of cults but also work as legal buffers defending them against opponents. The question is, are the learned Westerners who support MKO really unacquainted with the tactics employed by the cults? As many of them assert, they have been well acquainted with MKO activities since long and besides, English intelligence systems have long been monitoring the terrorist activities of the group and have already filled exactly recorded details which can help reaching a logical resolution about MKO. There are suppositions why the English fail to reach a consensus about MKO. A doubtful inference is that the group’s English advocates are initially kept in dark about the real nature and the past history of MKO. As mentioned, British intelligence bureaus as well as news agencies, BBC in particular, have a valuable record of MKO’s terrorist operations and atrocities perpetrated inside Iran against American personnel, British interests, regime’s authorities and innocent civilians since its formation. Then, it is doubtful that they have been uninformed of vital facts concerning the national security as people’s representatives. Looking it from a different angle, the English might be dealing with MKO as a psychotherapy case. That is to say, regarding the organization as a destructive cult that has enforced a variety of cult and mind control techniques on the members, they have to be treated with outmost care and caution. That is much because the English have learned any suppressive measure to repel cults may backfire seriously and cause irreparable social damages; they may be in some way following American’s paradoxical approach in dealing with MKO since they have once paid the price of MKO’s ideological hostility against the imperialism. Finally, the English may have concluded that MKO, as a political organization with a military infrastructure, has reached the end of its political life and must run a peaceful life of retirement. For sure, it takes time to instil the truth into old veterans, a responsibility some British factions have assumed on themselves. However, precautionary measures deem necessary concerning MKO; as a globally proscribed terrorist organization and a destructive cult, it has to be under constant, strict surveillance. Bahar Irani,Mojahedin.ws-February 11, 2008

February 12, 2008 0 comment

UK not convinced at claim MKO has renounced terrorism London,

Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown says that the British government is not convinced at that the Mujahideen-e Khalq has given up terrorism, saying its forced disarmament by US forces was”entirely pragmatic.” During the Iraq war, the MKO was”considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime,”Malloch-Brown said. “Indeed, we had to disarm the organization to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces,”he said. Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed in December that the British government would not deproscribe the MKO, saying there was”no evidence”it had changed and that it was”certainly the case it has been involved in terrorist activity.” Speaking during a House of Lords debate, the Foreign Office minister added that there was also”no evidence that the organization has publicly renounced violence and terrorism.” “We have to be consistent in our views of terrorists,”he told supporters of protracted attempts to have the MKO removed from Britain’s domestic list of proscribed organizations, suggesting they had been falsely influenced. “When we like the people whom terrorists attack, we call them ‘terrorists,’ when it is the civilians of Iran who are attacked, we have a bad habit of thinking of them as liberation fighters,”Malloch-Brown said. “Terrorism and its tactics are objectionable irrespective of the target,”he said. The MKO was”responsible for a number of serious military attacks over a very long period of time,”he said without listing the hundred of Iranians killed in terrorist assassinations. “There is a big difference between military campaigns that fall within the Geneva conventions and the rest of international law and abusive campaigns that target asymmetrically civilians. I hope we have a consistent policy towards such groups,”the minister added. “Its disarming was entirely pragmatic-in the event of the coalition forces forcing it to disarm after the intervention in Iraq,”he emphasized. Malloch Brown also said that despite its claims on supporting women’s rights and being led by a woman,”we are not convinced that in other regards this organization has permanently renounced terrorism.” “Until we are convinced that the organization has really foresworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians,”he said. Feb 6, IRNA

February 10, 2008 0 comment

Apostles of Democracy

“It is with optimism that I usually regard elections. Win or lose, they are an opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard, but an exception to this will be the Iranian “elections” this March. Elections in Iran are neither free nor fair”. That is how Mark Williams, one out of 35 UK Parliamentarians that took the Government to court to have the ban on the MKO lifted, opens his article released in global politician. He is of the opinion that none of the elections inside Iran are fare and that the entire elected are pre-elected. True or false, the fact is that his source of information is biased toward Mojahedi-e Khalq terrorist cult and the world is well acquainted with the accuracy extent of the information released by the group.

