December 4, 2024

Posts Comments

Obama must support Iranian democracy movement

May 27, 2011 by

By Brian Binley
The Washington Times
Friday, May 27, 2011

Start the effort by protecting Iranian exiles in Iraq
As President Obama is in London to talk hard global politics about Libya and the Arab Spring, there is little doubt that in discussions about Iraq, the fate of 3,400 Iranians based in Camp Ashraf deserves to be high on the agenda.

Those Iranians are members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), Iran’s largest opposition group and the greatest thorn in the side of the current Iranian regime for more than 30 years. The PMOI is famed for revealing the Iranian regime’s clandestine nuclear weapons program and also has played a key role in leading the widespread protests that continue to increase in size and ferocity in Iran’s major cities.

The group’s great success and widespread support have meant that it is the Iranian regime’s No. 1 target. Initially, the Iranian regime used nuclear negotiations to demand that the PMOI be blacklisted in the West as a precondition for Tehran’s entering negotiations. U.S., British and European Union governments of the time had decided that appeasement of Tehran was the order of the day. If this meant unjustly blacklisting the regime’s largest opposition group, then so be it. The United Kingdom and EU blacklisting has ended following historic legal battles. No legal justification remains for the ban in the United States, and widespread calls are being made for the PMOI’s blacklisting to be removed sooner rather than later.

Having been defeated in relation to the blacklisting of the PMOI, the Iranian regime has, since the outset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, looked to crush the PMOI at Camp Ashraf. With Nouri al-Maliki in power in Iraq, the Iranian regime has found an ally willing to jump at the behest of Tehran’s rulers. Iran’s demands were partly met on April 8 when Mr. al-Maliki ordered 2,500 heavily armed troops to enter the camp, shoot at the residents, run them over with military vehicles and destroy their homes. The vicious attack left 35 residents dead and more than 350 wounded, the majority of whom had suffered direct gunshot wounds. Having killed close to 50 residents and wounded close to 1,000 to date, Mr. al-Maliki has vowed to shut the camp at all costs by the end of the year.

Mr. Obama has a clear duty to intervene to protect this group until a lasting solution can be found. He must not forget that he entered his presidency on the back of a campaign in which he vowed to support democratic movements wherever they arise. Unfortunately, during the widespread protests that followed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent return to power for a second term in Iran, the president remained disturbingly silent as the democratic movement was ferociously crushed by the Iranian regime. The U.S. has a clear duty to protect Ashraf residents, to whom it guaranteed protection at the outset of the Iraqi invasion.

Mr. Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron must issue a statement requesting that a United Nations team take control over the safety and security of the camp and guarantee the residents’ safety, preventing further violent assaults by the Iraqi military. Once U.N. protection is provided to the residents, Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron must back an EU Parliament lead solution, which requires serious and long-term discussions among all parties to find the residents a home away from Iraq and in areas where their safety can be guaranteed by the host nation. This is a clear solution to what increasingly has become an overcomplicated issue.

The story of the residents of Camp Ashraf and their lasting future is not only about providing humanitarian assistance to a beleaguered civilian population at risk of violent assault at the hands of Iraqi and Iranian regimes. It also sends a message to the people of Iran and the region that the U.S. supports their democratic movements and will protect civilian populations from state-sanctioned military assaults against them.

Mr. Obama came to power on the back of a mantra of supporting democracy the world over; he must follow his words with action by guaranteeing the protection of the Camp Ashraf residents and finding a lasting solution to this humanitarian crisis. We should expect nothing less.

Brian Binley is a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom from the Conservative Party.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/obama-must-support-iranian-democracy-movement/

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Avert a humanitarian catastrophe Mr President

May 24, 2011 by

The Independent
By Lord Corbett
Tuesday, 24 May 2011

US President Barack Obama, who is visiting the UK at the moment, will be aware of the urgent humanitarian situation facing 3,400 Iranian pro-democracy supporters in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, who came under deadly attack by Iraqi armed forces last month at the behest of Iran.

At least 34 unarmed and defenceless refugees, members of the main Iranian opposition PMOI, were killed and 350 others injured when Iraqi armed forces raided the camp and indiscriminately opened fire on them; however US officials who visited the camp following the massacre have not published their findings.

The attack was condemned by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the European Union and the US State Department. But Iraqi armed forces continue to occupy parts of the camp and there is a real risk of further attacks. The entry of medical supplies to the residents is restricted, and Parliamentary delegations and lawyers have been banned from visiting the camp. At least 42 seriously-injured residents have been denied access to the urgent medical care they need.

