James Woolsey Calls for MEK Delisting
The “Terror Lobby” List: A Response
August 11, 2011 by
THE HUFFINGTON POST
What is an organization deemed by the US State Department to be dedicated to terrorism — an FTO, or Foreign Terrorist Organization — supposed to do when it believes the charge is spurious? Clearly, the consequences of such a determination are enormous because under federal law anyone providing as much as a nickel in support to an organization on the FTO list is subject to criminal penalties for aiding and abetting terrorism. So naturally, such an organization will try to do whatever it can to exercise its legitimate rights to correct the record, refute erroneous charges and seek de-listing.
This burden to act is especially acute if an organization placed on the FTO list happens to have thousands of its members situated in a foreign country where they stand to be forcibly removed to a truly terrorist regime where the fate of those “repatriated” will likely be death by firing squad or the hangman’s noose. And, where the US State Department FTO listing is manipulated as justification for random acts of violence against members of that particular organization coupled with continued threats of forced deportation, the compulsion to use all legitimate means to remove the unwarranted terrorist label is overwhelming.
This is precisely the situation the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) finds itself in today. The surprise is that it would be vilified for its efforts in a recent article in the Huffington Post by Christina Wilkie (“Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization“, 8/8/11). There, Ms. Wilkie makes the sensational charge that the MEK is indeed a terrorist organization and that former top US national security officials are willing to prostitute themselves by saying the opposite. To illustrate her point, The Huffington Post chose to bunch photographs of these officials in a sort of rogues gallery captioned as “Terror Lobby”.
It is mindboggling to believe that one could imply that these prominent individuals are villains when they, more than most Americans, understand that Iran is the world’s most active supporter of terrorism and the MEK is dedicated to unhinging Iran’s repressive regime through free elections in which it can participate. Presumably, Ms. Wilkie realizes that the ruling mullahs of Iran would like nothing more than to have its new emerging satellite, the government of Iraq, repatriate the 3,400 MEK dissidents located in Iraq to face “justice” in Iran.
The hangmen in Iran have already executed thousands of MEK members over the course of the last three decades. In further delegitimizing the MEK and its supporters, Ms. Wilkie’s article in fact aids and abets terror — terror not only against the MEK members, but against American troops and Iran’s own citizens who are the key victims of the terrorist policy practiced by Teheran’s regime.
Ostensibly, Ms. Wilkie’s concern is that the MEK remains a terrorist organization that dupes top-tier former US national security officials, including the former Attorney General of the United States, to jettison their US national security concerns in favor of a quick buck. Thus, the article begins with the old canard that the MEK is a Marxist organization. Never mind that the MEK itself denies that it has a Marxist bent. But, let us say that it is Marxist — whatever that means — in orientation. What difference should that make in being subjected to the terrorist organization label?
Similarly, Ms. Wilkie’s pronouncement that the MEK is a “cult” is meaningless, and dangerous. Even assuming the charge to be true, the fact remains that no US law allows placement of an organization on any terrorism list, or validates ignoring an impending humanitarian disaster, because it has “cult”-like qualities. Indeed, the very phrase gives license to irresponsible journalists or government officials to go after whomever they happen to dislike under the banner of the cult flavor of the month.
The only incident — and not evidence — Ms. Wilkie presents on the MEK’s terrorist inclinations is the accusation of its involvement in attacks on Americans more than three decades ago. But conspicuously absent is any mention of the fact that the MEK denied any role in those attacks, which were undertaken by a splinter group not affiliated with the MEK, which coincidently murdered MEK leaders as well.
Only on the second page of her article do we learn that the EU’s highest court has recently taken the MEK off its terrorism list because it found not a shred of evidence to indicate that it has engaged in any act of terrorism. Nor is any reference made in the article to the standards in international and US law about renunciation of terrorism as justifying terminating the terrorist label.
It is telling that the article does not even allude to the fact that three years ago, the highest court in Britain rebuked its own Foreign Office for ever having listed the MEK on its terrorism list, as no credible evidence formed a basis for such a designation.
And in May 2011, the French Judiciary dropped all terrorism and terrorism financing charges against the individuals affiliated with the MEK. The judgment concluded that “The dossier does not contain any evidence indicating an armed activity that would intentionally target civilians,” and that the MEK struggle amounted to “resistance against tyranny.”
