USA

U.S. Pledges Support to UN Trust Fund

U.S. Pledges Support to UN Trust Fund for Resettlement of Camp Hurriya Residents

Press Statement

Marie Harf

Deputy Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 24, 2013

The United States welcomes the establishment of the United Nations Trust Fund to support the resettlement of individuals currently residing at Camp Hurriya in Iraq. We are pleased to announce that the United States plans to provide $1 million to the UN Trust Fund. The Administration will continue to work with the U.S. Congress regarding these funds. The United States hopes other countries will also support this important humanitarian effort.

We share the conviction that relocation is the only lasting means of guaranteeing the safety and well-being of those residing at Camp Hurriya. Achieving this goal has become an ever more urgent humanitarian imperative in the aftermath of deadly attacks on Camp Hurriya in February and June of this year, and the horrific attack on individuals at Camp Ashraf in September. We also continue to support the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in their efforts to resettle the residents of Camp Hurriya outside of Iraq.

The United States is actively engaged in working with the international community to move the UNHCR-led relocation process forward. To that end, the Department of State recently appointed Jonathan Winer as Senior Advisor for Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) Resettlement, to oversee our efforts towards resettling the residents of Camp Hurriya to safe, permanent and secure locations outside of Iraq as soon as possible.

October 26, 2013 0 comments

USA

MEK leader in Paris obstructing the process to resettle members

State Department Advises Senate to Hold Off Iran Sanctions Until After Negotiations

Washington, DC – The top U.S. nuclear negotiator in UN Security Council negotiations with Iran urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday to hold off on further sanctions until new negotiations commence. Wendy Sherman, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said delaying sanctions ahead of talks scheduled for October 15 and 16 in Geneva would give Iran the opportunity to to take “real actions” at the Geneva meeting.

Many on the committee appeared skeptical and indicated they planned to consider new crippling sanctions despite positive signals from Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani. Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) was largely dismissive of Rouhani’s gestures, though he indicated he hopes concrete action will take place in Geneva. As for further sanctions, Menendez maintained that “as long as Iran is actively pursuing its nuclear program, we must actively work to increase the pressure.”

However, while the House passed a sanctions bill ahead of Rouhani’s inauguration in August, the Senate has yet to introduce its own version of the bill. It is all but certain that, given the government shutdown, new sanctions will not be introduced or considered before the Geneva talks.

Some Senators were dismissive of any new negotiations. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) told Sherman that the U.S. must not negotiate with “evil liars.” He challenged Sherman on what a deal with Iran would look like and whether the U.S. could “ever agree to ease sanctions in any negotiation that does not require Iran to abandon its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.” Sherman refused to rule out a deal in which Iran retains enrichment—a point that many experts believe will be key to securing a verifiable solution but which is notably opposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The position of the U.S. on enrichment is unclear—under President Bush, the U.S. refused to negotiate directly with Iran unless the enrichment program was first suspended. Secretary of State John Kerry, as a Senator in 2009, called the Bush position requiring zero enrichment, “ridiculous” and said Iran has “a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.” In 2011, then Secretary of State , Hillary Clinton signaled a shift from the Bush approach when she stated “[Iranians] can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations.”

According to Sherman, a deal with Iran would realistically include limitations on the “pace and scope” of enrichment and greater transparency with regard to Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium. If Iran does not pass the “Geneva test”, she said, they should expect harsher sanctions—something Sherman says she and Secretary of State Kerry made clear to the Iranians following the U.N. general assembly. In terms of what a deal would look like, Sherman said that “the onus is on Iran” to clarify how far they are willing to go.

At least two dozen supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) filled the hearing room, sitting behind the panel in matching yellow jackets emblazoned with pro-MEK slogans. Senator John McCain advocated for the MEK’s safety in Iraq, criticizing the U.S. for not protecting MEK members from deadly attacks that occurred in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf. Sherman expressed concern but also noted that the MEK’s leadership in Paris was obstructing the process to resettle MEK members. A key demand of the MEK’s leadership is that the group’s members be allowed to relocate together as a single unit, rather than to be relocated individually to different countries. Menendez interjected and told Sherman that the MEK should be invited to relocate to the United States.

