Abandoned allies?
August 3, 2011 by
THE NEW YORK POST
Don’t betray Iranian refugees
Some 3,400 innocent Iranian dissidents now living in a camp in Iraq are in imminent danger of being slaughtered. These men, women and children — members of Mujahedin-e Khalq, or People’s Mujahedin, a longtime Iranian opposition movement — trusted America’s promise to protect them. But the gradual US withdrawal from Iraq leaves that promise in doubt.
As a former base commander of Camp Ashraf, the official name of the MEK’s besieged refuge, I’d like to make one thing clear: Despite charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization, these people are American allies. It would be foolish, as well as wrong, to abandon them.
As America pulls back, Iranian influence is on the rise in Iraq — notably in Diyala Province, where Camp Ashraf is located. As Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iran’s President Mahomoud Ahmadinejad grow closer, the MEK’s situation becomes more critical.
These innocents’ vulnerability was made tragically clear on April 8, when elements of the Iraqi army used US-supplied vehicles and equipment to raid the camp, killing 34 defenseless people and wounding nearly 350.
In videos of the event, we witness the courage of the residents of Ashraf. Despite knowing they may be the next to die, they rush to rescue their fallen comrades.
Courage under fire is an admirable trait. Killing unarmed people is murder. Yet the State Department has done nothing of substance to address these attacks or the overall Ashraf situation.
Sadly, the State Department even now continues to list the MEK as a terrorist group — a listing made 14 years ago to placate the rulers in Tehran in yet another failed diplomatic outreach. (A court has now ordered State to review the listing.)
As the former antiterrorism/force protection officer for all of Iraq, I know the “factual” basis for the listing is false. For example, Hoshyar Zebari, now Iraq’s foreign minister and the longtime head of international relations for the Kurdistan Democrat Party International Relations, has repeatedly confirmed that the MEK did not attack the Kurds in the 1990s. Yet State still cites such supposed attacks in its annual report on terrorism. And just last month, State’s point man on Ashraf, Ambassador Lawrence Butler, repeated the canard again in a New York Times interview.
The real benefactors of the fall of the MEK will be Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime — which has long sought custody of these refugees in order to eliminate them as enemies of the state.
The MEK surrendered to the US military without firing a shot, turned over all its weapons, accepted consolidation at Camp Ashraf, formally renounced terrorism, accepted protected-person status under the Fourth Geneva Convention and provided the Free world with crucial intelligence, including vital data on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons program. They met every requirement we placed on them.
Yet in early 2009, we turned the protection of Ashraf over to the Iraqis — despite numerous warnings that too many elements of Iraq’s government are eager to curry favor with Iran. This is like putting the Mafia in charge of the FBI Witness Protection Program.
As validated in the April 8 videos, the “protectors” murdered Ashraf residents. Now, the United States wants Ashraf residents to accept relocation to a different, more remote site in Iraq. The refugees see this as an invitation to a massacre — not unlike the 1995 slaughter of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.
The MEK has fulfilled its end of commitments. The United States has come up very short, and the residents of Camp Ashraf are paying the price. It is long past time for us to make things right.
For starters, that means removing the MEK from the US terrorist list and moving Ashraf residents to third countries where their safety can be guaranteed.
Col. Wesley Martin US Army (Ret.), served as the senior antiterrorism/force-protection officer for all Coalition forces in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/abandoned_allies_HCjcM8v310sbGvMaIUVrhM
Bill Richardson Calls for Delisting of MEK
August 2, 2011 by
Bill Richardson Calls for MEK Delisting
Robert Torricelli Calls for Delisting of MEK
August 1, 2011 by
Robert Torricelli Calls for MEK Delisting
US National Security, Military, and Policy Figures Call for MEK Delisting
August 1, 2011 by
General James Jones, U.S.M.C. (ret.), Former National Security Advisor to President Obama and Supreme Allied Commander Europe:
“I propose three [New Year] gifts. The first one is successfully delisting the MEK, the second one which has been mentioned but is equally important is ensuring the security of the people of Camp Ashraf and the third is to support the popular movement for freedom as expressed by Iranians both inside and outside ofIran.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Governor Howard Dean, Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Governor of Vermont:
“… We must change our position on the MEK and stop calling them a terrorist organization. They are not a terrorist organization, they have their own bill of rights, which is an extraordinary thing under the leadership of Madame Rajavi, and we appreciate what she has done greatly.” Paris, February 26, 2011
“The MEK is not a terrorist group and we need to de-list them immediately. Immediately.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011.