Interestingly, he suggests the essentiality of a democratic change inside Iran. At least he has to err on the side of caution not to recommend an undemocratic, terrorist group for the accomplishment of the mission. He believes that the best solution is real democratic change in Iran and that, Britain and the EU must stop hindering the democratic Iranian Resistance as it strives for change.

Mr. Williams has to be notified that a globally proscribed terrorist group whose leading president-elect is neither elected by Iranian people nor even by a single ballot of the organization’s own insiders but promoted to the position by her egocentric husband is not legitimate at all to lead the campaign for the change inside Iran. Claimed by the organization and corroborated at least by two European court rulings, MKO has forsworn terrorism since 2001. Has anybody ever asked what terrorist deeds and atrocities the group has perpetrated against Iranian people before its claimed renunciation of terrorism?

How is that Mr. Williams has obtained information on the claimed number of 120,000 executed members and supporters of the organization while he knows nothing of the number of the key Iranian officials and innocent civilians who were mercilessly killed by the terrorist operation teams of the organization soon after the Iranian 1979 revolution? As a Member of Parliament, Mr. Williams has easy access to the approved evidences and reasons leading to the proscription of MKO as a terrorist organization. Even Mojahedin themselves know well that Iranian have closed the door on them; they only strive to get their foothold secure wherein they have taken refuge and are required to maintain a democratic conduct. February 5, 2008

February 7, 2008 0 comment

Britain still considers MKO terrorist

British Foreign Office announced on Tuesday that the British government still considers the banned MKO a terrorist organization. Mark Mallon Brown, British deputy foreign secretary for Asia and the United Nations, protested a recent verdict by the Commission for Reviewing the Status of Banned Organization. He noted that until the final verdict is issued about the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), the organization will be considered to be a terrorist organization. Lord Malloch Brown, a member of British House of Lords, pointed out that terrorism is something unacceptable; it does not matter who commits such offense. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had said earlier that the MKO has not changed its behavior, which makes it inelligible to be removed from the list of terrorist organizations. The UK has banned the MKO in line with a decision made by the European Union and another by the US, which is widely known to be cooperating with the terrorist organization, despite officially having it on its list terrorist entities.

PressTV- 06 Feb 2008

February 7, 2008 0 comment

British Government answer to the ‘Lords of Terror’

“…Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I certainly concede the point that the organization is led by a woman [Iran-Interlink editor – the PMOI is led by a man, Massoud Rajavi, who is the sole decision maker in the organisation, Maryam Rajavi is only his lieutenant.], but I will risk the wrath of a portion of this House when I say that despite that, and despite what it says about the rights of women, the PMOI was involved in numerous terrorist attacks for a very extended period. At the time of the second Gulf War, it was considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, we had to disarm the organization to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces; so, despite what it has to say on women’s rights, we are not convinced that in other regards this organization has permanently renounced terrorism….”

Lords Hansard, February 4, 2008 –

Iran: People’s Mujaheddin Organisation 2.51 pm

Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty’s Government: Whether they will make representations to the European Union to deproscribe the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran. The Minister of State,Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch- Brown): My Lords, the House will be aware that the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran is currently on the domestic list of proscribed organisations. The House might also be aware that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission recently determined that it should be removed from this list. Proscription at the EU level is based in part on the UK’s domestic proscription. Her Majesty’s Government are appealing the decision of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission and the domestic proscription will remain in force until that appeals process is complete.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, that Answer is disappointing, to put it mildly. Does the Minister accept that the findings of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission were absolutely clear: that the PMOI is not concerned with terrorism? In those circumstances, why do the British Government persist in the policy of appeasement of the mullah regime, which has yielded no benefit whatever and is doing a grave injustice to the peace-loving people of Iran?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I think, aware that the POAC judgment turned around particular aspects of the decision. We continue to believe that the PMOI was responsible for a number of serious military attacks over a very long period of time and that its disarming was entirely ragmatic—in the event of the coalition forces forcing it to disarm after the intervention in Iraq. We have seen no evidence that the organization has publicly renounced violence and terrorism. We have to be consistent in our views of terrorists. When we like the people whom terrorists attack, we call them “terrorists”; when it is the civilians5 Feb 2008 : Column 949of Iran who are attacked, we have a bad habit of thinking of them as liberation fighters. Terrorism and its tactics are objectionable irrespective of the target.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in addition to the ruling of the European Court of First Instance and the judgment of POAC, after careful considerationof all the evidence, some years ago the American authorities in Iraq conducteda careful investigation In to the allegation and concluded that it was totally without substance? Why do the Government cling so obstinately to a discredited allegation by adiscredited Iranian Government? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I cannot confirm to my noble and learned friend the circumstances of the US investigation that he refers to, but I certain lycan confirm that we will respect the outcome of the appeals process.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some further indication of what the grounds of appeal are?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the judgment arrived at was that the behaviors of the organisation really amounted to a separation from the use of terrorist tactics. We just believe that there has not been a clear enough renunciation of those tactics. Instead, we see the decision as a pragmatic one in the face of American and British force. Until we are convinced that the organisation has really fore sworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government are consistent in their definition of terrorists? We have a great variety of exiled groups in London—Tamils, Kurds, people from