October 6, 2013 0 comments

USA

US Denies Visiting Allegedly Missing Iranians

The U.S. Embassy in Iraq says it has no information on the whereabouts of seven Iranian dissidents allegedly missing following a deadly shooting on their compound north of Baghdad this month.

The parent organization of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq dissident group says it has information that an American delegation has met the seven people held by Iraqi forces near Baghdad airport.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Rodney Ford told The Associated Press by email Sunday that the claim of an American visit is "categorically untrue." He says no one from the U.S. government has seen or visited those said to be missing.

Iraq on Friday denied that it is holding the seven former residents of Camp Ashraf said to be missing. A disputed shooting on the compound Sept. 1 left 52 MEK members dead.

September 23, 2013 0 comments

USA

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk visits Camp Hurriya

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk visited Camp Hurriya in Baghdad, September 16, accompanied by Gyorgy Busztin, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). DAS McGurk met with senior representatives from the Mujahedine-e-Khalq (MEK), as well as officials from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). He expressed his condolences to the survivors of the recent Camp Ashraf attack and emphasized the priority of the U.S. Government to ensure the safety and security of the residents of Camp Hurriya. He praised the efforts of UNAMI, and Mr. Busztin personally, to ensure the safe and secure relocation of the survivors from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya last week.

He also discussed issues related to the safe, permanent, and secure relocation of the camp’s residents outside of Iraq, and affirmed the U.S. policy to take active measures in support of such relocation to third countries as soon as possible. DAS McGurk encouraged the residents to cooperate fully with the UNHCR process to facilitate their safe and permanent relocation outside of Iraq. Finally, he thanked UNAMI and UNHCR for their tireless efforts in Iraq and ensured the ongoing cooperation and support for their efforts by the United States.

American Embassy, Baghdad

September 21, 2013 0 comments

USA

US welcomes relocation of remaining Ashraf residents

Relocation of Remaining Individuals from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in Iraq

Press Statement

Jen Psaki US welcomes relocation of remaining Ashraf residents

Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

September 11, 2013

The United States welcomes today’s safe arrival at Camp Hurriya of the remaining 42 individuals from the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) who had been residing at Camp Ashraf. These individuals were survivors of the horrific attack that took place on September 1 at Camp Ashraf, and we appreciate their cooperation with the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in this relocation effort. We also appreciate the assistance of the Government of Iraq in facilitating this relocation.

The United States reiterates its condemnation of the September 1 attack and insists that the perpetrators of that barbarous act be brought to justice. We also continue to be deeply concerned about the seven individuals who remain missing from the attack and urge that all steps be taken to locate these individuals.

UNAMI made extraordinary efforts to implement a plan to safely and peacefully move the remaining residents at Camp Ashraf, and we appreciate and support those efforts. We urge all parties to continue to implement all remaining obligations of that plan. In particular, we call on the Government of Iraq to move expeditiously to enhance security structures within Camp Hurriya. It is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure the safety and security of the residents at Camp Hurriya in accordance with the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between UNAMI and the Government of Iraq.

We further call on the Government of Iraq to ensure the safekeeping of the property that remains at Camp Ashraf, as agreed pursuant to the UNAMI relocation plan. We also call upon the members and leaders of the MEK to actively participate in the UNHCR-led resettlement process. The United States stands firmly behind UNAMI efforts to resolve this matter and to act with urgency to find locations for the safe, secure, and permanent relocation of Camp Hurriya residents outside Iraq.

September 14, 2013 0 comments

USA

U.S. Condemns Attack at Camp Ashraf in Iraq

Press Statement

Marie Harf

Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

September 1, 2013

The United States strongly condemns the terrible events that took place at Camp Ashraf today, which according to various reports resulted in the deaths of and injuries to numerous camp residents. Our condolences go out to the families of the victims and those who were injured in today’s violence.