Without immediate international intervention there is real threat of a humanitarian catastrophe. Until an accord can be reached by all parties, it is imperative that the United Nations takes over protection of the residents and stations a permanent monitoring team at the camp.

The European Parliament’s proposed solution for the transfer of the residents to third countries and the preconditions attached to it are realistic and practical. However any forcible displacement of the residents within Iraq, as has been suggested by some US officials, would be unlawful and illogical and could quite possibly lead to a bloodbath.

EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton said 27 EU foreign ministers discussed the Ashraf crisis at the European Council in Brussels on Monday, emphasising the need for Iraq to respect the residents’ human rights and agreeing on the importance of working with the UN and US in particular to seek a lasting resolution to the issue.

Here in the UK, more than 500 Parliamentarians of all political parties have declared their support for a leading UN protective role, and we hope that President Obama will lend his support to the proposed European option.

Furthermore, President Obama needs to urgently take action on the continued proscription of the Iranian opposition PMOI by the US State Department. Following the Washington DC court order of July 2010 as well as the de-listing of the PMOI as a terrorist organisation by the UK and EU in 2008 and 2009, the designation of the group in Washington is legally unjustifiably, and we have seen the damage it has done as Iraq uses it to justify its deadly attacks on Ashraf residents.

There exists overwhelming bipartisan support in the US for the group’s designation to be promptly revoked, and I ask and hope that President Obama pays personal attention to this matter to ensure that this happens.

Robin Corbett 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://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/05/24/avert-a-humanitarian-catastrophe-mr-president/

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Briefing in the US Senate: Call for Removal of Iran’s Principal Opposition, MEK, from FTO List, US Action to Protect Dissidents in Camp Ashraf

May 20, 2011 by

PRNewswire
May 20, 2011

WASHINGTON, May 20, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following is being issued by Iranian-American Society of Texas:

As President Barack Obama laid out his vision for a new chapter in American diplomacy in dealing with the new realities of the Middle East, in a briefing on Thursday, May 19, 2011, former senior U.S. government officials urged the removal of Iran’s main opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations as an absolute prerequisite to be consistent with the facts on the ground. The panel demanded urgent U.S. action to protect 3,400 Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, Iraq and strongly rejected the State Department’s draft proposal to relocate Iranian dissidents from Camp Ashraf to other places inside Iraq.

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001), Howard Dean, former DNC Chairman; Tom Ridge, Homeland Security Secretary (2003-2005); Ambassador Dell Dailey, State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism (2007-2009); Patrick Kennedy, Member of the House of Representatives (1995-2011), and Col. Gary Morsch, M.D. (USAR), addressed the symposium, chaired by Professor Raymond Tanter, former National Security Council staff.

“Our own State Department [is party] to the inhumane treatment of MEK members [in Camp Ashraf] because in spite of numerous recommendations it has received from very prominent Americans to take the MEK off the FTO list, it continues to slow roll that issue. By keeping the MEK on the list we, in fact, weaken the support of the most vital organization that could bring about change internal to Iran,” General Shelton emphasized.

Secretary Ridge said, “If we are going to support …freedom-loving movements around the world, we have to include in that vision the pro-democratic forces in Iran — the MEK, and Camp Ashraf. Political, military, law enforcement, and diplomatic leaders throughout this country, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, have been united in their public support of MEK, and have urged this administration to delist them. The silence in face of the brutal retaliation against Iranian dissidents at Camp Ashraf in 2009 and 2011 is certainly inconsistent and one might argue hypocritical, given the administration’s public support for the dissidents, the resistance and the protestors in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria.”

Governor Dean said, “The MEK must be taken off the list right now. There is no evidence… The District of Columbia Circuit Court found there was no due process and there was no evidence.  Our State Department needs to comply with the laws of the United States of America and take them off the list. This is a struggle for the soul of America.” “Two senior State Department officials said… delisting wouldn’t help Ashraf and that the U.S. hoped to move them to another Iraqi location. What are they smoking in the State Department?  For God’s sakes… if any harm comes to one of the residents of Ashraf, these so-called senior officials should resign at once… this relocation plan is a disaster…We have an obligation as human beings and as Americans to make sure that doesn’t happen…We can get people out now.”

Ambassador Dailey underscored, “Careful prudent and thought-out support to the organized, effective, and ever present opposition in Iran, the MEK, is essential. Camp Ashraf has been attacked twice as they had no weapons.  They just locked their arms, ten killed the first time; 35 killed the second time.  Clearly, this shows no intent and no capability to conduct terrorist activities. Currently, U.S. diplomats are recommending an internal relocation of the MEK and the Camp Ashraf residents. This will allow Iraq to continue to harass the residents with the eventual elimination of all the residents. This is totally unacceptable and should not be part of the U.S. foreign policy.”