__________________________________________________________________
Rudi Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York:
“It is about time that we change the listing of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran on the terror list. I have studied terrorism for over 35 years. I have investigated terrorism and I have seen first hand, in my city the devastation that terrorism can bring about. This is not a terrorist organization. This is an organization dedicated to achieving freedom and dignity for its people.” New York, September 24, 2010
__________________________________________________________________
Tom Ridge, Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Governor of Pennsylvania, and U.S. Representative:
“It’s a very important and a very visible statement that these Republicans and these Democrats, having worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, feel unanimously that the designation of MEK should be lifted and should be lifted now… The Resistance and the MEK are not looking for money, they are not looking for arms. They just want the freedom to speak. They want to be delisted and take action into their own hands. We need to do that for them because time is running out.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Andrew Card, Former White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Transportation:
“The MEK was our ally in the war on terror… But the State Department was left behind, left behind with a document that is irrelevant today. And the courts have said, check its relevance. My prayerful hope is that the State Department is checking what is relevant today, and they will see today for what it is rather than a yesterday that they didn’t understand or know… I hope that the United States will say the MEK is that ally that we need on the war on terror…” Washington, DC, April 26, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret.), Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe:
“The State Department is reconsidering the foreign terrorist organization listing. Why wouldn’t they take an organization like this off the list? I think they will. I think they must.” Paris, April 27, 2011.
“I’ve seen no evidence that this is a terrorist organization. I’ve asked for this, none has been presented. I can see no reason why they should remain on the foreign terrorist organization list. None…” Brussels, May 25, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Louis Freeh, Former Director of the F.B.I., U.S. District Judge:
“With respect to the designation of the MEK… I was not consulted in 1997, that the Department of State had listed the MEK . . . . In 1997, the government of Iranduped the U.S.government by inducing it to list the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization, without consulting the FBI… We now have in this new administration the opportunity to do the right thing, but it should be now . . . . The delisting has to immediately take place.” London, February 14, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Lee Hamilton, Former Vice-Chair of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon theUnited States, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:
“[F]rom where I stand now I’m really puzzled. I do not understand why the United Stateshas kept the MEK on the terrorist list for all of these years. I have had access to classified information. I know some things may have happened in the past. This is a factual question with regard to the conduct of the MEK and why the United Stateshas not resolved it and spoken out on it. I am not aware of any facts that require the MEK to be on the terrorist list.” Washington, DC, February 19, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Michael Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States and Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York:
“It is important not only that the [MEK] designation be removed but also that it be removed quickly before Iran and those acting in its behalf can wear down the residents of Ashraf and force them to leave or impose an even worse fate on them.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011.
“Many people in this room, including me, have had occasion in the past to make the case many times over that there was simply no basis in law or in fact for continuing MEK on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations and that there are many reasons, including MEK’s close cooperation with the United States in exposing Iran’s nuclear program for removing MEK from that list.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Gen. Hugh Shelton,U.S. Army (ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“[B]y placing the MEK on the FTO list we have weakened the support of the best organized internal resistance group to the most terrorist-oriented anti-western world antidemocratic regime in the region. That’s a disgrace. Iran’s current regime is clearly a government that needs to change. The MEK is the organization that they fear and that should tell us something right off the bat. When you look at what the MEK stands for, when they are antinuclear, separation of church and state, individual rights, MEK is obviously the way that Iran needs to go.” Washington, DC, February 19, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Ambassador John Bolton, Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations:
“We have seen in recent years that opinion within the U.S. government has tended towards delisting the MEK, but at the end of the Bush administration Secretary Rice decided not to do that for essentially the same reason that the Clinton administration put the group on the list to begin with: to open channels of communication with Iran.” New York, September 24, 2010
__________________________________________________________________
Porter Goss, Former Director of the CIA:
“We can’t kick down the situation on the MEK any more. We’ve got a deadline coming up…The FTO designation is an impediment to the final solution of relocation and I think, therefore, the sooner we get a judgment on that, that is what I think where common sense will lead us….There’s not any justification based on what I’ve seen… I think the first thing to do is get the FTO question resolved and the second thing to do is say these folks [Camp Ashraf residents] deserve a future.” Washington, DC, June 2, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Ambassador Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico, Secretary of Energy, Ambassador to the United Nations, and U.S. Representative:
“[W]ith the MEK . . . I think it makes sense to take them off the terrorism list. North Korea was taken off the list, I don’t know if you know this, some time ago. This is something I’m not going to say—this is bureaucracies. Bureaucracies move slow. To move them you’ve got to do sometimes gigantic leaps. I’m not making any excuses but I do think this is something we need to reassess right away.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Ambassador Dell Dailey, Former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State:
“It is essential that Secretary Clinton . . . revoke the designation and delist the MEK. It is within her ability to do that right now… Delist the MEK from the foreign terror organization list and let the Iranian citizens decide their own form of government.” Washington, DC, March 17, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence:
“One thing we should no longer do, and on this I join the others on this panel, is keep the MEK listed as a terrorist organization. In 22 years of practicing law I read a lot of legal decisions and I recently read the Circuit Court’s decision in the case involving the MEK… This eloquently and well written decision of last July by the D.C. Circuit effectively says, quite bluntly, although it doesn’t use this particular analogy, that what the Department of State has done is what the red queen does in Alice in Wonderland when she is asked if first we’re going to have the trial and the verdict and then the execution she says no, execution first, then trial.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
General Richard Myers, U.S.A.F. (ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“Delisting the MEK is surely the right thing to do and it’s way past time to do that.” Washington, DC, April 14, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Patrick Kennedy, Former United States Representative, Chairman of the DCCC:
“I personally believe the reason MEK is still listed as a terrorist organization is that our policy in the past has been one of appeasement [of Iran]. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. MEK is the biggest threat to the Iranian mullahs.” Washington, DC, May 19, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
General Peter Pace,U.S.M.C. (ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“Some folks said to me this week if the United States government took the MEK off the terrorist list it would be a signal to the Iranian regime that we had changed from a desire to see changes in regime behavior to a desire to see changes in regime. My response to that is: sounds good to me.” Washington, DC, February 19, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps (2006-2010):
As I dispatched some of my commanders to sit down and talk with these folks [MEK members at Camp Ashraf], as I visited myself, these people are not terrorists. They’re no more terrorists than the people here on the panel… We asked those people to disarm. They’re the only people in Iraq who are disarmed. And yet, these people complied willingly and have done what we asked them to do.”
