MEK strives for a democratic republic in Iran based on the separation of religion and state.
A huge crowd of Iranian American demonstrators protest during a rally in front of the US Department of State on August 26, 2011 in Washington, DC. The group was demanding the removal of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran from the list of terrorist organizations by the State Deptartment. AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards (Photo credit should read PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)
If ever there was a time for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove the main Iranian opposition group People’s Mojahedin (MEK / PMOI) from the US list of terrorist organisations, today is that day.
I attended a rally by thousands of Iranian-Americans today outside the State Department, where participants, young and old, urged Secretary Clinton to de-list the MEK as she has been ordered to do by the DC Court of Appeal.
Thousands of MEK members have repeatedly come under deadly attack in their main base in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, by Iraqi armed forces at the behest of Iran’s fundamentalist regime. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Maliki uses the terror label as an excuse to murder the residents. In April 36 MEK members were slaughtered by Iraqi forces and hundreds of others were injured. Maliki has now threatened to close the camp and expel the residents by force at the end of the year.
The MEK was blacklisted in Washington in 1997 as a “goodwill gesture” to Iran in the hope that the mullahs could be placated to abandon terrorism and repression. The British government labelled the group as terrorist in 2001 for similar reasons. Yet the mullahs have not only continued to use terror at home and abroad; they are now fast pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program.
As one of the 35 Parliamentarians who were successful in legally challenging our government to delist the MEK in the UK, I know that our victory tells us all we need to know about the decision Secretary of State Clinton must now make. Every single shred of evidence available to the British government was placed before the British courts. Much of this information was made up of Iranian regime misinformation, but also a great deal was provided by the US authorities. We are all fully aware that intelligence between the UK and US governments is widely shared and in the case of the MEK it was no different. Based on all this information, including every piece of evidence US authorities shared with their UK counterparts, the British courts found the ban on the MEK to have been ‘perverse’ and ‘flawed’. Perverse in legal terms is a damning indictment of the British government’s attitude towards the MEK, meaning in this instance that no reasonable and honest Secretary of State based on the information put before him or her could have come to the conclusion that the MEK was a terrorist organisation.
THE HUFFINGTON POST
We are fully aware that the listing of the MEK in the US and UK was never honest nor was it reasonable, rather it was an attempt by previous administrations to pander to the wishes of the Iranian regime and hold out a hand of friendship to this vile regime. The regime gratefully took our hand and has for years used to it to slap us with, as it continues to support terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan with 7 out of every 10 Coalition deaths directly linked to the Iranian regime while continuing to defy the international community over its nuclear weapons program.
WikiLeaks revelations have indicated that the British government’s delaying tactics in relation to that legal challenge were as a result of fear for the repercussions which the regime may commit against British interests in Iran and specifically the British Embassy. In reality the regime’s threats were nothing but hot air.
Now Secretary of State Clinton must do what is just. She must do what the legal system of the United States requires her to do and that is to immediately remove the MEK from the US list of banned organisations. The judgments of the British and European courts have unequivocally proven that no case exists for maintaining a ban on the MEK.
For far too long the MEK has unjustifiably been banned in the US to please the vile regime of Tehran, a vile regime which has continually used the ban to justify the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands and now the US ban is used by the Iraqi authorities to justify the massacre of Camp Ashraf residents.
This is now a matter of life and death. Maintaining this illegitimate ban on the MEK will lead to the massacre of all Camp Ashraf residents. Secretary of State Clinton must immediately remove the MEK from the list, not only because that is her legal duty, but further because it will allow the safety of the Camp Ashraf residents to be guaranteed while sending a clear message to the Iranian people that we support their right to democracy and freedom.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brian-binley/my-message-to-secretary-c_b_938137.html
On Friday thousands of Iranians rallied outside the US State Department calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to immediately lift the terrorist designation of Iran’s main opposition group People’s Mojahedin (MEK/PMOI) and ensure US forces guarantee the protection of the group’s members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. I joined them to announce the support of 500 British Parliamentarians from all parties and both Houses of Parliament, and a total of 4,000 lawmakers globally, for their just cause.
I addressed the rally alongside my distinguished American colleagues including Louis Freeh, former Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation; Ed Rendell, former Governor of Pennsylvania; John Sano, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Colonel Wesley Martin, former Coalition counter terrorism commander in Iraq; and Patrick Kennedy, the distinguished former US Congressman and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, who addressed our rally via satellite link from Paris, told us: “It has been more a year since the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which ordered the State Department to review the terrorist listing of the PMOI. Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance have paid the price for this unjustified delay with the blood of their most courageous children… The terror listing in the U.S. is openly used as a justification to legitimize such bloodletting, both by the cruel mullahs in Tehran as well as their proxy government in Iraq.”
If ever there was a time for Secretary Clinton to remove the MEK from the US list of terrorist organisations, today is that day.
Thousands of MEK members have repeatedly come under deadly attack in Camp Ashraf by Iraqi armed forces at the behest of Iran’s fundamentalist regime. In April 36 MEK members were slaughtered by Iraqi forces and hundreds of others were injured. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Maliki has now threatened to close the camp and expel the residents by force at the end of the year.
The MEK was blacklisted in Washington in 1997 as a “goodwill gesture” to Iran in the hope that the mullahs could be placated to abandon terrorism and repression. The British government labelled the group as terrorist in 2001 for similar reasons. Yet the mullahs have not only continued to use terror at home and abroad; they are now fast pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program.
As one of the 35 Parliamentarians who were successful in legally challenging our government to delist the MEK in the UK, I know that our victory tells us all we need to know about the decision Secretary of State Clinton must now make. Every single shred of evidence available to the British government was placed before the British courts. Much of this information was made up of Iranian regime misinformation, but also a great deal was provided by the US authorities. We are all fully aware that intelligence between the UK and US governments is widely shared and in the case of the MEK it was no different. The British courts found the ban on the MEK to have been ‘perverse’ and ‘flawed.’
We are fully aware that the listing of the MEK in the US and UK was never honest nor was it reasonable, rather it was an attempt by previous administrations to pander to the wishes of the Iranian regime and hold out a hand of friendship to this vile regime. The regime gratefully took our hand and has for years used it to slap us, as it continues to support terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan with 7 out of every 10 Coalition deaths directly linked to the Iranian regime while continuing to defy the international community over its nuclear weapons program.
Now Secretary of State Clinton must do what is just. She must do what the legal system of the United States requires her to do and that is to immediately remove the MEK from the US list of banned organisations.
Brian Binley is a Member of Parliament from the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party.
Rally Demands De-Listing of the MEK
US Department of State, August 26, 2011
ABOUT THE RALLY:
More than a year since the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of the main Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), thousands will rally outside the State Department to demand the group’s removal from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). At its core, today’s rally represents the Iranians’ national desire for democratic change.
Fourteen years since MEK was designated as an FTO to placate Tehranrulers, the call for the MEK delisting has now become a national demand by Iranians from all walks of life and political persuasions. This demand is not just about the injustice done to the MEK or about the safety and security of its members in Camp Ashraf. Today, demand for the MEK delisting is the embodiment of Iranians’ national desire for democratic change; desire for a secular, democratic and non-nuclear republic in Iran.
The dire implications of the unwarranted FTO designation of the MEK far exceeds the loss of life and injury it has caused to the group’s members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq and to their families and sympathizers in Iran. The terrorist stigma has gravely handicapped the MEK’s political, diplomatic, financial, and organizational wherewithal at a very crucial juncture when every Iranian democratic opposition needs to function at full throttle to achieve democratic change. The continued blacklisting of the MEK has been seen by Iranians as a sign of Washington’s preference for the status-quo in Iran.
Not surprisingly, the State Department’s blacklisting of the MEK has been hugely popular within Iran’s theocratic leadership and its most suppressive organs. In recent weeks, senior Iranian regime officials, including commanders of the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have urged the United States to maintain the MEK on its terrorist list.
In addition to Iranians, a growing roster of former seniorUSgovernment officials and some 130 Members of Congress have called for the removal of the MEK from the FTO list, emphasizing that any decision to the contrary would violate the statutory criteria and bring irreparable damage toIran’s democratic movement.
Thousands of Iranian-Americans from 41 states took part in a huge rally outside the State Department on August 26, 2011, urging Secretary Clinton to act swiftly and remove the principal Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK) from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
RALLY’S DEMANDS:
We are resolved in tandem with H. RES. 60:
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Refusal to remove MEK’s terrorist designation betrays democracy
With Iran reportedly making progress on its nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has an opportunity to recognize an Iranian opposition group that is dedicated to democratic reform; has a secular, pro-Western outlook, and is most feared by the Iranian rulers. There’s only one catch: She must first remove the group from the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).
Removing any group from the FTO list is never easy, as doing so inevitably runs the risk of being seen as soft on terrorism. But, if ever there were a case for so acting, it is with regard to a group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).
Indeed, the MEK should never have been designated as an FTO in the first place. An ardent opponent of the mullahs who run Iran, the MEK was put on the U.S. list in 1997 as a gesture to Tehran at a time when U.S-Iranian relations seemed to be thawing.
The group had engaged in armed resistance first to the shah and later against the mullahs as a last resort because both regimes had eliminated the last vestiges of peaceful political activity. As a result, the Iranian government has jailed, tortured and executed tens of thousands MEK members. Many of its members, mostly former political prisoners, have fled Iran since the 1980s, with several thousand settling in Camp Ashraf in Iraq.
At the end of the Iraq war, the MEK disarmed under the supervision of the U.S. Army and renounced violence. It has embraced its own bill of rights that calls for a free and democratic Iran. The MEK has endorsed the emancipation of women, the separation of government and religion in Iran, the ability of Iranians to worship as they choose, and adherence to internationally recognized human rights. In light of these actions, MEK members in Camp Ashraf were deemed “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention and were to be shielded by the U.S. military.
Other governments have recognized that the MEK is not a terrorist group. In 2008 and 2009, respectively, Britain and the European Union removed the MEK from their lists. Some 90 members of Congress have called for the MEK to be removed from the U.S. list, and the bipartisan support is growing.
In addition to myself, former national security officials from the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations have joined this call, including John R. Bolton (U.N. ambassador), Andrew Card (White House chief of staff), Gen. Wesley Clark, Louis J. Freeh (FBI director), Gen. James L. Jones (national security adviser), Gen. Richard Myers and Gen. Peter Pace (chairmen, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Gen. James T. Conway (commandant of the Marine Corps), Michael B. Mukasey (attorney general), Tom Ridge (Homeland Security secretary), Howard Dean (Vermont governor), Bill Richardson (New Mexico governor), and Togo D. West Jr. (Secretary of the Army), to name just a few
Despite these developments and the fact that a nonviolent, disarmed group cannot as a matter of law be an FTO (the use of violence is the fundamental criterion for such a designation), the State Department so far has delayed the delisting of the MEK. A federal appeals court in July 2010 ordered the department to reconsider its position. All deadlines have come and gone.
This inaction has had tragic consequences. On April 8, thousands of Iraqi troops, backed by Humvees and armored personnel carriers, invaded Camp Ashraf and killed 36 residents and wounded hundreds more, all MEK members. The United States failed to safeguard Ashraf despite its pledge to do so. The unarmed residents had no means of resistance and they remain under threat.
Members of Congress attempted to investigate the attack but were turned away by the Iraqi government, which cited the U.S. terrorist designation as a reason to wall off the camp from U.S. lawmakers as well as to justify its violent treatment of the residents.
The FTO designation not only imperils the people of Ashraf, but it also casts a shadow on a group that is working to advance the values the United States has long hoped to see in Iran. The MEK is not a terrorist group and it is time for the United States to join our partners in the EU and Britain and take the MEK off the FTO list.
Any delay in delisting the MEK runs the risk of undermining the values of our nation based on the rule of law. It sends the wrong signal to Iran, the most active state exporter of terrorism, that it can continue to use its proxies to eliminate its opponents and evade the consequences. The regime in Iran wants nothing less than eliminating the MEK, which it views as a threat. They desire to see the MEK members at Camp Ashraf eliminated, thus killing the hope for change in Iran. As a great nation, we should not stand by and allow this to happen.
Gen. Henry H. Shelton is the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/25/unshackle-irans-main-opposition/
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 (UPI) — The moment of truth is upon us. The Iranian regime has raised the nuclear stakes even while struggling under international sanctions.
The regime has already begun transferring centrifuges to a secret facility deep inside the mountains some 90 miles south of Tehran as part of a plan to expand production of uranium enriched to more than 20 percent.
And, this week it was revealed that North Korea has supplied Tehran with software that is instrumental in the development of nuclear explosives.
All this is taking place as people in Libya have finally succeeded in unseating a 42-year-old dictatorship while the Syrian people are struggling to depose another. The overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi is another watershed moment for popular movements in the region and especially Iran.
Coupled with an eventual people’s victory in Syria, it marks a severe blow to the regime’s regional alliances, which were designed to promote fundamentalism and terrorism as a means to project power. Circumstances in the Middle East are changing rapidly but Washington is surprisingly behind the curve, especially when it comes to Iran.
The Iranian regime is fissured at the core and melting away. The recent row between the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his hand-picked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked a dangerous escalation in the crippling infighting that has gripped the regime since its 2009 elections.
The mullahs, now in their death throes, can sense the West’s formidable financial, diplomatic and military muscle. Despite that, however, the regime keeps coming back defiant as ever. So, what’s missing?
To begin with, there is a near pathological absenteeism in coming to terms with what scares the living daylight out of the mullahs. Plain and simple, the rulers in Iran fear nothing more than the popular opposition that is now arrayed against them, determined to once and for all put the regime out of its misery.
The missing piece of the puzzle is recognizing and liberating a crucial factor in Iranian politics: the Iranian people and their organized opposition.
There is no question that anti-regime sentiment in Iran is profound and widespread.
Two years before the recent Arab revolts, people in Iran carried out a mass uprising. After months of upheaval, unrest, rape and torture, in the YouTube age, the West was in denial. And it was indeed ironic that it took much less for the West to champion the Arab Spring this year.
A new approach is needed that might just work; an outreach to the Iranian people and the organized opposition. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in June, “The United States stands with all Iranians who wish for a government that respects their human rights, their dignity and their freedom.”
Better late than never, as they say!
But, there is a concrete way for the secretary to demonstrate that her expression of goodwill toward the Iranian people and her warnings to the tyrants of Tehran are more than just words.
To the Iranian people she should say that her State Department will immediately lift all the unwarranted duress it placed on the main democratic opposition force, the Mujahedin-e Khalq in a lame attempt to buy the mullahs’ friendship.
Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted an amendment on Camp Ashraf, Iraq, where 3,400 MEK members reside, making it the policy of the United States to prevent their internal displacement as demanded by Tehran.
“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,” said Andrew Card, former President George W. Bush’s chief of staff, in a Washington conference in April.
The clock is ticking and the State Department has missed its statute-mandated deadline to provide a shred of evidence for maintaining the designation, thus dragging the only decision the department can legally make: delisting the MEK.
This is despite the fact that H.R. 60 has called on Secretary Clinton to delist the MEK. The resolution now has 94 co-sponsors, including Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Howard McKeon, R-Calif., chairmen of the Select Intelligence and Armed Services committees.
Some 50 former senior U.S. government officials have joined that call as well.
The mullahs are clearly terrified of the prospect of MEK delisting, reflected in a desperate propaganda campaign by their lobby inside the Beltway over the past month. That’s not unexpected.
To the Iranian mullahs, Secretary Clinton should say, we’ve tried waving the sticks like sanctions, military threats and encirclement and we’ve tried offering the carrots like the blacklisting of the main opposition for the past 14 years. But, it’s clear to us now that you don’t fear us, or respect us, or want to join our community of nations. We’re beginning to come to terms with what really keeps you awake in your bunkers.
Going forward, Secretary Clinton should announce that economic sanctions will be complemented with removing the stigma of terrorism from the main Iranian opposition movement, which has striven, at the cost of tens of thousands of its members and sympathizers, to make the Iran Spring a reality.
The timing could not be better. On Friday, thousands of Iranian Americans from 40 states across America will rally outside the State Department to echo that call.
That democratic future that heralds a non-nuclear Iran and averts a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is something that the people of Libya, Syria and the entire region will benefit from as much as the people of Iran. All eyes are now on Secretary Clinton.
(Ali Safavi is a member of Iran’s Parliament-in-exile and president of Near East Policy Research, a policy analysis firm in Washington.)
PRNewswire
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Members of Congress and senior former U.S. officials will voice support for a major rally by thousands of Iranian-Americans in solidarity with Iran’s pro-democracy movement on Friday, August 26th, according to Human Rights and Democracy International.
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), one of the keynote speakers at the Martin Luther King Memorial ceremonies, and former U.S. officials, including Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Senator Robert Torricelli, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano, and Col. Wesley Martin (Ret.), who served as Camp Ashraf commander in Iraq, will address the Friday rally.
In a joint statement, Co-chairs of the House Congressional Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Bob Filner (D-CA), said, “We welcome our Iranian-American friends to Washington to join in solidarity with the people of Ashraf.” They referred to the “pivotal role the Iranian people, particularly the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (PMOI/MEK) have played in the Iran uprising.”
In his letter to members of the Iranian American community, Senator John Bozeman (R-AR) noted, “House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted an amendment to H.R.2583” making it a policy of the United States to “urge the Iraqi government of Iraq to uphold commitments to the United States for ensuring the continued well-being of those living in Camp Ashraf and prevent their involuntary return to Iran or forcibly relocate from Camp Ashraf.”
“I applaud you for gathering just steps from the Lincoln Memorial to call for transparency and respect for the rule of law,” wrote Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA). Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) member of House Armed Services Committee added, “I am happy to be among about 100 co-sponsors of H.Res.60. The resolution asks our government to do what the United States Court of Appeals has also suggested: to remove residents of Ashraf and the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK/PMOI) from the U.S. terror list—just as our European allies have done.”
“I wish you every success during your visit to Washington… the purpose of which is to bring greater awareness to the situation of family members and friends located in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, including recent humanitarian concerns about the Camp’s residents,” wrote Senate Armed Services Committee member Claire McCaskill (D-MO).
SOURCE Human Rights and Democracy International
In recent weeks a debate has flared in Washington over whether or not Secretary of State Clinton should remove Iran’s main opposition movement, the People’s Mujahidin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTO). The subject has been receiving exceptional attention in the media as we approach the anticipated decision in the next few weeks.
An outstanding group of US former officials and experts on national security as well as members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have called on Secretary Clinton to delist the PMOI. They simply argue that based on their personal experience and deep knowledge there is no evidence to link the organisation to terrorism. The unofficial bipartisan coalition which has been formed includes a diverse spectrum of the US political field. It is a reminder of what happened a few years earlier in the UK, where 35 Members of Parliament from all major political parties successfully took legal action against their own Secretary of State for Home Affairs which led to the delisting of the PMOI in the UK, since the court found the Secretary’s decision for listing the PMOI as “perverse.”
In the UK, as we approached the D day, the Iranian regime’s lobby, disguised under various pretext, intensified its activities. Their arguments were very similar to what we hear today in Washington; no arguments about the PMOI being engaged in terrorism or having capability and intent to do so, let alone any evidence. Their tactic is to create mayhem to somehow keep the opposition on the list.
While they make a lot of noise, given their lack of evidence against the PMOI, the Secretary of State has a clear case before her. She is expected to make her decision based on facts and law and not political propaganda. Given the factual and legal situation, delisting the PMOI is the most appropriate conclusion.
Let’s see what the Iranian regime lobby is arguing.
Privately, they warn about the possible serious consequences if the PMOI is removed from the FTO list. The same warning was made in the UK. The warning was so strong that the British government in an unprecedented move wrote to the Court saying if the decision is going to be in favour of the PMOI, the government would like to know in advance to take necessary measures against a possible reaction from Tehran. The request was repulsive in a democratic country. But more importantly it was a political misjudgement. The PMOI was delisted and nothing happened. Let’s not forget what encourages the mullahs to engage more in terrorism is seeing signs of weakness. Firmness is the best approach to the tyrannical regime.
The regime’s lobby accuse the Iranian opposition of all sort of things unrelated to FTO designation but aimed at tarnishing the image of the PMOI and in particular the image of the opposition leader Maryam Rajavi. Not surprisingly, she is what the Iranian regime fears most. I have personally met her and talked to her about her vision. She is a charismatic leader with a democratic vision for Iran after the mullahs, with gender equality, individual freedom, no nuclear program and good relation with the rest of the world. Her 10 point declaration can be supported by everyone in Europe and the US. No wonder the mullahs are so much against her.
They say the PMOI is not popular in Iran. So what? Even if it was true – for which there is no evidence – it has nothing to with the designation. Those making these arguments are urging Secretary Clinton to ignore the law and decide on other considerations. In short this is an invitation to curry favour with the mullahs in Iran who are responsible for the death of so many British and US soldiers in Iraq.
Secretary Clinton should keep in mind that being on the list requires certain legal criteria to be met. Deciding on the terror tag of the group is not an arbitrary or even political decision to be made as the Iranian lobby call for. Whether the group is popular or not, is a cult or not or whatever else has nothing to do with statutory criteria of a designated terrorist organisation. The PMOI can only be kept on the list if the State Department can prove that it meets the statutory criteria set by law.
Finally, Secretary Clinton should bear in mind the severe consequences of not delisting the PMOI. Not only will it damage America’s reputation for respecting the rule of law but it will have a direct impact on the lives of political prisoners in Iran and 3,400 members of the PMOI residing in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. They have already been the target of two deadly attacks, which the Iraqi government justifies by relying on the FTO designation. The consequences are traumatic. It is time to take the right decision and delist the PMOI.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead is a former Chairman of Britain’s Labour Party.
Scoop Independent News
Who cares more about the safety and security of America and the United States’ national security: The American military personnel who have served their country and put their lives on the line in Iraq or the pro-Tehran lobby in Washington with well-established political and financial ties to Iran’s leadership?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon be making a momentous decision about the removal of the Iranian opposition, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). But has she taken note of what many American military officers, who have dealt with the group in person, sometimes for months, say about the MEK?
Captain Vivian Gembara, an attorney for the U.S. military for 4 years, was deployed in Iraq for 12 months beginning in April 2003. During that time, she participated in negotiations with the MEK. She was a member of the 4th Infantry Division team that negotiated and drafted the “voluntary consolidation” agreement between the United States and the MEK. In a 2005 article, she writes that the U.S. Special Forces were first to encounter the MEK in April 2003 when the MEK “offered to work alongside the U.S. to stabilize the country.”
Captain Gambara writes that, instead of establishing a partnership with the MEK, “Led by General Ray Odierno, 4th Infantry Division Commander, we were tasked with delivering the bad news. The [MEK] we encountered [in Camp Ashraf] were just as the Special Forces described – fluent in English, Arabic and Farsi; familiar with the terrain and eager to work with us. Meetings that we anticipated would run several hours wound up lasting two days.”
Elaborating on the substance of these negotiations, General Odierno told reporters at the sidelines of the meeting hall at Camp Ashraf that “It is not a surrender. It is an agreement to disarm and consolidate.” He added that the MEK appeared to be committed to democracy in Iran and their cooperation with the United States should prompt a review of their “terrorist” status, according to news reports.
The French news agency, AFP, quoted General Odeirno as saying “I would say that any organization that has given up their equipment to the Coalition clearly is cooperating with us, and I believe that should lead to a review of whether they are still a terrorist organization or not.”
Similarly, General James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, spoke on a panel last month about the MEK and Camp Ashraf based on his “own observations and experiences” and as “the only member of the panel that has had physical responsibilities for their security.” He told the audience that:
“As I dispatched some of my commanders to sit down and talk with these folks, 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.”
Speaking at a Congressional briefing in May 2005, Lt. Colonel Thomas Cantwell, Commander of 324th MP Battalion, who for nearly a year was the officer in charge of Camp Ashraf where 3,400 MEK members reside, talked about invaluable role the MEK played as a honest broker between the US commanders and the local Iraqis. Col. Cantwell said:
“When I moved up into northern Diyala province [in Iraq], the relationship of the MEK with the local community helped me in that regard, I think because most of the local sheiks, understanding as part of the Sunni triangle, weren’t exactly trusting of coalition forces but they seemed to have some level of trust with the Mojahedin…”
Also in May 2005, Col. David Phillips “Griffin-6”, the 89th Military Police Brigade, wrote an open letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch which had leveled malicious and completely unfounded allegations about human rights violations in Camp Ashraf. In the letter which was subsequently sent to the members of US Congress and later published in the Congressional Record, Col. Philips stated that:
“I am the commander of the 89th Military Police Brigade and in that role was responsible for the safety and security of Camp Ashraf from January – December 2004… We always had open dialog and debated different subjects. I was exceptionally impressed with the dedication of the female units. These units were professional and displayed strong support for freedom, democracy and equality for women… Were it not for the ongoing insurgency throughout Iraq, I would sanction my daughter to travel to Camp Ashraf and meet these very dedicated and professional female members of the [MEK]…”
In a letter dated August 24, 2006, Lt. Colonel Julie S. Norman, Commander Military Police, JIATF, wrote that:
“The [MEK] has encouraged and assisted various Iraqi groups to join the political process and dialogue with the US forces… The [MEK] has been encouraging peaceful methods in its surrounding community for the establishment of a secure and democratic Iraq and has respected the laws of Iraq…
“The [MEK] has always warned against the Iranian Regime’s meddling and played a positive and effective role in exposing the threats and danger of such interventions; their intelligence has been very helpful in this regard and in some circumstance has helped save the lives of soldiers. Recommend that the facilitation of intelligence continue.”
Few days after the July 2009 deadly attack by the Iraqi forces on MEK members in Camp Ashraf, Warren Murphy from the Indiana National Guard’s 76th Brigade, wrote in the Indianapolis Star newspaper that:
“I also went on several missions to Ashraf and found the people there cooperative and friendly toward us. We should be helping these folks in every way necessary. Repayment for the help they have given us is the least of the reasons to do so. Rescuing them from oppression under the Iraqi government or certain execution if repatriated to Iran is the only action that has a shade of right, and it is easily within our ability to do so.”
Col. Wesley Martin US Army (Ret.) wrote in the New York Post earlier this month that “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 the former antiterrorism/force protection officer for all of Iraq, I know the ‘factual’ basis for the listing is false.”
Last month, he told a Congressional hearing entitled “Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy,” that “I know from experience, the [MEK] is not a terrorist organization. My recommendation in this effort is for the People’s Mojahedin to be immediately removed from the State Department terrorist list.”
Col. Gary Morsch, who had served as the Battalion Surgeon at Camp Ashraf for nearly a year in Camp Ashraf, told the same hearing that:
“There were no findings of any terrorist activities, disloyalty to the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq, illegal activities, coercion of MEK members, hidden arms, or any evidence that the MEK were not fulfilling their agreement with the U.S. Military to fully cooperate with and support the goals of the U.S. in Iraq…”
Dr. Morsch testified that MEK members in Camp Ashraf were highly educated and “had come to Ashraf to voluntarily serve with the MEK to establish a free and democratic Iran.”
“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.”
What all these US officers have said on the record about the MEK over an eight-year span amounts to description of a pro-democracy, stability-seeking ally, not a terrorist entity or a threat to US national security. These statements make it very clear that the MEK’s FTO designation is flawed. The designation has been and continues to be a political act crafted, based on some misguided policy consideration and assumptions, as an incentive to placate Tehran rulers.
