Reaction to the HRW report

The publication on May 19 of the 28 page report by Human Rights Watch on MKO human rights abuse aroused a great deal of interest and affirmation. It also sparked vehement denials by the MKO and its apologists. One of the first comments was that  the findings of this report would clearly exclude the MKO from benefiting from financial backing by the US government under the proposed Iran Freedom Support act which is due for consideration.

The funding provisions in Section 302 of H.R. 282/S. 333--The Iran Freedom Support act titled "Assistance to Support Democracy in Iran" state:

(a) Authorization- The President is authorized to provide financial and political assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran and that are opposed to the non-democratic Government of Iran. Such assistance may include the award of grants to eligible independent pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations that broadcast into Iran.

(b) Eligibility for Assistance- Financial and political assistance under this section may be provided to an individual, organization, or entity that—

(1)                           officially opposes the use of terrorism;

(2)                           advocates the adherence by Iran to nonproliferation regimes for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materiel;

(3)                           is dedicated to democratic values and supports the adoption of a democratic form of government in Iran;

(4)                           is dedicated to respect for human rights, including the fundamental equality of women;

(5)                           works to establish equality of opportunity for people; and

(6)                           supports freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.

Unfortunately some of the MKO's supporters have cited this as the motivation behind production of the report. Lord Corbett in the UK practically accused HRW of such motives when he said in an interview with The Guardian newspaper, "All the people they interviewed are agents of Iranian intelligence. A bill is going through the US Senate allowing financial aid to opposition groups in Iran. People are desperate to stop the Mujahideen getting any of the money".

The MKO's political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran discovered another motivation: "These accusations only serve as a licence to the mullahs' regime to continue the execution and suppression of [Mojahedin] members and supporters in Iran."

However, in an interview with Radio Farda, Joe Stork, Director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division, responded to critics saying, “Our point of view has been included in the report and we stand by it. The Mojahedin have not been able to bring even one fact to challenge the conclusions of our report. They couldn’t prove even a fact against it. If they have said something new, please tell me.”

From the other side, experts on the MKO say the Human Rights Watch report has highlighted only a small sample of abuse. Survivors' Report has a unique perspective in this respect. Comprising mostly former members, the Association for the support of Victims of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, among whom are those interviewed by HRW and The Guardian newspaper, says there is immediate need for further research into and exposure of the serious human rights abuses which are systematically and organically woven into the ideology of the Mojahedin. Such abuse is not limited to individual dissenters in the organization. There is a systematic denial to every single member to ALL the protections – in spirit and in practice – that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Is this an exaggerated statement?

This concept of systematic human rights abuse is touched upon in the HRW report in its mention of 'compulsory divorces'. Unfortunately the abuses go much further than this and can be best understood by looking at the situation for individual members in the context of a modern form of slavery. In the MKO form of slavery, these people not only do not own their own bodies, but they also do not own their own minds or hearts. The manacles which imprison them are not physical but mental. These mental chains have been forged by years of psychological manipulation and deprivation under the banner of ideological demands, and have been sustained by a diet of lies and intimidation.

To begin to understand how such a situation can come about, it is useful to draw an analogy between victims of the Rajavi cult and victims of domestic violence. Sufferers of domestic violence often do not see themselves as victims and are indeed judged as exercising complicity in their own abuse. But this comes about only because they have been manipulated by the perpetrator to regard themselves as the cause of their own suffering, having brought it upon themselves because of their weaknesses and waywardness. The relation between Massoud Rajavi and his followers – male and female – follows this same pattern. Like victims of domestic violence, Rajavi's followers are there because they have no other place to go, no safe haven to which they can escape. And here, surely, is a starting point, a framework from which to begin to quantify the human rights abuses which are taking place on a daily basis to the cult members. It is not something unknown, nor is it unquantifiable. But it does need the serious commitment of human rights organizations and individuals to recognize that the HRW report indicates just the tip of an iceberg and not the whole problem. That is, the abuse is not limited to dissenting members, it is endemic in the organization and affects everyone.

Ironically, supporters of the MKO in western parliaments believe - somewhat uncritically - that there is an army of around 3500 well-trained and willing combatants in Iraq which can be deployed in some way as an opposition against the Islamic Republic of Iran, perhaps for regime change. Hence the publicity urging removal of the MKO from western terrorist lists and efforts to have the organization officially supported through such initiatives as the proposed Iran Freedom Support act.

Clearly the HRW report has raised serious questions about the nature of the group. In spite of this, some politicians are still keen to support it. Perhaps for these people it is not the human rights abuses per se which should be of concern, but more the effect that long term, chronic human rights abuse has had on the efficacy and effectiveness of the organization. If the US government really does propose to support the MKO it would be necessary for someone to ascertain the actual condition of the forces in Iraq. Are the American supporters aware that the MKO in Iraq is on the verge of collapse? Empirical evidence is needed at this stage rather than propaganda and political posturing.

It is impossible, of course, to rely on the MKO itself to describe the condition of its own forces in Iraq. For one thing, the MKO's rotating spokesmen Shahin Gobadi, Alireza Jafarzadeh, Farid Soleimani Behzad Safavi, Hossein Abedini and Ali Safavi, are operating in absolute ignorance of the current situation in Ashraf Camp. It is also true to say that they are themselves the victims of human rights abuses – all for instance have undergone compulsory divorce and other 'ideological conditioning'. They are however, unlike dissenters, unaware of their own victim status and cannot therefore give any realistic evaluation of the organization on this issue. As far as they are concerned the organization continues to function as it has for the past two decades.

As a starting point for further investigation, the Personal Experiences at the end of this edition are excerpts from two interviews which Survivors' Report held with two ranking MKO members who were repatriated to Iran two months ago under supervision of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Both men are currently living at home with their families in, according to themselves, complete freedom.

Looking at the connotation of these interviews, MKO experts agree. The issue is not about Iran, Iraq, US politics or terrorism or even human rights. The real issue is the survival of Massoud Rajavi. The total MKO membership is being asked to perform tasks all of which are geared toward the single aim of saving Massoud Rajavi (who is still in hiding in Camp Ashraf) from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In the end it is predicted that in Paris too, Maryam Rajavi has no alternative to facing trial except to run away to a third country where she will be forced, like her husband, to go into hiding. It is at this point, or the point at which she receives her prison sentence, that the MKO will be at its most dangerous in the West. It is at this point that it will face chaos and disintegration.

The MKO is not a fighting force. It no longer has a role in Iranian politics, not even as a terrorist force. It is being held together in Iraq, with the connivance of some in the US, as an opposition to the Iranian regime on totally spurious reasoning. It is being held together as the result of increased human rights abuses. And in the end it is this, the human rights abuses, and not the decision of western politicians or judicial processes, which will finally determine the demise of the MKO.