Finally, there is no reference to the reasons that the US Congress — unless she deems them all duped as well — have by overwhelming majority asked the State Department to review the MEK listing as being inconsistent with the evidence at hand. 94 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Chairmen of the Select Intelligence, Armed Services and Government Oversight committees, cosponsored H.Res.60, which urges the Secretary of State “to remove the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran from the Department of State’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”
Perhaps most ominously, Ms. Wilkie’s article fails to tell readers what the ex-US government national security officials actually said. Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a scholarly and thorough analysis as to why the MEK should be delisted based on the governing law and pertinent facts. Director Louis Freeh explained the political environment in which the MEK was designated in 1997, when the White House had blocked Freeh’s efforts to indict Iranian regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who had planned the bombing of the Khobar Towers, killing 19 American service members.
General Wesley Clark elaborated that he was familiar with the MEK for many years and that based on his own experience in the Balkans, the recent atrocities by the soldiers of Iraq against the MEK dissidents housed in Iraq was tantamount to a war crime and should be investigated. Secretary Ridge remarked that in none of the White House meetings dealing with threats to the United States was the MEK ever mentioned. And the State Department’s coordinator of counterterrorism until April 2010, Ambassador Dell Dailey, said he had found no evidence of MEK involvement in terrorism and had pushed to get the group off the list.
Ms. Wilkie contends, or at least strongly suggests, that because these former national security officials were the recipients of money from Iranian American communities sympathetic to the MEK, the voicing of their opinions puts them in the category of those aiding and abetting terrorism. Of course, the US Justice Department has never made such a slanted interpretation of US law. Indeed, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in July of this year found that it was not convinced that there is any sound basis for classifying the MEK as an FTO and asked the State Department to produce further evidence as to why such a listing was appropriate. For months, however, the State Department has dragged its feet, neither agreeing to delist the MEK, nor forthrightly stating facts that support such a listing.
Journalists considering a story accusing an organization of being a terrorist entity can hardly afford to turn a blind eye on the consequences of what they write, especially when the lives of thousands of individuals may be endangered.
Allan Gerson is the Chairman of AG International Law in Washington D.C. He is presently involved with other attorneys in representing the PMOI/MEK in its efforts to be removed from the State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-gerson/post_2286_b_924434.html
Tehran tries to shoot the messengers
August 10, 2011 by
The Washington Times
August 10, 2011
By Zahra Sadeghpour
Mullahs attack U.S. officials urging an end to opposition’s ‘terrorist’ status
In the past few weeks, Washington has been abuzz with a heated debate over the main Iranian opposition, the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).
On the face of it, the debate is on removing the MEK from the list of the State Department’s foreign terrorist organizations – a decision that reportedly will be made soon by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In reality, to delist or not to delist Tehran’s arch-opponents is the battleground for a more profound debate in Washington on how to deal with Iran’s mullahs. The clerical regime’s egregious behavior includes facilitating operation of al Qaeda in the region through an agreement with the vicious terrorist group (as established by the U.S. Treasury Department last week), its unimpeded drive to acquire nuclear weapons, meddling in affairs of other countries – Iraq, in particular – acting as the most active state sponsor of terrorism, and its ruthless crackdown of Iranian citizens.
For Iranian-Americans, the issue, in addition to national security, has another important aspect. It is about life and death for 3,400 Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The residents, members of MEK, voluntarily handed over their weapons to the United States in 2003 and were accorded the status of “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But they face increasing threats from an Iraqi government that has been doing the mullahs’ bidding in dealing with the residents. That government’s only excuse for its mistreatment of Ashraf residents is the inclusion of the MEK on the U.S. terrorist list.
Over the years, those who believed that providing incentives and limited sanctions could do the trick vis-a-vis Tehran had the upper hand within the U.S. bureaucracy. The opposition to Tehran theocracy had to be sidelined, since that would have been an irritation to this approach.
But that is changing. There is a growing momentum in Washington among former senior national security, diplomatic and intelligence officials and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that this is a dead-end policy and a recipe for a huge crisis. These realists cite some basic facts: The MEK was placed on the terrorist list for political reasons to curry favor with Tehran’s mullahs, the MEK has renounced all violence since 2001 and there is no merit in maintaining the “terrorist” status.
What’s the response by the other side?
The Iranian regime’s lobby and the apologists for Tehran have resorted to a typical tactic: “If you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.” This is a distraction to overshadow the main issue and main argument, since they fully realize that removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list would make it more difficult for them to hide their real objective, which is aiding the central banker of international terrorism.
One notion that they are propagating is attacking former officials for speaking in favor of a firm policy toward Iran as well as supporting protection of Ashraf residents and delisting the MEK, suggesting that they have received speaking fees from Iranian-Americans.
The idea that the views of three joint chiefs of staff of the U.S. armed forces, a former commander of NATO, a former national security adviser to the president, a former attorney general, two former directors of the CIA, two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., a former Homeland Security secretary, a former White House chief of staff, a former commandant of the Marine Corps, a former policy planning director of the State Department, a former FBI director, and even a director of Counterterrorism at the State Department could be bought off collectively is simply outrageous.
If that is true, then the Iranian regime, with all its oil money and resources, could have bought hundreds of luminaries to disseminate Tehran’s propaganda that the Iranian regime is the champion of human rights, a victim of terrorism and the biggest promoter of peace in the Middle East.
Former President Bill Clinton has made more than 200 paid speeches in 48 countries in the past 10 years as a private citizen. Former President George W. Bush has also made scores of paid speeches since leaving office. If this line of argument were valid, the integrity of the entire political leadership of the United States would be under question. This is not the issue of one or two individuals but it is a part of a well-established lawful and transparent political process.
Can anyone imply that even former presidents were compromising their views and national security interests because they were making paid speeches in support of an issue? Or that they took positions against a misdeed because they were paid to deliver a speech on the issue? Absolutely not.
It is time that the tune that sounds so pleasant to the mullahs’ ears be stopped and the voices of Tehran opponents be heard. They are the very same people who could not be heard in Iran, and because of the wrongheaded policy of seeking accommodation from Tehran, they have been marginalized by the United States during the past few years as a result of their designation as a foreign terrorist organization.
Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, let’s hear the message. It is about time.
Zahra Sadeqpour is a doctor of pharmacy, a human rights activist and executive director of the Iranian-American Society of Massachusetts. Her younger brother, age 25, was executed by the Iranian regime.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/9/tehran-tries-to-shoot-the-messengers/
Attempts to demonise supporters of Iranian resistance
August 10, 2011 by
The Financial Times
August 10, 2011
From Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
Sir, Your article “Favourite ‘terrorists’ in US focus on lobbying” (July 30) and its complementary piece on FT.com, “Heavyweights back Iranian exile group”, repeat the Iranian regime’s stale allegations against the main organised opposition group People’s Mujahedin of Iran (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) and do a disservice to the Financial Times’ record of unbiased journalism. They are part of an effort by Iran’s intelligence ministry to demonise the supporters of the Iranian resistance.
Some 22 courts in the UK, Europe and the US have ruled that the PMOI is not involved in terrorism; furthermore, the UK government de-proscribed the group in 2008, as did the European Union in 2009 after the courts rejected the very allegations that the articles have yet again brought up.
The Rand report, referred to in the article, has received serious academic criticism for its unsound research methodology and the veiled political advocacy behind it. The institute’s director James Dobbins is a vocal advocate of rapprochement with Iran and has been active in the “Campaign for a New Policy on Iran” which lobbies the US to lift sanctions on Iran.
In the past two years, there has been a serious gap in the direction of the so-called Green Movement leaders and the millions who took part in anti-government protests following the stolen 2009 presidential election. While the demonstrators have repeatedly made clear they demand complete regime change, the leaders of the Green Movement have been equally clear in confirming their support for the mullah-led regime. These figureheads attempt to tarnish the PMOI’s image to convince the US to maintain its ban on the resistance in the hope that this true force for change in Iran remains enchained in the west.
All that the former senior US officials have been publicly demanding is that the US abide by the ruling of the DC Court of Appeal and revoke the terrorism designation of the PMOI to prevent that label from being misused by Iran and Iraq to torture and murder the group’s members and supporters who are committed to bringing democracy, freedom and peace to Iran.
Peter Archer,
President, International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf
Former UK Solicitor General
Peter Fraser,
Co-President, International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf
Former Lord Advocate for Scotland
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a27857d0-c286-11e0-9ede-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ude8ItFT
The clock is ticking
August 10, 2011 by
St. Louis Post Dispatch
August 10, 2011
As U.S. troops prepare to leave Iraq by the end of this year, a humanitarian crisis is emerging that has a real chance of tarnishing President Obama’s legacy. More than 3,400 Iranian dissidents who reside in Camp Ashraf in Iraq face growing threats from a pro-Tehran Iraqi government bent on destroying them. That has been understandably worrisome for Iranian-Americans all over the United States, including the ones in Missouri, but the repercussions of their fate should concern all of us.
In April, Iraqi troops raided the camp at the behest of the Iranian regime, murdering 36 defenseless civilian residents and injuring hundreds more. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, described it as a “massacre,” adding that there should be an independent investigation. Both the European Union’s foreign policy chief and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights also called for a probe into the deaths.
The incident came after a similar attack in July 2009 that left 11 dead and scores more wounded. A tribunal in Spain has been investigating the attacks as crimes against humanity and war crimes. In July, it summoned the commander of the Iraqi army and two other officers. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will come to court to explain about the crimes after he leaves office and his immunity is over.
Al-Maliki and the Iranian regime are hatching more plans to perpetrate further massacres against the residents of Camp Ashraf, who are the most formidable opponents of the Iranian regime.
The clock is ticking and the need for finding a solution to the crisis is more pressing. The residents in Ashraf, “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, have all signed bilateral agreements with U.S. forces, who promised them protection until their final disposition.
In early 2009, the United States transferred that protection to the Iraqi government after saying it received written assurances that the residents will be treated humanely. After two years of massacres, abuses and what Amnesty International recently described as persistent “harassment” of the residents, Iraq has shown itself to be incompetent of protecting the unarmed civilians at Ashraf.
The United States has a solemn obligation to reassume the protection of the camp, especially because the situation at the camp remains tense as the unarmed civilians are under a complete blockade, even deprived of access to medical treatment and surrounded by armed Iraqi forces.
The European Parliament has offered a long-term, peaceful solution to the crisis, proposing the repatriation of the residents to third countries as the most viable alternative. This has been accepted by the residents.
But, incredibly, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has aligned itself with a solution offered by the Iranian regime and its proxies in Iraq: disband Ashraf and move the residents to a new location in Iraq, which, inevitably, would be away from international eyes. That, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton recently said, is a “recipe for disaster.”
Ambassador Lawrence Butler of the U.S. embassy continues to push for this option, however, while rejecting the European Parliament plan and dismissing the concerns and will of the residents.
Meanwhile, on July 21, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed an amendment to Foreign Relations Authorization Act stipulating that the U.S. government should take “all necessary and appropriate steps” to “ensure the physical security and protection of Camp Ashraf residents.”
It added that the United States should “prevent the forcible relocation of Camp Ashraf residents inside Iraq and to facilitate the robust presence of” the U.N. mission in Iraq in Camp Ashraf.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also has called for respect for the rights of the residents while urging a consensus solution. Forcible displacement is not a consensus solution, unless by consensus is meant a tacit agreement between the United States and the Iranian regime.
All other parties, including the United Nations, the European Parliament, prominent former U.S. officials and even the speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, have rejected the notion as a recipe for a humanitarian catastrophe. If the residents aren’t safe in Ashraf, what makes Ambassador Lawrence Butler think they would be safe in a remote location where the Iraqi government could have absolute free rein?
Ambassador Butler’s insistence on displacing the residents within Iraq paves the way for another Srebrenica-style massacre, as a prominent member of the European Parliament has warned.
That is not what President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would want their legacy to be in Iraq.
The United States undeniably is obligated, both legally and morally, to protect the residents of Ashraf. It is time for the secretaries of defense and state to step in and reject the idea of forcible displacement of the residents of Ashraf inside Iraq, and endorse the European Parliament’s plan while observing U.S. commitments of protection. That is the only way to avert a humanitarian tragedy in Ashraf, the magnitude of which will surely be catastrophic.
Kasra Nejat is president of the Iranian American Cultural Association of Missouri, based in St. Louis.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/article_2e2e987c-6c9c-5c57-bce1-597d4c780a5a.html#ixzz1UkGxaKSR
Keep Tehran in check
August 10, 2011 by
The Hill (Congress Blog)
By Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas)
August 10, 2011
The Middle East is experiencing its most tumultuous wave of political change in decades. From Egypt to Syria to Yemen, the people of the Arab World are rejecting the status quo dictatorships and demanding democracy. Those who have been silenced for their whole lives are standing up to their oppressive leaders. Their cries for democracy, human rights and dignity are ringing loud throughout the Middle East and we hear their voices loud and clear. The United States must stand with the freedom fighters in the Middle East and support their desire for the basic values and principles that Americans enjoy every day.
However, there are legitimate reasons for concern about the rise of political unrest and instability in the Middle East. Paramount among them is the fear of the establishment of an Islamic Republic instead of a democratic government. For example, in 1979 popular discontent with an authoritarian Iranian ruler was exploited by Islamists who ultimately imposed their own cruel brand of tyranny. In a chaotic political environment riddled with popular loathing of the status quo and lack of ingrained democratic institutions, free elections provide the ideal setting for even a small group of organized and well-financed Islamic radicals to take control. The rise of a new radical Islamic regime would be dangerous for the Middle East and the rest of the world.
We must not underestimate the threat of Iran. While most Muslims in the region are Sunnis and Iran is ruled by Shiite fundamentalists, we must not oversimplify the situation by assuming that Tehran could have no influence. Exporting Islamic extremism is a pillar of Iran’s foreign policy. It is even enshrined in the regime’s constitution that Islamic rule recognizes no borders, and it should include the entire nation of Islam. Make no mistake; the little tyrant in the desert would jump at the opportunity to conquer a damaged or weak nation. Tehran’s covetous plans were evident in a February 4 speech by Ali Khamenei, the regime’s leader. He called for an Islamic regime to be installed in Egypt, saying the wave of Arab revolts is an “earthquake” triggered by the 1979 Iranian revolution. “Today, developments in North Africa — (including) Egypt, Tunisia and some other countries — have a special meaning for the Iranian nation,” Khamenei said. “This is what was always referred to as the Islamic awakening created by the victory of the great revolution of the Iranian nation.”
In reality, the mullahs were the first to witness the rolling thunderstorm of change through massive anti-government demonstrations in 2009. Khamenei fully realizes that the cry of millions of Iranians, particularly the youth, is freedom and that any opening in Iranian society will lead to an immediate explosion. The outward looking policy of Khamenei is his line of defense to keep the crisis away from his turf.
On the same day, Ali Khamenei, the regime’s supreme leader revealed his attempt to usurp the popular uprisings in the region and leading them towards fundamentalism and exploiting them to the interests of the clerical regime. While calling the popular movement in Egypt “the Islamic movement of Egypt,” he said the unity of demonstrators should be preserved based on Islam and according to Tehran: “this movement has been initiated from the mosques and its slogan is ‘God is great’ and people of Egypt would allow this Islamic movement be derailed.”
The real question for the West is: How do you support a sudden change in the Middle East while at the same time making sure it does not fall in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists?
One answer is to keep a close eye on Tehran. As long as Tehran does not have to focus on quashing a movement for democratic change in Iran by the Iranian people, the precarious prospect of Tehran fulfilling its policy of dominating the Arab World looms on the horizon. Stopping the evil tyrant in Iran does not entail empty verbal condemnations of his conduct, providing concessions or negotiations. It requires a heavy hand and the exertion of stronger pressure on Tehran. For the West, in general, that certainly includes firm steps to curtail Iran’s nuclear program. There is a need for more sanctions on the regime, particularly regarding the purchase of its oil, to prevent it from attaining the means to finance and support its fundamentalist agenda. Actions, not words, will stop Iran.
The United States must also recognize and support the freedom fighters in Iran who are faced with this oppressive dictatorship. Their drive for freedom is the only viable policy in the long run, one that will stop Tehran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Western nations should be much more vocal on the rights of Iranians and in condemning the grotesque human rights violations by the regime. The regime does not protect human life; they destroy anyone who dares to get in their way. Three political activists from the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), the primary opposition group, who were charged with playing a role in the popular 2009 uprisings, were hanged in March. Many more are on currently on death row.
Finally, the United States must remove the MEK from its list of terror organizations. Placing it there was done to placate the mullahs at a time when appeasement seemed to be an option. The fallacy of that approach is now obvious. Stifling the work of the MEK has blocked the process of change in Iran, enabled the execution of dissidents, and provided an excuse for the mullahs to put inhumane pressure on residents of Camp Ashraf, where 3,400 of its members reside in Iraq. On April 8, 36 unarmed residents were murdered by Iraqi soldiers who invaded the Camp out of acquiescence to Iranian pressure. Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted my amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to oppose any plan to relocate the group within Iraq, which would all but guarantee further persecution, and make sure the United States does all it can to protect the residents.
With Tehran waiting for the opportunity to hijack the Arab world’s rejection of Islamic fundamentalism, it would be wise to realize that the United States policy on Iran must move to a new phase that pushes hard for democratic change in Iran.
And that’s just the way it is.
Rep. Poe is a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He sponsored H.Res.60 urging the Secretary of State to take the MEK off the FTO List. He also sponsored an amendment to HR 2583 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2012 that passed unanimously to make it the policy of the United States to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf, prevent the forced relocation of the residents inside Iraq, and to facilitate the robust presence of UNAMI inside Camp Ashraf.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/176367-keep-tehran-in-check
Irony Of Promise And Action
August 9, 2011 by
“The United States will continue to stand with those who struggle to assert their fundamental humanity. It is essential that these brave people know that the international community supports them, just as it is essential that human rights abusers in Damascus and Tehran know that we are watching them. Until such time as they are held accountable by domestic authorities, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable at the international level,”(Testimony of Jeffrey D. Feltman , Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia Washington, DC July 27, 2011.)
Writing the above statements on stacks of papers and reading them aloud to pose as a strong advocate of human rights is one thing, while sending the State Department’s Field Operator into negotiations with Iranian political dissidents in Camp Ashraf, opposing the Mullahs regime in Iran, and asking them to choose between dying or giving up their beliefs and being dispersed as individuals without any organizational cohesion, is another thing.
A few days earlier on July 23rd, the New York Times quoted Ambassador Lawrence E. Butler, the American diplomat, as saying, “The Americans have offered a plan in which the group’s members would vacate this camp, which during Mr. Hussein’s tenure served as a military base, and relocate to another site in Iraq, where they would disband, an essential step before the United Nations would recognize the members as refugees. To the outside world, you look like a paramilitary organization.”
The organizational structure of any political institution is the most evolved means to represent the individual members’ social and political beliefs. The more savagely human rights are violated by a ruling regime, the harder this organization holds to its principals, and naturally, the more persistent it is to protect them. While MEK is recognized as the most effective opponent against mullahs in Iran, the message being conveyed by Mr. Butler to disperse this organization satisfies the ruling religious dictatorship in Iran, and indeed, it is the solution suggested by the Mullahs prior to Mr. Butler. However, it is evident that MEK would not accept the Mullah’s long term ambition, which is being carried out unwittingly by an American ambassador.
As an inseparable component of modern societies, human right’s values have evolved to endorse other social and industrial developments and policies. That in the above case the conduct of policy on the political field yields a contradictory result such as I have mentioned above, should be very alarming for high-ranking decision makers.
In the case of the residents of Camp Ashraf, the United States has signed a protection treaty with every person of the camp, and yet Iraqi’s Army under Maleki has nevertheless attacked the camp on several occasions killing as many as 50 of the residents under the watch of American forces.
It should be acknowledged that while human rights values play a vital role on the international stage to attract confidence and trust, the violation of protected rights of the Camp Ashraf residents will potentially be a distinguishing factor in the failure of future projects, and a continuous embarrassment for the United States.
It is essential that the United States fulfil its promise to protect unarmed civilians of Camp Ashraf, as well as play an active role within other international bodies, such as the United Nations, to move these residents to a safe third country in support of the EU plan. In the absence of such policy and action, the United States will be paying the price as a participator and collaborator of the violation of human rights for years to come, just as the Dutch are learning they have to pay for Srebrenica.
Mehran Amini, is a former Pilot opposing Mullahs regime in Iran who lives in Toronto, Canada and may be contacted by email at: mehran.amini411@gmail.com.
