Violent past AND peaceful present

Roadmap for the Foreign Terrorist Organizations List


Share/Save/Bookmark

Violent past AND peaceful present
by Patrick Clawson
29-Apr-2008
 

Although the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list has a set of criteria for designating groups, there is little clarity in practice about the process for revocation. Even after organizations have renounced terrorism for many years, their designations persist without a clear explanation, and are based on the assumption that historical violence indicates future potential.

A November 2007 court ruling by the UK's Proscribed Organizations Appeals Commission (POAC) ordered the British government to remove the People's Mujahedeen of Iran -- known to the U.S. government as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) -- from its terrorist organizations list. This decision, along with a similar decision by the European Court of First Instance (a level below the European Court of Justice), and the mandatory review of the group's designation by the U.S. State Department in October 2008, provides an opportunity to evaluate how terrorist designation is assessed. According to the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act, if no designation review is conducted during a five-year period, the U.S. secretary of state must determine whether a revocation is appropriate.

The Role of Non-Terrorist Criteria
Any designation review should be based only on terrorism issues, not on the general U.S. government view of the organization in question. If the decision to designate a group is made on foreign policy considerations rather than evidence, then the list will be branded as a political instrument, thus reducing its utility as a means for encouraging other governments to take action against certain terrorist organizations. This is what happened to the list of terrorism-sponsoring states, which simply looks like a set of countries the U.S. government does not like.

In the MEK's case, its designation should not be based on the group's political stance or worries about U.S.-Iranian relations, nor should it be a reward for its reports on Iran's nuclear activities. Over the past three years, the State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism have cited no alleged MEK terrorist activity since 2001, yet have increased allegations pertaining the group's non-terrorist activities. The 2007 edition of the Reports, due out by the end of April 2008, is bound to continue this trend.

These allegations -- support for the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran in 1979, allegiance to Islamic Marxism, suppression of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, participation in the oil for food scandal, and the self-immolation of its supporters during protests -- are not related to the legal criteria for terrorist designation and are probably meant to discredit the MEK. These allegations are irrelevant, and some are also based on contestable evidence. This example of irrelevant information reinforces the need for the State Department to create explicit guidelines by which it moves a group from designation to revocation.

Dealing with History
History plays an important part in terrorist designation, especially when considering groups that no longer participate in violent activity. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is one such example. The PLO clearly used to be a terrorist group, but now enjoys good relations with the United States. Since the PLO complied with the 1993 Declaration of Principles and renounced terrorism, the organization was not listed on the State Department's first edition of its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in 1997 or in President Clinton's 1995 Executive Order 12947 on Middle East terrorism. Since the reevaluation of the PLO designation preceded the creation of the State Department list and the subsequent legislation regulating the process of review, the PLO case provides little insight into how revocation would occur under the current system.

In contrast, the November 2007 POAC ruling is a more recent and relevant example of terrorist designation review. In fact, the 144-page POAC ruling addresses the historical actions of the MEK in detail. Regarding the past seven years, the POAC finds,

"Whatever the accurate characterization of the organization's activities between 1980 and 2001, the position in 2006-2007 is radically different, and has been so since 2001…The [MEK] has conducted no military activity of any kind since about August 2001, whether in Iran or elsewhere in the world…This is attributable to a deliberate decision of the [MEK] made at an extraordinary congress held in Iraq in June 2001, namely, to abandon all military action (or activities) in Iran…There is no evidence that the [MEK] has at any time since 2003 sought to re-create any form of structure that was capable of carrying out or supporting terrorist acts. There is no evidence of any attempt to "prepare" for terrorism. There is no evidence of any encouragement to others to commit acts of terrorism…. The above factors, combined with the 5 years that had since passed since the summer of 2001, demanded the conclusion that continued proscription could not be lawfully justified."

Inherent in the POAC order to revoke MEK's designation -- an order the UK government is appealing -- are three principles: the organization's formal decision to renounce violence, the cessation of terrorist activity, and the five year period of peace. Perhaps the Department of State does not want to use these particular principles when re-evaluating a group's terrorist designation, but it should adopt a set of guidelines and explain them to the public. It should also explain how it applies those principles in each case; if the MEK is designated, some specific reasons should be given. Preferably, the State Department should provide a road map for what a designated group must do to be removed from the list. For the MEK, what, if anything, must it do to show it has renounced terrorism in practice as well as in theory.

Conclusion
While the State Department routinely reinstated MEK's designation as a terrorist group on April 8, it must do a more formal and in-depth review by October 2008. That review's decision should be based on two factors. First, the State Department should only decide if the group is or is not a terrorist group, and not bring in irrelevant information. The criteria should be used in an unbiased, professional manner, relying on evidence rather than prejudice or rumor.

Second, the decision should be based on clear set of rules regarding how the U.S. government revokes this kind of designation. At present, it seems that past terrorist activities -- no matter how old or far removed -- are susceptible to being interpreted as evidence of future potential, consequently justifying a group's continued designation. In contrast, the POAC has set forward several useful principles for evaluating an organization's violent past and peaceful present; the U.S. government should do the same.

Patrick Clawson is deputy director for research at The Washington Institute. This article was first published in Policy Watch.


Share/Save/Bookmark

 
default

MKO is a terrorist organization

by AnonymousFish (not verified) on

MKO, NRI, or any other name(s) which it has used as a cover, is a terrorist organization. MKO members have hurt our image in the eyes of the world.

MKO members used to get paid by Saddam, now Israel is supporting them financially because they talk bad against Iran.

I had a Ph.D. colleague who was a MKO. He did not make sense and kept making us look terrible where I worked. MKOs are obsessed in making us look bad because they do not like Mullah's. They did not like Shah either. What do they like? Rajavai or Ms. Rajavai in power? Never. This will NEVER happen in Iran. Never, over our dead bodies.

NEVER will true Iranians let these people run Iran. We will never forget their sell out during the time Saghdam attacked Iran.


PMOI supporter

Also,

by PMOI supporter on

Can you provide any evidence to any of the accusations against the MEk?

What if i come out after 10 years serving with mojahedin and the regime pays me $100,000 to become negative towards them?

 

I come here and tell everyone stories about being tortured in ashraf and i get an interview with news agencies and its broadcasted.

 

Don't you think that would be easily possible for someone to do?


PMOI supporter

Do you believe. . .

by PMOI supporter on

that there are any efforts by the iranian regime to create a false image of the Mek in the west?


IRANdokht

PEACEFUL PRESENT???

by IRANdokht on

You need to listen to this NPR story on Camp Ashraf

Even the current regime in Iran sounds peaceful and humanitarian compared to MEK, accepting to take the cult members back since they have no place to go...

 

IRANdokht


default

What the hell???

by Anonymous-today (not verified) on

Man, you people kill me with your ignorance. What "crimes against humanity" the MEK has committed? Do you even know the definition of crimes against humanity? Where are the documents that prove MEK assisted in gassing the Kurds? What court has listened to these charges? What “large scale persecution” the MEK has committed against any group? What “large scale atrocities” have they committed against any group? Where is the evidence of any of this? If they aided Saddam in fighting Iran they weren't the only ones. Didn't Americans relay satellite pictures of Iranian troupe movements to the Iraqis in the 80's? Didn't the Gulf states underwrite Saddam's war machine? Shouldn't Ronald Reagan, Rumsfeld, Cheney, GWB senior and the Saudi monarchy also not be indicted for crimes against humanity? I think MEK was stupid to put their stock on Saddam but what the hell any of you were doing back in the 80's to judge these guys? Did Khomeini’s fascist regime allow any form of descent in Iran in the 80's? Didn't this regime to a large extent make that fateful decision for the MEK?


PMOI supporter

Can it be more obvious?

by PMOI supporter on

It does not take over 20 years to realize a group is terrorist in nature.

They are accused of assasinating americans in the 70s. During which the splinter group peykar has already taken responsibilities and during which all of the mojahedin leadership were executed by the shahs regime, EXCEPT masoud rajavi who was imprisoned between 1971-1979. He also condemed the Peykar group at the time.

The mojahedin's addition to the terror list in 97 proves that it was a political move resulting of khatamis election and attempts to establish better relation with his administration on behalf of the US


default

Wow, US is really the Unites States of Amnesia!!

by hanna (not verified) on

Mr. Clawson:

You seem to have forgotten that the former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was executed in a kangaroo court because of his massacre of 192+ civilians in Dujail. Was it not President Bush and the rest of the neocons who were crying bloody murder that this is a dictator who invaded his neighbor Iran with chemical and biological weapons and deserves to be punished for the crimes committed?

Well this dictator had in his military apparatus the MEK, who participated in both the massacre in Dujail as well as the killing of innocent Iranian civilians and Iranian soldiers during the bloody Iran-Iraq war.

The MEK and their founders should have faced the same destiny as the former dictator. What's the difference? Are their good "terrorists" and "bad terrorists"? Well maybe for the U.S. there is a difference, anyone who commits terrorist activities against Iran are the “good terrorists” (i.e. PJAK, MEK, Jundallah etc.), while those committing terrorist activities in Turkey (the PKK) are the “bad terrorists” and are on the U.S. terrorist list.

The only reason you are advocating that the MEK should be taken out of the terrorist list, is because the U.S. would like to support them with funds and arms and unleash them to destabilize Iran with the hopes that they can topple the regime. This Sir is a definition of a terrorist organization. In fact Massoud Rajavi is telling his members that they should stay put in Camp Ashraf and wait until the U.S. arms them again!!

There is nothing that you, members in AEI, or anyone in Congress can state that will remove this stain.

The MEK and their affiliates the NCRI, PMOI are a terrorist cult.


default

once an MEK always an MEK

by maziar58 (not verified) on

JUST PUT A BIG NO ON THEIR FILE AND STAMP IT IN RED.
FOR THE NEXT & THE NEXT & TH.......ADMINISTRATION.
ANY GROUP THAT CARRIES RELIGION INSIGNA OF ANY FAITH
IS NO NO TO GET CLOSE TO IN TODAY MODERN SOCIETY.
AND DON'T WANT TO LIST THEM CRAPPY REASONS TO BRING ANOTHER BLOOD SUCKERS FOR OUR HOME LAND IRAN.

PAYANDE IRAN


Ben Madadi

It's all about a few persons...

by Ben Madadi on

The Rajavi... the Rajavis... otherwise... every other person can come up with a new and clean organisation. Imagine Saddam was alive, went clean and started philanthropy ;)


default

Ranapanah's evidence?

by Anonymousssssssssssssssss (not verified) on

any evidence of the Mek assisting in the killing millions of iranians?

because if you dont have any, ive seen plenty of images, footage and audio, as well as news reports showing how local iranians always supported the NLA on their operations into iran against the Mullahs regime


Ranapanah

is this a joke?

by Ranapanah on

It's interesting the moment the talk of MEK starts somewhere there is such articles popping out in their defense, coincident?

 

MEK :" oops sorry we assisted in killing about a million Iranians during Iraq Iran war. but we aren't killing anyone right now "

It's like a murderer killing your dad and then saying oh im a nice person i wont kill the rest of your family for now.


Mehdi

"Renouncement" is not enough

by Mehdi on

Any such group must also explain why they are renouncing violent action now. Why did they do it before? Is their renouncing simply because they find they can't do it anymore or is it because they realized they were wrong? Is their renouncement due to change of environment, meaning they still believe that they were correct in using violence when they did and claim that it is only now that it is not OK, or do they actually say that it was always wrong?

The next thing they must do is to make up for the damages done. It is not enough to just say, "Sorry." It is not even clear if they say they are sorry or they say that they are not sorry but have decided to go a different way now (a simple strategy change). After they do that, they can ask for forgiveness.

What the article points out here is how there could be a legal loophole which the MEK could use and escape any responsibility for what was done. Thta's not very honorable, is it?


Ben Madadi

Who cares?

by Ben Madadi on

People who have committed crimes against humanity cannot simply go on erasing all the past.