For five days Iran has been the scene of demonstration and counter demonstration in favour and against two clearly different candidates. Both, of course, are proven believers in and supporters of the fundamentals of the Islamic Republic (IRI).
The peaceful demonstrations and debates and insistence on achieving demands is clearly on going and while no one doubts that this political struggle will continue even after the Friday prayers led by Ayatollah Khamenei, it is now clear that the advocates of violence and so called revolution or ‘regime change’ have been left out in the cold. The more that time passes the more it becomes clear that this is no "regime change" or for that matter a pro-west or pro-east velvet revolution.
I have always believed that the theory of ‘democracy without democrats’ would emerge as the major factor in the Middle Eastern path to democracy. I believe that democracy will not emerge through democrats lecturing those in power to accept the benefits of democracy. Rather it is the people who are in power who will fight each other to the point that they clearly see that their insistence on the policy of ‘winner takes all’ will not only fail to deliver them ‘everything’, rather it is going to leave both sides with ‘nothing’. I believe this is the point that both sides come to understand that compromise and sharing in order to have something is a better option than losing everything.
At this point of course indigenous democrats can have a role as guides and experts to analyse and explain the ways forward, even though they themselves are probably still experimenting and maturing in this transitional period. There are a few historical examples to back this theory. For example, certain periods in Algerian, Turkish and even Sudan's history where treaties have been achieved to give ‘something’ to each side instead of the ongoing bloodshed and power struggles over ‘everything. Treaties and power sharing of course by no means derive from a belief in democracy; rather they are the starting point toward understanding the benefits of democracy for all parties.
I have been watching with interest as the tone of media reports have changed from describing a ‘coup d’etat’ and the expectation of violence, to describing the gatherings of demonstrators as "pro-government" and "opposition". Yesterday the BBC, Aljazeera and many other outlets consciously or unconsciously referred to Ahmadi Nejad as "the president" and Mirhossein Mousavi as "the head of the opposition".
That reminded of my history books and the long ago days that Tories and Liberals in Britain were representing the very different interests of very different sectors of British society. From there emerged the left side and the right side of Parliament with political parties sitting on each side. The unwritten constitution of the British establishment accepted the voting system, the way the government was to be elected and the way the opposition and the government would "struggle" to represent the interests of their constituents.
Looking at the current prominent political figures in Iran on each side I can’t help envisaging the emergence of political parties in Iran (there are no actual political parties at this moment of time in Iran even though some groups may call themselves ‘parties’).
I also believe that even if Mirhossein Mosavi would have been the name coming out of the ballot boxes (I neither endorse nor reject the possibility of vote rigging but I certainly believe that both sides have enough support and constituencies to be heard), the recent demonstrations and political struggles in Tehran and other Iranian cities would have been inevitable. It is no longer about "who takes everything". This time it is about "rejection of the theory of winner takes all". I have heard this too many times that the political struggle in western countries is over representative seats in parliament but the same struggle in the Middle East is over the necks and heads of candidates. I see clearly that Iran is emerging one step (and a very big step) closer towards a more pluralistic political system in which various politicians will be fighting over seats rather than each others’ necks. More importantly, the winners and the losers of every period will have to accept the rights of their opponents not because they are lover of democracy but rather because they have matured to see they have no other choice.
Irrelevant of the short term results of the power struggle during the next few weeks, there is no doubt about the big leap the Iranian nation has taken in her journey toward a real democracy. A big leap for the people of Iran and an irreversible huge falling backwards for the advocates of ‘regime change’ by foreign interventionist forces and supporters of terrorist groups like Mojahedin Khalq Organistion (aka: Rajavi cult; which lost it's backer Saddam Hussein in 2003), Jondollah (the group affiliated to mass murderer Abdolmalek Rigi who is based in Pakistan) and Pejak (the Turkish PKK paid to relocate to the Iranian border for carrying out sabotage).
This weekend the Mojahedin Khalq cancelled its planned event in Paris. Instead, the cult is recruiting people through false associations and groups in order to take advantage of the current unrest in Iran. The idea is to bring Maryam Rajavi to Brussels to jump on the bandwagon of unrest. Anyone who knows anything about Iran will recognise this as an attempt by advocates of regime change to destroy the progress of democracy in Iran. These people will deploy terrorists to undermine the real opposition and democracy movement inside Iran.
Following the AIPAC meeting, Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, said that Washington is not in a 'regime change mode'.
"Our efforts must be reciprocated by the other side: Just as we abandon calls for regime change in Tehran and recognize a legitimate Iranian role in the region, Iran's leaders must moderate their behavior and that of their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas," said Kerry, who currently chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Irrelevant to any position taken, observers are aware that this is a government which has been happy to host the head of Jondolla terrorist group on a "Voice of America" programme in which Jondolla was presented as a democratic alternative to the Iranian government.
This is a government whose CIA is holding regular meetings in Soleimaniyeh to create and develop FTOs to target Iranian people.
This is a government which has established offices in London, Dubai and Frankfurt under the Patriot Act in order to recruit people who travel to Iran to meddle in the internal affairs of the country.
This is a government with a long and continuing history of support for Saddamists in Iraq in the hope that they can be paid to foment and maintain hostilities against Iran.
By far the most blatant example of this is that from 2003 until now the US has desperately tried to keep together what is left of the Mojahedin-e Khalq at Ashraf terrorist camp (the MKO is on the US’s own list of terrorist entities) against the wishes of the Government and people of Iraq and against the human rights of the people inside the camp. The US has shown clear resistance in front of the Government of Iraq and the families of victims of this terrorist cult to the process of dismantling and disbanding it. The US has 25 soldiers stationed at the camp, plus five US citizens inside it. They have prevented families from freely visiting their relatives at the camp, they have interfered in the Iraqi process of dealing with individuals and imposing law and order in the camp and have interfered in the process of human rights organisations getting in and helping people individually.
Once the US stops these activities then it can claim it is not in ‘regime change mode’. If Senator Kerry or Nicholas Burns or any other ‘we have changed now it’s your turn’ pundits in the US have any doubt about the veracity of these activities or if they believe they are not perceived – particularly by Iraqis – as a continuation of ‘regime change policy’, then please feel free to contact me and I can appraise them further to this information.
According to the London based Al Sharq Al Aawsat newspaper, concerning the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, Noori Almaliki the Iraqi prime minister said: we have been participating with the British and coalition forces during these times and the British forces have successfully brought to an end their military mission.
…
Concerning the Mojahedin Khalq presence in Iraq he said: Under no circumstances would their presence in Iraq be acceptable. Irrespective of some speculation that this may be due to pressure from Iranians or non Iranians, I should emphasise clearly that even if Iran asks us to keep them in Iraq, we will not allow this. This is a terrorist organisation present in various lists of terrorist entities across the globe which of course concerns many, including Iran, the United Nations and other countries.
From our point of view, this is an organisation which has committed many crimes against the people of Iraq, being Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis, hand-in-hand with the last regime (Saddam Hussein) and even right now they are meddling in the internal affairs of our country and there are allegations of their active involvement in the present insurgencies in Iraq. Therefore we cannot allow their presence in the new Iraq. According to the constitution of Iraq, the country will not be used as a base for any terrorist organisation and no one is allowed to use our soil to act against other countries.
Maliki added: I clearly emphasise to the members of this group that although we will not hand them over to Iran, they should not for a moment think that Iraq can be a base for them.
….
(Mehdi Abrishamchi and Massoud Rajavi taking orders from Saddam's head of secret services)
(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacre of Kurdish people)
(A cult session in Ashraf Camp Iraq - under the protection of Saddam)
... The Government of Iraq is not only fulfilling the articles of the resolution but has without a doubt exceeded expectations in its humane treatment of the residents of Camp Ashraf ...
Today the European Parliament adopted a resolution on ‘the humanitarian situation of Camp Ashraf residents’.
Although the expectations in the resolution fall far short of what the Government of Iraq has actually done since 1st January 2009 in order to pursue a humanitarian path toward dismantling the camp and freeing its residents, we feel certain that you will welcome this resolution as an expression of concern by members of the European Parliament that your government be protected from malicious accusations of wrongdoing in pursuing your sovereign rights and responsibilities.
Unfortunately the resolution contains some regrettable factual errors (as you are fully aware, the Fourth Geneva Convention has not applied to Camp Ashraf residents since June 2005 and the UNHCR has determined that Camp Ashraf residents do not qualify as refugees), but in spite of this we must warmly congratulate the Government of Iraq on the fact that it has already over-exceeded the requirements of the resolution in guaranteeing the humanitarian treatment of Camp Ashraf residents.
Indeed, the plan pursued by your National Security Advisor, Dr. Mowaffak al Rubaie, has shown a profound understanding of the real problems faced by residents in the camp. The enlightened and humanitarian actions, in the face of severe provocation by the MEK leaders, which have already been put in place will, I am sure, become an example for other national governments which may be faced with the task of dismantling a dangerous, destructive cult as is the MEK.