the north and south Caucasus and so on. We host those groups, although a number of them support opposition groups in their own countries that are not always non-violent. Are the

Government confident that that they are consistent in their approach?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point. In the case of the Tamils, the LTTE is a proscribed organisation. It is quite difficult determining which groups in this country fall on which side of the line—and which support peaceful change in their countries and which support violent change and finance it. We look very carefully at that issue on a continuing basis

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not the noble Lord getting in a terrible muddle? Frankly, we support edviolent revolution in Afghanistan when the Russians were there, Israel was set up by violent revolution, Ireland was set up by violent revolution and in South Africa we, to a certain

extent, encouraged violence by the ANC. We cannot say that all violence against tyrannical regimes is wrong. We also supported the French resistance and the Dutch resistance in the war;

5 Feb 2008 : Column 950

Montgomery objected to that because he said it reminded him of Palestinian and Irish terrorists. Surely the Government are still in a muddle and ought to start thinking straight.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Earl will understand that we have always objected, most recently in the case of Ireland, to unwarranted attack son civilian targets. There is a big difference between military campaigns that fall within the Geneva conventions and the rest of international law and abusive campaigns that target asymmetrically civilians. I hope we have a

consistent policy towards such groups.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the PMOI, which is led by a woman, Madam Rajavi, has an agenda for peaceful change via a political process, believes in a human rights agenda, including women’s rights, and its policies are the sort that we should support?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I certainly concede the point that the organisation is led by a woman [Iran-Interlink editor – the PMOI is led by a man, Massoud Rajavi, who is the sole decision maker in the organisation, Maryam Rajavi is only his lieutenant.], but I will risk the wrath of a portion of this House when I say that despite that, and despite what it says about the rights of women, the PMOI was involved in numerous terrorist attacks for a very extended period. At the time of the second Gulf War, it was considered by coalition forces to be completely assimilated into the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein regime. Indeed, we had to disarm the organisation to the extent of 2,100 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces. Since then it has made no renunciation of terrorism

and disarmed only in the face of pressure from coalition forces; so, despite what it has to say on women’s rights, we are not convinced that in other regards this organisation has permanently renounced terrorism.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, it was encouraging to hear the Minister say that Her Majesty’s Government would accept the outcome of the appeals process. Can we accept that, as a clear implication of that, Her Majesty’s Government will accept that this organisation should no longer be a proscribed terrorist organisation?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, one must always fight terrorism in the context of the rule of law and respect for judicial decisions. One stoops to the standards of one’s terrorist opponents if one does otherwise. We will fully respect the decision of the appeals process.

February 4, 2008 0 comment

Britain accused of failing to outlaw banned terror groups

Some of Britain’s closest allies in the fight against terrorism have accused the Government of allowing banned terrorist organisations to operate openly in this country.

An investigation by The Times has revealed that at least six countries have complained about the failure of the Government to enforce the Terrorism Act 2000, which proscribes 46 foreign terrorist organisations.

The countries include Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Turkey. Iran has also voiced criticism. America, Britain’s closest ally, is known to have serious reservations about the Government’s commitment to enforcing the law.

The Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by Jack Straw, now the Justice Minister, was supposed to prevent London becoming an important terrorist hub, where groups were able to raise funds, distribute propaganda and plan terrorist operations.