“The reason MEK is still listed as a terrorist organization is that our policy in the past has been one of appeasement. MEK is the biggest threat to the Iranian mullahs.  If the mullahs are manufacturing and exporting systematic destabilization, systematic support for sponsoring terrorism, fundamentalism and the weapons of that war, the IEDs, we want to be on the side of the people who want to stop them,” said Rep. Kennedy.

Having served at Ashraf, Col. Morsch said, “Let’s stop the siege of Ashraf.  Let’s allow doctors and nurses to go in there.  Let’s ask the UNAMI to go in and to protect the people of Ashraf.  Let’s delist the MEK.  They are part of that spring awakening, except they started many, many springs ago.  And the rest of the world is just catching on.”

SOURCE Iranian-American Society of Texas

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/briefing-on-the-united-states-senate-call-for-removal-of-irans-principal-opposition-mek-from-fto-list-us-action-to-protect-dissidents-in-camp-ashraf-122362993.html

Filed Under: News, US Congress Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Democracy’ in Iraq a win for Iran

May 13, 2011 by

Orange County Register

The war in Iraq has been over for years, but its unintended consequences continue to linger – indeed, fester might be a better word.

Yes, Saddam is gone and the weapons of mass destruction never were found. But while Iraq now ostensibly is a democracy, the real winner – sad to say – is Iran.

This has been evident for months, but if any more proof is needed, consider the appalling situation at Camp Ashraf, home to some 3,500 members of the main opposition group to the Iranian mullahs who clearly are giving the orders to Iraqi forces.

Ashraf, located 60 miles north of Baghdad, has been the sanctuary for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) since the Iran-Iraq war. Following the U.S.-led invasion, coalition forces protected these unarmed civilians under the Geneva Convention, whose strictures still apply.

On April 8, the forces of Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki, who supposedly was going to bring democracy back to Iraq, have been brutally attacking these helpless refuges. Dozens of Ashraf residents have been killed and hundreds injured. Indeed, perhaps 10 percent of the population has been killed or wounded. The Iraqi forces did not even let the injured be taken for medical treatment.

The other day, the UN confirmed that 34 defenseless residents of Ashraf, several of them women were killed, mostly by gunfire.

This action is all at the behest of Tehran, which fears any opposition group and especially the MEK. And Iran doesn’t even have to be involved – it has Maliki to do the dirty work. Thousands of young American lives were laid down in the calls for freedom to give Nouri Al Maliki a tour of the Iranian mullahs to slaughter and kill residents of Camp Ashraf? No way.

Reaction around the world has been unanimous: the attacks must cease and the residents of Ashraf must be left to live in peace. From the United Nations to Amnesty International, to dozens of members of Congress, the call has been loud and clear to Maliki: Cease and desist.

The U.S. State Department stated: “The U.S. Government is deeply troubled by reports of deaths and injuries resulting from this morning’s clash at Camp Ashraf… [T]his crisis and the loss of life was initiated by the government of Iraq and the Iraqi military.”

California Democrat, Howard Berman, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, joined the committee chair, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Letinen, condemning the Iraqi forces deadly attack on Ashraf.

http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-05-13/news/29544047_1_camp-ashraf-iraqi-forces-khalq

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Washington Post, May 12, 2011: Senior US Officials Call on Secretary Clinton to Delist MEK

May 12, 2011 by

 

Washington Post, May 12, 2011: Senior US Officials Call on Secretary Clinton to Delist MEK

Filed Under: Publicity Ads Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Iranian dissidents and a U.S. dilemma

April 29, 2011 by

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

WASHINGTON — Call it the coalition of the baffled — a diverse group of prominent public figures who challenge the U.S. government’s logic of keeping on its terrorist blacklist an Iranian exile organization that publicly renounced violence a decade ago and has fed details on Iran’s nuclear programme to American intelligence.

On the U.S. Department of State’s list of 47 foreign terrorist organizations, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq is the only group that has been taken off similar lists by the European Union and Britain, after court decisions that found no evidence of terrorist activity in recent years. In the U.S., a court last July ordered the State Department to review the designation. Nine months later, that review is still in progress and supporters of the MEK wonder why it is taking so long.

The organization has been on the list since 1997, placed there by the Clinton administration at a time it hoped to open a dialogue with Iran, whose leaders hate the MEK for having sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war.

