www.mojahedin.ws

Terrorist or not, that is the question

Mojahedin.ws

Bahar Irani

July 12, 2010

From the very beginning when the US State Department published a report to analyze the terrorist make-up of Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO, MEK, PMOI, NCRI, NLA) in 1994 that led to its designation as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in October 1997, a decision subsequently followed by the European Union and other countries, the organization has challenged the decision as the result of a policy of appeasement. The first reaction to discredit the America’s report turned up in an article entitled response to the US State Department which was followed by the publication of its famous book democracy betrayed, apparently written by Mohammad Muhaddesin, in which the organization did its best to justify charges directed against it. The existing dispute over the terrorist nature of MKO between two fronts, on one side the organization and its supporters and on the other side America, European Union and many Western petitioners as well as the Islamic Republic, can be still regarded as one of the indicators of a controversy to confront and repel the organization as a terrorist group.

Removal of MKO from the list of European Union has, however, added new dimensions from the legal, international and political perspectives. But before looking for the reasons of its removal from some list of terror, a definite answer deems necessary for the direct question that, of course with regard to the existing international consensus and regardless of some double-dealings grounded on political interest seeking, is it intrinsically a terrorists group or not. And to what extent can its registration and removal be determinant to register any legitimacy for it on global stage?

The importance of the question arises out of the fact that even the European Union that removed it from its list of terror first and Americans who have kept it on the list for more than a decade are still, even with more emphasis, stressing on unrevealed aspects of its terrorist nature. And the question is what is The US and the European Union’s raison d’être that makes the former keep it on the list while induces the latter to remove it from the list?

We can reason based on a variety of suppositions to eliminate ambiguities and to answer the raised questions.

-      First, MKO is not intrinsically a terrorist group at all and it adopted terrorism as a working instrument to achieve its political objectives.

-      Second, MKO is a terrorist-oriented organization and its change of position and stances depends on the circumstances and political fluctuations that enable it to command wide-ranging respect and support even from those who were in opposite fronts.

-       Third, MKO has reconsidered its terrorist position and that the existing considerable controversy is because of the countries’ different views on terrorism. The very same reason according to which the European court concluded that “there is no material which indicates that the PMOI has obtained or sought to obtain arms or otherwise reconstruct any military capability despite their capacity to do so after May 2003” and judged to be removed from the list of terror.

-      Forth, the existing international controversy over the terrorist nature of MKO is all rooted in interest-seeking policies and that, countries deal with the issue according to their political and national interests. In fact, the presence of MKO on the US State Department’s terrorist list secures America’s interests in the same way that its removal does for the country members of the European Union. 

-      Fifth, the existing disagreement between America and the European Union is product of a lack of consensus against the definition of terrorism itself, the product of some luxury of debating whether terrorism may be justifiable in certain situations and completely forgetting that terrorism is too destructive to be tolerated. They totally overlook that the security of nations and the global concerns, such as human rights, are not issues to be treated just on the same avenues that some states justifiably try to defend terrorism for pursuing political aims. The differences have made it difficult in many circumstances to form a unified front against terrorism. In America, for instance, MKO are banned to engage in any organizational and propaganda activities while you see it freely holding wide-ranging of activities in European countries, from taking part in parliamentarian meetings to orchestrating a variety of gatherings in public places. And sometimes it is surprising to see its agents openly attacking meetings held by ex-members and counter-terrorism activists.    

All this assumptions can help response to the question that the initial accusations posed against MKO are grounded on corroborative evidences and instances of terrorist crimes, as asserted by the State Department, and according to adopted principles and measures to ward off the threat of terrorism or merely dependent on the guesses and vague and unconfirmed reports. Looking at the issue from this angle, we have a wide option of discussion that lets us run a thorough objective analysis apart from contradictory views. It is believed that violence has been an innately distinguished feature of MKO from the beginning of its formation and that, the key solution to accomplish organizational and ideological achievements was through practice of violence. That is an undeniable fact and there are irrefutable evidences to be consulted. But what has made this terrorist group so controversial among all other similar groups is an object of study.