From the start, however, the law has been difficult to apply. Many groups simply changed their names, others concealed their operations and some simply seem to have been ignored by the authorities.

One of the most blatant cases is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish separatist movement responsible for a recent spate of attacks in southern Turkey.

A Turkish official said that the group ran a multimillion-pound operation in North London, controlling businesses, running a political office and printing a newspaper.

“The British Government tolerates the PKK,” a Turkish official said. “if anything the group has increased its profile over the past decade.”

He said that where once the organisation extorted money from local businesses and ran human trafficking rings, now it owned supermarkets, jewellers, cafÃ©s and restaurants.

“We have complained so often about this to the British authorities that we are sick and tired of nothing being done,” he told The Times.

Pakistan, arguably Britain’s most important ally in fighting terrorism, also feels aggrieved. It has repeatedly helped the British authorities to track and apprehend terror suspects, yet it feels that its own problems have been ignored.

A Pakistani official said that Britain was “slow to respond” to the activities of the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), which is on the Home Office proscribed list. The Pakistanis are also frustrated that Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist Muslim group banned in Pakistan, has still not been proscribed in Britain despite promises from the Government.

Similar complaints have been made by the Sri Lankan High Commission over the activities of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, another banned group that continues to raise money and distribute propaganda in Britain among the expatriate Tamil community.

The Israeli Embassy in London has also had reason to complain over the activities of Hezbollah, the militant Shia Muslim group in Lebanon, and Hamas, the radical Palestinian group responsible for attacks against Israel.

“Hamas has been using the UK for the past few years as a major centre for publishing and distributing incitement-based material, whilst taking advantage of legal loopholes and lenient enforcement policy, an Israeli official said.

He added that a senior Hezbollah member, involved in the group’s al-Manar broadcasting service, was recently granted a visa to visit London. Al-Manar has been taken off the air in France and other countries for anti-Semitic programmes and glorifying terrorist attacks.

Saudi Arabia, another key partner in the anti-terror campaign, is also unhappy that Saudi exiles in Britain, some with connections to al-Qaeda, are able to operate openly.

“To be allowed to use Britain as a base to attack other governments and societies, to us this is puzzling,” Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi Ambassador to London, told The Times.

“We have no problem with people seeing Britain as a safe haven, but they should not use that generosity to attack other countries and to undermine relations between Britain and other countries,” he said. “And they should absolutely not use Britain as a platform from which they can preach an ideology of hatred and violence."

Part of the problem is the support that some groups enjoy from the British Establishment. Last week the banned Mujahidin-e-Khalq won a court appeal to have its name removed from the terrorist list, in a move supported by dozens of MPs.

The group, which currently operates under the name the National Council of Iranian Resistance, was armed and financed for years by Saddam Hussein and is responsible for attacks against targets in Iran.

Patrick Mercer MP, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, urged the Government to enforce its own laws.

“An organisation is either proscribed or it is not. If it is proscribed then it must be given the pariah status that it deserves,” he said. “If the Government will not enforce these proscriptions, what is the point in doing it?”

The Home Office insisted that the proscription was an effective way of preventing terrorist groups operating in Britain.

“It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to take action where there is evidence of an offence being committed,” a Home Office spokesman said.

“Clearly, it is easier for the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to take action where they have firm evidence of illegal activities taking place. Any evidence that funds are being directed to a proscribed organisation from within the UK should be passed to the police.”

The Time

Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, and Zahid Hussain, December 8, 2007

January 16, 2008 0 comment

MKO and the Aftermath of Recognizing POAC’s Judgment (2)

As stated in the previous article, if MKO insists to recognize the POAC’s judgment and is standing resolute against the renunciation of terrorism as it claims, at least it must revise its previously adopted principles to prove the earnestness in its decision. Notably, a series of the organization’s early pamphlets, designed to provide the basis for its general aspirations and systematic world-outlook, explicitly theorize and advocate the violent strategy of armed struggle. In fact, the cornerstone of its struggle when emerged as an opposition was partly the Machiavellian doctrine of the ‘end justifying the means’.

A specified catalogue of these early booklets and pamphlets that were drafted by a selected ideological team to manifest the organizational ideology and policy are still strongly valued as practicable. The specific series are entitled Takamol (Evolution), Shenakht (Epistemology), Cheguneh Quran biamuzim (How to study the Koran), Rah-e anbiya rah-e bashar (The way of the prophets: the way of humanity) and finally a book entitled An account of the formation and short history of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from 1965 to 1975.