Calls to hasten the delisting process rose in volume after Iraqi troops raided the base of the MEK northeast of Baghdad, near the Iranian border, in an operation on April 8 that left at least 34 dead, according to the United Nations Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay. In Washington, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, called the raid a “massacre.” Video uploaded by the MEK showed gut-wrenchingly graphic images of dead and wounded, some after being run over by armoured personnel carriers.

The raid drew cheers from officials in Iran, where the group is also classified as terrorist, one of the few things on which Washington and Tehran agree. The word schizophrenia comes to mind here. Iran is one of four countries the U.S. has declared state sponsors of terrorism. The MEK’s stated aim is the peaceful ouster of the Iranian theocracy. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

In response to the April 8 violence, MEK supporters organized a seminar in Washington whose panelists highlighted the bipartisan nature of those critical of the terrorist label. It’s not often that you see the former chairman of the Democratic National Committe, Howard Dean, a liberals’ liberal, sitting next to Rudolf Giuliani, the arch-conservative former mayor of New York.

At a similar event in Paris on the same day, the podium was shared by Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel, Gen. James Jones, U.S. President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser, former NATO commander Wesley Clark and MEK leader Maryam Rajavi. The theme at both events – take the MEK off the list and protect the around 3,400 Iranians in Iraq, who live in Ashraf, a small town surrounded by barriers and security fences.

To hear Dean tell it in Washington, the April 8 raid was evidence that the Iraqi government is becoming “a satellite government for Iran,” with the terrorist designation used to justify “mass murder.” Dean is not alone in ascribing this and a previous attack that killed 11 in Ashraf in July 2009 to the growing influence of Iran as the U.S. prepares to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

WHAT NEXT?

What then? You don’t have to be a pessimist to anticipate more raids, more bloodshed and a humanitarian crisis. Until the end of 2008, the U.S. was responsible for the security of Ashraf and its residents enjoyed the status of “protected persons” under the Geneva Convention. That changed when the U.S. transferred control of Ashraf to the Iraqi government which provided written assurances of humane treatment of its residents.

They don’t seem to be worth the paper they are written on. The Iraqi raid on April 8 came a day after U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Baghdad for talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. One of the topics Gates raised — Iran’s influence in the region.

That Ashraf and the terrorist label for its inhabitants would put the United States in an awkward position after the transfer of responsibility was spelt out with remarkable clarity in February 2009 in a cable from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Marked secret and released through Wikileaks, the cable said harsh Iraqi action would place the U.S. in “a challenging dilemma.”

“We either protect members of a Foreign Terrorist Organization against actions of the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) and risk violating the U.S.-Iraqi Security Agreement or we decline to protect the MEK in the face of a humanitarian crisis, thus leading to international condemnation of both the USG (U.S. government) and the GOI (government of Iraq).”

Which raises a question. How could the U.S. fail to protect unarmed Iranian dissidents opposed to a dictatorship but go to war to protect Libyans in a conflict between armed rebels and a dictatorship? Unlike the Libyan rebels, of whom little is known, the Iranians in Ashraf were all subject to background checks by the American military in the six years it was in control of the camp.

If there’s logic in protecting one but not the other, it’s not easy to see.

http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2011/04/29/iranian-dissidents-and-a-u-s-dilemma/

Filed Under: Bernd Debusmann, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Good Options for Iranian Dissidents in Iraq

April 19, 2011 by

PolicyWatch #1797

By Patrick Clawson

April 19, 2011 

In an April 8 confrontation at Camp Ashraf, Iraq — home to some 3,400 members of the Iranian dissident organization Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — Iraqi army forces killed at least thirty-four people, according to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. The clash highlighted an ongoing problem: what to do about the presence of several thousand people the Iraqi government badly wants to be rid of, when no other country to which they are willing to go will accept them. Distasteful as the current situation is, the status quo may be best.

The Confrontation

When Iraqi forces entered Camp Ashraf on April 8, Baghdad initially claimed that no shots had been fired. The government later changed its story, however, stating that three people had been killed in clashes between rock-throwing residents and security forces had simply been redeploying. On the day of the attack, the U.S. State Department announced, “Although we do not know what exactly transpired early this morning at Ashraf, this crisis and the loss of life was initiated by the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi military.

Under pressure, Baghdad allowed a UN team into Ashraf after a five-day delay. According to Pillay, “It now seems certain that at least 34 people were killed…including seven or more women…Most were shot, and some appear to have been crushed to death, presumably by vehicles…There is no possible excuse for this number of casualties.” Pillay’s account was consistent with footage released by the MEK showing columns of Iraqi armored personnel carriers entering the camp; vehicles are seen running down residents, and riflemen are seen shooting from close range, including at women. Camp witnesses have stated that 2,500 soldiers from eight battalions of Iraq’s Ninth and Fifth Divisions participated in the attack.