The Government of Iraq is not only fulfilling the articles of the resolution but has without a doubt exceeded expectations in its humane treatment of the residents of Camp Ashraf.
However, I am sure you will agree that your Government faces two main obstacles in fulfilling the obligations which you have set for yourselves and which are repeated in the resolution.
The first is that the MEK has created various obstacles and mounted severe provocations which demonstrate that the group’s leaders will not cooperate in any way with your government’s efforts to safely secure the individual futures of the residents. Indeed, through their continued refusal to abide by Iraqi and/or international law the people residing in camp Ashraf have regrettably defined themselves as outlaws.
The second obstacle is that the expected help and cooperation from other national governments, particularly those of the European Union in fulfilling their obligations under article 4 of the resolution, has not been forthcoming. It is becoming clear that although western governments are willing to talk about their support for the MEK, none are willing to accept the residents as refugees in their countries.
In light of the failure of western democratic governments to offer concrete help to the people of Camp Ashraf in the form of places of refuge, may we urge your government to look further afield.
UN Fourth Geneva Convention status is not for sale
.
... In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004 ...
The MKO’s supporters in the European Parliament today pushed through a last-minute resolution on Camp Ashraf just before the close of parliament for the elections. Although voting does not take place until tomorrow, the resolution is already defunct as it clearly contains false information and misleading political assertions.
The resolution, did not include any criticism of MKO behaviour in Iraq, nor did it oblige the MKO to abide by Iraqi and international law. Instead it re-iterates the false assertion that UN Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the group even though there can be no doubt that the Geneva Convention referred to has not applied since June 2005. Tomorrow members of parliament will be asked to vote on a resolution which is hopelessly flawed.
In my view, as I explained in my latest letter to the European Parliament, the only way forward is for the EU to cooperate with the Governemnt of Iraq to open alternative camps and help these people to reintegrate into mainstream society.
In July 2004, the PMOI forces in Ashraf were declared by the US to be ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, because they had not been belligerents during the Iraq War. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians who, as the result of an international armed conflict or of occupation, find themselves in the hands of a country of which they are not nationals. It states that in no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.
In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004.
“IT WAS one of the strangest places I’d ever seen,” says one of the few Farsi-speaking Westerners to have spent weeks in Camp Ashraf, 65km (40 miles) north-east of Baghdad, where some 3,400 Iranian dissidents are hunkered down and are now threatened with expulsion from Iraq, perhaps even back to Iran. It was “like a spiffy midsized town in Iran”, with parks, offices and buildings—but no children. It was “sterile, soulless and sad”. Nearly two decades ago, families living in the camp were “dissolved”, couples were forcibly divorced, and their children sent away, many of them to live with supporters living in the West, to be brought up in the faith of a movement widely described by independent observers as a cult.
For the past six years, the Americans have protected the camp, whose raison d’être is generally opposed by the surrounding Iraqi communities and by most Iranians, whether or not they are for or against the clerical regime in Tehran. But as American troops prepare to go home, the Iraqi government, which wants cosy ties with Iran, now says the camp must be closed and its inhabitants dispersed, probably back to Iran, where they would face an uncertain future, to put it mildly.
The group is variously known as the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) or the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organisation (abbreviated as both MEK and MKO). Founded in 1965 as a youthful underground opposition to Iran’s Shah, it was usually described as “Islamic Marxist”. When the Shah fell it at first backed Ayatollah Khomeini but soon fell out with him, embarking on a campaign of violence and bombings which, on a single occasion, is reckoned to have killed 70 civilians, including several senior clerics; the withered arm of Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was a result of that bomb. The group’s political umbrella is called the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
The PMOI’s leader, Massoud Rajavi, fled to France in 1981 but he and his followers, many of them women, relocated in 1986 to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein gave them a big base at Camp Ashraf, which is thought to be around 20km in circumference. Saddam abundantly supplied the PMOI with Brazilian and British tanks (captured from Iran during the war of 1980-1988) and Russian armoured personnel carriers, among other arms. In return, the PMOI made attacks on Iran itself, which is why Iranians of all stripes tend to regard the group as traitors. It is also said to have spearheaded Saddam’s attacks on rebellious Iraqi Kurds and Shias in 1991, after the first Gulf war, a charge it strongly denies.
Follow my leader No less controversially, the PMOI is widely reviled by human-rights groups for nurturing a messianic cult of personality around Mr Rajavi and his wife, Maryam, and for enforcing a totalitarian discipline on its adherents. Several defectors testify, in the words of one of them, to a “constant bombardment of indoctrination” and a requirement to submit utterly and unquestioningly to the cause. No sources of news are allowed without the PMOI’s say-so. According to one defector, around 50 members who rebelled were sent to Saddam’s prison in Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad.
Members are completely cut off from contact with their families. When the above-mentioned Farsi-speaking Westerner, who visited Ashraf in 2004, enabled wavering group members to talk to their families in Iran by satellite telephone, some of their parents refused to believe it was their children, for they had been told by the PMOI that they were dead.
No one is sure whether Mr Rajavi is alive but most think not; he has not been heard of since the American invasion of 2003. His wife, known as “the president-elect”, travels the world, soliciting support from a wide range of sympathisers, including some in the American Congress, the European Parliament and the British House of Lords. No one is sure who really controls the PMOI in Camp Ashraf. It is thought that nearly 400 residents have voluntarily returned to Iran, where they are said to have been treated adequately so far. But who can really tell? Several hundred more are seeking refugee status elsewhere. A few dozen have—or rather had—passports to Western countries, some of which have verified their bona fides.
In the past year, the European Parliament and Britain’s courts have removed the label of “terrorist” from the PMOI, mainly on the ground that the group says it has disavowed violence, is not known to have carried out any acts of terror since, at the latest, 2002, and surrendered its weapons (at any rate, its heavier ones) at Camp Ashraf after the American invasion. This has irritated several national governments, especially the British and French ones, which think the PMOI is a nasty nuisance and its presence on their soil bad for relations with both Iraq and Iran.
The outfit is still officially deemed a terrorist organisation in the United States but has a fierce lobby there too, backed by a mix of neoconservatives and leftists, that accepts at face value the group’s insistence that it is a secular and democratic movement with mass support in Iran and a real chance of eventually displacing the mullahs’ regime. Its lobby in Europe is much exercised by recent statements of Muwafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, who makes it plain he wants the camp disbanded and its people sent abroad, mostly to Iran, whose rulers have become more vociferous in calling its fellow reigning Shias in Baghdad to send them back.
The PMOI has a sophisticated network of ardent supporters. Without a doubt, its voice of despairing outrage will rise to a squeal if the Americans give way to Iraqi and Iranian demands to cut the movement loose. But it may happen.
Iraq's National Security Advisor Dr. Mowaffak al Rubaie
LONDON, April 6 /PRNewswire/ -- In an interview with Anne Singleton of Iran-Interlink, Dr. Mowaffak al Rubaie, Iraq 's national security advisor clarified his approach to the Government of Iraq's decision to remove the Iranian terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK, aka MKO, PMOI) from the country.
Responsibility for Camp Ashraf was handed over to the Government of Iraq by the Coalition Forces in January this year. Since then, Dr. al Rubaie's plan for the difficult task of dismantling an extremist cult has revealed an enlightened, humanitarian approach which could become a blueprint for tackling similar organisations worldwide.
Dr. al Rubaie explained, "This is an indoctrinated and tightly disciplined organization of extremist zealots who have employed terrorism and at times even self-immolation to secure their aims. In normal everyday language we can say that they have been "brainwashed". He added, "The Government of Iraq does not deal with the MEK as an organization. We deal with the residents as individuals."
Under observation by the ICRC and the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights, Dr. al Rubaie has focused efforts to protect the individuals inside the camp following allegations that human rights abuses are being perpetrated by MEK leaders against the residents. To this end he said, "We believe that if we can separate individuals from the all-encompassing domination by their leaders, we can allow them to begin to exercise their rights as individuals and make appropriate choices. That is, we hope to remove them from the toxic effects of their indoctrination and leaders."
In response to the many obstacles thrown up by the MEK to their removal from Camp Ashraf, Dr al Rubaie told Iran-Interlink, "The Iraqi Army unit posted to defend and secure Camp Ashraf has exercised patience and extreme restraint in spite of the staged provocations and demonstrations that Ashraf's self-appointed leaders have launched in defiance of the legitimate exercise by the Government of Iraq of its sovereignty." "Ashraf is not above the law," said Dr. al Rubaie.
Asked what can the UK , European and other western governments do to help resettle the MEK, Dr. al Rubaie replied, "These governments can agree to allow their citizens and others who have status in their country to return."