Explicitly stated in these works, MKO reveals the reasons for its adopted strategy of armed struggle based on Marxist-Islamic eclecticism. Mojahedin were on the belief that armed struggle was an inevitable consequent of a historical determinism; any intransigent attitude would be equal to that of a reactionary. Although at first it was hard for the Westerners to comprehend what was lying behind Mojahedin’s ideology, but some later made references indicate that they were developing a real understanding of Mojahedin’s ideological infrastructure and methodology. They are well aware of the fact that the merely stated words put no bonds upon Mojahedin that hardly respect obligations whenever an opportunity is grabbed at. As stated in POAC’s ruling, in a draft refusal letter dated September 1, 2006, the Secretary of State clearly declares his doubt on Mojahedin’s renunciation of terrorism:

Mere cessation of terrorist acts do not amount to renunciation of terrorism. Without a clear and publicly available renunciation of terrorism by the PMOI, I am entitled to fear that terrorist activity that has been suspended for pragmatic reasons will be resumed in the future. [1]

The duplicity of Mojahedin is a fact that is also referred to in the US State Department’s report. To expect Mojahedin forswear terrorism for ever is like expecting a leopard change its spots. The group’s abandonment of terrorist acts is temporal and might be retained if circumstances deem them necessary. In paragraph 46 of the POAC’s ruling we read:

However, at the heart of his submission lay the contention that the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the PMOI was “otherwise concerned in terrorism” within the meaning of sub-paragraph (d) of Section 3(5) of the 2000 Act because, although it was not actually committing acts of terrorism, it retained a future will to do so. In effect the Secretary of State’s case was that Section 3(5)(d) covers the category of situations such as the present, where the Secretary of State concludes that an organisation that for whatever reason is not actually committing acts of terrorism retains a future will to re-engage in future acts of terrorism if or when future circumstances permit. [2]

The conclusion by the Secretary of State asserts that MKO’s resort to militarism is not the outcome of a deliberate decision but innate in its methodology of struggle, its world-outlook and a dialectical process leading eventually to the establishment of a classless society. As Abrishamchi has point out:

We are not the ones to decide the necessity of an organized or aggressive struggle; we are not the ones to decide where to an organized or unorganized struggle leads us. It is not our mentality to decide the necessity of an armed struggle. [3]

The Organization, formed as a political group with militarist bent, naturally opposes any criticism of strategy and resists urges of modifications in general ideology and uses a variety of labels for the dissidents. They are dim-witted who cannot grasp the necessity of laws ruling over the phenomena:

To make any change in any phenomenon, one has to develop a comprehensive recognition of it. In respect to society and social movement and struggle, the recognition is of great significance because of their complexity. Thus, any change within a phenomenon, society and social movement requires recognition of the laws controlling them. [4]

Relatively, if any change is to happen within MKO concerning disavowal of terrorism, the ideological principles recognizing aggressive conduct has to be removed from its methodology of struggle, otherwise, it is hard to believe that it will be unwavering in its renunciation of terrorism. Armed strategy is the effect of the group’s principal ideological cause and source and its renunciation is totally out of question if the cause remains intact.

The change in principles is a move of such great significance that even Mojahedin themselves cannot ensure to what degree it is feasible and practical. As a testament in POAC’s ruling, the organisation states that it had to exercise extreme prudence before officially publicizing its decision since all those who had up to that point been involved in military operations or assisted the operational units, had to be fully informed of and convinced about the reasons and wisdom of the decision made by the organisation’s leadership. Not in a single occasion has the organization tried to convince the insiders that it intends to actualize the will to stop military and terrorist activities.

[1]. PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS APPEAL COMMISSION, Appeal No: PC/02/2006, p. 10.

[2]. ibid, P. 13.

[3]. Mehdi Abrishamchi’s lecture delivered on the ideological revolution for the sympathizers in Norway.

[4]. An account of the formation and short history of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization from 1965 to 1975 (originally in Persian), p. 17.

Omid Pouya, Mojahedin.ws, January 8, 2008

January 13, 2008 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts