|
Iranian 'terror group' divides Washington
By JOHN P. GRAMLICH
12/20/05 WASHINGTON (UPI)
-- An Iranian dissident group
that the U.S. State Department considers a "foreign terrorist
organization" continues to enjoy support in Congress while being
protected by the American military in Iraq.
The Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization, sometimes called the People's
Mujahedin of Iran, or PMOI, has been on the State Department's list
of foreign terrorist groups since 1997 -- even as it enjoys
widespread support on Capitol Hill. In addition, the U.S. military
has allowed the MeK to maintain an operational training facility in
Iraq, said Gregg Sullivan, a State Department spokesman.
The facility, Camp Ashraf, is located about 60 miles northeast of
Baghdad and houses approximately 3,800 Iranian exiles who are
opposed to the regime in Tehran, according to experts. The MeK
disarmed in 2003 as part of an agreement with the United States, the
New York Times reported, but the exact conditions of that
disarmament are unclear. Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, a spokesman with the
Multi-National Force-Iraq, which oversees the camp, said in an
e-mail to United Press International that the MeK has disarmed and
that its members have signed statements in which they "voluntarily
rejected terrorism and violence." But Sullivan told UPI on Dec. 8
that the group has given up only its "heavy weaponry" while
retaining small arms, and that its members "conduct training."
The State Department maintains that the MeK is a terrorist
organization and should be identified alongside groups such as al-Qaida
and Hamas. Sullivan discounted the suggestion, made by supporters of
the MeK, that the group has not carried out terrorist attacks in
more than 15 years.
"The argument from which we approach it is [that] this is a group
that is engaged in terrorist activity. It's been well-documented in
the patterns of global terrorism," Sullivan said. "I would disagree
with the characterization that they've been out of the business for
a long time. I don't think that's an accurate assessment. From our
standpoint -- though there may be some folks out there who may find
[the MeK's] viewpoint appealing -- we think it sends the wrong
message in the war on terror to distinguish between 'good
terrorists' and 'bad terrorists.'"
On Capitol Hill, however, the MeK has received open support,
including a statement made in early December by Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y.,
to the Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents, an advocacy group that
works to protect the camp from Iranian reprisals. In the statement,
which the committee posted on its website, Towns said, "We must take
meaningful steps to provide safety and security to both Iraqi[s] and
PMOI members in Iraq."
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has also expressed support for the MEK
in the past and has said that the Clinton administration only added
the group's name to the State Department's list of terrorist
organizations in the first place to "curry favor with the Iranian
regime," according to news sources.
Repeated calls to Towns' offices in Brooklyn and Washington
concerning the MeK were not returned; nor did Tancredo return a
call.
Although Towns and Tancredo have publicly expressed support for the
MeK, the two representatives are far from alone on Capitol Hill,
according to a second State Department official, who asked not to be
identified.
"There are about 100 members of Congress that, believe it or not,
find the MeK useful," the official told UPI.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, the Defense Department does not openly
support the MeK, but views the organization as "protected persons
under the Fourth Geneva Convention," according to Mark Ballesteros,
a spokesman who was not authorized to provide further details.
Ballesteros said the determination that the MeK is entitled to
protected status was made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The Fourth Geneva Convention guarantees a number of basic rights to
MeK members in Iraq, including the right to protection from danger
or violence and the right not be repatriated to Iran -- where the
group's members could face torture or death -- said Steven
Schneebaum, counsel for the Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents.
But legal experts said the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prevent
the United States from prosecuting any would-be "terrorists" at Camp
Ashraf -- and American authorities have not done so. The New York
Times reported in 2004 that a 16-month U.S. investigation into MeK
members at Camp Ashraf resulted in no prosecutions.
Now, the subject of what goes on at Camp Ashraf remains hotly
contested, with conflicting reports not only about whether the MeK
is completely or only partially disarmed, but also whether the group
has committed human rights violations against its own members to
prevent them from leaving Camp Ashraf. A Human Rights Watch report
released earlier this year concluded that the MeK abused its
members, but a later report by a delegation from the European
Parliament called the initial findings "devoid of any truth."
While controversy surrounds Camp Ashraf and the MeK, one observer
said U.S. support for the organization in its fight against the
Iranian regime -- whether implicit or explicit -- only worsens
relations between Washington and Tehran. That's because the MeK is
not an effective tool against Iran and supporting the group only
subjects the United States to charges of hypocrisy in the war on
terror, according to Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs
magazine.
"Realistically, I'm not opposed [to supporting the MeK]. You could
make a case that if they were extremely effective and had some
realistic potential for toppling or seriously undermining the regime
in Iran, it might be worth using them," Rose said. "What makes it
somewhat hard to understand is that nobody actually believes that.
Most serious observers don't see [the MeK] as having any significant
gains to bring to the table, except for the fact that they enrage or
annoy Tehran."
© Copyright 2005 United Press International
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