“Now, it seems to me the oppressive events [at Camp Ashraf] are such today that we have got to reconsider our national posture towards the people at Camp Ashraf and the MEK in general… And I’ve got to tell you what happened recently should be a national outrage and, unfortunately, I don’t see it.” Washington, DC, July 26, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union:
I hope as [State Department] do so they will expedite their decision and that they will reflect on the fact that the UK and the EU to which I was an Ambassador, have both lifted their restrictions with respect to the MEK but the State Department I hope will make their decision based on the merits and to do so quickly and promptly, again recognizing the precedents that others have created.” Washington, DC, June 2, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Robert Torricelli, Former U.S. Senator from New Jersey:
“[T]he listing of the MEK as a terrorist organization by the United States government is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of law, it is contrary to the facts, it is interfering with the rights of American citizens to be heard and it is contrary to American foreign policy… I call upon Secretary Clinton who I consider a dear friend and one of the finest leaders in the history of our country to do what she knows is right: End the policy and end it now.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, Former Director of Policy and Planning, U.S. Dept. of State and Member of the National Security Council:
“Whether or not you believe that we have one year, two years, three years or more before Iranwill be in a position to acquire nuclear weapons, there is still no reason to be shy about doing more to support the Iranian opposition. A good first step would be delisting the MEK.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Frances Townsend, Former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush:
“[T]he tyrannical regime in Iran believed that failure to delist the PMOI was weakness not strength… The greatest single step right now today that I believe the United States government can take to really put pressure on the Iranian regime and really insist and enable change is to delist the MEK. We should do that because the listing is not warranted by the evidence that is public or anything that is classified…” Paris, December 22, 2010
__________________________________________________________________
Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania (2003-2011):
“I will send a letter to President Obama and to Secretary Clinton telling them, one, that the United States is morally bound to do everything we can to ensure the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf and, two, if, Director Freeh and General Shelton and General Conway and Governor Dean and the rest of these great panelists say that MEK is a force for good and the best hope we have for a third option in Iran, then, good Lord, take them off the terrorist list. Take them off the terrorist list.” Washington, DC, July 26, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
John Sano, former Deputy Director of CIA for National Clandestine Service:
“[Iran’s] Disinformation campaigns basically are feeble attempt to convince the United States and its organizations, the State Department, even Congress, as well as the international observers, that the residents of Ashraf should be displaced and further that the MEK should remain on the foreign terrorist organization list.
“The MEK promotes a peaceful, non-violent, and democratic Iran; is committed to the universal declaration of human rights as well as international conventions and covenants; and promotes a domestic and foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence. The time is long past for the MEK to be delisted from the foreign terrorist organizations list.” Washington, DC, July 28, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
General Anthony Zinni, U.S.M.C. (ret.), Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command:
“I know you all realize you are seeing not only the bi-partisanship that was mentioned. You are seeing leadership from our Congress, administrations past and present, from our military and from our intelligence agencies and law enforcement. You have an entire spectrum here that feels the same way. I think what you are going to hear up here is a continuous set of comments much like you’ve heard already: the need to remove the MEK from this list of terrorists, the need to support the opposition groups and understand who they are.” Washington, DC, January 20, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Philip Zelikow, Former Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Counselor of the States Department:
“So what then would I recommend to the Secretary were I in my old job today? I would say, here is a four-part proposal of what you could do: Part one. Delist the MEK as an FTO. Washington, DC, April 26 2010
Avoid Another Srebrenica at Camp Ashraf
July 21, 2011 by
The Huffington Post
At first glance, the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica almost two decades ago has little in common with the plight of some 3,500 dissident Iranians at a place called Camp Ashraf in Iraq.
But a closer look shows the opposite.
In 1995, Dutch forces serving as UN peacekeepers to monitor the situation during the siege of Srebrenica did nothing to protect Muslim civilians, who were turned over to the Serb military and slaughtered.
In 2003, residents of Ashraf surrendered their weapons to U.S.-led Coalition forces and, after a 16-month investigation, the U.S. government recognised each one of them as a Protected Person under the Fourth Geneva Convention and issued every resident an ID card and a “Protected Person under Fourth Geneva Convention” card.