As Iraqi forces remain in position to launch further military action, a recent statement by an Iranian official called for additional assaults. According to a report by the Fars News Agency — often regarded as being close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s advisor for military affairs, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, “praised the Iraqi army for its recent attack on the strongholds of the anti-Iran terrorist [MEK] and asked Baghdad to continue attacking the terrorist base until its destruction.”

MEK Background

Designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the MEK was an underground opposition group in the shah’s Iran during the 1960s and 1970s. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the group fell out with the new regime, which imprisoned, tortured, and killed thousands of its members. The remnants fled to Iraqi sanctuaries, where they formed an armed force against Tehran during the Iran-Iraq War. There also is evidence that Saddam Hussein used the MEK against his domestic opponents, though the group denies this.

Today, Tehran loathes the MEK and continues to arrest, imprison, and execute accused members. The regime tends to blame the group for a great deal of Iranian dissident activity, including in cases where there is little evidence of any such link. In fact, the group disarmed following Saddam’s overthrow in 2003, and no credible evidence exists showing MEK military action since then. The MEK formally renounced violence in 2004, which provided the basis for U.S. acknowledgement of a ‘protected persons’ status. Initially protected by U.S. forces, Camp Ashraf has been under Iraqi control since 2009.

Alternatives

Washington has repeatedly stated its interest in resolving the Ashraf situation. As State Department spokesman Mark Toner put it on April 12, “We’re prepared to consider any assistance that we can — that is requested by the Government of Iraq to develop and execute a negotiated plan to address the future of Camp Ashraf.” Preparing such a plan will not be easy, however, because each available option is deeply flawed.

Repatriation to Iran. Camp residents have announced that their first choice would be to go to Iran, but only if the Islamic Republic agreed not to jail or persecute them for their past opposition efforts. Yet securing a guarantee that satisfied the residents would probably be difficult. And forcing MEK members to return to Iran against their will would violate several international agreements to which Iraq is party.

In 2007, UNHCR cautioned Baghdad to refrain from any action that could endanger the lives or security of camp residents, such as deportation to another country or forced displacement inside Iraq. Similarly, the International Committee of the Red Cross reminded Baghdad of its obligation to act in accordance with the principle of nonrefoulement — that is, refugees should not be dispersed to a place where they would fear persecution. Washington reiterated these concerns on April 12, noting how Iraqi authorities “have provided written assurances that Camp Ashraf residents would be treated humanely” and that none of them would be “forcibly transferred to any other country where they might face persecution.”

Settlement in a third country. If safe return to Iran proves impossible, camp leaders have stated that their second preference is to go to a European Union member country or the United States. But none of these countries is willing to take them. The State Department’s continued designation of the MEK as a terrorist entity makes resettling group members in the United States impossible. It also considerably weakens Washington’s leverage in urging other countries to accept them instead. The issue of whether the MEK actually belongs on the terrorism list was discussed in PolicyWatches 1366 and 1643. Here, it is appropriate to point out that the designation poses an important complication in resolving the diplomatic quandary over Ashraf.

A puzzling development is that UNCHR spokesman Andrej Mahecic recently said that agency is ready to accept applications for refugee status from camp residents if they sign individual statements renouncing violence as a means of achieving their goals. Although he contends that Ashraf residents have been unwilling to do so, the MEK disputes this.

Formal status in Iraq. If resettling in the West proves untenable as well, camp leaders have stated that they wish to remain in Iraq near the Iranian border in order to promote nonviolent resistance and keep hope alive for a return to Iran when the regime collapses. Yet formally accepting the presence of Ashraf residents is politically unacceptable to some of the largest parties in the Iraqi governing coalition, including those closest to Iran. Tehran has made the MEK presence a major issue in bilateral relations, and harassing the group is one way for Baghdad to cultivate better ties with the Islamic Republic.

The MEK and its allies have long held unrealistic expectations about what Washington might do on behalf of Ashraf residents, such as opposing the 2009 handover of security responsibility for the camp perimeter to the Iraqi government. U.S. supporters of the group argue that continued protection of the MEK presence in Ashraf should be an American objective in negotiations regarding post-2011 cooperation with Baghdad. Yet Washington is unlikely to take on a cause so controversial in Iraqi politics on behalf of a group the State Department insists is a terrorist organization.

Status Quo Better than Alternatives

Barring the emergence of another alternative, the most feasible way forward is for the MEK members to remain in Ashraf, provided there are no further attacks against the residents. When acting Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi visited Baghdad in January, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that Baghdad was “determined to deal with this [MEK] issue,” adding, “There are some humanitarian commitments to which our government is loyal, but fulfilling these undertakings should not harm Iraq’s national sovereignty.” That is a good formulation; now it is up to Washington to work with Baghdad to ensure that practice on the ground meets that standard. Toward that end, the United States should urge the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) to enhance its involvement. For example, the MEK and its friends in the U.S. Congress allege — and Baghdad denies — that the camp residents have been subject to harassment, psychological pressure from hundreds of loudspeakers, and medical restrictions. UNAMI or a similar agency could prove helpful as a neutral third-party arbiter able to report on the situation firsthand.

Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Institute.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3350

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Delisting Iranian Opposition MEK, Measuring Change in US Policy on Iran

April 11, 2011 by

OpEdNews.com

A transatlantic rift in policy towards Iran seems to be closing rapidly as a momentum takes shape in different policy making circles in Washington to close the gap due to recent developments in North Africa and Middle East.  The momentum emanates from a call to reposition the West in support of newly forming democracies across the region, rather than the old approach of engaging tyrants for economic reasons and turning a blind eye on actions of governments towards their own people. Simply, the West wants to be on the right side of history as developments continue.

A major shift, pivotal in realizing this policy change is considered to be the approach towards a leading resistance movement from Iran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq organization or MEK.

Black listed by the United States back in late 90s as a foreign terrorist organization, in order to win favors with the Iranian regime, the MEK has recently been the subject of a tug-of-war in Washington DC as many top ranking personalities including some former officials of past and present administrations continue to call on the State Department to delist them. An action that would be perceived as a sign of extending US support for the Iranian people against Tehran’s theocratic rulers and a major policy change toward democratic movements in Iran and the rest of the region.

President Maryam Rajavi, the leading exiled Iranian opposition figure of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, who has spent the past thirty years trying to replace the Iranian regime with a secular democratic government, addressed a conference in Berlin last Saturday to lay down her plans for the future of Iran, to “establish freedom and democracy at any price.”

Rajavi told the conference that, “The Barbarism that kills people for attending demonstrations must end.” On the type of the future government in Iran she said, “The Iranian people want a pluralistic republic,” and that, “They want to choose all officials by their own direct vote.”

Rajavi also highlighted the importance of separation of religion from government and promised that freedom of religion will be respected in the future Iran and “No religion will have advantage over any other.”

On the subject of the MEK designation Rajavi criticized past American administrations to have helped the survival of the Iranian regime by blacklisting the MEK. “A policy that has continued in the current administration as well,” complained President Rajavi.

Another speaker at the conference was former European Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen. Referring to recent developments in the Arab world, he said, “Democracy and human rights are not demands specific only to the people in the West,” and uprising in Iran proved that, “The quarrel is not between Islam and Western Democracy but it is between freedom loving people and those who oppress them.” In these circumstances, he added, “The best representative of oppressed people is that country’s democratic opposition.” He concluded, “The rulers in Tehran have no right to speak for Iran,” and pointing to president Rajavi, Gunter continued, “As those who resist them, truly represent the Iranian people. ”

Rejecting MEK terrorist allegations, Gunter remembered Nelson Mandela and the ANC in South Africa, “They labeled him a terrorist for many years. ”

At the Conference speakers seemed to agree that a firm policy towards Iran and a serious sanctions regime along with delisting of the MEK from the US FTO list would show a new approach towards these developments.  Some called for official recognition of the MEK and the National Council of Resistance of Iran as a legitimate resistance movement and an alternative to dealing with the Iranian regime.

“We must recognize a democratic provisional government. We do not recognize any governments in Iran right now,” Said Howard Dean, former head of Democratic Party and 2004 US presidential candidate. “I propose that we do recognize a government in Iran.  You have just heard from the president.” He continued refereeing to Mrs. Maryam Rajavi.

Former Congressman, Patrick Kennedy, called for the repeal of the MEK listing as a terrorist organization as it “only serves the current regime.”

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Bush administration, noted that from what he knows and can understand, “the MEK should not be titled a terrorist organization.”  He also referred to an obstacle that he did not fully understand that kept the MEK on the FTO list.  He called for an open discussion to resolve the issue.

“The enemy is not the MEK,” said General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Clinton administration, “The enemy is the current regime in Iran,” he continued and stressed that the current regime in Iran has to be dealt with as it “attempts to impost control over the entire region.”  He described the current Iranian regime to be the “largest exporter of terrorism in the world,” which is seeking nuclear capabilities and criticized the listing of the MEK as it “weakened the support of the best organized internal resistance movement to counter a terrorist oriented, anti-Western world, anti-democratic regime in the region.”

Other participants in the conference included, former FBI Director, Louis J. Freeh, State Department’s Policy Planning Director, Mitchell Reiss, and former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Delisting-Iranian-Oppositi-by-Nima-Sharif-110409-542.html

Filed Under: DeList.MEK Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama, Iran and a push for policy change

February 25, 2011 by

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

Could the administration of President Barack Obama hasten the downfall of Iran’s government by taking an opposition group off the U.S. list of terrorist organizations? To hear a growing roster of influential former government officials tell it, the answer is yes.

The opposition group in question is the Mujadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and the growing list of Washington insiders coming out in its support include two former Central Intelligence Agency chiefs (James Woolsey and Michael Hayden), two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Peter Pace and Hugh Shelton), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge and former FBI head Louis Freeh.

The MEK was placed on the terrorist list in 1997, a move the Clinton administration hoped would help open a dialogue with Iran, and since then has been waging a protracted legal battle to have the designation removed. Britain and the European Union took the group off their terrorist lists in 2008 and 2009 respectively after court rulings that found no evidence of terrorist actions after the MEK renounced violence in 2001.

In Washington, initial support for “de-listing” came largely from the ranks of conservatives and neo-conservatives but it has been spreading across the aisle and the addition of a newcomer of impeccable standing with the Obama administration could herald a policy change not only on the MEK but also on dealing with Tehran.

The newcomer is Lee Hamilton, an informal senior advisor to President Obama, who served as a Democratic congressman for 34 years and was co-chairman of the commission that investigated the events leading to the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.

“This is a big deal,” Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, two prominent experts on Iran, wrote on their blog. “We believe that Hamilton’s involvement increases the chances that the Obama administration will eventually start supporting the MEK as the cutting edge for a new U.S. regime change strategy towards Iran.” The Leveretts think such a strategy would be counter-productive.

But speakers at the February 19 conference in Washington where Hamilton made his debut as an MEK supporter thought otherwise. Addressing some 400 Iranian-Americans in a Washington hotel, retired General Peter Pace said: “Some folks said to me … if the United States government took the MEK off the terrorist list it would be a signal to the Iranian regime that we changed from a desire to see changes in regime behavior to a desire to see changes in regime. Sounds good to me.”

The Obama administration’s policy is not regime change but the use of sanctions and multi-national negotiations to persuade the government in Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions. So far, that has been unsuccessful. Two rounds of talks between Iran, the U.S., China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany in January ended without progress and did not even yield agreement on a date for more talks.

NO POLICY CHANGE BUT SHARPER RHETORIC
That did not change Washington’s “no regime change” stand. What has changed is the tone of public American statements on Iran since a wave of mass protests swept away the authoritarian rulers of Tunisia and Egypt and forced the governments of Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Saudi Arabia to announce reforms. In contrast, Iran responded to mass demonstrations with violent crackdowns.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the U.S.  “very clearly and directly support the aspirations of the people who are in the streets” of Iranian cities agitating for a democratic opening as they did in 2009, when Washington stayed silent.

Like the U.S., Iran labels the MEK a terrorist organization and has dealt particularly harshly with Iranians suspected of membership or sympathies. In the view of many of its American supporters, the U.S. terrorist label has weakened internal support for the MEK. How much support there is for the organization is a matter of dispute among Iran watchers, many of whom consider it insignificant.

At last week’s Washington conference, however, speaker after speaker described it as a major force, feared and hated by the Iranian government. General Shelton called it “the best organized resistance group.” Dell Daley, the State Department’s counter-terrorism chief until he retired in 2009, said the MEK was “the best instrument of power to get inside the Iran mullahs and unseat them.”

The decision to give legitimacy, or not, to the group is up to Hillary Clinton. Last July, a federal appeals court in Washington instructed the Department of State to review the terrorist designation, in language that suggested that it should be revoked. Court procedures gave her until June to decide.

http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/tag/cia/

Filed Under: Bernd Debusmann, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MEK Is Not a Terrorist Group

January 10, 2011 by

The National Review Online

The material-support statute is fine; the designation is the problem.

The moral of this story may be that sometimes it’s better not to have friends, especially the sort with easy access to the op-ed page of the New York Times, or “The Newspaper of Record,” as it sometimes bills itself.