As the anti-MEK crowd, spearheaded by the US-based pro-Tehran pressure groups, are ferociously lobbying the State Department to – despite what the law and facts dictate – refrain from revoking the MEK’s “terrorist” tag, Sec. Clinton is wise to listen to the advise of these American soldiers who have come to know the MEK first hand and are concerned about America’s safety and security like no other.
In recent months, with anticipation of a decision by Secretary Hillary Clinton about the lifting of the unfounded terrorist designation from Iran’s democratic opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a number of former senior officials of the State Department, from both Republican and Democratic administrations, have gone on the record to call for an objective review of the designation based on facts and devoid of customary ill-advised foreign policy considerations designed to send conciliatory signals to Tehran.
John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, stated during a recent conference that “I didn’t see anything when I was in the government that justified them [MEK] being on the [FTO] list. We’ve had very senior officials in our American intelligence and counter-terrorism activities that have talked about the work they’ve done with the MEK. We have repeated testimonials by senior American military officials during the days of the American military presence in Iraq … who have talked about their cooperation and the renunciation of terrorism, the disarming of Camp Ashraf and the work that was done to help the United States during that period.”
Back in September, Ambassador Bolton explained why, despite the abundance of evidence and facts to delist, the previous administration decided to maintain the MEK on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). He said “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.”
Among the most significant views about the FTO designation of the MEK are comments made by Ambassador Dell Dailey, Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the State Department in the last two years of the previous administration. He was the official with full access to MEK’s “terrorism” file and yet he could not find any justification of the group’s continued FTO listing.
In 2008, he recommended the MEK be removed from the FTO list based on absence of any evidence to meet the statuary criteria. Secretary Rice, however, overruled that decision.
Last March, Mr. Dailey reiterated his recommendation and said “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.”
Mitchell Reiss, former Director of Policy Planning in the Department of State, has spoken about the bi-partisan and multi-discipline nature of the growing support among senior national security and policy figures for the removal of the MEK from the FTO list.
He told a panel recently that “Whatever our political affiliation, it has no bearing today, as we are unified shoulder to shoulder in our effort to help right this wrong, to de-list the MEK and to help the people at Camp Ashraf.” He added that “The fight being waged to de-list the MEK, the fight to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf… is America’s fight as well. Both our interests and our values are inextricably linked in this case.”
Former senior State Department officials from other administrations have also urged the MEK’s delisting. Bill Richardson, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, has noted that “I sense this momentum with what’s happening in the Middle East, what’s happening in Iran, the repressive nature of the regime responding to the protesters. First, is the delisting [of the MEK] and we should do something about [the protection] of Camp Ashraf. This is a movement that doesn’t want any money. This is a movement that doesn’t want weapons.”
Stuart Eizenstat, former US Ambassador to the European Union and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, has stressed on the importance of strengthening democratic oppositions and addressed the issue of MEK’s blacklisting in his recent remarks. He said “The State Department is going through their process as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia required them to do and I hope as they 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.”
Nancy Soderberg, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, in her remarks earlier this year about the April 2011 massacre of MEK members in Camp Ashraf, said “The government of Iraq absolutely must stand by its obligation to protect those in [Camp Ashraf] and U.S. must push it harder to do so.”
As for the need to review the MEK’s FTO designation based on facts and legal requirements, Ambassador Soderberg has been optimistic that “I am confident the Obama administration’s current review will be decided on the merits. Having spoken to a variety of people in the administration, I do think this will be decided on the facts.” Such a belatedly fresh approach by the administration toward the MEK’s FTO status, should guarantee the group’s removal from the terror list.
Dr. Philip Zelikow, Former Counselor of the States Department and Secretary Rice, and Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, stated back in April that “What would I recommend to the Secretary [Clinton] 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.”
The consensus among these former officials of the State Department has extended beyond this circle and now many other national security and policy figures as well as subject matter experts have joined the US Congress to urge Secretary Clinton to end the MEK’s blacklisting. It is passed time to do so.
Amir Naderi is a Washington-based research analyst with focus on US-Iran relationship.