Now, eight years later, Iraqi forces – at the instigation of their masters in Iran – have besieged Ashraf. In assaults carried out in July 2009 and last April, 47 of these “protected persons” were killed and 1071 injured. So, just as the Dutch failed in Bosnia, so has the U.S. in Ashraf.
So what?
Until recently, that might have been the answer: But then, a surprise legal event took place. On July 5, the Dutch court of appeals held the country’s government accountable for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. The court said that the Dutch forces failed to protect the lives of civilian Muslims, and the judges ordered the Dutch government to pay retributions to families of the victims. The court rejected the argument offered by the government that its soldiers were acting under the command of the United Nations thus removing their responsibility for the situation.
Sounds a lot like Ashraf, doesn’t it?
Indeed, as the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, said the U.S. inaction is far more serious. The U.S. individually questioned every resident of Ashraf, took all their weapons, even what might be needed for self-defence, ruled that they posed no threat of terrorism, and assumed full responsibility to provide protection until their final disposition.
Nothing that has happened since relieves the United States of this responsibility. Yet, the U.S. has refused to interfere in the situation, a decision far more unacceptable than the inaction of Dutch forces during the Srebrenica tragedy. There is no doubt that the United States, by virtue of the responsibility it accepted to protect the lives of Ashraf residents, should be leading an investigation into the Iraqi actions and demanding answers for the killings and injuries committed at Ashraf.
Rather, it has turned a blind eye to the situation.
The irony is that in every area except Ashraf and the People’s Mujahadin of Iran (PMOI), whose members have lived there for 25 years, the U.S. has assailed the mullahs in Tehran and their activities in Iraq. Recently, it blamed the increase in U.S. casualties in Iraq on weapons sent there by Iran. It also has decried Iran’s export of terrorism.
Yet, it has sat on the sidelines as the Maliki government in Baghdad cosies up to the mullahs. And it has done nothing to remove the PMOI from its place on the list of terrorist organisations, a designation that goes back to the days when the State Department thought they could get closer to “moderates” in Tehran through appeasement. The mullahs are still laughing at the success of that ploy, as it advanced their programme of nuclear weapons development.
Now, it’s “put-up-or-shut-up” time for the Obama administration.
Most urgently, it must act to protect those 3,500 at-risk residents of Ashraf, whose plight is getting more desperate every day as another military assault it prepared. They don’t want reparations for their families following their slaughter; they want a safe haven, outside of Iraq.
It must also remove the terrorism label from the PMOI so it can continue to lead the struggle for a free and democratic Iran. That’s all the Iranian opposition wants – no troops, no funds, just to have the unjustified “terror” tag removed. It is this that Iran and Iraq use to justify the killings of Ashraf residents.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale is Chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. He is a former Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lord-corbett/avoid-another-srebrenica-_b_904251.html
Howard Dean: Why is the MEK on the terrorist list?
July 21, 2011 by
Speech by Governor Howard Dean, Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (2005-2009), “Middle East, Iran Spring: Obstacles, Opportunities and U.S. Policy,” Washington, DC, July 16, 2011, Excerpt:
Governor Howard Dean, Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
I just do want to say two thanks before I start: the first is to the leadership of this organization [MEK] which has worked so incredibly hard to save 3400 unarmed people in Ashraf and to stand up for what’s right in their own country.So I want to thank all of you who have put all these together. I don’t know what number this is, the one that I’ve done, but when this happens — and we will free the people of Ashraf, and we will free Iran from the tyranny of the mullahs — when this happens — when this happens, you will thank us, but we will thank you, because this never happens without the people — the United States cannot stand up for people who won’t stand up for themselves. And you have stood up for yourselves, and we intend to support you in doing that.
Secondly, it’s an incredible honor to be on the platform with so many distinguished American military leaders. And I actually don’t think I’ve ever done this before, but I’m going to. My brother was a — classified as a POW/MIA in Vietnam. He was a civilian, and he was captured in Laos by the Pathet Lao and ultimately executed in December of 1974.
And since I have three Generals here, I want to thank them for the Joint Task Force full accounting, because nearly 30 years later, we recovered his remains because of this extraordinary group of young people. So I want to thank you not just for standing here today, but for what the American military has done not just in the field, which you’re adequately praised for all over the place, but what you do behind the scenes for the families.
Mitchell said when we started that there had been some progress, and there has been progress and there’s also been setbacks.
The biggest setback since the massacre on April 8th has been the clock, because the clock continues to tick. And as of January 1st, it looks like our troops will be out of Iraq, and we cannot trust the word of Prime Minister Maliki. We cannot trust the Iraqis to keep their word in terms of the promises that they made to the people of Ashraf and to the United States of America.
And I deeply regret that the American people have lost over 5,000 brave troops and many, many more than that severely injured only to see in power a puppet of one of the most dangerous regimes on the face of the Earth, which is the Iranian Government.