About a week ago, in the guise of defending us against an imagined prosecution for materially assisting a foreign terrorist organization based on our comments at a conference where we urged that Mujahadin e Khalq (“MEK”) be removed from the State Department’s list of such organizations, Prof. David Cole of Georgetown Law School took to the op-ed page of the Times with a bit of rhetorical jujitsu designed to enlist us in his campaign to change the federal statute that bars such assistance. The liberal blogosphere salivated at the suggestion that four conservative Republicans were providing material support to a terrorist organization, notwithstanding Professor Cole’s tongue-in-cheek defense.

MEK, which opposes the current regime in Tehran and has provided valuable intelligence to the United States on Iranian nuclear plans, was placed on the State Department list during the Clinton administration as a purported goodwill gesture to the mullahs, in aid of furthering dialogue. Regrettably, it was kept on during the administration of George W. Bush, in part out of fear that Iran would provide IEDs to our enemies in Iraq, which of course the mullahs are doing anyway. Both the European Union and the United Kingdom have removed the organization from their lists, with the result that MEK is now designated a terrorist organization by only the United States and Iran. More than 100 members of Congress have supported a resolution to undo this designation. We appeared at a conference two weeks ago and described why we thought the designation was anomalous and unwarranted.

 

Professor Cole’s arch suggestion that our conduct raises a question under the material-support statute is undone by the text of the law itself. The statute barring material assistance to organizations on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations (“FTO”) says that although “material assistance” includes “personnel,” and although “personnel” may include the person providing the assistance — here, the four of us — the “personnel” have to be working “under that [FTO’s] direction or control.” And then, just to make explicit what is already obvious, the law continues: “Individuals who act entirely independently of the [FTO] to advance its goals or objectives shall not be considered to be working under the [FTO]’s direction and control.” As a result, we felt quite secure, thank you, in relying on the protection Congress placed in the statute, backed up by the First Amendment.

Professor Cole commendably if somewhat unnecessarily insisted in his article that we “had every right to say what [we] did,” but then added — misleadingly — that he “argued just that in the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Los Angeles–based Humanitarian Law Project” in the case he lost in that tribunal last June. Well, no. He argued that the statute should be rewritten to provide that the two activities the self-styled humanitarians wanted to engage in — “training” in negotiation, and “expert advice and assistance” in filing claims,  both quoted activities specifically barred by the law — should be permitted unless they involved directly a terrorist act. The Court refused to do that, or to find that the quoted terms were either so vague as not to provide notice to a person of reasonable intelligence or gave the government unlimited latitude in applying the law. Further, the Court found that insofar as these terms could be imagined to reach activities shielded by the First Amendment, they were not activities these humanitarians were seeking to engage in and therefore need not be considered by the Court. That is, Professor Cole and his client lost.

He then went a bit beyond us, and beyond his unsuccessful lawsuit, and called for revising the statute also to permit provision of food and shelter via terrorist organizations, apparently based on the disclosure in the Times that corporations have been permitted by our government to sell — at profit, no less — chewing gum, popcorn, and cigarettes to state sponsors of terrorism. The reasoning here is apparently that if it’s okay to sell chewing gum to terrorists, it’s okay to give them concrete they can use not only for shelter but also to fashion bunkers, or to give them the spigot controlling the flow of food and medicine so they can enhance their power and prestige. For what it’s worth, we do not believe that Professor Cole has unearthed an insufferable anomaly in the law or in its administration. Notably, neither in his lawsuit nor in his op-ed did Professor Cole challenge the designation FTO as applied to the proposed beneficiaries of his client’s ministrations. We have challenged, emphatically and with reasoned argument, that designation as applied to MEK.

The material-support statute doesn’t need revision to accommodate non-existent defects. What it does need — and does not often enough get for fear of offending some Muslim organizations — is rigorous enforcement against accurately designated organizations, of which MEK is not one. 

Why, you may ask, did this critique not appear in the pages of The Newspaper of Record (TNOR)? Good question. The editors of TNOR deemed a much shorter version of this article too long for their letters column, and declined to publish it as an op-ed article because, they claim, TNOR has a policy of not publishing op-ed articles in response to other op-ed articles. We are grateful to the editors of National Review for the privilege of this space, and of course to Professor Cole for his unsolicited support, even though we decline to enlist in his crusade.

— Michael B. Mukasey was attorney general of the United States from 2007 to 2009; Tom Ridge was homeland security adviser to Pres. George W. Bush from 2001 to 2003, and homeland security secretary from 2003 to 2005; Rudolph W. Giuliani was mayor of New York City from 1993 to 2001; Frances Fragos Townsend was homeland security adviser to Pres. George W. Bush from 2004 to 2008.

Filed Under: Luminaries, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,