We are deeply concerned about these reports and are in regular contact with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), as well as Government of Iraq officials. We support UNAMI’s efforts to conduct its own assessment of the situation and call on the Government of Iraq to fully support those efforts.

We further call on Iraqi authorities to act with urgency to immediately ensure medical assistance to the wounded and to secure the camp against any further violence or harm to the residents. We underscore the responsibility of the Government of Iraq and all relevant stakeholders to ensure the safety and security of residents at both Camp Ashraf and Camp Hurriyah, and we affirm the call by UNAMI for a full and independent investigation into this terrible and tragic event. Those found to be responsible must be held fully accountable.

September 3, 2013 0 comments

USA

Engaging with Iran’s New President

The confirmation of Hassan Rouhani as Iran’s sixth president on August 4 will provide an opportunity for renewed engagement between Western governments and the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, the background and character of Rouhani raises pertinent questions regarding the type of engagement that his election calls for.

Educated at both the hawza ‘ilmiya in Qom and Glasgow Caledonian University, Rouhani has had a blend of classical Islamic tutelage and worldly engagement. His background is quite conventional. Many religious scholars in Iran often pursue secular educations simultaneously with their religious studies. The notion that Iran’s politicians are either radicals or moderates is based on the incorrect assumption that there is no middle-way in Iranian politics. This assumption guides the equally misplaced notion that either Rouhani’s worldview is narrowed by a ‘conservative’ religious establishment, or that his secular education and his calls for increased civil-liberties make him more ‘liberal’.

Without categorizing Rouhani politically, the West needs to engage with his government based on its actions. In 2001, then US President George W Bush listed Iran as part of an ‘axis of evil’. Paradoxically, this was shortly after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) took part in a joint operation with US forces in Afghanistan against the Taliban. The episode illustrates how large-scale gestures can go ignored and only with hindsight be fully recognized as significant. Similarly, former Iranian presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) both found themselves isolated internationally at crucial points of their tenures. Only later – and during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-13) – were they reputed in the West as relatively moderate leaders.

What gestures could Rouhani realistically make in the short-term? He could offer to share more information on Al-Qaeda operatives that are detained in the country – an area where there is already a solid foundation for enhanced cooperation. ‘Secularizing’ the Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons proliferation and possession in ordinary legislation would also be significant. In return,

The policy of engaging Iran today consists of alleviating some sanctions in the event that Iran concedes completely on the nuclear issue, or increasing economic and political pressure. Maintaining the current course would allow Rouhani very little room to manoeuvre. If the US and EU engage with the next government on the premise that Rouhani will tolerate this status-quo, or will proactively seek to challenge the Supreme Leader’s authority, then the opportunity for engagement will be lost. Enthusiasm for Iran’s new government must therefore be tempered by a realistic assessment of the nature of political change in Iran: where Rouhani might attempt to build trust and how the West can respond. This is important for it might be some time before another ‘Rouhani’ emerges.

Rouhani’s background as a cleric and as the Supreme Leader’s confidant should not be misread as obstacles to change. Western governments should instead take full advantage of these facts: they now deal with a leader who understands their perspectives and is well placed to assure Ayatollah Khamenei that a nuclear deal is in the Islamic Republic’s best interest. Political change in Iran has always been a gradual project of negotiation and renegotiation under the ruling Islamic framework, and this applies to identifying ‘national security’ priorities. Change will happen in Iran, including in its conduct of diplomacy, but not necessarily in the linear fashion some expect.

For the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic, foreign officials – including heads of states – were invited as guests to the inauguration of the president. It might be that initial small steps – and the recognition that both sides will be taking them – will lead to a more comprehensive settlement between Iran and the West.