We can do better than this. And if for no other reason than to preserve the memory of our troops that sacrificed their lives, Maliki owes us at least the dignity of allowing us to be the brave, free country that we are and save the people of Camp Ashraf from destruction at the hands of his regime.
We did not die — we do not want to have our folks die in vain. We will not put up with what Prime Minister Maliki is representing in the Government of Iraq.
I was delighted to see the Spanish judge announce that he was going to investigate Prime Minister Maliki as soon as he stepped down, which, of course, now, he may never do. Because the Spanish courts don’t have the ability to investigate people who are in office, but they do have the ability to investigate people who leave office.
And the Spanish judge is now investigating — announced that he will investigate Prime Minister Maliki as a war criminal.
I was delighted to see that Wes Clark has said and then was quoted in the testimony before the Rohrabacher Subcommittee that he knows a war crime when he sees it, and what happened at Camp Ashraf was a war crime.
But what looms in front of us is a far bigger war crime, and that is the massacre of the remainder of the 3400 residents. And it is very clear there can be no assurance by the Iraqi Government that would have the credibility that we could rely on or that the people of Ashraf could rely on.
Washington, DC, July 16, 2011 - Panel of former senior U.S. government officials calls on the Department of State to expeditiously complete its review and remove the MEK from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO)
What are the reasons for keeping the MEK on the terrorist list?
In 2006, when we disarmed the members of the MEK in Ashraf, we gave a signed — our commander on the ground gave a signed piece of paper to every single resident of — of Ashraf saying that the United States would protect them. We did not say we will protect you until the Iraqis will take over, we will protect you until Maliki takes over or if he changes his mind, then we — we reserve the right — we said that we would protect them.
That is the word of the United States of America.
At that time, when we took over Ashraf and disarmed the residents, the Federal Bureau of Investigation — and we have one of the most distinguished leaders of that agency with us today — according to Colonel Morse, interviewed every single person in Ashraf.
Not one person that they interviewed out of the 3400 was found to be a terrorist.
So now we have a group of people who are under siege by supposedly our ally, who have been found by the Federal Bureau of Investigation not to be terrorists, who have been promised the protection of the greatest nation on the face of the earth, and 35 of them were massacred in cold blood a few months ago. And the threat now is to get the other 3365 at a later time.
These people are not terrorists. This is not a rhetorical game. You see in the paper the pro-Iranian lobbyist saying, well, they’re a cult and they’re this and they’re that.
Well, first of all, I don’t believe that’s true, but even if it were, does that justify the murder in cold blood of people who are under American protection? I think not. Let’s stop the name calling and the foolishness and look at this for what it is. This is genocide, and we will not have it.
The president of the Iraqi Parliament recently visited with Struan Stevenson, who chairs the European Parliament Committee on Iraq. The President of the Iraqi Parliament, the President of the Iraqi Parliament, in his delegation, said that it was an extraordinarily foolish idea to move the people from Ashraf to another location inside Iraq.
If the President of Iraqi Parliament believes that it is a foolish idea to move the people from Ashraf to another location inside Iraq because they won’t be adequately protected, then why is it the policy of the United States to move people from Ashraf to another location inside Iraq?
The American proposal is harming the chances of getting these unarmed civilians out of Iraq alive.
Because the Europeans are now interested in a process where folks from Ashraf could go back — as you know, many of the people in Ashraf grew up in European countries, sometimes, at some point, were citizens, and not only European countries, but American — of America.
Many were educated in the West. In fact, at least there’s one person and maybe more who actually worked for the Department of Defense in the United States of America who has been in Ashraf for some years.
So one of the plans that the Europeans have is that we could relocate the 3400 members of Ashraf, to save their lives, to the West.
Every time the United States Ambassador says anything about relocating them in Iraq, it makes it easier for those who don’t want to relocate folks into Europe to say no.
This is a bad policy that we have, and there is no logical basis for the policy of the United States of America right now. And it has to change.
Now, there are some very smart people here who know a lot about intelligence, a lot more than I do. I’m going to let them talk about it.
But I — I want to close by saying a little bit about why I’m in this. You know, there are — as General Mukasey said at another meeting, there’s about the widest diversity of people on this group, politically speaking, as any group that I’ve certainly ever worked with.
It’s actually been a pleasure for me to actually get to know Republicans as people. I had a job which was trying to get rid of as many people as I could — get them out of office. We’re not talking about the Iraqi way of doing it.
so it’s been a great opportunity for me to get to reach across the aisle and get to know people and respect them, even though, of course, my job was to get them out of office as soon as I could for four years.
I think the thing that brings us together is that we believe in America. Many of the people in this room are Iranian-Americans. And you have very deep feelings about Iran, as you should, as many Irish-Americans have feelings about Ireland, and Jews have feelings about Israel, and so forth and so on.
But as — I’m doing this because I’m an American. I’m doing this because we do live, I think, in the greatest country in the world. What makes — I don’t believe an American is a better person than an Iranian or an African or a Hispanic or from South America or any — I don’t believe — but I do believe the founding documents in the United States makes us an exceptional country in this way: If you look at the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all those years ago, we established ourselves as not only a nation of laws, but a nation of hope, that we hope for something better for ourselves than what we had left; that we had a more positive view of human beings than what was currently available in the world of the late 1770s; and that we would stand not just for individual freedoms, but for hope, for opportunity and, most importantly, which is frequently forgotten today, individual responsibilities to each other to recognize the extraordinary human potential that was available. That’s the greatness of America.
This is a moment to decide whether we are not — we are the — whether we are or are not still a great nation.
We are in this for the people of Ashraf not because we want to overthrow the Iranian Government, although that would be a very good idea; we are in this for the people of Ashraf because, as General Shelton said, we gave our word. We stand up for those who are trying to stand up for themselves but don’t have the means to do this.
We risk being the Dutch at Srebrenica instead of being the Americans in the Balkans. We cannot give up our legacy of standing for a free people who are willing to stand for themselves, especially for those who do not have the ability right now to stand for themselves.
We have to do this not for the people of Ashraf, not for the Iranian community; we have to do this so that the United States of America remains a great country dedicated to freedom, opportunity and personal responsibility.
Thank you very much.
“Wake Up State Department, Take the MEK off the FTO List Today”
July 20, 2011 by
General Hugh Shelton, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001), Saturday, July 16, 2011, Washington, DC
Excerpts:
Thank you for a very warm welcome. It is truly great to be with you here in Washington today and to join such a distinguished group of colleagues.
I’d also like to offer greetings to the residents of Camp Ashraf that may be watching or may see this later on. You know, there have been some substantive changes that have occurred in the political landscape and in the challenges that the Ashraf residents face since I last spoke to you or this group in May of this year, but some things have not changed.
First is the United States’ guarantee of protection for the residents of Camp Ashraf. It is a commitment that we, as a nation, made and that we must honor if we are to sustain our reputation as a great nation and one that can be trusted to honor its
commitments.
As we all know, the residents of Camp Ashraf are individuals that provided invaluable information to the United States during the War with Iraq and at its most critical moments. They are individuals that have placed themselves at great — great risk, not only themselves, but their families as well, by voluntarily giving up their arms when they were asked to do so by the United States, when, at that time, they were guaranteed protection by us.
And as an organization, we must remember that they are ones that first alerted us to the — to the nuclear programs that had been proposed by the mullahs, and as such, the regime might have those weapons today had it not been for their assistance.
The second thing that has not changed is — is that the current regime in Iran is still the world’s largest exporter of terrorism and the greatest threat to peace and stability throughout that region.
The ruling Iranian regime is an oppressive regime, as we all know. It’s one that mixes theocracy with autocracy and extreme expansionist ideology and one that continues to defy the international community.
It is a regime that is intent on denying their own citizens the freedoms that they desire and that they deserve.
The U.S. has encountered elements of this regime in every operation that we have conducted for the last 25 years.
And it is a regime that is not there to help another country fight for freedom; it is there to impose their will on that regime whenever they can and wherever they can.
We recently heard Secretary of Defense Panetta say or express concern regarding Iran’s interference with the Maliki Government in Iraq. So I think that now we have, in terms of Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary Leon Panetta, two individuals in the Pentagon that fully understand the threat that Iran poses to the region and to the United States’ interests.
Third is the oppression of the — and the inequality of women by the current regime, and Iran has not changed. It is deplorable. We know that women want equality, they want respect and the right to participate in all social and economic events, and they deserve to live their lives in a productive manner, one in which they can live with dignity, one, unfortunately, which is not their lot in Iran today.
The current regime’s theocratic manner of declaring women as intellectually and physically inferior to men is counter to women’s rights, and it’s counter to their expectations, as well as — as what is the right thing to do by that regime and what — something that the regime understands but fails to do it.
Unfortunately, another thing that has not changed is that the largest, best-organized resistance to Iran’s current regime, the PMOI or the MEK, is still on the foreign terrorist list here in the United States.
Our great ally, the UK, took them off their list in 2008, followed very quickly in 2009 by the EU. In the United States, we have former Ambassador Dell Dailey, another colleague who is — as — as the ambassador for counterterrorism to the State Department and as an individual who commanded our Joint Special Operations Command who knows more about terrorism and the – and the various organizations in this country than anyone in the State Department today, also previously recommended that the MEK come off the FTO list.
Our Congress has passed a resolution encouraging the State Department to take them off, and we’ve also seen in this — in this process that the State Department, in spite of being told to provide it, has failed to provide any either classified or declassified information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place.
They also, as we know, last week, exceeded the 180 days that they had been given by the Court to produce evidence to substantiate their reasons why the MEK is on the list.
I say: Wake up State Department, take the MEK off the FTO list today.
Now, what has changed since we saw that deplorable attack on — of Maliki’s control Iraqi troops in April? Well, first, the — the fate of Ashraf residents has become very tenuous. We, in the United States, have continued to fail to acknowledge our commitment to ensure the safety of the Ashraf residents hiding behind the lame excuse that it is now an Iraqi problem.
Ambassador Jeffrey in Iraq, his idea that Ashraf residents should be relocated somewhere else in Iraq without any assurance or even any apparent concern for their safety or providing rationale as to why this is a good idea, other than said it moves it further away from the Iran border, is appalling. It causes me to stop and wonder what is this man drinking.
This idea is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for slaughter. It is a recipe for ethnic cleansing, far outside the reaches, now, of the international community. By dispersing the residents of Ashraf, it is setting up a recipe for — or setting up a disaster.
The — the Iranian influence on the Maliki Government today has shown — has shown us that the Maliki Government is incapable of providing the degree of protection for the Ashraf residents that they should be providing.
It has shown that the Maliki Government has a disdain for the Ashraf residents, because we see inhumane treatment of the Ashraf residents on a daily basis, to include the loud speakers, the psychological warfare that they have been — that they have been carrying out, as well as the fact that they have continued to not allow the proper degree of medical treatment for the Ashraf residents.
And then, of course, we all watched the Maliki-controlled troops as they attacked or slaughtered and injured the unarmed residents of the Camp Ashraf.
We either need to send a new ambassador with moral courage who understands America’s prior commitments, or we need better oversight and guidance from Washington for that ambassador.
Equally appalling to me is the fact that when you look at the fact — that we have not used the tools of our national power to make sure that the Ashraf residents who are provided proper medical treatment is absolutely astonishing.
We should not forget that the MEK is the best organized, it is the most formidable opposition to the current Iranian regime. It has challenged the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism for the past 32 years. And to me, it is the MEK that provides hope for the current Iranian people that – it provides a degree of hope that far exceeds anything else that we, here in the United States, or our allies can offer short of direct intervention.
When you look at the 10-point program of human rights platform published by President-elect Mrs. Rajavi, which emphasizes the same religious and gender freedoms that are emphasized and advocated by the U.S. Department of State, to me, it makes it a no-brainer.
Just how dumb can Ambassador Jeffrey or anyone else be to ask an organization of this type to disband itself as he did just recently when, all over the world, we are supporting groups, groups who stand — stand against ruling dictators, dictators that are far less a threat to the United States than the Iranian regime and, in fact, dictators that were considered friends of the U.S. in some cases.
Why would we not want to put the weight and power of this country behind an organization that we know stands for the — the same principles that we stand for and that is the best-organized, best-led organization to take on the current Iranian regime? It just doesn’t make sense.
As we look ahead, you say,okay, those are the problems, what do you recommend? Well, my recommendation would be, first of all and first and foremost, take the MEK off the list.
Secondly,we need to remember that the — the Ashraf residents are part of the group that the United States recognized as protected citizens under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that we, ourselves, provided protection for for six years.
Third, we need to pressure the Iraqis to stop all harassment and suppressive measures against the Ashraf residents today.Fourth, given that the Ashraf residents have accepted relocation as an option, we should let the Iraqis know in no uncertain terms, and by that, I mean, use maybe what I would characterize as “coercive diplomacy,” that forcible displacement inside Iraq is totally unacceptable.
We should use the tools of our national power, particularly our diplomatic and our economic tools, to ensure that the Iraqis live up to the commitments that we made to the Ashraf residents if we are not going to do it ourselves.
Fifth, we, in the United States, should step up to our responsibilities and guarantee temporary protection to the residents of Ashraf until they are resettled in third countries.
Let me summarize by saying we know that Iran is much — has much stronger and concentrated nationalism than any other country in the Middle East. We know that many other countries in the Middle East look at Iran as a threat and for good reason.
We also know that the MEK provides the best avenue for change, and it’s why they — that Iran considers the MEK as a significant threat to their regime.
I would call on Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta to acknowledge the U.S. commitment, the promise that we made, the contract that we made with the Ashraf residents to provide for their protection. Let’s quit hiding behind the lame excuse that that’s now an Iraqi problem as a reason — that — that gives us a reason to stand by and watch, and that’s not a reason at all.
Again, I say use the tools thatare available. We’ve got a very strong economic tool, and we certainly have got diplomatic tools that we can use to adjust Maliki’s attitude and his actions towards the residents of Ashraf.
We, the United States, as I said before, are a great nation, but we are not in the eyes of the rest of the world if our word is not our bond and if we do not honor our commitments and our promises.
This is a disgrace for America in my opinion. If President Maliki is so weak that he can’t control his armed forces or if he, in essence, is using his armed forces to attack, harass and, in the case of April, to slaughter the residents of Ashraf, then it’s a clear indication that he is nothing more than a puppet for the current Iranian regime.
Today, it is clear that the current regime in Iran needs to change, and the MEK, with their platform of human rights and equality, is the one that they fear.
We should join the UK and our European allies and remove the MEK from the FTO list, allowing them to continue to bring maximum pressure on the current regime.
This, combined with the strength and courage of those individuals living in Iran today who want their freedom, and especially the women and the youth of that country, offers the greatest opportunity for seeing Iran with a government that is sensitive to the needs of the people of Iran and the greatest opportunity for all the citizens of Iran to enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms that the rest of the free world enjoys.
Thank you very much.
Empower Iranians vs. Tehran
July 19, 2011 by
National Review Online
Iran ’s most prominent opposition group should not be labeled a terrorist organization.
How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, whichWashingtonlabels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”
Iranian aggression began in 1979, with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy inTehran, and the holding of some of its staff as hostages for 444 days. Major subsequent attacks included two bombings inBeirutin 1983: at theU.S.embassy, killing 63, and at a U.S. Marine barracks, killing 241.
More recently, U.S.secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated, “We’re seeing more of those weapons going in [to Iraq] from Iran, and they’ve really hurt us.” Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added, “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops.”American responses fall into two main camps: tough and diplomatic. The first sees Tehran as irredeemable and counsels a policy of confrontation and even force; it assumes that diplomacy, sanctions, computer viruses, and threats of military strikes have no chance of dissuading the mullahs from going nuclear, and it speaks of regime change or a military option against the Iranian bomb. The diplomatic camp, which generally controlsU.S. policy, accepts the permanence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expectsTehran to respond to diplomatic overtures.
A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government’s terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street.
The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK’s organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “henchman,” Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “dictator,” and shouting “down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih” (that a religious figure heads the government).
A number of fomer high-level American officials advocate delisting the MeK, including a national-security adviser (James Jones), three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, Richard Myers, Peter Pace), a secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge), an attorney general (Michael Mukasey), and even a State Department coordinator for counterterrorism (Dell Dailey). A chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats favor delisting, including a bipartisan group of 80 members of Congress.
The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation — rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant.
What about the past two years? The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases — the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) — and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier.
What about capabilities and intentions? The State Department’s 2006 “Country Reports on Terrorism” accused the MeK of maintaining “capacity and will” for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain’s Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as “perverse,” and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011.
In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.
Following a court-mandated review of the MeK’s terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, the Obama administration can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny — and perhaps end the mullahs’ mad nuclear dash.
— Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Iranian resistance demands Clinton remove it from terrorist list
July 19, 2011 by
The Washington Times
July 19, 2011
By Marieke van der Vaart
Delay said to appease Tehran
Iranian opposition activists are accusing the State Department of flouting a federal court’s year-old ruling ordering the removal of the Iranian resistance from the U.S. list of international terrorist organizations.
Supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to comply with the court order as they rallied outside the State Department last week to mark the anniversary of the ruling.
The State Department says it is still reviewing evidence about the group.
“Until the [MEK] are removed from the list, the U.S. policy is appeasing the current Iranian regime,” said Mohamad Alafchi, an Iranian-American protester from New York.
“The Iranian people see that. That’s the only reason they’re on the list — to appease the Iranian regime.”
The State Department said it most recently received evidence from the MEK legal team in June.
“Were currently reviewing this new material,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “So, no decision has been made.”
High-level support for removing the MEK from the terrorist list range from former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from the Bush administration to Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
President Clinton placed the resistance on the terrorist list in 1997 to meet a key demand of the Iranian government when he was trying to open relations with Tehran. Before that, the resistance operated openly in the United States with a Washington office.
The MEK first petitioned to get off the terrorism list in 2009, but the State Department rejected its appeal in early 2010. A year ago on Saturday, the federal court of appeals in Washington overturned that decision, but the MEK has remained on the list ever since.
Resistance members are demanding that Mrs. Clinton either present more evidence to prove the group is engaging or has recently undertaken terrorist activities or drop the accusation entirely.
The current legal debate is only the latest controversy in the MEK’s turbulent relationship with the United States since its founding in 1963. Led by a group of leftist Iranian university students, it carried out several bombings, abductions and hijacking operations in the 1970s that resulted in the deaths of six Americans in Iran, according to the State Department.
After the Iranian revolution, the MEK emerged as a key opposition group to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his brutal theocratic regime. In the 1980s, MEK leaders fled into exile to Camp Ashraf, 50 miles from Iran inside neighboring Iraq.
Then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein allowed the resistance to carry out attacks on Iran, his enemy in the Iran–Iraq war of the 1980s.
In 2003, the MEK signed an agreement with U.S.-led coalition forces to hand over all of its weapons. Bruce McColm, president of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, said that each of the 3,400 refugees was guaranteed security. The United States handed over the camp to Iraqi forces in 2009.
Since then, Iraqi security forces have raided the camp twice, killing between 41 and 46 Iranians and wounding about 800 more.
“[Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki] put in writing that he would protect the people at Camp Ashraf, according to the Geneva Convention,” Mr. McColm said. “Clearly, he hasn’t.”
MEK members said that until the United States takes the group off its terrorist-organizations list, the Iraqi government will continue to use that terrorist designation as a justification for violence.
“You have a situation that creates a humanitarian disaster,” Mr. McColm said.
In 2009, a European court ordered the European Union to remove the resistance from its own terrorist list, after finding the MEK had committed no acts of terrorism.