Friday 2 August 2013

by Sasan Aghlani, Research Assistant, International Security, chathamhouse.org

August 15, 2013 0 comments

USA

An Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary Kerry

An Open Letter to President Obama and Secretary Kerry: The Contradictory Foreign Policy Of The United States

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable John Kerry

United States Secretary of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC 20520

Subject: An Open Letter; The Contradictory Foreign Policy of the United States after President Truman

Dear President Obama and Secretary Kerry:

I write to you as a staunch supporter of the President during his entire tenure. Although I was a Republican until earlier this year, I campaigned for the President in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC and contributed to the campaign the maximum allowed financial support by borrowing the money. I am still paying my loan acquired in 2007. Likewise, I actively supported re-election of the President for a second term.

This letter is intended to communicate several serious concerns shared by me, many of my family members, and several friends who are Iranian-Americans and Americans, and vote as Democrats, Independent, and Republicans. Most of my family and friends persistently have supported the President at the levels similar to me.

Recently, an Iranian Terrorist organization (Mojahedin-e-Khagh or MEK), extremely despised by Iranians, held a Conference in Paris on June 22nd in Villepinte, a suburb of Paris. The conference notable for its list of attendees included several so-claimed “defenders of democracy and freedom” such as now the infamous Mayor of San Diego, former Mayor of New York Rudi Giuliani, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations John Bolton. Most speakers apparently received substantial fees for travel and/or speaking at the Conference.

A friend of mine sent to me a 30-minute video tape (available on youtube), showing the speakers and short segments of the lectures. The subjects of these lectures were not related to the sanctions against Iran! They were linked to so-called President-Elect, Maryam Rajavi (born in Tehran on December 4, 1953) who heads the MEK group (also known by various other acronyms such as the NCRI) which was recently delisted from the Foreign Terrorist Organization.

What mystifies me the most is the presence of an esteemed Kennedy family member Patrick Kennedy at the Conference? One would expect an “experienced politician“ to seek assistance from the State Department and FBI about a visit to Paris and the wisdom of presenting a lecture to a group dubbed as a “Cult” by the well-respected Human Rights Watch and until recently, branded as terrorists by our government.

Certainly, the CIA knows the history of murders committed by MEK against the citizens of Iran and America. For example, MEK worked with Saddam’s military to aid him in pinpointing civilian (yes – civilian) targets allowing for Iraqis to dose Iran with chemical weapons (in artillery and missiles)!

Inarguably, political activity is part and parcel of a healthy democracy such as what we have in the United States; however, surely it is the duty of every American to avoid actions that would lead America to war again and again. I must ask these American “amplifiers of brutality” if they truly consider themselves patriots. Frankly, I consider them turncoats. Is the Conflict of Interest concept passe or unsuitable for former government officials? Please make the judgment! I hope both the State and the Justice Departments are looking into this situation.

I am sure you realize the challenges you face in negotiating with Iranian leadership to settle deep-rooted outstanding disputes in a peaceful manner. These discussions are vital in bringing a lasting peace and durable tranquility to several counties in Middle East. Granted the Americans may exercise their freedoms of speech and travel. Yet, the American “loudspeakers” at the MEK organized and funded gathering have certainly disregarded vital interests of the United States by their war-mongering lectures and by accepting free trips and hefty speaker’s imbursements from this terrorist group. Surely, acting against America’s national interest warrants investigation and retribution.

This country cannot embark on serious diplomacy and dialogue with the rulers in Iran when such “prominent members” support a human rights violator and a terrorist organization that until September 2012 was considered a terrorist group (MEK was delisted in September 2012) by the United States. Importantly, such reckless actions by the US government, coupled with new sanctions passed in the House, effectively help the Supreme Leader to convince Iranians that America does not intend to bring the long-lasting disputes to a reasonable conclusion in a peaceful manner. Aside from the Iranian regime, the highly intelligent people of Iran will undoubtedly infer that the delisting of MEK was accomplished to allow America to use MEK as a puppet, to attack Iran, similar to Saddam. Certainly, this type of diplomacy reduces or eliminates any chance of peace.

Let us be reasonable. How can America fight and eliminate terrorism in this country or abroad by maintaining two sets of standards? Think about it. Is this not outright duplicity? Traitors and terrorists are always turncoats and assassins irrespective of their boss! Wherevers the outlaws go they bring miseries.

The lessons of times past are prized but evidently unlearned. One thing is patent. We cannot free Middle East, particularly my Jewish and Palestinian sisters and brothers, from war and destitution unless we craft a fresh foreign policy based on mutual respects, honest admirations for human rights, and a genuine interest in seeking peace.

I this respect, I recall the aspiration and prized words of a Founding Father, John Adams, to exemplify the principles of a sound policy both internally and abroad. He stated America must accept “the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings . . . Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers are. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own . . . “Clearly, this “divine concept” has not been followed by the majority of American politicians, particularly after President Truman.

We wish you success in coming to solid agreement with the regime in Iran. Doing so will ultimately lead to a free Iran. The brave people of my birth land have civilization of 17,000 years. Importantly, they have repeatedly civilized barbarians. As I wrote to the President on October 16, 2011, only Iranians know how to ultimately deal with their tormentors.

Blessings.

Respectfully,

Akbar Montaser

Professor of Chemistry (1981-2012)

Department of Chemistry

The George Washington University

Washington, DC 20052

Amestp@aol.com

From The noble 13th century Persian Sufi poet Rumi:

“I go to a synagogue, church, and mosque, and I see the same spirit and the same altar”.

Akbar Montaser, Payvan

August 14, 2013 0 comments

USA

Far from Iran election, former guerrillas lobby Washington

WASHINGTON – For decades, an Iranian dissident group has seemed to be on the wrong side of history. Suppressed by both the Shah of Iran and then the ayatollahs who deposed him in 1979, its supporters have faced prison, death and exile, and were shunned in the United States as members of a cult-like terrorist organization.
The Mujahadin-e-Khalq (MEK) former guerrilla movement began to shake off its painful past last year when the State Department took it off the official U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The European Union made a similar decision in 2009 after a prolonged court battle.
But as Iran elects a new president on Friday, the MEK has no discernible role in politics at home, where it is mistrusted – even by government critics – for having been allied with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war.
Yet Iran’s clerical rulers remain obsessed with a perceived threat from the group, frequently warning Western governments against any giving the MEK shelter or support, diplomats say.
Unable to operate openly in Iran, the MEK is instead waging some of its battles in Washington. It opened an attractive new office in April just a five-minute walk from the White House.
Long active as an advocacy group in the United States and Europe, the MEK is now formalizing its campaign to pressure the Obama administration to maintain a hard line – including in multilateral nuclear talks – with the Islamic Republic, which it hopes will one day crumble.
Now that it is no longer on the U.S. blacklist, the MEK can hire registered lobbyists and raise funds on its own, rather than rely on wealthy Iranian-American sympathizers.
Democratic former Senator Robert Torricelli signed up as a lobbyist earlier this year for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Paris-based political arm of the MEK.
"They (the MEK) deserve to have a voice in Washington, to be heard, and to (show) what the Iranian people are actually looking for in the future of Iran: a non-nuclear Iran, a government that is based on democratic values," said Soona Samsami, the U.S. representative of the NCRI.
Once one of Capitol Hill’s biggest fund raisers, Torricelli pulled out of the race for a second Senate term in 2002 amid an ethics scandal.
His lobby registration form says he will be "meeting with U.S. government and congressional officials, and advising on general strategy."
Other notable backers of the MEK include former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell and ex-CIA director James Woolsey.
A TOUGH SELL
Even though it has renounced violence, the MEK is a tough sell in the United States, which for many years has blamed it for the killing of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s.
A 2009 study by the RAND Corporation think tank depicted the MEK as a cult-like movement run with military-style discipline, gender separation and "near-religious devotion" to its Paris-based leaders – a description the MEK denies.
"I can’t believe the U.S. government is going to be particularly excited about working with them … because in the U.S. government, I would hope there would be people who would understand that this is not where the political future of Iran lies," said Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Some U.S. policymakers are mistrustful of Middle East exile groups following Washington’s reliance on Iraqi expatriates who pushed America toward war in Iraq in 2003.
Calls from MEK representatives for "regime change" in Iran remind some of Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, which helped convince the administration of former President George W. Bush that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
"They’ll deny it, but I think it’s pretty simple: their goal is to keep pushing the politics in America to lead to an invasion, some kind of major unsettlement of Iran, that they can sweep into as a new government," said Jeremiah Goulka, author of the RAND study.
Some in the U.S. government also share that suspicion – but the MEK resents comparisons to Iraqi exiles of 10 years ago.
"We’ve never been in favor of a war. We’ve never tried to push things towards that direction," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy U.S. representative of the NCRI. The MEK is "not the U.S. creature that Chalabi was," he said.
Attempts to make over the MEK’s image have been boosted by a report from a former senior State Department official who questions whether the group really committed the killings of six Americans in Iran in the 1970s that are often blamed on it.
The killings, during a guerrilla campaign against the U.S.-backed Shah, were actually the work of a faction that later broke away from MEK, said Lincoln Bloomfield, whose report has just been published as a book by the University of Baltimore.
"Not a single person you could name in the MEK had any knowledge of it or had anything to do with it," he said.
The study grew out of a 2011 memo Bloomfield wrote as a consultant for a law firm that lobbied to remove MEK from the terrorism list on behalf of the Iranian-American Community of Northern California. The author said he had no financial interest in the book, and proceeds are going to the university.
The MEK still has some 3,000 members in Iraq, many of whom were invited by Saddam in the 1980s. The group fell out of favor after his 2003 downfall and current Iraqi officials have applied pressure for them to leave.
After clashes with Iraqi security forces in 2011 in which 34 people were killed, the residents were moved last year as part of a plan in which the United Nations intends to process them for refugee status in other countries.
But progress has been slow, and their temporary home at a former U.S. military compound in Baghdad known as Camp Liberty came under fire in February when eight people were killed in a rocket attack by unknown assailants.
U.S. officials have tentatively identified a handful of Camp Liberty residents who may be allowed to move to the United States. But they would be expected to renounce their membership in MEK, the officials told Reuters.
Forty-four residents of the camp have left over the last month for Albania, which has offered to take up to 210 of them.
Susan Cornwell (Editing by Alistair Bell and Jackie Frank)

June 16, 2013 0 comments

USA

Congress Debates MEK with Obama Officials

Congress Debates War, Sanctions, Diplomacy and Mojahedin Khalq with Top Obama Officials

MEK

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) conveyed his support for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) a group, which is widely opposed by Iranians and viewed by human rights organizations as a cult. The group has been actively lobbying the House to pressure the administration to move MEK members back to the group’s paramilitary base at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Late last year, as part of what was widely viewed as a deal with the State Department to get the group removed from the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations, the MEK agreed to leave the base and relocate to Camp Liberty, also in Iraq, where they would then work with the UN to repatriate members in third countries. In a heated exchange with Rep. Rohrabacher, who called for the U.S. to support the MEK, Amb. Sherman expressed her concern that the people at Camp Liberty were being exploited by the MEK’s leadership. “There are opportunities for the people of Camp Liberty to resettle. There have been offers made by countries like Albania to take many of them,” she said. “And to be very frank Congressman, the leadership of the MEK, both in Camp Liberty and in Paris, have kept the people of Camp Liberty from knowing what their options are. And I so care about their lives, and the threat to their lives in the camp, that I hope the leadership of the MEK will allow them to know their options.”

This follows on the heels of testimony from Secretary of State John Kerry in April indicating that MEK members in Camp Liberty had ceased participating in interviews with officials to determine where best to relocate them. Human Rights Watch and other organizations have documented human rights abuses inflicted by MEK leadership against members who questioned their authority or sought to leave the camps

(…)

May 18, 2013 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts